On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 07:25:48AM -0500, Orie Steele wrote:
> 
> HPKE should work without creating new key types for dh kems, and
> should work with existing APIs that currently generate keys and
> envelopes based on alg.

The first part works, and I have written an implementation.

The second part has _never_ worked in either JOSE nor COSE. I believe
the current record is 5 different key subtypes for one alg (for both
COSE and JOSE)!


> A single equality check should confirm if the suite is acceptable to
> the recipient, if they have a restricted key.

And what about check if suite is acceptable for _sender_?

I think that barring a major flaw in HPKE, there is no need for
recipient to ever have a restricted key. Interop is separate matter,
and there can be many different supported combinations.


> The size and expression of the alg value, should be debated, but
> following the conventions and fully specifying HPKE with alg, should
> be resolved first.

The convetion in COSE is to _not_ have ciphersuites. The some stuff
that looks a bit like ciphersuites is just size optimizations.


> COSE HPKE will need to update registries, so let's make the minimal
> updates necessary to support what the industries wants to use.

I think the minimum number of registry changes possible is 3.

- A new alg
- A new header parameter
- A new key type or a reserved crv range.


> We don't need to create new key types.

It is much cleaner to create a new key type than to reserve a crv
range. How is HPKE KEM 48 represented in _systematic_ manner? 


> We don't need to expose a new way to parameterize alg.

Doing so saves a lot of work.


> If we don't know which alg values for COSE HPKE need to be registered,
> we can wait till people show up who do.

What we do know is that it is either going to be a long list among time
or 1 up-front.


> A simple RFC that follows conventions doesn't take long to update the
> registry.

It is still unnecressary work.




-Ilari

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

Reply via email to