Use of the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Algorithm with X25519 and X448 in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
draft-ietf-curdle-cms-ecdh-new-curves-10

[Ballot comment]
This citation does not appear to be used anywhere in the document, and RFC 5480 is not mentioned (at least, not by number):

  [PKIXECC]  Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk,
              "Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key
              Information", RFC 5480, March 2009.

[Ballot comment]


This citation does not appear to be used anywhere in the document, and RFC 5480 is not mentioned (at least, not by number):

  [PKIXECC]  Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk,
              "Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key
              Information", RFC 5480, March 2009.

[Ballot comment]
One purely editorial comment: I much prefer the use of the RFC numbers as reference keys, however, I know that this style is possible as well and I also don't know if there are any recommendations by the RFC editor for this. However, I can say that the other style (use of [RFCXXX]) is more common.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-curdle-cms-ecdh-new-curves-07.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) subregistry of the SMI Security Codes registry on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

A new entry is to be added as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: id-mod-cms-ecdh-alg-2017
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Algorithms (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.3) subregistry of the SMI Security Codes registry on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

three new entries are to be added as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: dhSinglePass-stdDH-hkdf-sha256-scheme
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: dhSinglePass-stdDH-hkdf-sha384-scheme
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: dhSinglePass-stdDH-hkdf-sha512-scheme
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.
Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-curdle-cms-ecdh-new-curves@ietf.org, ekr@rtfm.com, Daniel Migault , curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Algorithm with X25519 and X448 in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the CURves, Deprecating and a Little
more Encryption WG (curdle) to consider the following document:
- 'Use of the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Algorithm with
  X25519 and X448 in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-05-28. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes the conventions for using Elliptic Curve
  Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) key agreement algorithm using curve25519 and
  curve448 in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-cms-ecdh-new-curves/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-cms-ecdh-new-curves/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The intended status is Standards Track. This is the appropriated status as
it defines new code points, structures as well as behaviors necessary for inter operability. 
The status is indicated in the header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

This document describes the conventions for using Elliptic Curve
  Diffie-Hellamn (ECDH) key agreement algorithm using curve25519 and
  curve448 in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS).
Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

The document had two reviews on the mailing list (including Jim Schaad). The author
mentions in its acknowledgment feed backs from Stefan Santesson, Sean Turner.
There is significant confidence the document is mature and ready to be sent to the IESG. 
None object the the draft and only nits have been raised.   

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

Jim Schaad provides a sorrow review of the draft.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Eric Rescola is the Security Area AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the draft carefully and did not find
anything other than nits.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Russ Housley confirmed he is not aware of any IPR. 

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

None object. Few individuals have been leading that work 9Russ and Jim), we are confident
the work is properly done, and none raised any issue or comment against it.
By design, there is hardly anything that could be opposed to introducing new
recommended cryptography. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 118
  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 119
  == Unused Reference: 'PKIXALG' is defined on line 530, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text
  == Unused Reference: 'PKIXECC' is defined on line 535, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5911 (ref.
    'CMSASN1')
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5753 (ref.
    'CMSECC')
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7748 (ref.
    'CURVES')
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5869 (ref.
    'HKDF')
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ID.curdle-pkix'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SEC1'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'X680'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'X690'

Warnings correspond to the ASN1 synthax. 
116       ECC-CMS-SharedInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
117         keyInfo        AlgorithmIdentifier,
118         entityUInfo [0] EXPLICIT OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
119         suppPubInfo [2] EXPLICIT OCTET STRING  }

530   [PKIXALG]  Bassham, L., Polk, W., and R. Housley, "Algorithms and
531               Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public Key
532               Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
533               (CRL) Profile", RFC 3279, April 2002.
It is not mentioned in the text and will be removed.

PKIXECC is the reference for RFC 5480
535   [PKIXECC]  Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk,
536               "Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key
537               Information", RFC 5480, March 2009.
It is not mentioned in the text and will be removed.

The following references are informational.
* [CMSASN1]  Hoffman, P., and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and S/MIME", RFC 5911, June 2010.
* [CMSECC]  Turner, S., and D. Brown, "Use of Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Algorithms in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)",  RFC 5753, January 2010.
* [CURVES]  Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves for Security", RFC 7748, January 2016.
* [HKDF]    Krawczyk, H., and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and- Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, May 2010.

The Downref is justified by RFC3967 as it falls into the following case:
  o  A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol or
      algorithm developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or
      profiled by an IETF informational RFC.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document contains ASN1 description. ASN1 has been reviewed by Jim Schaad.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

see question 11.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The IANA section contains assignment to Structure of Management
Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) [1].  The description
is provided in RFC7107. The current draft updates:
    1) S/MIME Module Identifiers (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) registry [2]
    2) SMI Security for S/MIME Algorithms (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.3) registry [3]

In both cases, expert review is needed. Experts are Jim Schaad and Russ Housley
and the registration procedure is Specification Required, which is achieved by
this draft according to rfc5226

[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml
[2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#security-smime-0
[3] http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#security-smime-3

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

See above, the only expert outside the author is Jim Schaad.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None .