On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:28:58PM +0000, Göran Selander wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In LAKE yesterday we had a discussion on compact key identifiers. The main 
> candidate to use, 'kid', is specified as a CBOR bstr, which is typically at 
> least 2 bytes (exception: empty bstr which is 1 byte). We therefore want to 
> allow keys to be identified with CBOR ints which has 48 1-byte values to 
> allow for a larger number of optimally small identifiers.
> 
> One solution would be to define a new COSE key common parameter and COSE 
> header parameter, say 'kid2', of type bstr / int. Another solution would be 
> to extend 'kid' to be bstr / int.
> 
> In the former case a 'kid2' can be used to reference keys identified with 
> either 'kid2' or 'kid', but 'kid' would not be able to reference keys 
> identified with 'kid2' having an int value. Not clear to me if that is a 
> problem. 
> 
> While the LAKE WG did not express any preference, one opinion I learnt after 
> the meeting was a preference of extending 'kid' to bstr / int.
> 
> What do folks in COSE think?
> 
> I'm familiar with the process of registering new COSE parameters, what is the 
> requirement for changing the value type of an existing registration? 
> Standards action with expert review?

I think so.  There's a decent case that just standards action would
suffice, but I like ensuring that the experts also weigh in.

>From the follow-up:

> Another alternative to what has been listed below is to define 'kid2' to
> only be of type int - is that a better option?

That would avoid some of the decoder complexity that Laurence raised, but
leaves the issue of needing logic to handle a message that sets both 'kid'
and 'kid2'.  For a long-term steady-state best outcome I don't see a huge
difference between an expanded 'kid' and deprecating 'kid' entirely in
favor of a 'kid2' that does both.  I'm less sure how to compare that option
against the one-parameter-per-type option (kid==bstr, kid2==int) that is
easier to decode but has the possibility to provide both parameters.

-Ben

_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

Reply via email to