Subject: [COSE] Agenda proposal

From: "Kepeng Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 23:35:42 +0800

Hi all,

Here is a proposal for the agenda of the upcoming meeting:

* Opening & Welcome - 5 min (Sean)

* ACE Object Security - 10 min (Goran)
 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-selander-ace-object-security-04

* Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE – 10 min (Goran)
 — https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe/

* COSE Additional Algorithms - 20 min (Jim)
 — https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schaad-cose-alg/

* CBOR Encoded Message Syntax - 40 min (Jim)
 — https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-msg/

* Wrap-up - 5 min (Sean)

Note that we arrange our WG draft as the last one, which means editor can
get all the remaining time to go through the open issues.

Also note that Sean Turner will be the acting chair during the meeting.
Justin and I will dial in remotely.

The latest version can be found at:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/agenda/agenda-95-cose

Kind Regards
Kepeng & Justin, your COSE chairs

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 21:34:39 +0200

Hi Kepeng,

the working group document needs to be the first item on the agenda.

I don't think that the ACE Object Security belong to this group and I
hate to hear the same presentation given in multiple groups. We had
discussions in the ACE working group about the best working group where
this work should be done and the decision was to do it in CORE. Hence,
we should not have presentations about it in other groups and I was
actually hoping that Goeran would re-submit the draft with the correct
file name so that the working group can be identified correctly.

Ciao
Hannes

On 03/27/2016 05:35 PM, Kepeng Li wrote:
> Note that we arrange our WG draft as the last one, which means editor
> can get all the remaining time to go through the open issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
>

---

From: Ilari Liusvaara <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 23:27:45 +0300

>  — https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schaad-cose-alg/

I read this doc, and it seems like this document mixes up Curve25519
(X25519) and Ed25519 keys. Problem is that Curve25519 public key
for some private key does not equal Ed25519 public key for the same
private key... The same also applies to Curve448 vs. Ed448.

E.g.:

Private key:

77076d0a7318a57d3c16c17251b26645df4c2f87ebc0992ab177fba51db92c2a

Curve25519 public key:

8520f0098930a754748b7ddcb43ef75a0dbf3a0d26381af4eba4a98eaa9b4e6a

Ed25519 public key:

d0a4cec0f8b50ba1e936ec5615454aa97dfb27864f5f17608af2cbb10548f1b3

(Those two public keys can't even be interconverted).

-Ilari

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 18:58:47 -0700

I missed that when I was racing through the write-up on this.  I will go back and repair.

Thanks for finding this.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: COSE [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ilari Liusvaara
> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 1:28 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [COSE] draft-schaad-cose-alg Curve25519 vs. Ed25519 (Re: Agenda
> proposal)
> 
> > * COSE Additional Algorithms - 20 min (Jim)  —
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schaad-cose-alg/
> 
> (X25519) and Ed25519 keys. Problem is that Curve25519 public key for some
> private key does not equal Ed25519 public key for the same private key... The
> same also applies to Curve448 vs. Ed448.
> 
> 
> E.g.:
> 
> Private key:
>

---

From: Göran Selander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:48:11 +0000

Hi Hannes,

Since the inception of the COSE WG there has been a discussion on how to
encapsulate CoAP messages with COSE. Some of the COSE formats are a result
of this. I asked for a short slot in COSE to wrap up this discussion.

The purpose of asking for slots in COSE and CoRE for object security was
to split the contents of the draft into its respective WG, to avoid e.g.
speak about location of the algorithm in the COSE object in the CoRE WG,
and to avoid talk about features of CoAP options in the COSE WG.

As for in what working group object security of CoAP is best located it
has been stated a few times that different aspects belong to different
WGs. Some parts of the draft require CoAP competence to review while other
parts which require security competence. I agree it would be good to make
a decision here, but until that is done I did not see any reason to make a
change.

Göran