That is correct. Thank you, Henk, for the correction! On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:51 AM Henk Birkholz < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > the link in the email lacks a vital character. This is the intended > link, I think: > > > https://github.com/cose-wg/Charter > > > Viele Grüße, > > Henk > > On 20.01.21 02:16, Matthew Miller wrote: > > Hello COSE WG, > > > > This starts a comment period on the proposed recharter for the COSE > > Working Group. Please provide feedback on the charter, even if you > > have no objections, to this mailing list and/or to < cose-chairs @ > > ietf.org >. > > > > The proposed charter is below, and can also be found at < > > https://github.com/cose-wgCharter >. Please comment on the proposed > > charter before February 2, 2021. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > - Ivaylo and Matthew > > COSE WG Chairs > > > > ----- > > # 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 has advanced to STD status. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 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 certificate profile defined in RFC 5280. > > It is expected that the compression works with 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. > > The data structures used to encode such compressed X.509 certificates are > > expected to produce a compact encoding for certificate information, and > are > > not necessarily tied specifically to X.509 certificates. Accordingly, a > > secondary objective is to reuse these data structures to produce a > > natively signed CBOR certificate encoding; such a structure is > > relevant in situations > > where DER parsing and the compression/decompression machinery to convert > > between CBOR and DER encodings are unnecessary overhead, such as embedded > > implementations. The possibility of a joint certificate artifact, > conveyed in > > CBOR encoding but including signatures over both the CBOR and DER > encodings, > > may be explored. > > 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. > > ----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > COSE mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose > > > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose >
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
