Use of Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) Signatures in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Daniel Migault <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Protocol Action: 'Use of EdDSA Signatures in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-curdle-cms-eddsa-signatures-08.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Use of EdDSA Signatures in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)' (draft-ietf-curdle-cms-eddsa-signatures-08.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the CURves, Deprecating and a Little more Encryption Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Kathleen Moriarty and Eric Rescorla. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-cms-eddsa-signatures/
Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies the conventions for using Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) for Curve25519 and Curve448 in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS). For each curve, EdDSA defines the PureEdDSA and HashEdDSA modes. However, the HashEdDSA mode is not used with the CMS. In addition, no context string is used with the CMS. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? The document has been reviewed and discussed on the mailing list. The main scope of the discussion was the consideration for the pre-hash version of EdDSA the consensus was that only the non pure EdDSA variant will be considered. Personnel Daniel Migault is the document shepherd. Eric Rescorla is the Security Area Director.