On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 01:12:28AM +0000, Michael Jones wrote:
> I've published
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-jones-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-01.html,
> which renames the EdDSA algorithm identifiers by popular acclaim!
> It adds acknowledgements for new contributors. And it adds a "To
> Do" note about key representations.
What does "key representations" mean exactly? What are the acccepted
keys in COSE_Key and JWK formats (AFAIK, neither COSE or JOSE require
using their key formats)?
If so, the list seems to be:
- ESP256 ("ES256" in JOSE):
* JWK with kty="EC", crv="P-256".
* COSE_Key with kty=2, crv=1
- ESP384 ("ES384" in JOSE):
* JWK with kty="EC", crv="P-384".
* COSE_Key with kty=2, crv=2
- ESP512 ("ES384" in JOSE):
* JWK with kty="EC", crv="P-521".
* COSE_Key with kty=2, crv=3
- Ed25519:
* JWK with kty="OKP", crv="Ed25519"
* COSE_Key with kty=1, crv=6
- Ed448:
* JWK with kty="OKP", crv="Ed448"
* COSE_Key with kty=1, crv=7
Then I think the prohibition of polymorphic algorithms should be scoped
on signatures. Perhaps it is intended that things like ECDH-ES are not
polymorphic, but this is not clear.
Fully specifying signatures is both easy to do (as evidenced by this
draft) and easy to maintain (due to COSE/JOSE having signature
framework, and things not being prone to combinatorial explosions).
Also, in JOSE, signatures were originally fully specified.
In contrast, fully specifying asymmetric encryption is much more
messy affair: There are no frameworks and things tend to combinatorially
explode. Also, in JOSE asymmetric encryption was not even originally
fully specified.
-Ilari
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
