I support adding the section that Orie proposed.
However in reviewing related text, I unfortunately found a problem. Reading
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06#section-5.3,
it differs from https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7638#section-3.5 in a
counterproductive and overly restrictive way. Please change:
Any party in possession of a key that is represented as a COSE Key can
use the COSE Key Thumbprint.
to:
The only prerequisites are that the COSE_Key representation
of the key be defined and the party creating the COSE Key Thumbprint
be in possession of the necessary key material.
That way it will be more actionable and will parallel the corresponding RFC
7638 text.
Thanks all,
-- Mike
From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 5:55 PM
To: Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmail.com>; 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>; Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io>; auth48archive
<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9679 <draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06> for
your review
Let's add a section to the document, before the section on relationship to
certificate thumbprints.
5.5 Relationship to JSON Web Key Thumbprints
The ckt of a cose key, and jkt of a json web key are different, even when
underlying cryptographic key material is the same.
This document does not register a JWT claim for using ckt as a confirmation
method for a JWT, or a CWT claim for using jkt as a confirmation method for a
CWT.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2024, 6:26 PM Orie Steele
<orie@transmute.industries<mailto:orie@transmute.industries>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto:orie@transmute.industries>>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 2:55 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
<hannes.tschofe...@gmail.com<mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig
<hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net<mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>>; RFC Editor
<rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>>; Isobe Kohei
<isobeko...@gmail.com<mailto:isobeko...@gmail.com>>;
cose-...@ietf.org<mailto:cose-...@ietf.org>; Cose Chairs Wg
<cose-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:cose-cha...@ietf.org>>; Michael Jones
<michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com<mailto:michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com>>; Paul Wouters
<paul.wout...@aiven.io<mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>>;
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org<mailto: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<mailto:some...@example.com>",
"iss":"https://server.example.com<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<mailto: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<mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
An:
isobeko...@gmail.com<mailto:isobeko...@gmail.com>,
hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net<mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>,
orie@transmute.industries<mailto:orie@transmute.industries>
Kopie (CC):
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>,
cose-...@ietf.org<mailto:cose-...@ietf.org>,
cose-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:cose-cha...@ietf.org>,
michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com<mailto:michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com>,
paul.wout...@aiven.io<mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.transmute.industries/>
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4xqtkj5psM1dDeDes_mjSsF3ylbEa5EMEQmnz3602cucAIhjLaHod-eVJq0E28BwrivrNSBMBc]<https://transmute.industries/>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
