Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms
draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms
JOSE Working Group M.B. Jones
Internet-Draft Self-Issued Consulting
Updates: 7518, 8037, 9053 (if approved) O. Steele
Intended status: Standards Track Transmute
Expires: 31 August 2024 28 February 2024
Fully-Specified Algorithms for JOSE and COSE
draft-ietf-jose-fully-specified-algorithms-02
Abstract
This specification refers to cryptographic algorithm identifiers that
fully specify the cryptographic operations to be performed, including
any curve, key derivation function (KDF), hash functions, etc., as
being "fully specified". Whereas, it refers to cryptographic
algorithm identifiers that require additional information beyond the
algorithm identifier to determine the cryptographic operations to be
performed as being "polymorphic". This specification creates fully-
specified algorithm identifiers for all registered JOSE and COSE
polymorphic algorithm identifiers, enabling applications to use only
fully-specified algorithm identifiers.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 31 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Fully-specified Digital Signature Algorithm Identifiers . . . 4
2.1. Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) . . . 4
2.2. Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) . . . . 4
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. JOSE Algorithms Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Fully-Specified JOSE Algorithm Registrations . . . . 5
3.1.2. Deprecated Polymorphic JOSE Algorithm
Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. COSE Algorithms Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Fully-Specified COSE Algorithm Registrations . . . . 6
3.2.2. Deprecated Polymorphic COSE Algorithm
Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Updated Review Instructions for Designated Experts . . . 7
3.3.1. JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms . . . . 7
3.3.2. COSE Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Key Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Fully-Specified Computations Using Multiple Algorithms . . . 8
6. Notes on Algorithms Not Updated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Algorithms for Signing with RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 . . . . . . 9
6.2. ECDH-ES and its Ephemeral Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. KEMs and Encapsulated Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
The IANA algorithm registries for JOSE [IANA.JOSE.Algorithms] and
COSE [IANA.COSE.Algorithms] contain two kinds of algorithm
identifiers:
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
Fully Specified
Those that fully determine the cryptographic operations to be
performed, including any curve, key derivation function (KDF),
hash functions, etc. Examples are RS256 and ES256K in both JOSE
and COSE and ES256 in JOSE.
Polymorphic
Those requiring information beyond the algorithm identifier to
determine the cryptographic operations to be performed. Such
additional information could include the actual key value and a
curve that it uses. Examples are EdDSA in both JOSE and COSE and
ES256 in COSE.
This matters because many protocols negotiate supported operations
using only algorithm identifiers. For instance, OAuth Authorization
Server Metadata [RFC8414] uses negotiation parameters like these
(from an example in the specification):
"token_endpoint_auth_signing_alg_values_supported":
["RS256", "ES256"]
OpenID Connect Discovery [OpenID.Discovery] likewise negotiates
supported algorithms using alg and enc values. W3C Web
Authentication [WebAuthn] and FIDO Client to Authenticator Protocol
(CTAP) [FIDO2] negotiate using COSE alg numbers.
This does not work for polymorphic algorithms. For instance, with
EdDSA, you do not know which of the curves Ed25519 and/or Ed448 are
supported! This causes real problems in practice.
WebAuthn contains this de-facto algorithm definition to work around
this problem:
-8 (EdDSA), where crv is 6 (Ed25519)
This redefines the COSE EdDSA algorithm identifier for the purposes
of WebAuthn to restrict it to using the Ed25519 curve - making it
non-polymorphic so that algorithm negotiation can succeed, but also
effectively eliminating the possibility of using Ed448. Other
similar workarounds for polymorphic algorithm identifiers are used in
practice.
This specification creates fully-specified algorithm identifiers for
all registered polymorphic JOSE and COSE algorithms and their
parameters, enabling applications to use only fully-specified
algorithm identifiers. It furthermore deprecates the practice of
registering polymorphic algorithm identifiers.
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Fully-specified Digital Signature Algorithm Identifiers
This section creates fully-specified digital signature algorithm
identifiers for all registered polymorphic JOSE and COSE algorithms
and their parameters.
2.1. Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)
[RFC9053] defines the current use of the Elliptic Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) by COSE. The COSE algorithm
registrations for ECDSA are polymorphic, since they do not specify
the curve used. For instance, ES256 is defined as "ECDSA w/ SHA-256"
in Section 2.1 of [RFC9053]. (The corresponding JOSE registrations
in [RFC7518] are full-specified.)
The following fully-specified COSE algorithms are defined:
+========+=================+===================+==================+
| Name | COSE Value | Description | COSE Recommended |
+========+=================+===================+==================+
| ESP256 | TBD (requested | ECDSA using P-256 | Yes |
| | assignment -9) | curve and SHA-256 | |
+--------+-----------------+-------------------+------------------+
| ESP384 | TBD (requested | ECDSA using P-384 | Yes |
| | assignment -48) | curve and SHA-384 | |
+--------+-----------------+-------------------+------------------+
| ESP512 | TBD (requested | ECDSA using P-521 | Yes |
| | assignment -49) | curve and SHA-512 | |
+--------+-----------------+-------------------+------------------+
Table 1: ECDSA Algorithm Values
2.2. Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)
[RFC8037] defines the current use of the Edwards-Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) by JOSE and [RFC9053] defines its current
use by COSE. Both register polymorphic EdDSA algorithm identifiers.
