Dear Mike, Orie, and *Paul (AD), Thank you for your replies. We have updated the sourcecode as requested. Please review and let us know if any further changes are needed.
*Paul, please review the updates to the sourcecode in Section 6 and let us know if you approve; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-auth48diff.html. Note from Orie: > The example of EDN was changed during auth48 but the encoded hex was not > updated. I confirmed the source code blocks are processed correctly using > cbor.me, this was the only issue I encountered. Section 6 OLD: A50102200121582065EDA5A12577C2BAE829437FE338701A10AAA375E1BB5B5DE108D E439C08551D2258201E52ED75701163F7F9E40DDF9F341B3DC9BA860AF7E0CA7CA7E9 EECD0084D19C0258246D65726961646F632E6272616E64796275636B406275636B6C6 16E642E6578616D706C65 NEW: A50102200121582065EDA5A12577C2BAE829437FE338701A10AAA375E1BB5B5DE108D E439C08551D2258201E52ED75701163F7F9E40DDF9F341B3DC9BA860AF7E0CA7CA7E9 EECD0084D19C025820496BD8AFADF307E5B08C64B0421BF9DC01528A344A43BDA88FA DD1669DA253EC —FILES (please refresh)— The updated XML file is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.xml The updated output files are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679.html This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-auth48diff.html These diff files show only changes made during the last edit round: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-lastrfcdiff.html This diff file shows all changes made to date: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-diff.html For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9679 Thank you, RFC Editor/kc > On Dec 9, 2024, at 10:25 AM, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> wrote: > > Hi, the text here: > > OLD: > > A50102200121582065EDA5A12577C2BAE829437FE338701A10AAA375E1BB5B5DE108D > E439C08551D2258201E52ED75701163F7F9E40DDF9F341B3DC9BA860AF7E0CA7CA7E9 > EECD0084D19C0258246D65726961646F632E6272616E64796275636B406275636B6C6 > 16E642E6578616D706C65 > > NEW: > > A50102200121582065EDA5A12577C2BAE829437FE338701A10AAA375E1BB5B5DE108DE439C08551D2258201E52ED75701163F7F9E40DDF9F341B3DC9BA860AF7E0CA7CA7E9EECD0084D19C025820496BD8AFADF307E5B08C64B0421BF9DC01528A344A43BDA88FADD1669DA253EC > > The example of EDN was changed during auth48 but the encoded hex was not > updated. > > I confirmed the source code blocks are processed correctly using cbor.me, > this was the only issue I encountered. > > OS > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 4:35 PM Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > I looked at all the sourcecode blocks. Their types look fine to me. > > Best wishes, > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Moore <kmo...@amsl.com> > Sent: Friday, December 6, 2024 12:34 PM > To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>; Orie Steele > <orie@transmute.industries>; Isobe Kohei <isobeko...@gmail.com>; Hannes > Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmail.com> > Cc: Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com>; RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; cose-...@ietf.org; Cose Chairs Wg > <cose-cha...@ietf.org>; auth48archive <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; Paul > Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io> > Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9679 <draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-06> for your > review > > Authors, > > The IANA actions are complete for this document. Prior to moving forward with > publication, please confirm if you want to perform any further checks on the > sourcecode per this note: > > > The sourcecode type should be set to cbor-diag. We should validate these > > source code blocks once more at the very end, using CBOR.me or similar. > > > Best regards, > RFC Editor/kc > > > On Dec 5, 2024, at 10:25 AM, Karen Moore <kmo...@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Paul and *Authors, > > > > Thank you for your quick reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 > > status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9679). > > > > *Authors, please confirm if any final checks need to be performed prior to > > publication per this comment: > > > >> The sourcecode type should be set to cbor-diag. We should validate these > >> source code blocks once more at the very end, using CBOR.me or similar. > > > > Note that we will ask IANA to update their registry per the recent update; > > we will inform you when complete. > > > > Best regards, > > RFC Editor/kc > > > >> On Dec 5, 2024, at 9:54 AM, Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io> wrote: > >> > >> I approve, > >> > >> Thanks everyone for working this out and catching it before the RFC went > >> out. > >> > >> Paul > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 12:45 PM Karen Moore <kmo...