Use of Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) Signatures in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
RFC 8419

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ekr@rtfm.com, draft-ietf-curdle-cms-eddsa-signatures@ietf.org, Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
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/

Ballot Text

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.

RFC Editor Note