Document: draft-ietf-cose-dilithium Title: ML-DSA for JOSE and COSE Reviewer: Peter Yee Review result: Has Issues
Reviewer: Peter Yee Review result: Has Issues I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Summary: This document adds IANA registrations and support for the ML-DSA algorithm to both JOSE and COSE. It’s mostly straightforward material with reasonable pointers into FIPS 204, but it has a couple of areas I’d like to see explained better and a few harmless nits that could be fixed. The summary of the review is Has Issues. Major issues: None Minor issues: Page 8, section 7.1: I don’t see how this is really a security consideration. It’s an operational consideration to be sure. Page 8, section 7.2: Is this meant to intimate that HashML-DSA is not desirable? Or that you’ve merely declined to specify such algorithms? I’m not sure the sentence adds much as FIPS 204 already says, “…the digest that is signed needs to be generated using an approved hash function or XOF (e.g., from FIPS 180 [8] or FIPS 202 [7]) that provides at least 𝜆 bits of classical security strength against both collision and second preimage attacks”. Page 8, section 7.3, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: What does “validated” mean here? Looking at FIPS 204, Algorithms 22 and 23 (pkEncode and pkDecode) are format translators. I don’t see mention of validation, and neither algorithm returns a status as part of the specified steps. If you mean that the inputs are within the ranges given for the inputs, then say that. Nits: Page 4, Figure 1 caption: change “all zeroes” to “all-zeroes”. Same for Figure 2. Page 8, section 7, 1st paragraph: Append a comma after “[RFC7517]”. Page 8, section 7.3, 1st paragraph: change “algorithm related” to “algorithm-related”. Page 9, section 8.1.1, 2nd sentence: Change “RFC9053” to “RFC 9053” and “RFC9054” to “RFC 9054”. See RFC 7322, section 3.5. Page 10, section 8.1.2, 2nd sentence: Change “RFC9053” to “RFC 9053”. Page 10, section 8.1.3, 2nd sentence: Change “RFC9053” to “RFC 9053”. Page 11, section 8.1.4, 2nd sentence: Change “RFC7518” to “RFC 7518”. Page 12, section 8.1.5, 2nd sentence: Change “RFC7518 RFC7638” to “RFC 7518 and RFC 7638”. Page 13, section 8.1.6, 2nd sentence: Change “RFC7517” to “RFC 7517” and “RFC7638” to “RFC 7638. Elide the comma. Page 15: the text version of the document has really confused page numbers in the Appendix. I’m not sure there’s much to be done for that, but it makes for an odd table of contents that makes one think the examples are a page each and the document in total is 17 pages. In text format, it really takes up 50 “printed” pages. I have not made any attempt to review Appendix A as I lack the ready capability to do so. _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- cose@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to cose-le...@ietf.org
