Let me try to be more clear. The COSE standard now is:
kid => bstr If we make this change: kid => int / bstr then we break backwards compatibility for COSE as Mike pointed out today. So we need a separate parameter called kid2, ckid, intkid or such. To not break backwards compatibility we need: intkid = int or: intkid = int / bstr (I don’t remember why an int kid was needed, but do remember I was convinced that it was) LL > On Mar 21, 2022, at 6:43 PM, Orie Steele <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think I may have misread your proposal. > > Why do we need `kid2` is this just so that we can have an integer `kid` ? > > Seems not worth it to me, since `kid` is already legal in CBOR, my proposal > of `ckid` makes no sense. > > So I am basically just saying I dislike seeing `kid2` and don't understand > what its value prop is. > > OS > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 12:16 PM Göran Selander <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Orie, > > > > Thanks for input. I didn't get the proposal though: > > > > > If we really need an integer version of `kid` I would suggest following the > > `jti / cti` convention and calling it `ckid`... keeping it optional (as is > > the convention), and ensuring it is not part of thumbprint computations. > > > > RFC 7517/7519: kid and jti value are case-sensitive strings > > > > RFC 8152/8392: kid and cti value are CBOR bstr > > > > Is there any difference between a `ckid` which is CBOR int or a `kid2` which > is a CBOR int (besides the name)? > > > > Thanks > > Göran > > > > > > From: Orie Steele <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, 21 March 2022 at 14:55 > To: Göran Selander <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Laurence Lundblade <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [COSE] Key identifier of type bstr / int > > I am a -1 to changing `kid`, it should remain a string, for compatibility > with existing key identifier systems. > > Including ones that support > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7638#section-1 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7638#section-1> > > See the original definition: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7517#section-4.5 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7517#section-4.5> > > > The "kid" value is a case-sensitive string. > > Many implementations have built hard dependencies on RFC7515. > > One of the nicest things about JOSE / COSE is being able to "upgrade" from > JOSE to COSE. > > Having a significant difference between `kid` in JOSE and COSE would be > harmful. > > If we really need an integer version of `kid` I would suggest following the > `jti / cti` convention and calling it `ckid`... keeping it optional (as is > the convention), and ensuring it is not part of thumbprint computations. > > Regards, > > OS > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 8:35 AM Göran Selander > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Laurence, > > > > Thanks for copying in the old thread. As noted, you and others preferred > `kid` as bstr / int rather than `kid2` as int when we discussed it last time. > Would be good to come out with a more solid motivation this time so we can > converge on this :-) > > > > With `kid2` as int, the fields that uses both bstr and int would be of type > `kid` / `kid2` which is fine. > > > > There is an algorithm for translation from CBOR bstr / int to byte strings on > the wire (back and forth) in draft-ietf-core-oscore-edhoc. > > > > Göran > > > > > > From: COSE <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf > of Laurence Lundblade <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Monday, 21 March 2022 at 14:14 > To: Göran Selander <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [COSE] Key identifier of type bstr / int > > Thinking about Mike’s comment today in COSE/Vienna about backwards > compatibility. Looked at my code around this. That definitely seems like an > issue. > > > > What about defining “kid2” as just int? “kid” stays as bstr only. Then > there’s no backwards compatibility break. Adding support for another integer > parameter isn’t difficult. The downside is a little extra code to look at two > different parameters. > > > > You’d probably want to say that only one of the two kids MUST be present. > > > > Another random idea — could you say that it is allowed to translate an > integer kid to a bstr kid by assuming network byte order and stripping > leading zeros? > > > > LL > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 2021, at 3:01 AM, Laurence Lundblade <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Understood about the use case. Thx for the background. > > > > On Aug 10, 2021, at 3:13 AM, Göran Selander > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Assume that we do want to allow key identifiers to be CBOR ints in certain > settings, what is the best (least intrusive) way to allow this while still > maintain compatibility with 'kid's supporting the type bstr? Another > alternative to what has been listed below is to define 'kid2' to only be of > type int - is that a better option? > > > > I didn’t write actual code to check, but they about the same to me. > > > > ‘kid' as int/bstr seems less confusing to me than ‘kid2’. It tells you it > does exactly the same thing whether it is an int or a bstr. > > > > So my pick is ‘kid’, but ‘kid2’ is OK too. > > > > LL > > > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose> > > > > -- > > ORIE STEELE > > Chief Technical Officer > > www.transmute.industries > <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-a7ff2eb208872658&q=1&e=94b1f6ec-570c-49db-b72f-d15cfe926d93&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transmute.industries%2F> > > > > <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-c169100f194b3f01&q=1&e=94b1f6ec-570c-49db-b72f-d15cfe926d93&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.transmute.industries%2F> > > -- > ORIE STEELE > Chief Technical Officer > www.transmute.industries > > <https://www.transmute.industries/>
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