The following fully-specified JOSE and COSE algorithms are defined:
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
+=======+============+=============+================+=============+
|Name | COSE Value | Description | JOSE | COSE |
| | | | Implementation | Recommended |
| | | | Requirements | |
+=======+============+=============+================+=============+
|Ed25519| TBD | EdDSA using | Optional | No |
| | (requested | Ed25519 | | |
| | assignment | curve | | |
| | -50) | | | |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------+-------------+
|Ed448 | TBD | EdDSA using | Optional | No |
| | (requested | Ed448 curve | | |
| | assignment | | | |
| | -51) | | | |
+-------+------------+-------------+----------------+-------------+
Table 2: EdDSA Algorithm Values
3. IANA Considerations
3.1. JOSE Algorithms Registrations
This section registers the following values in the IANA "JSON Web
Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry [IANA.JOSE.Algorithms]
established by [RFC7515].
3.1.1. Fully-Specified JOSE Algorithm Registrations
* Algorithm Name: Ed25519
* Algorithm Description: EdDSA using Ed25519 curve
* Algorithm Usage Locations: alg
* JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
* Change Controller: IESG
* Reference: Section 2.2 of [[ this specification ]]
* Algorithm Analysis Document(s): [RFC8032]
* Algorithm Name: Ed448
* Algorithm Description: EdDSA using Ed448 curve
* Algorithm Usage Locations: alg
* JOSE Implementation Requirements: Optional
* Change Controller: IESG
* Reference: Section 2.2 of [[ this specification ]]
* Algorithm Analysis Document(s): [RFC8032]
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
3.1.2. Deprecated Polymorphic JOSE Algorithm Registrations
The following registration is updated to change its status to
Deprecated.
* Algorithm Name: EdDSA
* Algorithm Description: EdDSA signature algorithms
* Algorithm Usage Locations: alg
* JOSE Implementation Requirements: Deprecated
* Change Controller: IESG
* Reference: Section 3.1 of RFC8037
* Algorithm Analysis Document(s): [RFC8032]
3.2. COSE Algorithms Registrations
This section registers the following values in the IANA "COSE
Algorithms" registry [IANA.COSE.Algorithms].
3.2.1. Fully-Specified COSE Algorithm Registrations
* Name: ESP256
* Value: TBD (requested assignment -9)
* Description: ECDSA using P-256 curve and SHA-256
* Reference: Section 2.1 of this document
* Recommended: Yes
* Name: ESP384
* Value: TBD (requested assignment -48)
* Description: ECDSA using P-384 curve and SHA-384
* Reference: Section 2.1 of this document
* Recommended: Yes
* Name: ESP512
* Value: TBD (requested assignment -49)
* Description: ECDSA using P-521 curve and SHA-512
* Reference: Section 2.1 of this document
* Recommended: Yes
* Name: Ed25519
* Value: TBD (requested assignment -50)
* Description: EdDSA using Ed25519 curve
* Reference: Section 2.2 of this document
* Recommended: Yes
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
* Name: Ed448
* Value: TBD (requested assignment -51)
* Description: EdDSA using Ed448 curve
* Reference: Section 2.2 of this document
* Recommended: Yes
3.2.2. Deprecated Polymorphic COSE Algorithm Registrations
The following registrations are updated to change their status to
Deprecated.
* Name: ES256
* Value: -7
* Description: ECDSA w/ SHA-256
* Reference: RFC 9053
* Recommended: Deprecated
* Name: ES384
* Value: -35
* Description: ECDSA w/ SHA-384
* Reference: RFC 9053
* Recommended: Deprecated
* Name: ES512
* Value: -36
* Description: ECDSA w/ SHA-512
* Reference: RFC 9053
* Recommended: Deprecated
* Name: EdDSA
* Value: -8
* Description: EdDSA
* Reference: RFC 9053
* Recommended: Deprecated
3.3. Updated Review Instructions for Designated Experts
3.3.1. JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms
IANA is directed to preserve the current reference to RFC 7518, and
to add a reference to this section of this document.
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
The review instructions for the designated experts for the IANA "JSON
Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry
[IANA.JOSE.Algorithms] in Section 7.1 of [RFC7518] have been updated
to include an additional review criterion:
* Only fully-specified algorithm identifiers may be registered.
Polymorphic algorithm identifiers must not be registered.
3.3.2. COSE Algorithms
IANA is directed to preserve the current references to RFC 9053 and
RFC 9054, and to add a reference to this section of this document.
The review instructions for the designated experts for the IANA "COSE
Algorithms" registry [IANA.COSE.Algorithms] in Section 10.4 of
[RFC9053] have been updated to include an additional review
criterion:
* Only fully-specified algorithm identifiers may be registered.
Polymorphic algorithm identifiers must not be registered.