@amsl.com> wrote: > >> Hi Mike and *Paul (AD), > >> > >> Thanks for providing the updated XML file. The changes are now reflected > >> in our files. Hannes and Orie, we will assume your assent to these changes > >> unless we hear otherwise. > >> > >> *Paul, please review the following changes and let us know if you approve > >> (we updated item 3 and added item 4; see Mike’s explanation for the new > >> changes in the thread below). The updates can also be viewed here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-auth48diff.html. > >> > >> 1) Section 5.1 > >> > >> OLD: > >> The COSE Key Thumbprint is a digest of the essential parameters > >> required to represent the key as a COSE Key, rather than any > >> additional data that might accompany the key. > >> > >> NEW: > >> The COSE Key Thumbprint is a digest of the ordered essential > >> parameters needed to represent a COSE Key, with all other parameters > >> excluded. > >> > >> ... > >> 2) Section 5.3 > >> > >> OLD: > >> Any party in possession of a key that is represented as a COSE Key > >> can use the COSE Key Thumbprint. > >> > >> NEW: > >> 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. > >> > >> … > >> 3) Addition of Section 5.5 > >> > >> NEW: > >> 5.5 Relationship to JSON Web Key Thumbprints > >> > >> The ckt of a COSE Key, as described in Section 7 of [RFC9052], and > >> the jkt of a JSON Web Key, as described in Section 4 of [RFC7517], > >> are different even when the underlying cryptographic key material is > >> the same. > >> > >> This document does not register a JWT confirmation method [RFC7800] > >> for using "ckt" as a confirmation method for a JWT or a CWT > >> confirmation method [RFC8747] for using "jkt" as a confirmation > >> method for a CWT. > >> > >> ... > >> 4) Section 5.6 - please review the file for the changes to this section. > >> > >> … > >> 5) Section 8 > >> > >> OLD: > >> Confirmation Method Name: ckt > >> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint JWT > >> Confirmation Method Name: jkt > >> > >> NEW: > >> Confirmation Method Name: ckt > >> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint JWT > >> Confirmation Method Name: (none) > >> > >> > >> —FILES (please refresh)— > >> > >> The updated XML file is here: > >> https://www/. > >> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.xml&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b > >> 4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638 > >> 691140464939559%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiO > >> iIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7 > >> C%7C%7C&sdata=9Me94X%2Br0n99MgWJeiVNBDMWu2H%2F%2FBUtZ7%2BnWTndVZo%3D& > >> reserved=0 > >> > >> The updated output files are here: > >> https://www/. > >> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.txt&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b > >> 4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638 > >> 691140464950611%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiO > >> iIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7 > >> C%7C%7C&sdata=Fsl%2Fg9ZG13NgmZitOgbx2s7RwnOztrJpau1g6xqly%2Bg%3D&rese > >> rved=0 > >> https://www/. > >> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.pdf&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b > >> 4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638 > >> 691140464961460%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiO > >> iIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7 > >> C%7C%7C&sdata=xR7GOgpVjsV0EFW8%2F1LKHXNdvJrGUZYn1fgVLxgBvjE%3D&reserv > >> ed=0 > >> https://www/. > >> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66 > >> b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63 > >> 8691140464972095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYi > >> OiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0% > >> 7C%7C%7C&sdata=mhyzYzCDinFXQDNyv5Mnba%2FtlPRNawV6okAEWJWaVFo%3D&reser > >> ved=0 > >> > >> This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48: > >> https://www/. > >> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C > >> 9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7 > >> C1%7C0%7C638691140464982812%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiO > >> nRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ > >> %3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4Q2EXvpbtg6pj2Bd9kxDnv3MvRTIdbSA3guNFGp2wi4 > >> %3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> These diff files show only changes made during the last edit round: > >> https://www/. > >> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C95 > >> 44d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1 > >> %7C0%7C638691140464993688%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnR > >> ydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3 > >> D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8MfXLLAQsYchBiSoaSXpANGtv2aymEWMD9kz5GpsKHY%3 > >> D&reserved=0 > >> https://www/. > >> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7 > >> C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa% > >> 7C1%7C0%7C638691140465004216%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGki > >> OnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyf > >> Q%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7Tu7WeAoLyKMdDOnRiCnh%2FmpQr%2BYTX0EHfIqoF > >> hboDE%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> This diff file shows all changes made to date: > >> https://www/. > >> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d4 > >> 6df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0 > >> %7C638691140465014730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWU > >> sIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D > >> %7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qp0u2ZndV9%2Bkz4%2BHbRA5b92WU0IhgtUluWPuhwNcrhc%3 > >> D&reserved=0 > >> > >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >> https://www/. > >> rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9679&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b4fad8 > >> 33008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63869114 > >> 0465025294%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLj > >> AuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C% > >> 7C&sdata=mgDSViKT0Hyl7I%2B60i0CrYfwyKX5lZG%2BrPmVRDYquKg%3D&reserved= > >> 0 > >> > >> Thank you, > >> RFC Editor/kc > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 4, 2024, at 3:08 PM, Michael Jones <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Folks, I hate to do this, but in reviewing the newly added section, I > >>> realized that it was incorrectly using the term "claim". In both RFC > >>> 7800 and RFC 8747, "cnf" is a claim, whereas the JWT and CWT confirmation > >>> members are referred to as "members" - not "claims". Then I realized > >>> there other places in the draft this the term "claim" was incorrectly > >>> used. > >>> > >>> The attached updated source file makes the needed corrections. For > >>> easier reviewing, a diff from the RFC Editor's source also follows. > >>> > >>> RFC Editor, please apply these edits and send out a new draft for review. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> -- Mike (writing as a COSE chair) > >>> > >>> diff rfc9679.xml rfc9679_mbj.xml > >>> 46c46 > >>> < <date year="2024" month="October"/> > >>> --- > >>>> <date year="2024" month="December"/> > >>> 284,285c284,288 > >>> < 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. > >>> --- > >>>> This document does not register > >>>> a JWT confirmation method <xref target="RFC7800"/> for using > >>>> "ckt" as a confirmation method for a JWT or a CWT confirmation > >>>> method <xref target="RFC8747"/> for using "jkt" as a confirmation > >>>> method for a CWT. > >>> 293,294c296,297 > >>> < <t>The proof-of-possession key is identified using the "ckt" > >>> claim, > >>> < the COSE Key Thumbprint claim. This claim contains the value of > >>> --- > >>>> <t>The proof-of-possession key is identified using the "ckt" > >>>> member of the CWT confirmation claim "cnf". This member contains > >>>> the value of > >>> 299c302 > >>> < claim. In this approach, the issuer of a CWT declares that the > >>> --- > >>>> member. In this approach, the issuer of a CWT declares that the > >>> 302c305 > >>> < of the key by including a "ckt" claim in the CWT.</t> > >>> --- > >>>> of the key by including a "ckt" CWT confirmation method member in > >>>> the CWT.</t> > >>> 304c307 > >>> < <t>The following example demonstrates the use of the "ckt" claim > >>> --- > >>>> <t>The following example demonstrates the use of the "ckt" > >>>> member > >>> 319,320c322,323 > >>> < <t><xref target="IANA"/> registers the "ckt" claim and the > >>> confirmation method. > >>> < The "ckt" claim is expected to be used in the "cnf" claim.</t> > >>> --- > >>>> <t><xref target="IANA"/> registers the "ckt" CWT confirmation > >>>> method member. > >>>> The "ckt" member is used in the "cnf" claim.</t> > >>> 510a514 > >>>> <xi:include > >>>> href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%252 > >>>> F%2Fbib.ietf.org%2Fpublic%2Frfc%2Fbibxml%2Freference.RFC.7800.xml%2 > >>>> 522%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7 > >>>> fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465036648%7CUnknown%7C > >>>> TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4 > >>>> zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=q2LHlyc0jk > >>>> lVmi9pIrvk8G0YOJ%2BtkF5CGripORRLtlA%3D&reserved=0> > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 4, 2024, at 12:12 PM, Karen Moore <kmo...@amsl.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Orie and *Paul (AD), > >>> > >>> We have updated the text with your additional suggested edits; the > >>> changes are now reflected in our files (links below). We now await > >>> approvals from Hannes and Paul. > >>> > >>> *Paul, please review the following changes and let us know if you > >>> approve. The updates can also be viewed here: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-auth48diff.html. > >>> > >>> 1) Section 5.1 > >>> > >>> OLD: > >>> The COSE Key Thumbprint is a digest of the essential parameters > >>> required to represent the key as a COSE Key, rather than any > >>> additional data that might accompany the key. > >>> > >>> NEW: > >>> The COSE Key Thumbprint is a digest of the ordered essential > >>> parameters needed to represent a COSE Key, with all other > >>> parameters excluded. > >>> > >>> ... > >>> 2) Section 5.3 > >>> > >>> OLD: > >>> Any party in possession of a key that is represented as a COSE Key > >>> can use the COSE Key Thumbprint. > >>> > >>> NEW: > >>> 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. > >>> > >>> … > >>> 3) Addition of Section 5.5 > >>> > >>> NEW: > >>> 5.5 Relationship to JSON Web Key Thumbprints > >>> > >>> The ckt of a COSE Key, as described in Section 7 of [RFC9052], and > >>> the jkt of a JSON Web Key, as described in Section 4 of RFC 7517, > >>> are