CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Headers
draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-09
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tobias Looker , Michael B. Jones | ||
| Last updated | 2023-11-10 (Latest revision 2023-11-07) | ||
| Replaces | draft-looker-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-06)
by Ines Robles
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Orie Steele | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2023-09-13 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
(None)
Has enough positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Paul Wouters | ||
| Send notices to | mprorock@mesur.io, orie@transmute.industries | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA expert review state | Issues identified | ||
| IANA expert review comments | I have a major issue with this registration: this is basically a duplicate of an existing registration, called "kccs". "kccs" is described as follows: > A CWT Claims Set (CCS) containing a COSE_Key in a 'cnf' claim and possibly other claims. CCS is defined in [RFC8392]. If my understanding is correct, this is almost exactly what draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers wants, with the exception that draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers doesn't give any specification about which claims are included. I believe registering another parameter, as requested by draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers, goes against the guidance given by the Expert Review Instructions of RFC 9052, Section 11.6: > Reviewers are encouraged to get sufficient information for registration requests to ensure that the usage is not going to duplicate an existing registration I note that "kccs" is registered by the EDHOC document in lake: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lake-edhoc/ which is not yet published (it is however in EDIT state in the RFC Editor queue). I suggest that that document's COSE Header Parameter is changed so that the description is more general and cover this case as well. This could be done by a small change of the name "kccs" to "ccs" and the following change in the description: OLD A CWT Claims Set (CCS) containing a COSE_Key in a 'cnf' claim and possibly other claims. CCS is defined in [RFC8392]. NEW A CWT Claims Set (CCS) as defined in [RFC8392]. (And if that is done, I suggest the same modification is done for "kcwt"). Then draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers would not need to be published at all. |
draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-09
COSE T. Looker
Internet-Draft Mattr
Intended status: Standards Track M. Jones
Expires: 13 May 2024 Self-Issued Consulting
10 November 2023
CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Headers
draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-09
Abstract
This document describes how to include CBOR Web Token (CWT) claims in
the header parameters of any COSE structure. This functionality
helps to facilitate applications that wish to make use of CBOR Web
Token (CWT) claims in encrypted COSE structures and/or COSE
structures featuring detached signatures, while having some of those
claims be available before decryption and/or without inspecting the
detached payload. Another use case is using CWT claims with payloads
that are not CWT Claims Sets, including payloads that are not CBOR at
all.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/tplooker/draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 May 2024.
Looker & Jones Expires 13 May 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Head November 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
In some applications of COSE, it is useful to have a standard
representation of CWT claims [RFC8392] available in the header
parameters. These include encrypted COSE structures, which may or
may not be an encrypted CWT and/or those featuring a detached
signature. Another use case is using CWT claims with payloads that
are not CWT Claims Sets, including payloads that are not CBOR at all.
For instance, an application might want to include an "iss" (issuer)
claim in a COSE_Sign1 structure when the payload being signed is a
non-CBOR data structure, such as a bitmap image, and the issuer value
is used for key discovery.
Looker & Jones Expires 13 May 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Head November 2023
Section 5.3 of JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519] defined a similar
mechanism for expressing selected JWT based claims as JOSE header
parameters. This JWT feature was motivated by the desire to have
certain claims, such as the Issuer value, be visible to software
processing the JWT, even though the JWT is encrypted. No
corresponding feature was standardized for CWTs, which was an
omission that this specification corrects.
Directly including CWT claim values as COSE header parameter values
would not work, since there are conflicts between the numeric header
parameter assignments and the numeric CWT claim assignments.
Instead, this specification defines a single header parameter
registered in the IANA "COSE Header Parameters" registry that creates
a location to store CWT claims in a COSE header parameter.
1.1. Requirements Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Representation
This document defines the following COSE header parameter:
+========+================+=======+=============+===================+
| Name | Label | Value | Value | Description |
| | | Type | Registry | |
+========+================+=======+=============+===================+
| CWT | TBD (requested | map | [IANA.COSE] | Location for |
| Claims | assignment 15) | | | CWT Claims in |
| | | | | COSE Header |
| | | | | Parameters |
+--------+----------------+-------+-------------+-------------------+
Table 1
The following is a non-normative description for the value type of
the CWT claim header parameter using CDDL [RFC8610].
CWT-Claims = {
* Claim-Label => any
}
Claim-Label = int / text
Looker & Jones Expires 13 May 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Head November 2023
In cases where CWT claims are present both in the payload and the
header of a CWT, an application receiving such a structure MUST
verify that their values are identical, unless the application
defines other specific processing rules for these claims.
