FYI, I replied to this on the COSE mailing list.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: jose [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 3:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [jose] draft-jones-cose-rsa
Comments:
0. Should this be done in curdle rather than as AD sponsored?
1. As per previous mail, remove values assignments in tables 1, 2, and 3
unless you have cleared them with the appropriate registry experts. I am less
worried about table 4 but you should clear that as well.
2. Kill RSAES-OAP w/ SHA-1. We are not doing SHA-1 currently with any of the
CBOR algorithms. In section 3.1.1.1 - what are the properties that are needed
here for SHA-1 so we can ensure that the statement is true. Also, rename this
to be s/ SHA-1 not w/ Default. There are no defaults for COSE.
3. Text in 3.1.1.1 and 2.1.1 should be more consistent in how it is written.
4. in the abstract be more specific about which RSA algorithms are being
supported. For example, you are not doing 1.5 or KEM.
5. Why does 3.1.1.1 have a size and 2.1.1 not have one. This should be
consistent.
6. section 3.1.1.1 should be encryption operation not decryption operation.
7. Section 3.1.1.1 - this text does not make sense "One potential denial of
service
operation is to provide encrypted objects using either abnormally
long or oddly sized RSA modulus values." Should probably refer to keys
not encrypted objects.
8. There is a requirement of minimum encoding lengths - what purpose does this
serve? Is there a security problem here or is it just a nice to have because
of message size?
9. Missing some security considerations.
10 Section 2.1.1 s/hash functions are not truncated/hash function outputs are
not truncated/
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
