Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-06
review-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-06-secdir-lc-dunbar-2020-05-26-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2020-05-27 | |
| Requested | 2020-05-13 | |
| Authors | Michael Jones | |
| Draft last updated | 2020-05-26 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -06
by
Linda Dunbar
(diff)
|
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Linda Dunbar |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-06-secdir-lc-dunbar-2020-05-26
|
|
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/v7QUEwpAC_t9R2zcLvpMULWAqgE | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Not Ready | |
| Completed | 2020-05-26 |
review-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-06-secdir-lc-dunbar-2020-05-26-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document is to list down the COSE&JOSE Algorithms to be registered to IANA. But it seems the description is not complete. In the Section 2: among the 4 algorithms listed under RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5, three are NOT recommended, one is deprecated. Under the Security Consideration (Section 5), Section 5.2 describes why SHA-2 is "Not Recommended", Section 5.3 describes why SHA-1 is "Deprecated". What about the description on why SHA-512, SHA-384, and SHA-256 are not recommended? Is the missing description intended? Best Regards, Linda Dunbar