I'm a -1 to needing to register a new alg for every existing registered alg
when used with counter signatures... specifically:

- SCITT-CCF-ES256
- SCITT-CCF-EdDSA
- SCITT-CCF-ES384
- SCITT-CCF-FANCY_NEW_PQC_1
- SCITT-CCF-FANCY_NEW_PQC_2
- SCITT-CCF-FANCY_NEW_PQC_3

Can we move the "application specific" component of the "alg" value to a
separate field?

Example:

alg: ES256                        // support existing alg values with no
changes
cty: 'application/scitt-ccf'   // signal the content type

?

Regards,

OS

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 7:44 AM Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote:

> If I understand this proposal correctly, a value for SCITT-CCF-ES256 would
> be added to the IANA-maintained COSE Algorithms registry.  Right now, all
> of the entries are for cryptographic algorithms.  I'd like to hear what the
> Designated Experts think about using the registry to identify an
> application-specific structure in addition to the cryptographic algorithm.
>
> Russ
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2022, at 8:00 AM, Maik Riechert <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In the SCITT community call yesterday we had a discussion on receipts (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-birkholz-scitt-receipts-01)
> and whether they should be represented as standard COSE V2
> countersignatures (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-countersign).
>
> The current receipt format’s CDDL is as follows:
>
> [
>   service_id: tstr
>   contents: any
> ]
>
> where `contents` depends on the “tree” algorithm (with the requirement
> that it has to contain a protected header somewhere in it) identified via
> parameters associated to the service_id. Currently there is only a single
> tree algorithm (based on a CCF ledger implementation) where the CDDL is as
> follows:
>
> [
>     signature: bstr
>     node_certificate: bstr
>     inclusion_proof: [+ ProofElement]
>     leaf_info: [
>      internal_hash: bstr
>      internal_data: bstr
>      protected: bstr .cbor {
>        issuedAt: uint
>      }
>     ]
>   ]
>
> In order to support more schemes around key discovery (e.g., DID), it
> makes sense to move the protected header to the front and make it part of
> the common top-level structure:
>
> [
>   protected: bstr .cbor {
>       service_id: tstr
>       issuedAt: uint
>   },
>   contents: any
> ]
>
> The new `contents` would then look like this:
>
> [
>     signature: bstr
>     node_certificate: bstr
>     inclusion_proof: [+ ProofElement]
>     leaf_info: [
>      internal_hash: bstr
>      internal_data: bstr
>     ]
> ]
>
> If you then squint a bit more, you can re-imagine this as a COSE V2
> countersignature:
>
> [
>   protected: bstr .cbor {
>       alg: tstr
>       service_id: tstr
>       issuedAt: uint
>   },
>   unprotected: { * label => values }
>  signature: bstr
> ]
>
> For the CCF tree algorithm, this would equate to `alg` being a new
> identifier (e.g., “SCITT-CCF-ES256”) and the signature being the `contents`
> structure wrapped as bstr.
>
> Russ raised concerns that carrying all of the additional bits in the
> signature bytes may be hard to justify when it comes to registration of the
> new signature algorithm in COSE’s IANA registry. There seems to be
> precedent though, for example
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8778 where for Leighton-Micali
> the signature value (see 2.2) is a structure containing a leaf number, an
> LM-OTS signature, a type code indicating a subalgorithm, and a tree path
> from leaf to root.
>
> We discussed two alternatives: 1. Keeping it a separate format specific to
> SCITT. 2. Establishing receipts as new COSE message type, though this may
> be more challenging.
>
> Any discussions and opinions on this topic are highly appreciated.
>
> Maik
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
>


-- 
*ORIE STEELE*
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries

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

Reply via email to