different even when the 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. > >>> > >>> … > >>> 4) Section 8 > >>> > >>> OLD: > >>> Confirmation Method Name: ckt > >>> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint JWT > >>> Confirmation Method Name: jkt > >>> > >>> NEW: > >>> Confirmation Method Name: ckt > >>> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint JWT > >>> Confirmation Method Name: (none) > >>> > >>> > >>> —FILES (please refresh)— > >>> > >>> The updated XML file is here: > >>> https://www/ > >>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.xml&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df6 > >>> 6b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C > >>> 638691140465060532%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsI > >>> lYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D% > >>> 7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pR%2FYwpMq8vYw1GuBuqwluIFHSkD9o0pIAPh1An6xJIY%3D& > >>> reserved=0 > >>> > >>> The updated output files are here: > >>> https://www/ > >>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.txt&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df6 > >>> 6b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C > >>> 638691140465071281%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsI > >>> lYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D% > >>> 7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NTS6w4UFqkC%2BR9LoD86rZkqkPlwGbx%2BrxX%2BoRJz1Cy4 > >>> %3D&reserved=0 > >>> https://www/ > >>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.pdf&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df6 > >>> 6b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C > >>> 638691140465082645%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsI > >>> lYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D% > >>> 7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rgRi2sWh85kqRKA%2FSsrhBLvMqkqPg8H3uGjjoQ7dShc%3D& > >>> reserved=0 > >>> https://www/ > >>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df > >>> 66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7 > >>> C638691140465093413%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUs > >>> IlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D > >>> %7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pbPzR2vsSF8dKjaOCG5DeOMzqcLZo6tEPvNDJWynaTQ%3D&r > >>> eserved=0 > >>> > >>> This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48: > >>> https://www/ > >>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7C% > >>> 7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa > >>> a%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465104166%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hc > >>> GkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUI > >>> joyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GW6JGkFDyHXApETPyRO9Gd6o1ZRJwrtYrqIFm > >>> 1eP8RY%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> These diff files show only changes made during the last edit round: > >>> https://www/ > >>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C > >>> 9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa% > >>> 7C1%7C0%7C638691140465115074%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGk > >>> iOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjo > >>> yfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BQ2SWfFPQo2nOGoRFi9eE7eh8ELr62cvtgXhZjX > >>> wVR8%3D&reserved=0 > >>> https://www/ > >>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7C > >>> %7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaa > >>> aa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465126114%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1h > >>> cGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldU > >>> IjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YTINm31Pzmtm9PuAJ5Jmo0EVHr3irXXJD%2B > >>> 6yX40l%2Fo0%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> This diff file shows all changes made to date: > >>> https://www/ > >>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544 > >>> d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1% > >>> 7C0%7C638691140465137113%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnR > >>> ydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ% > >>> 3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FGXOXzHwS%2FZNierdvtwwH7SQgwAE5P1OwPpARIv%2 > >>> F8P8%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>> https://www/ > >>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9679&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b4fa > >>> d833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63869 > >>> 1140465148142%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOi > >>> IwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7 > >>> C%7C%7C&sdata=V1fBW3dE4mG2Pi4xKstvtQwyLT5vcwCSWuOAIDPAqmk%3D&reserve > >>> d=0 > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> RFC Editor/kc > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Dec 4, 2024, at 7:26 AM, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thank you! > >>>> > >>>> "cose key" should be "COSE Key", > >>>> > >>>> We could add "COSE Key as described in Section 7 of RFC9052" and "JSON > >>>> Web Key, as described in Section 4 of RFC7517" > >>>> > >>>> If the citations are helpful... This is a style nit. > >>>> > >>>> I approve of the changes. > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 3:48 PM Karen Moore <kmo...