IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-composite-sigs-04
review-ietf-lamps-cms-composite-sigs-04-secdir-lc-rosomakho-2026-04-13-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lamps-cms-composite-sigs |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2026-04-13 | |
| Requested | 2026-03-30 | |
| Authors | Mike Ounsworth , John Gray , Jan Klaußner , Daniel Van Geest | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-06-09 (Latest revision 2026-05-22) | |
| Completed reviews |
Artart IETF Last Call review of -04
by Sean Turner
(diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Niclas Comstedt (diff) Genart IETF Last Call review of -04 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Yaroslav Rosomakho (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Yaroslav Rosomakho |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-cms-composite-sigs by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/R0tUb7Nq40oqZCmpQnhhU9p8Y5A | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 05) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2026-04-13 |
review-ietf-lamps-cms-composite-sigs-04-secdir-lc-rosomakho-2026-04-13-00
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.
The summary of the review is the document is ready with nits.
Section 3.4 requires ("MUST") digestAlgorithm from SignerInfo to match digest
algorithm used by the Composite ML-DSA. I believe it is worth spelling out that
violation of this MUST result in rejection of the CMS object. Perhaps it is
worth adding this to security considerations.
Further potential improvements to security considerations could include DoS
considerations. ML-DSA (and its composites) have bigger signatures and its sign
operation is generally more CPU-intensive compared to most classical
algorithms. Implementers must take that into consideration.