Awesome! Thank you all for your help!

[image: FIDO Alliance] <https://fidoalliance.org/> * Yuriy Ackermann *
Senior Certification Engineer
*email:* yu...@fidoalliance.org
*skype:* ackermann.yuriy
*website:* https://fidoalliance.org

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Yuriy – I can work with you to write the necessary text for UAF to
> register the additional algorithms it needs.  I’ll talk with you off-list
> about it.
>
>
>
>                                                                 -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* COSE <cose-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Jim Schaad
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2018 2:51 PM
> *To:* 'Yuriy Ackermann' <yu...@fidoalliance.org>
> *Cc:* 'Laurence Lundblade' <llund...@qti.qualcomm.com>; cose@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [COSE] Adding secp256k1
>
>
>
> I would not do the private range version below if you are going to publish
> in FIDO docs.  This is really meant for completely closed and experimental
> and not for any public standards use.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* COSE [mailto:cose-boun...@ietf.org <cose-boun...@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Laurence Lundblade
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:36 AM
> *To:* Yuriy Ackermann <yu...@fidoalliance.org>
> *Cc:* cose@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [COSE] Adding secp256k1
>
>
>
> Hi Yuri,
>
>
>
> The COSE specification probably should not change to accommodate this. The
> IANA COSE algorithm registry should be used instead.
>
>
>
> There are several options:
>
> - Write a standards track IETF document and get it set in the  IANA COSE
> registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml>.
>
> - Write a specification (presumably public) and get it set  IANA COSE
> registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml>.
>
> - Use an identifier in the private range and publish it only in FIDO docs.
>
>
>
> LL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2018, at 5:27 AM, Yuriy Ackermann <yu...@fidoalliance.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hey guys. I work for FIDO Alliance. We are currently selecting a list of
> curves we going to support. We want to support secp256k1 in COSE, as we are
> already supporting it in UAF, and we have companies who really want it.
>
>
>
> I know that in security considerations you've said that there is
> possibility of collision of the signatures from k1 and p1, but the chances
> of such thing happening are enough low for it to be ignored.
>
>
>
> We are proposing adding secp256k1 into list of curves, in section 13.1
> with value 8
>
>
>
> Regards. Yuriy
>
> [image: FIDO Alliance] <https://fidoalliance.org/>*Yuriy Ackermann *
> Senior Certification Engineer
> *email:* yu...@fidoalliance.org
> *skype:* ackermann.yuriy
> *website:* https://fidoalliance.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> COSE@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
COSE@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

Reply via email to