CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Countersignatures
draft-ietf-cose-countersign-05
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-05-04
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/oRpqK1yuvinazpz1dcn3MyeQDcM/ |
|
2022-05-04
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Russ Housley, Roman Danyliw, Jim Schaad (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-05-04
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
|
2022-02-02
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
|
2021-11-23
|
05 | Ivaylo Petrov | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This is a Standards Track RFC. This is the correct type, and it is indicated in the document. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: When RFC8152 was evaluated in it's move from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard (and split into Algs and Structures documents), it was realized that the Countersign aspects of RFC8152 were inconsistently described in certain uses. While current users of RFC8152 do not use countersignatures in the way that is inconsistent, new users could wind up with non-interoperable implementations. Countersignatures were therefore considered not mature enough to move to Internet Standard, and were removed from RFC8152bis, and placed into this document. Technical Summary: During the process of advancing COSE to an Internet Standard, it was noticed the description of the security properties of countersignatures was incorrect for the COSE_Sign1 structure. Since the security properties that were described, those of a true countersignature, were those that the working group desired, the decision was made to remove all of the countersignature text from [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] and create a new document to both deprecate the old countersignature algorithm and to define a new one with the desired security properties. Working Group Summary: The WG thought long and hard about what result they wanted, and ultimately the decision to remove countersignatures from RFC8152bis-struct was made in a mature and well reasoned fashion. Jim Schaad led process, and this documents is among the last that he authored. Document Quality: There is an implementation status in the Internet-draft, and it includes only an implementation in Java and C# by Jim Schaad. While CBOR, and COSE, particularly COSE_Sign1 is widely implemented, the use of counter signatures is a niche solution to unique situations. OSCORE (RFC8613) is a user of countersignatures in their original, non-ambiguous formulation. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Michael Richardson Who is the Responsible Area Director? Ben Kaduk (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd read all of the versions of the document as they were produced in 2020. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document shepherd has a minor concern that there are not more implementation efforts, but that is not a requirement for PS. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? No. The primary author is deceased. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR is known. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG was heavily involved in creating this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (Probably I-D.ietf-cbor-7049bis could be replaced with RFC8949 now, but the RFC-editor will take care of that) (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. The document has a normative reference to I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs, which perhaps could be replaced with RFC8152 itself. It is probably not a problem if they are published as a group. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. *maybe* draft-ietf-cose-countersign-02 be marked as Updates: RFC8152 (Amends). (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). No concerns. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. none. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. idnits. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? No YANG MODULE. |
|
2021-11-23
|
05 | Ivaylo Petrov | Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk |
|
2021-11-23
|
05 | Ivaylo Petrov | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
|
2021-11-23
|
05 | Ivaylo Petrov | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2021-11-23
|
05 | Ivaylo Petrov | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2021-10-31
|
05 | Ivaylo Petrov | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2021-10-31
|
05 | Ivaylo Petrov | Intended Status changed to Internet Standard from None |
|
2021-07-30
|
05 | Michael Richardson | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This is a Standards Track RFC. This is the correct type, and it is indicated in the document. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: When RFC8152 was evaluated in it's move from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard (and split into Algs and Structures documents), it was realized that the Countersign aspects of RFC8152 were inconsistently described in certain uses. While current users of RFC8152 do not use countersignatures in the way that is inconsistent, new users could wind up with non-interoperable implementations. Countersignatures were therefore considered not mature enough to move to Internet Standard, and were removed from RFC8152bis, and placed into this document. Technical Summary: During the process of advancing COSE to an Internet Standard, it was noticed the description of the security properties of countersignatures was incorrect for the COSE_Sign1 structure. Since the security properties that were described, those of a true countersignature, were those that the working group desired, the decision was made to remove all of the countersignature text from [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] and create a new document to both deprecate the old countersignature algorithm and to define a new one with the desired security properties. Working Group Summary: The WG thought long and hard about what result they wanted, and ultimately the decision to remove countersignatures from RFC8152bis-struct was made in a mature and well reasoned fashion. Jim Schaad led process, and this documents is among the last that he authored. Document Quality: There is an implementation status in the Internet-draft, and it includes only an implementation in Java and C# by Jim Schaad. While CBOR, and COSE, particularly COSE_Sign1 is widely implemented, the use of counter signatures is a niche solution to unique situations. OSCORE (RFC8613) is a user of countersignatures in their original, non-ambiguous formulation. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Michael Richardson Who is the Responsible Area Director? Ben Kaduk (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd read all of the versions of the document as they were produced in 2020. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document shepherd has a minor concern that there are not more implementation efforts, but that is not a requirement for PS. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? No. The primary author is deceased. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR is known. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG was heavily involved in creating this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (Probably I-D.ietf-cbor-7049bis could be replaced with RFC8949 now, but the RFC-editor will take care of that) (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. The document has a normative reference to I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs, which perhaps could be replaced with RFC8152 itself. It is probably not a problem if they are published as a group. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. *maybe* draft-ietf-cose-countersign-02 be marked as Updates: RFC8152 (Amends). (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). No concerns. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. none. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. idnits. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? No YANG MODULE. |
|
2021-06-23
|
05 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-cose-countersign-05.txt |
|
2021-06-23
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
|
2021-06-23
|
05 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-05-19
|
04 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-cose-countersign-04.txt |
|
2021-05-19
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
|
2021-05-19
|
04 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-04-27
|
03 | Mike Jones | Notification list changed to mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca because the document shepherd was set |
|
2021-04-27
|
03 | Mike Jones | Document shepherd changed to Michael Richardson |
|
2021-04-14
|
03 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-cose-countersign-03.txt |
|
2021-04-14
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
|
2021-04-14
|
03 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-12-16
|
02 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-cose-countersign-02.txt |
|
2020-12-16
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-12-16
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> |
|
2020-12-16
|
02 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-10-07
|
01 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-cose-countersign-01.txt |
|
2020-10-07
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-10-07
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: cose-chairs@ietf.org, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> |
|
2020-10-07
|
01 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-10-07
|
01 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-09-04
|
00 | Jim Schaad | New version available: draft-ietf-cose-countersign-00.txt |
|
2020-09-04
|
00 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jim Schaad) |
|
2020-09-04
|
00 | Jim Schaad | Uploaded new revision |