Skip to main content

ML-DSA for JOSE and COSE
draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-05

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2025-01-28
05 Michael Jones
## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did …
## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Extensive discussions occurred on the mailing list prior to the WGLC, and a few additional comments were received during the WGLC. The authors have revised the document to incorporate the feedback received, and it now appears to have achieved broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Extended discussions took place on the mailing list concerning the appropriate “kty” value to define and use for ML-DSA. The solution of introducing the new Algorithm Key Pair (AKP) type seemed to gather working group support. Additionally, comments were made about the specification of the “context” string in ML-DSA, as well as the draft being too underspecified. The authors addressed these comments during the WGLC.

Ultimately, none of the document updates encountered significant objections. No one spoke against the adoption of the document during the WGLC. Consequently, there was no particular controversy over specific points, nor were there significant difficulties in reaching consensus.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

I am not aware of any threatened appeals or extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The examples in Appendix A were generated using code specifically written for the draft, as reported on the COSE mailing list (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/_IbCQoSJeXFG-GDZFlJZnZHCP1U/).

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The specification applies to both JOSE and COSE. Alignment with other working groups that are specifying ML-DSA algorithms, such as LAMPS, was raised as a point to consider during mailing list discussions. Additionally, it was noted as desirable to obtain confirmation from an independent implementation of the examples provided in Appendix A of the document.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such criteria apply.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

The document contains no YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document uses no formal language.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, I believe the document is ready. Some nits can be addressed later in the process.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Among the common Security Area issues, the document addresses the Threat Models and Security Environment aspect in its Security Considerations section. Most other Security Area concerns do not appear to be relevant. In particular, since the registered algorithms already exist, they do not fall under the "New Cryptography" category.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard is being requested. This status seems appropriate for this document, as it is the same status as the other COSE specifications that register algorithms. The document header is correct, while the "Intended RFC status" on the Datatracker needs to be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

No IPR disclosures were issued against this document. I am not aware of any reminders about IPR disclosure being sent to the authors.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The idnits tool indicates multiple instances of too long lines in the document and some warnings that could be fixed later in the process. There are also one unused reference and one downref.

Other nits:
- Sections 8.1.4 and 8.1.5 should be subsections of the Section 8.1.3 "New COSE Key Type Parameters". Also, they should now be called "AKP Public Key" and "AKP Private Key", as it is the case with the "New JSON Web Key Parameters" Section for JOSE;
- "the following key types in [IANA.jose]" --> key type;
- "the security considerations of [...] applies" --> apply;
- need to standardize the usage of capital letters in specific expressions (eg: "AKP Key" vs "AKP key");
- the document "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Key Thumbprint" is now an RFC and the name of the normative reference can be updated to "RFC9679".
- need a comma after "When this key type is used"
- "using th algorithms" --> the

Otherwise, the document adheres to the Content Guidelines.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The Informational RFC 9053 is a normative reference, which seems appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There is no such reference.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There is a normative downward reference to the Informational RFC 9053.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There is no such reference.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Sections 8.1.4 and 8.1.5 should be subsections of the Section 8.1.3 "New COSE Key Type Parameters". Also, they should now be called "AKP Public Key" and "AKP Private Key", as it is the case with the "New JSON Web Key Parameters" Section for JOSE.

The placeholders “Reference: RFC XXXX” and “Specification Document(s): RFC XXXX” in the IANA Considerations section will need to be updated.

Otherwise, the IANA actions are clearly described and appropriate.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The specification does not create any new IANA registry; it only adds entries to existing registries.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
2025-01-28
05 Michael Jones IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2025-01-28
05 Michael Jones IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2025-01-28
05 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed)
2025-01-28
05 Michael Jones Responsible AD changed to Paul Wouters
2025-01-28
05 Michael Jones Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2025-01-28
05 Michael Jones Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2025-01-28
05 Michael Jones Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2025-01-28
05 Michael Jones
## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did …
## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Extensive discussions occurred on the mailing list prior to the WGLC, and a few additional comments were received during the WGLC. The authors have revised the document to incorporate the feedback received, and it now appears to have achieved broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Extended discussions took place on the mailing list concerning the appropriate “kty” value to define and use for ML-DSA. The solution of introducing the new Algorithm Key Pair (AKP) type seemed to gather working group support. Additionally, comments were made about the specification of the “context” string in ML-DSA, as well as the draft being too underspecified. The authors addressed these comments during the WGLC.

Ultimately, none of the document updates encountered significant objections. No one spoke against the adoption of the document during the WGLC. Consequently, there was no particular controversy over specific points, nor were there significant difficulties in reaching consensus.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

I am not aware of any threatened appeals or extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The examples in Appendix A were generated using code specifically written for the draft, as reported on the COSE mailing list (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/_IbCQoSJeXFG-GDZFlJZnZHCP1U/).

