draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-00.txt   draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-01.txt 
COSE Working Group J. Schaad COSE Working Group J. Schaad
Internet-Draft August Cellars Internet-Draft August Cellars
Obsoletes: 8152 (if approved) January 21, 2019 Obsoletes: 8152 (if approved) February 14, 2019
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: July 25, 2019 Expires: August 18, 2019
CBOR Algorithms for Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) CBOR Algorithms for Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-00 draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-01
Abstract Abstract
Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format designed Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format designed
for small code size and small message size. There is a need for the for small code size and small message size. There is a need for the
ability to have basic security services defined for this data format. ability to have basic security services defined for this data format.
This document defines the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) This document defines the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
protocol. This specification describes how to create and process protocol. This specification describes how to create and process
signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption using CBOR signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption using CBOR
for serialization. COSE additionally describes how to represent for serialization. COSE additionally describes how to represent
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 25, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Changes from RFC8152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. CBOR Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. CBOR Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Signature Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Signature Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. ECDSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. ECDSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithms (EdDSAs) . . . 7 2.2. Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithms (EdDSAs) . . . 7
2.2.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Message Authentication Code (MAC) Algorithms . . . . . . . . 8 3. Message Authentication Code (MAC) Algorithms . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Hash-Based Message Authentication Codes (HMACs) . . . . . 8 3.1. Hash-Based Message Authentication Codes (HMACs) . . . . . 8
3.1.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. AES Message Authentication Code (AES-CBC-MAC) . . . . . . 10 3.2. AES Message Authentication Code (AES-CBC-MAC) . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Content Encryption Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Content Encryption Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. AES GCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. AES GCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. AES CCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2. AES CCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. ChaCha20 and Poly1305 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3. ChaCha20 and Poly1305 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Key Derivation Functions (KDFs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. Key Derivation Functions (KDFs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
skipping to change at page 4, line 13 skipping to change at page 4, line 15
beyond what are in this document are defined elsewhere. beyond what are in this document are defined elsewhere.
1.1. Requirements Terminology 1.1. Requirements Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Document Terminology 1.2. Changes from RFC8152
TBD
1.3. Document Terminology
In this document, we use the following terminology: In this document, we use the following terminology:
Byte is a synonym for octet. Byte is a synonym for octet.
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a specialized web transfer Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a specialized web transfer
protocol for use in constrained systems. It is defined in [RFC7252]. protocol for use in constrained systems. It is defined in [RFC7252].
Authenticated Encryption (AE) [RFC5116] algorithms are those Authenticated Encryption (AE) [RFC5116] algorithms are those
encryption algorithms that provide an authentication check of the encryption algorithms that provide an authentication check of the
plain text contents as part of the encryption service. plain text contents as part of the encryption service.
Authenticated Encryption with Authenticated Data (AEAD) [RFC5116] Authenticated Encryption with Authenticated Data (AEAD) [RFC5116]
algorithms provide the same content authentication service as AE algorithms provide the same content authentication service as AE
algorithms, but they additionally provide for authentication of non- algorithms, but they additionally provide for authentication of non-
encrypted data as well. encrypted data as well.
1.3. CBOR Grammar 1.4. CBOR Grammar
At the time that [RFC8152] was initially published, the CBOR Data At the time that [RFC8152] was initially published, the CBOR Data
Definition Language (CDDL) [I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl] had not yet been Definition Language (CDDL) [I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl] had not yet been
published. This document uses a variant of CDDL which is described published. This document uses a variant of CDDL which is described
in [I-D.schaad-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] in [I-D.schaad-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]
2. Signature Algorithms 2. Signature Algorithms
The document defines signature algorithm identifiers for two The document defines signature algorithm identifiers for two
signature algorithms. signature algorithms.
skipping to change at page 42, line 23 skipping to change at page 42, line 23
[SEC1] Certicom Research, "SEC 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography", [SEC1] Certicom Research, "SEC 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography",
Standards for Efficient Cryptography, Version 2.0, May Standards for Efficient Cryptography, Version 2.0, May
2009, <http://www.secg.org/sec1-v2.pdf>. 2009, <http://www.secg.org/sec1-v2.pdf>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl] [I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl]
Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise data Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise data
definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to
express CBOR and JSON data structures", draft-ietf-cbor- express CBOR and JSON data structures", draft-ietf-cbor-
cddl-06 (work in progress), November 2018. cddl-07 (work in progress), February 2019.
[RFC4231] Nystrom, M., "Identifiers and Test Vectors for HMAC-SHA- [RFC4231] Nystrom, M., "Identifiers and Test Vectors for HMAC-SHA-
224, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512", 224, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512",
RFC 4231, DOI 10.17487/RFC4231, December 2005, RFC 4231, DOI 10.17487/RFC4231, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4231>.
[RFC4493] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., Lee, J., and T. Iwata, "The [RFC4493] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., Lee, J., and T. Iwata, "The
AES-CMAC Algorithm", RFC 4493, DOI 10.17487/RFC4493, June AES-CMAC Algorithm", RFC 4493, DOI 10.17487/RFC4493, June
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4493>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4493>.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 16 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/