@amsl.com> wrote: > >>>> Authors, > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for the discussion and suggested changes. Our files now > >>>> reflect the updates below (see > >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-lastrfcdiff.html> for a > >>>> snapshot of the changes). Please review and let us know if these changes > >>>> are agreeable or if any further updates are needed. We will then ask the > >>>> AD to approve them. > >>>> > >>>> 1) Section 5.3 > >>>> > >>>> OLD: > >>>> Any party in possession of a key that is represented as a COSE Key > >>>> can use the COSE Key Thumbprint. > >>>> > >>>> NEW: > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> ... > >>>> 2) Addition of New Section. Note that we made “json web key” uppercase > >>>> for consistency. > >>>> > >>>> NEW: > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> ... > >>>> 3) Section 8 > >>>> > >>>> OLD: > >>>> Confirmation Method Name: ckt > >>>> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint JWT > >>>> Confirmation Method Name: jkt > >>>> > >>>> NEW: > >>>> Confirmation Method Name: ckt > >>>> Confirmation Method Description: COSE Key SHA-256 Thumbprint JWT > >>>> Confirmation Method Name: (none) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> —FILES (please refresh)— > >>>> > >>>> The updated XML file is here: > >>>> https://ww/ > >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.xml&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46d > >>>> f66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0 > >>>> %7C638691140465169721%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRyd > >>>> WUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3 > >>>> D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ybjaVt1EwEj%2BEPa9wa5V2Jb%2FlY9RtOtaYVb7ZOm > >>>> EGkw%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> The updated output files are here: > >>>> https://ww/ > >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.txt&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46d > >>>> f66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0 > >>>> %7C638691140465180567%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRyd > >>>> WUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3 > >>>> D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=czMW16qPcbahA%2BfUSC4fq9p%2F1UPUJJP8CR%2BWH > >>>> Bc%2FByg%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://ww/ > >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.pdf&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46d > >>>> f66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0 > >>>> %7C638691140465191478%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRyd > >>>> WUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3 > >>>> D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=svfJ6nNkcPHgErawmc2gNhAADZcn8hHB1twcoPaKn38 > >>>> %3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://ww/ > >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46 > >>>> df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C > >>>> 0%7C638691140465203657%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRy > >>>> dWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ% > >>>> 3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LLQbP9vw%2FCoZyuOIsrcih%2BI6vaBsMt7MjFhHoP > >>>> p5tj4%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48: > >>>> https://ww/ > >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7 > >>>> C%7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > >>>> aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465214410%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0e > >>>> U1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIs > >>>> IldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CWMJs49ps76shRZc0uAIaBU0KsdJ9JQ > >>>> 6FioGa7H5iLA%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> These diff files show only changes made during the last edit round: > >>>> https://ww/ > >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7C% > >>>> 7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaa > >>>> aa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465224906%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1 > >>>> hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIl > >>>> dUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BQ0cX0W%2BW9vcbiX0ezMGrtGWYkHBjWM > >>>> 5tkeTscYVCto%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://ww/ > >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02% > >>>> 7C%7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaa > >>>> aaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465235814%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0 > >>>> eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCI > >>>> sIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MKebtlbx92dwZEuZWWx%2BgszkRZvl > >>>> %2FHfUY83Ef5TK1rk%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> This diff file shows all changes made to date: > >>>> https://ww/ > >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C95 > >>>> 