Skip to main content

COSE Header parameter for RFC 3161 Time-Stamp Tokens
draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2025-02-05
04 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2025-01-22
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2025-01-22
04 Thomas Fossati New version available: draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-04.txt
2025-01-22
04 (System) New version approved
2025-01-22
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Henk Birkholz , Maik Riechert , Thomas Fossati , cose-chairs@ietf.org
2025-01-22
04 Thomas Fossati Uploaded new revision
2025-01-13
03 Yingzhen Qu Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu. Sent review to list.
2025-01-13
03 David Dong
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the COSE Header Parameters registry in the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/

two new parameters will be registered as follows:

Name: 3161-tcc
Label: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Value Type: bstr
Value Registry:
Description: RFC 3161 timestamp token
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1 ]

Name: 3161-ctt
Label: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Value Type: bstr
Value Registry:
Description: RFC 3161 timestamp token
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.2 ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2025-01-13
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2025-01-13
03 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2025-01-13
03 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2025-01-11
03 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2024-12-28
03 Shuping Peng Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Shuping Peng. Sent review to list.
2024-12-27
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2024-12-27
03 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu
2024-12-27
03 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Shuping Peng
2024-12-23
03 Jenny Bui IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-12-23
03 Jenny Bui
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-01-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter@ietf.org, michael_b_jones@hotmail.com, paul.wouters@aiven.io …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-01-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter@ietf.org, michael_b_jones@hotmail.com, paul.wouters@aiven.io
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (COSE Header parameter for RFC 3161 Time-Stamp Tokens) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption
WG (cose) to consider the following document: - 'COSE Header parameter for
RFC 3161 Time-Stamp Tokens'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-01-13. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a CBOR Signing And Encrypted (COSE) header
  parameter for incorporating RFC 3161-based timestamping into COSE
  message structures (COSE_Sign and COSE_Sign1).  This enables the use
  of established RFC 3161 timestamping infrastructure to prove the
  creation time of a message.

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/ietf-scitt/draft-birkholz-cose-tsa-tst-header-
  parameter.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2024-12-23
03 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-12-23
03 Jenny Bui Last call announcement was changed
2024-12-23
03 Jenny Bui Last call announcement was generated
2024-12-22
03 Paul Wouters Last call was requested
2024-12-22
03 Paul Wouters Ballot approval text was generated
2024-12-22
03 Paul Wouters Ballot writeup was generated
2024-12-22
03 Paul Wouters IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2024-12-22
03 Paul Wouters Last call announcement was changed
2024-12-19
03 Michael Jones
Document History

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

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

The specification does one simple thing that has working group support.  Most of the on-list discussion happened during WGLC, with about 10 people participating, some providing substantive feedback that was addressed after WGLC.  The document has working group consensus.

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

The was not controversy.  The feedback received was largely about the exposition.  This is bringing an existing mechanism to COSE.

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 discomfort.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

C2PA 2.1 uses this specification, and is implemented by Microsoft, Google, and Trupic.  Measur.io has an implementation.

Additional Reviews

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.

Not that I'm aware of.

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.

If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

The document contains no YANG module.

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.

Document Shepherd Checks

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?

This document solves a narrow but useful problem and solves it well.  It is ready to hand off to our AD.

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

It doesn't appear that most of the common Security Area issues at https://wiki.ietf.org/group/sec/typicalSECareaissues apply, other than Thread Models, which are discussed in the Security Considerations section.

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

Proposed Standard status is being requested, and is accurately reflected in the datatracker.  This status seems appropriate for the specification.

Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

All three authors have responded that they are not aware of any IPR considerations that apply to the specification.

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, they are willing.

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

I believe that the reference [IANA.cose_header-parameters] should be informative.  Also, stylistially, it would appear to be better to use either dash or underscore in the reference, but not both in a mixed fashion.

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

I believe that the reference [IANA.cose_header-parameters] should be informative.

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

There are no such references.

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

There are no such references.

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 are no such references.

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.

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).

The IANA Considerations section appears to be consistent with the rest of the specification.

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 creates no new IANA registries.
2024-12-19
03 Michael Jones IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2024-12-19
03 Michael Jones IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-12-19
03 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed)
2024-12-19
03 Michael Jones Responsible AD changed to Paul Wouters
2024-12-19
03 Michael Jones Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-12-19
03 Michael Jones
Document History

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

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

The specification does one simple thing that has working group support.  Most of the on-list discussion happened during WGLC, with about 10 people participating, some providing substantive feedback that was addressed after WGLC.  The document has working group consensus.

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

The was not controversy.  The feedback received was largely about the exposition.  This is bringing an existing mechanism to COSE.

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 discomfort.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

C2PA 2.1 uses this specification, and is implemented by Microsoft, Google, and Trupic.  Measur.io has an implementation.

Additional Reviews

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.

Not that I'm aware of.

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.

If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

The document contains no YANG module.

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.

Document Shepherd Checks

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?

This document solves a narrow but useful problem and solves it well.  It is ready to hand off to our AD.

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

It doesn't appear that most of the common Security Area issues at https://wiki.ietf.org/group/sec/typicalSECareaissues apply, other than Thread Models, which are discussed in the Security Considerations section.

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

Proposed Standard status is being requested, and is accurately reflected in the datatracker.  This status seems appropriate for the specification.

Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

All three authors have responded that they are not aware of any IPR considerations that apply to the specification.

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, they are willing.

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

I believe that the reference [IANA.cose_header-parameters] should be informative.  Also, stylistially, it would appear to be better to use either dash or underscore in the reference, but not both in a mixed fashion.

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

I believe that the reference [IANA.cose_header-parameters] should be informative.

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

There are no such references.

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

There are no such references.

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 are no such references.

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.

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).

The IANA Considerations section appears to be consistent with the rest of the specification.

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 creates no new IANA registries.
2024-11-08
03 Ivaylo Petrov Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-11-08
03 Ivaylo Petrov Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-11-08
03 Ivaylo Petrov Notification list changed to michael_b_jones@hotmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-11-08
03 Ivaylo Petrov Document shepherd changed to Michael B. Jones
2024-09-10
03 Thomas Fossati New version available: draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-03.txt
2024-09-10
03 Thomas Fossati New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Thomas Fossati)
2024-09-10
03 Thomas Fossati Uploaded new revision
2024-08-27
02 (System) Document has expired
2024-07-22
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Henk Birkholz , Maik Riechert , Thomas Fossati , cose-chairs@ietf.org
2024-07-22
03 Carsten Bormann Uploaded new revision
2024-02-24
02 Thomas Fossati New version available: draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-02.txt
2024-02-24
02 Thomas Fossati New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Thomas Fossati)
2024-02-24
02 Thomas Fossati Uploaded new revision
2023-11-07
01 Thomas Fossati New version available: draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-01.txt
2023-11-07
01 Thomas Fossati New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Thomas Fossati)
2023-11-07
01 Thomas Fossati Uploaded new revision
2023-09-10
00 Michael Jones This document now replaces draft-birkholz-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter instead of None
2023-09-10
00 Henk Birkholz New version available: draft-ietf-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter-00.txt
2023-09-10
00 Michael Jones WG -00 approved
2023-09-10
00 Henk Birkholz Set submitter to "Henk Birkholz ", replaces to draft-birkholz-cose-tsa-tst-header-parameter and sent approval email to group chairs: cose-chairs@ietf.org
2023-09-10
00 Henk Birkholz Uploaded new revision