It is RECOMMENDED that the CWT Claims header parameter is used only
in a protected header to avoid the contents being malleable. The
header parameter MUST only occur once in either the protected or
unprotected header of a COSE structure.
The CWT Claims header parameter MAY be used in any COSE object using
header parameters, such as COSE_Sign objects. Its use is not
restricted to CWTs.
3. Privacy Considerations
Some of the registered CWT claims may contain privacy-sensitive
information. Since CWT claims in COSE headers are not encrypted,
when privacy-sensitive information is present in these claims,
applications and protocols using them should ensure that these COSE
objects are only made visible to parties for which it is appropriate
for them to have access to this sensitive information.
4. Security Considerations
Implementers should also review the security considerations for CWT,
which are documented in Section 8 of [RFC8392].
As described in [RFC9052], if the COSE payload is transported
separately ("detached content"), then it is the responsibility of the
application to ensure that it will be transported without changes.
The reason for applications to verify that CWT claims that are
present both in the payload and the header of a CWT are identical,
unless it defines other specific processing rules for these claims,
is to eliminate potential confusion that might arise by having
different values for the same claim, which could result in
inconsistent processing of such claims.
Processing information in claims prior to validating that their
integrity is cryptographically secured can pose security risks. This
is true whether the claims are in the payload or a header parameter.
Implementers must ensure that any tentative decisions made based on
previously unverified information are confirmed once the
cryptographic processing has been completed.
Looker & Jones Expires 13 May 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Head November 2023
Profiles define how to use CWT claims and their semantics for
particular applications, whether they are in the COSE payload or the
CWT Claims header parameter, or both. Therefore, understanding how
to process the CWT Claims requires unambiguously knowing the profile
being used. A recommended way to include this information in the
COSE structure is use of the typ (type) Header Parameter
[I-D.ietf-cose-typ-header-parameter]. Other methods for determining
the profile can also be used.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to register the new COSE header parameter "CWT
Claims" in the table in Section 2 in the "COSE Header Parameters"
registry [IANA.COSE].
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[IANA.COSE]
IANA, "COSE Header Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#header-
parameters>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
"CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-cose-typ-header-parameter]
Jones, M. B. and O. Steele, "COSE "typ" (type) Header
Parameter", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
cose-typ-header-parameter-01, 6 November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-
ietf-cose-typ-header-parameter/>.
Looker & Jones Expires 13 May 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Head November 2023
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC9052] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9052>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Daisuke Ajitomi, Claudio Allocchio, Carsten
Bormann, Laurence Lundblade, Ivaylo Petrov, Ines Robles, Orie Steele,
Hannes Tschofenig, Paul Wouters, and Peter Yee for their valuable
contributions to this specification.
Appendix B. Document History
-09
* Described use cases where CWT claims can't be put in the payload
in response to Hannes Tschofenig's IotDir review.
* Said that profiles specify the semantics of the CWT claims in
response to Carsten Bormann's feedback.
-08
* Added Security Consideration about profiles and processing CWT
claims.
-07
* Added Privacy Consideration about unencrypted claims in header
parameters.
* Added Security Consideration about detached content.
* Added Security Consideration about claims that are present both in
the payload and the header of a CWT.
* Changed requested IANA COSE Header Parameter assignment number
from 13 to 15 due to subsequent assignments of 13 and 14.
* Acknowledged last call reviewers.
-06
Looker & Jones Expires 13 May 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Head November 2023
* Changed requested IANA COSE Header Parameter assignment number
from 11 to 13 due to Countersignature being allocated 11.
* Reference correct registry IANA COSE Header Parameters.
-05
* Added Acknowledgements section.
* Addressed WGLC feedback. Specifically...
* Added statement about being able to use the header parameter in
any COSE object.
* Moved statment about verifing that claim values present in both
the header and payload are identical from the Security
Considerations to the body of the specification.
-04
* Update author affiliation.
* Add standard reference to RFC terminology.
* Added reference to security considerations from RFC8392.
-03
* Added recommendation around header treatment in protected vs
unprotected.
-02
* Added CDDL description for CWT claim value.
-01
* Changed example from Key ID to Issuer.
-00
* Created draft-ietf-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-00 from draft-
looker-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers-00 following working group
adoption.
Authors' Addresses
Tobias Looker
Mattr
Email: tobias.looker@mattr.global
Michael B. Jones
Self-Issued Consulting
Looker & Jones Expires 13 May 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Head November 2023
Email: michael_b_jones@hotmail.com
URI: https://self-issued.info/
Looker & Jones Expires 13 May 2024 [Page 8]