44d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7 > >>>> C1%7C0%7C638691140465246378%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGk > >>>> iOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIj > >>>> oyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kWD18%2BJo2%2FxJQ%2F0G187xs4c2WkTSyge > >>>> 3wEtKK5gBaP0%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>>> https://ww/ > >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9679&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b4 > >>>> fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63 > >>>> 8691140465257424%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIl > >>>> YiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D% > >>>> 7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K1frRy3PTOkDxxSy0sJw1atwU5tn34OC65vx0b1%2BilY%3D > >>>> &reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> Thank you, > >>>> RFC Editor/kc > >>>> > >>>>> On Dec 3, 2024, at 7:55 AM, Hannes Tschofenig > >>>>> <hannes.tschofe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for the insightful comment, Orie. I agree with your proposed > >>>>> edits for the IANA consideration section and the extra text before the > >>>>> section on relationship to certificate thumbprints. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am also fine with the additional text Mike proposed. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is indeed too late to add new functionality at this point in time. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ciao > >>>>> Hannes > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 3:13 AM Michael Jones > >>>>> <michael_b_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> 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> > >>>>> 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> 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://d/ > >>>>> atatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint- > >>>>> 06%23section-5.3&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551d > >>>>> a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465289880% > >>>>> 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMC > >>>>> IsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sd > >>>>> ata=ZBvwAnUBGfT%2BqBIzr8O%2F1BfCk7G30uNd0Km1Ympuews%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>>> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A > >>>>> %2F%2Fserver.example.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b4fad8330 > >>>>> 08dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63869114 > >>>>> 0465300783%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiI > >>>>> wLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0% > >>>>> 7C%7C%7C&sdata=Cu%2BM21nJCIo93bexflhYWLtFa%2BdJI7smavIJA%2FSuCow%3 > >>>>> D&reserved=0", > >>>>> "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://w/ > >>>>> ww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fjwt%2Fjwt.xhtml%23confirmation-methods > >>>>> &data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f6 > >>>>> 40afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465311278%7CUnknown%7CTWFp > >>>>> bGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMi > >>>>> IsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=a6xSVN2MN1U% > >>>>> 2BULiMQ6Ie%2BVoiEhw26l1ZYGLi90Y5eMg%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>>> 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://w/ > >>>>> ww.rfc-editor.org%2Frfc%2Frfc8747.html%23name-registration-templat > >>>>> e&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f > >>>>> 640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465322198%7CUnknown%7CTWF > >>>>> pbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zM > >>>>> iIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MegV9xM3Bdk > >>>>> 2%2Bi%2BF7KXaLbdMuDj0cDAugZkgLYOotDU%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>>> """ > >>>>> 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>. > >>>>> > >>>>> * 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://m/ > >>>>> ailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2U > >>>>> SxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C > >>>>> 84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465367921%7CUn > >>>>> known%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIl > >>>>> AiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata= > >>>>> obkx%2F40yWUGklVC2%2BYJOxWHa8g1LEBHGVq8w8PJo4OE%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> * The archive itself: > >>>>> https://m/ > >>>>> ailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C0 > >>>>> 2%7C%7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaa > >>>>> aaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465379116%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJF > >>>>> bXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTW > >>>>> FpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=d%2BHWx1t%2FHc3FWu%2Bf5Z > >>>>> MA2K6%2Bqzjr%2FvYTlSqs9JRDU1g%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>>> * 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://w/ > >>>>> ww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.xml&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d4 > >>>>> 