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 |