Use of the Walnut Digital Signature Algorithm with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2021-05-20
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-05-03
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2021-03-08
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2021-03-08
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA |
2021-03-08
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2021-03-08
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2021-03-04
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2021-03-04
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold |
2021-03-03
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT |
2021-02-16
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
2021-02-16
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2021-02-16
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2021-02-16
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | ISE state changed to Sent to the RFC Editor from In IESG Review |
2021-02-16
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Sent request for publication to the RFC Editor |
2021-02-16
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Tag IESG Review Completed set. |
2021-01-26
|
07 | Derek Atkins | New version available: draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa-07.txt |
2021-01-26
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-01-26
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Derek Atkins |
2021-01-26
|
07 | Derek Atkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-11-17
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-11-17
|
06 | Derek Atkins | New version available: draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa-06.txt |
2020-11-17
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-11-17
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Derek Atkins |
2020-11-17
|
06 | Derek Atkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-08-31
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Changed document external resources from: ['mailing_list_archive https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/jGlcQAYdKaiW7xbmrN36bcqeqm0/ (IPR poll)'] to: |
2020-08-31
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Changed document external resources from: [] to: mailing_list_archive https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/jGlcQAYdKaiW7xbmrN36bcqeqm0/ (IPR poll) |
2020-08-12
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK |
2020-08-12
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-08-12
|
05 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/ISE: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us … (Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/ISE: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. We understand that when this document is sent to us for processing, we will perform three registry actions. First, we'll add the following entry to the COSE Algorithms registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose: Name: WalnutDSA Value: TBD1 (the first available number before ES2556K, -48, per the reviewer) Description: WalnutDSA signature Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor) Recommended: No Second, we'll add the following entry to the COSE Key Types registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose: Name: WalnutDSA Value: TBD2 (next available value, per reviewer) Description: WalnutDSA public key Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor) Third, we'll add the following entries to the COSE Algorithms registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose: Key Type: TBD2 (Value assigned by IANA above) Name: N Label: TBD (NOTE: because the key type is being registered by this document, it appears that this document could assign label values) CBOR Type: uint Description: Group and Matrix (NxN) size Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor) Key Type: TBD2 (Value assigned by IANA above) Name: q Label: TBD (Value to be assigned by IANA) CBOR Type: uint Description: Finite field F_q Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor) Key Type: TBD2 (Value assigned by IANA above) Name: t-values Label: TBD (Value to be assigned by IANA) CBOR Type: array (of uint) Description: List of T-values, enties in F_q Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor) Key Type: TBD2 (Value assigned by IANA above) Name: matrix 1 Label: TBD (Value to be assigned by IANA) CBOR Type: array (of array of uint) Description: NxN Matrix of enties in F_q Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor) Key Type: TBD2 (Value assigned by IANA above) Name: permutation 1 Label: TBD (Value to be assigned by IANA) CBOR Type: array (of uint) Description: Permutation associated with matrix 1 Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor) Key Type: TBD2 (Value assigned by IANA above) Name: matrix 2 Label: TBD (Value to be assigned by IANA) CBOR Type: array (of array of uint) Description: NxN Matrix of enties in F_q Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor) The registrations have been approved by the IESG-designated expert and will be made when the document is sent to us for processing. Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist |
2020-08-07
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa has been presented for publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Submissions Stream. The document presents a way to use the Walnut Digital … draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa has been presented for publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Submissions Stream. The document presents a way to use the Walnut Digital Signature Algorithm within the COSE syntax. The document makes it very clear that Walnut has not been endorsed by the IETF, and contains (section 5.2) an explanation of the security considerations specific to Walnut. Further, the document observes that earlier cryptanalysis identified potential issues that have the authors believe have been addressed in more recent versions of Walnut (this is not to say that the algorithm would now pass cryptanalysis review, but does say that issues found earlier have resulted in improvements to the algorithm). The document also advises users to make their own judgment about the risks involved. There has been considerable discussion about this document. I solicited comments from the Designated Experts for the COSE registries, from the CFRG, and from targetted reviewers. Several commentators were fairly hostile and pointed to security failings of Walnut and the fact that NIST had declined to accept Walnut as suitable. The author observed that these issues were in the past as changes had been made to Walnut. We specifically strengthened the text in Section 5.2 to highlight the concerns and indicate what had been done to resolve many of the issues. Two main concerns were raised by reviewers: 1. "Publishing this will open the doors to many more similar publications." This is a possible outcome, but it seems unlikely that there will be "many" additional documents presented for publication. We