Subject: [COSE] IETF 113 COSE Agenda

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 01:25:28 +0000

Uploaded at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/agenda-113-cose-00:

CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)

Opening remarks by the chairs - Mike Jones - 5 minutes
Status of advancing the COSE bis documents to standards - Ivaylo Petrov - 10 minutes
draft-ietf-cose-hpke - Hannes Tschofenig - 10 minutes
draft-looker-cose-bls-key-representations - Mike Jones - 7.5 minutes
draft-looker-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers - Mike Jones - 7.5 minutes
draft-prorock-cose-post-quantum-signatures - Mike Prorock - 10 minutes
draft-selander-cose-kid-int - Göran Selander - 10 minutes

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 08:00:26 +0000

I've uploaded a new agenda with presentation timeslots explicitly listed.  Note that because our one hour's agenda is packed, I will be strict about requiring that presenters stay within their allocated timeslot.

Looking forward to seeing you this afternoon!

                                                       -- Mike

1:00-1:05 Opening remarks by the chairs - Mike Jones
1:05-1:15 Status of advancing the COSE bis documents to standards - Ivaylo Petrov
1:15-1:25 draft-ietf-cose-hpke - Hannes Tschofenig
1:25-1:32 draft-looker-cose-bls-key-representations - Mike Jones
1:32-1:40 draft-looker-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers - Mike Jones
1:40-1:50 draft-prorock-cose-post-quantum-signatures - Mike Prorock
1:50-2:00 draft-selander-cose-kid-int - Göran Selander

From: Mike Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 2:25 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: IETF 113 COSE Agenda

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 08:32:21 +0000

Thanks!

From: COSE <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 9:00 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [COSE] IETF 113 COSE Agenda

                                                       -- Mike

From: Mike Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 2:25 AM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: IETF 113 COSE Agenda

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:26:52 +0100

(FYI:
I have a full-time conflict with SEDATE, where I’m supposed to lead the discussion for 50 of the 60 minutes.
My apologies.)

Grüße, Carsten

> On 2022-03-15, at 02:25, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Opening remarks by the chairs – Mike Jones – 5 minutes
> Status of advancing the COSE bis documents to standards – Ivaylo Petrov – 10 minutes
> draft-ietf-cose-hpke – Hannes Tschofenig – 10 minutes
> draft-looker-cose-bls-key-representations – Mike Jones – 7.5 minutes
> draft-looker-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers – Mike Jones – 7.5 minutes
> draft-prorock-cose-post-quantum-signatures – Mike Prorock – 10 minutes
> draft-selander-cose-kid-int – Göran Selander – 10 minutes
>  
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

---

From: "Sipos, Brian J." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 10:36:35 +0000

All,

I’m not able to attend the COSE time slot at this IETF but I would like to
bring up the X509 issue [1] that I noticed while using a similar typed-hash
structure for a different purpose. This is not just an editorial issue; it
does affect how a receiver is supposed to process algorithm identifier (when
it is a text string) by defining what it is supposed to compare with for
hash algorithm registrations.

Apologize for the scheduling and thanks for any feedback,

Brian S.

[1] https://github.com/cose-wg/X509/issues/46

From: COSE <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 4:00 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [EXT] Re: [COSE] IETF 113 COSE Agenda

APL external email warning: Verify sender [email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>  before clicking links or attachments

I’ve uploaded a new agenda with presentation timeslots explicitly listed.
Note that because our one hour’s agenda is packed, I will be strict about
requiring that presenters stay within their allocated timeslot.

                                                       -- Mike

1:00-1:05 Opening remarks by the chairs – Mike Jones

1:05-1:15 Status of advancing the COSE bis documents to standards – Ivaylo
Petrov

1:15-1:25 draft-ietf-cose-hpke – Hannes Tschofenig

1:25-1:32 draft-looker-cose-bls-key-representations – Mike Jones

1:32-1:40 draft-looker-cose-cwt-claims-in-headers – Mike Jones

1:40-1:50 draft-prorock-cose-post-quantum-signatures – Mike Prorock

1:50-2:00 draft-selander-cose-kid-int – Göran Selander

From: Mike Jones 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 2:25 AM
To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
Subject: IETF 113 COSE Agenda

Uploaded at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/agenda-113-cose-00:

Status of advancing the COSE bis documents to standards – Ivaylo Petrov – 10
minutes

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:49:29 +0100

> On 2022-03-21, at 11:36, Sipos, Brian J. <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> All,
> I’m not able to attend the COSE time slot at this IETF but I would like to bring up the X509 issue [1] that I noticed while using a similar typed-hash structure for a different purpose. This is not just an editorial issue; it does affect how a receiver is supposed to process algorithm identifier (when it is a text string) by defining what it is supposed to compare with for hash algorithm registrations.

RFC 8152 defines the Algorithms registry:

   Name:  A value that can be used to identify an algorithm in documents
      for easier comprehension.  The name SHOULD be unique.  However,
      the 'Value' field is what is used to identify the algorithm, not
      the 'name' field.

   Value:  The value to be used to identify this algorithm.  Algorithm
      values MUST be unique.  The value can be a positive integer, a
      negative integer, or a string.  Integer values between -256 and
      255 and strings of length 1 are designated as "Standards Action".
      Integer values from -65536 to 65535 and strings of length 2 are
      designated as "Specification Required".  Integer values greater
      than 65535 and strings of length greater than 2 are designated as
      "Expert Review".  Integer values less than -65536 are marked as
      private use.

So the “Value” can be a text string (RFC 8152 fails to say “text”, but that should be obvious).  That text string can be used in a protocol.  The Name cannot.

No current registry entries do define a text string for “Value”; they are all integers.  Defining a text string here is probably going to impede interoperability, so I would not recommend that outside of defined environments and experiments.

Grüße, Carsten