I agree, let's just stick with the simple (none) solution. Hannes can you approve or suggest changes to the clarifying text that makes it clear this is not an oversight?
Mike, do you object to that clarifying text assuming we take you change to the IANA considerations section? OS On Mon, Dec 2, 2024, 5:56 PM Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I’m either fine with Orie’s proposed change to the registration wording or > the following one: > > > > From: > > Confirmation Method Name: ckt > Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint > JWT Confirmation Method Name: jkt > > To: > > Confirmation Method Name: ckt > Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint > JWT Confirmation Method Name: (none) > > For the record, I’m not OK trying to add a ckt JWT “cnf” method as an > AUTH48 action (despite me appreciating Orie’s discussion of the > possibility). > > > > Cheers, > > -- Mike > > > > *From:* Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> > *Sent:* Monday, December 2, 2024 2:55 PM > *To:* Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>; RFC Editor < > rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Isobe Kohei <isobeko...@gmail.com>; > cose-...@ietf.org; Cose Chairs Wg <cose-cha...@ietf.org>; Michael Jones < > michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com>; Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io>; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > *Subject:* Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9679 <draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06> > for your review > > > > This is indeed a bug, for extra assurance that it is a problem: > > How would you use a ckt to verify a JWT that was using "cnf"? > > Here is a more complete fix for the bug: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06#section-5.3 > > Note that the ckt of a cose key, and jkt of a json web key are different, > even when underlying cryptographic key material is the same. > > ckt is a binary string and jkt is always a base64url string encoded as > described in section 6.1 of RFC9449. > To use a ckt claim inside a JWT, the ckt claim value MUST be base64url > encoded. > The example provided in section 6.1 of RFC9449 is modified to distinguish > confirmation with a CKT instead of JKT: > { > "sub":"some...@example.com", > "iss":"https://server.example.com";, > "nbf":1562262611, > "exp":1562266216, > "cnf": { > "ckt":"SWvYr63zB-WwjGSwQhv53AFSijRKQ72oj63RZp2iU-w" > } > } > > I used the same base64url encoded thumbprint the draft already used for > extra clarity. > > ckt would also need to be added here: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml#confirmation-methods > > This kind of change might need to be taken to the relevant lists for > review... and maybe another WGLC. > > ... we could leave the "ckt" in JWT cnf registration to another document, > but I think at a minimum we need something added to section 5.3 to the > effect of: > > Note that the ckt of a cose key, and jkt of a json web key are different, > even when underlying cryptographic key material is the same. > ckt is a binary string and jkt is always a base64url string encoded as > described in section 6.1 of RFC9449. > > ^ If we are comfortable with this change alone, we still have a problem > with the registration template: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8747.html#name-registration-template > > """ > CWT claims should normally have a corresponding JWT claim. If a > corresponding JWT claim would not make sense, the designated experts can > choose to accept registrations for which the JWT Claim Name is listed as > "N/A". > """ > > The logical JWT claim is "ckt"... not "jkt"... so N/A... does not make > sense... and leaving it blank also does not make sense. > > There is also the x5t claim which sets the precedent that ckt is for cose > key, jkt is for json web key, and x5t is for x.509 certs. > > I propose: > > From: > > Confirmation Method Name: ckt > Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint > JWT Confirmation Method Name: jkt > > To: > > Confirmation Method Name: ckt > Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint > JWT Confirmation Method Name: Not assigned by RFCXXXX ( not to be > confused with x5t or jkt ) > > > OS > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 4:14 PM Hannes Tschofenig < > hannes.tschofe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the work on the draft and sorry for the slow response. > > > > I read through the draft carefully today and in general the edits look > good but I noticed a possible bug. > > > > In the IANA consideration section we say that the ckt confirmation method > maps to the jkt JWT configuration method. I double-checked RFC 9449, which > defines the jkt, and it defines the computation as follows: > > " > The value of the jkt member MUST be the base64url encoding > > of the JWK SHA-256 Thumbprint. > " > > In draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06 we define the ckt thumbprint as the > hash of the deterministic encoding of the COSE_Key structure. > > > > So, the question to me is whether we can even map the ckt to the jkt since > the underlying structure that is hashed is different: JWK vs. COSE_Key > structure. > > > > For that reason I believe it would be more correct to change the IANA > consideration section by omitting the JWT Confirmation Method Name. > > Here is the proposed change: > > From: > > Confirmation Method Name: ckt > > Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint > > JWT Confirmation Method Name: jkt > > > > To: > > Confirmation Method Name: ckt > > Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint > > JWT Confirmation Method Name: > > > > Do you agree with me? > > > > Sorry for noticing this issue only now. > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > > *Betreff: * > > AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9679 <draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06> for your review > > *Datum: * > > Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT) > > *Von: * > > rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > > *An: * > > isobeko...@gmail.com, hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net, orie@transmute.industries > > *Kopie (CC): * > > rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org, cose-...@ietf.org, cose-cha...@ietf.org, > michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com, paul.wout...@aiven.io, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2024/10/21 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an > author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as > listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., > Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. > > Planning your review --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have > been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We > assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by > your coauthors. > > * Content > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once > the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – > https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and > <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary> > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted > output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please > note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and > HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the > parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: > > * your coauthors > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream > participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the > document shepherd). > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to > preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the > archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have > dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its > addition will be noted at the top of the message. > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9679 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9679 (draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06) > > Title : CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Key Thumbprint > Author(s) : K. Isobe, H. Tschofenig, O. Steele > WG Chair(s) : Matthew A. Miller, Ivaylo Petrov, Michael B. Jones > > Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters > > > > > -- > > > > > *ORIE STEELE *Chief Technology Officer > www.transmute.industries > > <https://transmute.industries/> >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