certainly haven't seen any others come forward during the year that this document has been with the ISE. If this event does arise, the ISE will clearly have to deal with it. 2. "[publishing this sends] a very confusing signal to implementers if other RFCs describing crypto that aims to be quantum resistant (or protocols using such) are emitted ahead of those [NIST-approved algorithms]." This document (in the opinion of the ISE) makes it clear that WalnutDSA has not been endorsed by the IETF (but the ISE would be happy to receive suggestions for even more rigorous text). The document also includes caveats and a pointer to discussions of concerns with the algorithm (section 5.2) as well as mitigation for those concerns. However, if the IESG believes that publication should be held until after one or more specific drafts have made it to RFC, this is an acceptable response per RFC 5742. Nevertheless, this document is not about Walnut, but about how Walnut might be used. It is assumed that users will be aware of the security analysis (that is referenced) and will take seriously the call for them to exercise their own judgement. They will weigh their security concerns against any perceived benefits to using Walnut. It has also been noted that an RFC is not necessary for codepoint assignment from the relevant COSE registries. Some are "Expert Review" and others "Specification Required" and there is a belied in some quarters that an Internet-Draft is adequate documentation for both cases. Nevertheless, the author believes that a more stable and permanent reference is provided by the publication of an RFC and that that will be helpful to people trying to understand the use of the codepoints. In the end, and considering the specific caveats and pointers added to the document, the ISE considers that publication would not be detrimental. The document clearly fits within the criteria for publication within Independent Stream. The DEs have been consulted about this final version of the document and have reported no concerns within the specific constraints of their roll. Note that the document contains a Trade Mark statement. The author and the holder of the Trade Marks is aware of the terms of the TLP wrt use of the marks. |
2020-08-03
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | ISE state changed to In IESG Review from In ISE Review |
2020-08-03
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | IETF conflict review initiated - see conflict-review-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa |
2020-08-03
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa has been presented for publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Submissions Stream. The document presents a way to use the Walnut Digital … draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa has been presented for publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Submissions Stream. The document presents a way to use the Walnut Digital Signature Algorithm within the COSE syntax. The document makes it very clear that Walnut has not been endorsed by the IETF, and contains (section 5.2) an explanation of the security considerations specific to Walnut. Further, the document observes that earlier cryptanalysis identified potential issues that have been addressed in more recent versions of Walnut. The document also advises users to make their own judgment about the risks involved. There has been considerable discussion about this document. I solicited comments from the Designated Experts for the COSE registries, from the CFRG, and from targetted reviewers. Several commentators were fairly hostile and pointed to security failings of Walnut and the fact that NIST had declined to accept Walnut as suitable. The author observed that these issues were in the past as changes had been made to Walnut. We specifically strengthened the text in Section 5.2 to highlight the concerns and indicate what had been done to resolve many of the issues. Nevertheless, this document is not about Walnut, but about how Walnut might be used. It is assumed that users will be aware of the security analysis (that is referenced) and will take seriously the call for them to exercise their own judgement. They will weigh their security concerns against any perceived benefits to using Walnut. It has also been noted that an RFC is not necessary for codepoint assignment from the relevant COSE registries. Some are "Expert Review" and others "Specification Required" and there is a belied in some quarters that an Internet-Draft is adequate documentation for both cases. Nevertheless, the author believes that a more stable and permanent reference is provided by the publication of an RFC and that that will be helpful to people trying to understand the use of the codepoints. In the end, and considering the specific caveats and pointers added to the document, the ISE considers that, in the words of one of the reviewers who sits on the IAB, "publication would not be detrimental". The document clearly fits within the criteria for publication within Independent Stream. The DEs have been consulted about this final version of the document and have reported no concerns within the specific constraints of their roll. Note that the document contains a Trade Mark statement. The author and the holder of the Trade Marks is aware of the terms of the TLP wrt use of the marks. |
2020-07-27
|
05 | (System) | Revised ID Needed tag cleared |
2020-07-27
|
05 | Derek Atkins | New version available: draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa-05.txt |
2020-07-27
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-07-27
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Derek Atkins |
2020-07-27
|
05 | Derek Atkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-20
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Tag Revised I-D Needed set. |
2020-07-14
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa has been presented for publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Submissions Stream. The document presents a way to use the Walnut Digital … draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa has been presented for publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Submissions Stream. The document presents a way to use the Walnut Digital Signature Algorithm within the COSE syntax. The document makes it very clear that Walnut has not been endorsed by the IETF, and contains (section 5.2) an explanation of the security considerations specific to Walnut. Further, the document observes that earlier cryptanalysis identified potential issues that have been addressed in more recent versions of Walnut. The document also advises users to make their own judgment about the risks involved. There has been considerable discussion about this document. I solicited comments from the Designated Experts for the COSE registries, from the CFRG, and from targetted reviewers. Several commentators were fairly hostile and pointed to security failings of Walnut and the fact that NIST had declined to accept Walnut as suitable. The author observed that these issues were in the