6df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1% > >>>>> 7C0%7C638691140465389898%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiO > >>>>> nRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjo > >>>>> yfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tcSkll368Dg%2BzOMSk%2FRb%2FWNyBUXimvr > >>>>> NaW0UybSTx%2Fs%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://w/ > >>>>> ww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d > >>>>> 46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1 > >>>>> %7C0%7C638691140465400400%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGki > >>>>> OnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIj > >>>>> oyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j1DCaezvNW8XL2%2FhW58e7EccIiR%2FtILE > >>>>> AkyeaVlHX0c%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://w/ > >>>>> ww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.pdf&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d4 > >>>>> 6df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1% > >>>>> 7C0%7C638691140465411063%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiO > >>>>> nRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjo > >>>>> yfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zcQN%2FWA5p2O%2Bxpl2osMNyXaG4If8yNUo3 > >>>>> 6WCuhwh1ng%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://w/ > >>>>> ww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679.txt&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d4 > >>>>> 6df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1% > >>>>> 7C0%7C638691140465421715%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiO > >>>>> nRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjo > >>>>> yfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OKgr9qYu8sbcVXqe4JdTALXhd8wgRVCabtqC0 > >>>>> d7sNtk%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>>> Diff file of the text: > >>>>> https://w/ > >>>>> ww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C > >>>>> 9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa > >>>>> a%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465432408%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1 > >>>>> hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsI > >>>>> ldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dqdmC05LpkNX37Haih7URniw9P%2Baa > >>>>> P5Iin4%2F0bmNdU4%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://w/ > >>>>> ww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7C > >>>>> %7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > >>>>> aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465443134%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0 > >>>>> eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbC > >>>>> IsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MaQUhUwZo%2BWsex%2FYXkUXZHtM > >>>>> 6Pln4QBnpO0dhxTyCQk%3D&reserved=0 (side by side) > >>>>> > >>>>> Diff of the XML: > >>>>> https://w/ > >>>>> ww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9679-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7 > >>>>> C%7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaa > >>>>> aaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638691140465453825%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB > >>>>> 0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpb > >>>>> CIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FQ8eUMTddYOqhvN%2FtyBTiBeLk > >>>>> kkiaavzAAZwALEXVCg%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Tracking progress > >>>>> ----------------- > >>>>> > >>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>>>> https://w/ > >>>>> ww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9679&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66 > >>>>> b4fad833008dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7 > >>>>> C638691140465464782%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydW > >>>>> UsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3 > >>>>> D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hnDXLcg9vwznYUysGzdoJwz4srLanOzY%2BR1gld57 > >>>>> hp8%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> http://ww/ > >>>>> w.transmute.industries%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b4fad833008 > >>>>> dd163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C6386911404 > >>>>> 65475371%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwL > >>>>> jAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C > >>>>> %7C%7C&sdata=wLqU3MNLNYTqffiEL9zMRDDkXHYGRpuPObM93Swn4JA%3D&reserv > >>>>> ed=0 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> ORIE STEELE > >>>> Chief Technology Officer > >>>> http://www/ > >>>> .transmute.industries%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9544d46df66b4fad833008dd > >>>> 163551da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C6386911404654 > >>>> 87222%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuM > >>>> DAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7 > >>>> C&sdata=wNvQdi82LeneJ19AqYYISfVEA%2BYLywAZ3ec%2BymPIVSE%3D&reserved > >>>> =0 > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > ORIE STEELE > Chief Technology Officer > www.transmute.industries > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
