Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
111 lines (93 loc) · 6.02 KB

Charter.md

File metadata and controls

111 lines (93 loc) · 6.02 KB

Charter for Working Group

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE, RFC 8152) describes how to create and process signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption using Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) for serialization. COSE additionally describes a representation for cryptographic keys.

COSE has been picked up and is being used both by a number of groups within the IETF (i.e. ACE, CORE, ANIMA, 6TiSCH and SUIT) as well as outside of the IETF (i.e. W3C and FIDO). There are a number of implementations, both open source and private, now in existence. The specification is now sufficiently mature that it makes sense to try and advance it to STD status. The specification has advanced to STD status.

~~The standards progression work will focus on:

  1. Should the document be split in two? The first document would contain the definitions of the structures and rules for processing them. The second document would contain the set of original algorithms that were defined.
  2. What areas in the document need clarification before the document can be progressed?
  3. What implementations exist and do they cover all of the major sections of the document?
  4. Resolution of any Errata or ambiguities in the document~~

There are a small number of COSE related documents that will also be addressed by the working group dealing with additional attributes and algorithms that need to be reviewed and published. The first set are listed below in the deliverables. A re-charter will be required to expand this list.

The COSE working group will deal with two types of documents going forward:

  1. Documents that describe the use of cryptographic algorithms in COSE.
  2. Documents which describe additional attributes for COSE.

The WG will evaluate, and potentially adopt, documents dealing with algorithms which would fit the criteria of being IETF consensus algorithms. Potential candidates would include those algorithms which have been evaluated by the CFRG and algorithms which have gone through a public review and evaluation process such as was done for the NIST SHA-3 algorithms. Potential candidate would not include national standards based algorithms which have not gone through a similar public review process.

The WG will produce documents for new attributes only if they are in the list of deliverables below. A re-charter will be required to expand that list. The WG is expected as part of normal processing to review and comment on attributes which are not in charter but are of general public interest.

The SUIT working group has identified a need for the use of hash-based signatures in the form of Leighton-Micali Signatures (LMS) (draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs). This signature form is resistant to quantum computer attacks and is low-cost for validation. The SUIT working group additionally has identified a need for registering hash functions for indirect packaging.

The W3C Web Authentication working group has identified a need for the ability to use algorithms which are currently part of TPMs which are widely deployed.

At the time COSE was developed, there was a sense that X.509 certificates were not a feature that needed to be transferred from the JOSE key document (RFC 7517). Since that time a better sense of how X.509 certificates would be used both in the IoT sphere and with COSE outside of the IoT sphere has been developed. The ability to identify or carry X.509 certificates now needs to be provided. This will require the definition of a small number of hash functions for compact references to X.509 certificates.

Key management and binding of keys to identities are out of scope for the working group. The COSE WG will not innovate in terms of cryptography. The specification of algorithms in COSE is limited to those in RFCs, active CFRG or IETF WG documents, or algorithms which have been positively reviewed by the CFRG.

The working group will coordinate its progress with the ACE, SUIT and CORE working groups to ensure that we are fulfilling the needs of these constituencies to the extent relevant to their work. Other groups may be added to this list as the set of use cases is expanded, in consultation with the responsible Area Director.

The WG has delivered the following:

  1. Republishing a version of RFC 8152 suitable for advancement to Internet Standard.
  2. Use of Hash-based Signature algorithms in COSE using draft-housley-suit-cose-hash-sig as a starting point (Informational).
  3. Placement of X.509 certificates in COSE messages and keys using draft-schaad-cose-x509 as a starting point (Informational).
  4. Define the algorithms needed for W3C Web Authentication for COSE using draft-jones-webauthn-cose-algorithms and draft-jones-webauthn-secp256k1 as a starting point (Informational).
  5. Define a small number of hash functions for X.509 certificate thumbprints and for indirect signing (for SUIT) (Informational).

The WG currently has two deliverables:

  1. One or more documents describing the proper use of algorithms. These algorithms must meet the requirements outlined above.

  2. A CBOR encoding of the compressed certificate profile defined in RFC 7925. It is expected that the compression works with a large subset of RFC 7925 and takes into consideration any updates in draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-00. The compression may also include other important IoT certificate profiles like IEEE 802.1AR. The main objective is to define a method of compressing current X.509 certificates that meet a specific profile into a smaller format. This compression algorithm is loss-less so they can be expanded and normal X.509 certificate processing used. Another objective is to explore the possibility to parse and verify the compressed X.509 encoding directly on the target device. This removes the need for compression, decompression, and DER parsing, with associated overhead and code, which is relevant for embedded implementations. This work will be based on draft-mattsson-cose-cbor-cert-compress. The working group will collaborate and coordinate with other IETF WGs such as TLS, UTA, LAKE to understand and validate the requirements and solution.