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The specification applies to both JOSE and COSE. Alignment with other working groups that are specifying ML-DSA algorithms, such as LAMPS, was raised as a point to consider during mailing list discussions. Additionally, it was noted as desirable to obtain confirmation from an independent implementation of the examples provided in Appendix A of the document.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such criteria apply.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

The document contains no YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document uses no formal language.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, I believe the document is ready. Some nits can be addressed later in the process.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Among the common Security Area issues, the document addresses the Threat Models and Security Environment aspect in its Security Considerations section. Most other Security Area concerns do not appear to be relevant. In particular, since the registered algorithms already exist, they do not fall under the "New Cryptography" category.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard is being requested. This status seems appropriate for this document, as it is the same status as the other COSE specifications that register algorithms. The document header is correct, while the "Intended RFC status" on the Datatracker needs to be updated.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

No IPR disclosures were issued against this document. I am not aware of any reminders about IPR disclosure being sent to the authors.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The idnits tool indicates multiple instances of too long lines in the document and some warnings that could be fixed later in the process. There are also one unused reference and one downref.

Other nits:
- Sections 8.1.4 and 8.1.5 should be subsections of the Section 8.1.3 "New COSE Key Type Parameters". Also, they should now be called "AKP Public Key" and "AKP Private Key", as it is the case with the "New JSON Web Key Parameters" Section for JOSE;
- "the following key types in [IANA.jose]" --> key type;
- "the security considerations of [...] applies" --> apply;
- need to standardize the usage of capital letters in specific expressions (eg: "AKP Key" vs "AKP key");
- the document "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Key Thumbprint" is now an RFC and the name of the normative reference can be updated to "RFC9679".
- need a comma after "When this key type is used"
- "using th algorithms" --> the

Otherwise, the document adheres to the Content Guidelines.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The Informational RFC 9053 is a normative reference, which seems appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There is no such reference.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There is a normative downward reference to the Informational RFC 9053.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There is no such reference.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Sections 8.1.4 and 8.1.5 should be subsections of the Section 8.1.3 "New COSE Key Type Parameters". Also, they should now be called "AKP Public Key" and "AKP Private Key", as it is the case with the "New JSON Web Key Parameters" Section for JOSE.

The placeholders “Reference: RFC XXXX” and “Specification Document(s): RFC XXXX” in the IANA Considerations section will need to be updated.

Otherwise, the IANA actions are clearly described and appropriate.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The specification does not create any new IANA registry; it only adds entries to existing registries.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
2025-01-15
05 Michael Jones Notification list changed to lucas.prabel@huawei.com because the document shepherd was set
2025-01-15
05 Michael Jones Document shepherd changed to Lucas Prabel
2024-12-18
05 Orie Steele New version available: draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-05.txt
2024-12-18
05 Orie Steele New version approved
2024-12-18
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christine Cloostermans , Michael Osborne , Michael Prorock , Orie Steele , Rafael Misoczki
2024-12-18
05 Orie Steele Uploaded new revision
2024-10-20
04 Michael Prorock New version available: draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-04.txt
2024-10-20
04 Michael Prorock New version approved
2024-10-20
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christine Cloostermans , Michael Osborne , Michael Prorock , Orie Steele , Rafael Misoczki
2024-10-20
04 Michael Prorock Uploaded new revision
2024-06-02
03 Orie Steele New version available: draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-03.txt
2024-06-02
03 Orie Steele New version approved
2024-06-02
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christine Cloostermans , Michael Osborne , Michael Prorock , Orie Steele , Rafael Misoczki
2024-06-02
03 Orie Steele Uploaded new revision
2024-01-12
02 Orie Steele Changed document external resources from:

github_repo https://github.com/mesur-io/post-quantum-signatures

to:

github_repo https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-dilithium
2024-01-12
02 Orie Steele New version available: draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-02.txt
2024-01-12
02 Orie Steele New version approved
2024-01-12
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christine Cloostermans , Michael Osborne , Michael Prorock , Orie Steele , Rafael Misoczki
2024-01-12
02 Orie Steele Uploaded new revision
2024-01-10
01 (System) Document has expired
2023-07-09
01 Michael Prorock New version available: draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-01.txt
2023-07-09
01 Michael Prorock New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Michael Prorock)
2023-07-09
01 Michael Prorock Uploaded new revision
2023-03-12
00 Michael Jones Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/mesur-io/post-quantum-signatures
2023-03-12
00 Michael Jones This document now replaces draft-ietf-cose-post-quantum-signatures instead of None
2023-03-12
00 Michael Prorock New version available: draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-00.txt
2023-03-12
00 Michael Jones WG -00 approved
2023-03-12
00 Michael Prorock Set submitter to "Michael Prorock ", replaces to draft-ietf-cose-post-quantum-signatures and sent approval email to group chairs: cose-chairs@ietf.org
2023-03-12
00 Michael Prorock Uploaded new revision