past as changes had been made to Walnut. We specifically strengthened the text in Section 5.2 to highlight the concerns and indicate what had been done to resolve many of the issues. Nevertheless, this document is not about Walnut, but about how Walnut might be used. It is assumed that users will be aware of the security analysis (that is referenced) and will take seriously the call for them to exercise their own judgement. They will weigh their security concerns against any perceived benefits to using Walnut. It has also been noted that an RFC is not necessary for codepoint assignment from the relevant COSE registries. Some are "Expert Review" and others "Specification Required" and there is a belied in some quarters that an Internet-Draft is adequate documentation for both cases. Nevertheless, the author believes that a more stable and permanent reference is provided by the publication of an RFC and that that will be helpful to people trying to understand the use of the codepoints. In the end, and considering the specific caveats and pointers added to the document, the ISE considers that, in the words of one of the reviewers who sits on the IAB, "publication would not be detrimental". The document clearly fits within the criteria for publication within Independent Stream. The DEs have been consulted about this final version of the document and have reported no concerns within the specific constraints of their roll. |
2020-07-14
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa has been presented for publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Submissions Stream. The document presents a way to use the Walnut Digital … draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa has been presented for publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Submissions Stream. The document presents a way to use the Walnut Digital Signature Algorithm within the COSE syntax. The document makes it very clear that Walnut has not been endorsed by the IETF, and contains (section 5.2) an explanation of the security considerations specific to Walnut. Further, the document observes that earlier cryptanalysis identified potential issues that have been addressed in more recent versions of Walnut. The document also advises users to make their own judgment about the risks involved. There has been considerable discussion about this document. I solicited comments from the Designated Experts for the COSE registries, from the CFRG, and from targetted reviewers. Several commentators were fairly hostile and pointed to security failings of Walnut and the fact that NIST had declined to accept Walnut as suitable. The author observed that these issues were in the past as changes had been made to Walnut. We specifically strengthened the text in Section 5.2 to highlight the concerns and indicate what had been done to resolve many of the issues. Nevertheless, this document is not about Walnut, but about how Walnut might be used. It is assumed that users will be aware of the security analysis (that is referenced) and will take seriously the call for them to exercise their own judgement. They will weigh their security concerns against any perceived benefits to using Walnut. It has also been noted that an RFC is not necessary for codepoint assignment from the relevant COSE registries. Some are "Expert Review" and others "Specification Required" and there is a belied in some quarters that an Internet-Draft is adequate documentation for both cases. Nevertheless, the author believes that a more stable and permanent reference is provided by the publication of an RFC and that that will be helpful to people trying to understand the use of the codepoints. In the end, and considering the specific caveats and pointers added to the document, the ISE considers that, in the words of one of the reviewers who sits on the IAB, "publication would not be detremental". The document clearly fits within the criteria for publication within Independent Stream. The DEs have been consulted about this final version of the document and have reported no concerns within the specific constraints of their roll. |
2020-07-14
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Pending shepherd write-up and final check with DEs |
2020-07-14
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | ISE state changed to In ISE Review from Finding Reviewers |
2020-07-10
|
04 | Derek Atkins | New version available: draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa-04.txt |
2020-07-10
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-07-10
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Derek Atkins |
2020-07-10
|
04 | Derek Atkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-06-15
|
03 | Derek Atkins | New version available: draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa-03.txt |
2020-06-15
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-06-15
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Derek Atkins |
2020-06-15
|
03 | Derek Atkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-19
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | ISE state changed to Finding Reviewers from Response to Review Needed |
2019-12-20
|
02 | Derek Atkins | New version available: draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa-02.txt |
2019-12-20
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-12-20
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Derek Atkins , rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org |
2019-12-20
|
02 | Derek Atkins | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-20
|
01 | (System) | Revised ID Needed tag cleared |
2019-11-20
|
01 | Derek Atkins | New version available: draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa-01.txt |
2019-11-20
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-11-20
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org, Derek Atkins |
2019-11-20
|
01 | Derek Atkins | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-18
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-11-16
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Tag Revised I-D Needed set. |
2019-11-16
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | ISE state changed to Response to Review Needed from Submission Received |
2019-10-26
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2019-10-25
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Notification list changed to Adrian Farrel <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> |
2019-10-25
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Document shepherd changed to Adrian Farrel |
2019-10-25
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | ISE state changed to Submission Received |
2019-10-25
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Stream changed to ISE from None |
2019-05-13
|
00 | Derek Atkins | New version available: draft-atkins-suit-cose-walnutdsa-00.txt |
2019-05-13
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-13
|
00 | Derek Atkins | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Derek Atkins |
2019-05-13
|
00 | Derek Atkins | Uploaded new revision |