Hello. I understand, you are interested in implementations based on RFC 9338.
Due to the way Group OSCORE uses countersignatures, the way things are done in the implementations could still be relevant for specific scenarios (depending on what is signed). This is because Group OSCORE is producing a countersignature for a COSE_Encrypt0 object and only the actual bytes of the signature is sent (not an actual COSE object). So from my understanding the changes in RFC 9338 would practically not affect how countersigning is to be done in Group OSCORE. Best Rikard Höglund RISE ________________________________ From: AJITOMI Daisuke <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 13:17 To: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> Cc: Rikard Höglund <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [COSE] Any reference implementation? (Fwd: STD 96, RFC 9338 on CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Countersignatures) You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Sorry. I made a mistake; I meant to say RFC 9338. -- Daisuke 2023年1月19日(木) 21:02 Carsten Bormann <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: On 2023-01-19, at 12:47, AJITOMI Daisuke <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > But it seems to me that they are all based on the old specification > (RFC8152). I am looking for an implementation that conforms to the new one > (RFC9052). Just in case people reading this misunderstand the role of RFC 9052: RFC 9052 (and the other RFCs in STD96) do not create a new format, they just present the format defined in RFC 8152 in an improved way. Of course, the one exception is RFC 9338 (countersignatures); this is indeed a new take on countersignatures (countersignatures V2) relative to RFC 8152. Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