4. Key Representations
The key representations for the new fully-specified algorithms
defined by this specification are the same as those for the
polymorphic algorithms that they replace, other than the alg value,
if included. For instance, the representation for a key used with
the Ed25519 algorithm is the same as that specified in [RFC8037],
except that the alg value would be Ed25519 rather than EdDSA, if
included.
5. Fully-Specified Computations Using Multiple Algorithms
Both JOSE and COSE have operations that take multiple algorithms as
parameters. Encrypted objects in JOSE [RFC7516] use two algorithm
identifiers: the first in the alg (Algorithm) Header Parameter, which
specifies how to determine the content encryption key, and the second
in the enc (Encryption Algorithm) Header Parameter, which specifies
the content encryption algorithm. Likewise, encrypted COSE objects
can use multiple algorithms for corresponding purposes.
Each of these multiple algorithms must be independently fully
specified. The operations performed by each of them MUST NOT vary
when used alongside other algorithms. So for instance, for JOSE, alg
values and enc values MUST each be fully specified, and their
behaviors MUST NOT depend upon one another.
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
6. Notes on Algorithms Not Updated
The working group has discussed some existing algorithms that are not
updated by this specification. This section discusses why they have
not been updated.
6.1. Algorithms for Signing with RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5
The working group has discussed whether the RS256, RS384, and RS512
algorithms should be considered fully-specified or not, because they
can operate on keys of different sizes. For instance, they can use
both 2048- and 4096-bit keys. The same is true of the PS*
algorithms.
This is not a problem in practice, because RSA libraries accomodate
keys of different sizes without having to use different code.
Therefore, for example, there are not known cases in the wild where
it would be useful to have different algorithm identifiers for
RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 with SHA-256 and 2048-bit keys and RSASSA-
PKCS1-v1_5 with SHA-256 and 4096-bit keys or 8192-bit keys.
Therefore, the RSA signature algorithms are not replaced by this
specification.
6.2. ECDH-ES and its Ephemeral Keys
The working group has discussed whether the ECDH-ES key agreement
algorithm should be considered fully-specified or not, because it can
use ephemeral keys of different key types and algorithms. Indeed, an
implementation might work when ECDH-ES is used with a ephemeral keys
using the P-256 curve, and not work when used with ephemeral keys
using the Ed25519 curve.
One way that protocols can handle this situation is to use a
discovery mechanism to declare what ephemeral key types are
supported. The alternative would be to introduce new fully-specified
algorithm identifiers for choices such as "ECDH-ES with the P-256
Curve", etc. Feedback from deployers would be useful in determining
what actions this specification should take in this case.
6.3. KEMs and Encapsulated Keys
All key encapsulation mechanisms (KEM) algorithms, as described in
[NIST.PQC-API], provide three functions: KeyGen(), Encapsulate(), and
Decapsulate(). In order to consider a KEM algorithm fully specified,
there MUST be a single KDF used per KEM Algorithm. For example, the
HPKE KEM "0x0010 or DHKEM(P-256, HKDF-SHA256)", as defined in
[RFC9180], is fully specified, because it uses a single elliptic
curve (secp256r1) and a single KDF (HKDF with SHA256), as described
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
in [RFC5869].
7. Security Considerations
Using fully-specified algorithm identifiers reduces the attack
surface relative to using polymorphic algorithm identifiers, since it
reduces the opportunity for attackers to choose algorithms.
The security considerations for ECDSA in [RFC7518], for EdDSA in
[RFC8037], and for ECDSA and EdDSA in [RFC9053] apply.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.
[RFC8037] Liusvaara, I., "CFRG Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH)
and Signatures in JSON Object Signing and Encryption
(JOSE)", RFC 8037, DOI 10.17487/RFC8037, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8037>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9053] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Initial Algorithms", RFC 9053, DOI 10.17487/RFC9053,
August 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9053>.
8.2. Informative References
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
[FIDO2] Bradley, J., Hodges, J., Jones, M., Kumar, A., and J.
Johan, "Client to Authenticator Protocol (CTAP)", FIDO
Alliance Proposed Standard, 15 June 2021,
<https://fidoalliance.org/specs/fido-v2.1-ps-20210615/
fido-client-to-authenticator-protocol-v2.1-ps-
20210615.html>.
[IANA.COSE.Algorithms]
IANA, "COSE Algorithms",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/
cose.xhtml#algorithms>.
[IANA.JOSE.Algorithms]
IANA, "JOSE Algorithms",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/jose.xhtml#web-
signature-encryption-algorithms>.
[NIST.PQC-API]
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"PQC-API", <https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Projects/
Post-Quantum-Cryptography/documents/example-files/api-
notes.pdf>.
[OpenID.Discovery]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M.B., and E. Jay,
"OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0", 8 November 2014,
<https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-
1_0.html>.
[RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand
Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>.
[RFC7518] Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7518>.
[RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.
[RFC8414] Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0
Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, June 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8414>.
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
[RFC9180] Barnes, R., Bhargavan, K., Lipp, B., and C. Wood, "Hybrid
Public Key Encryption", RFC 9180, DOI 10.17487/RFC9180,
February 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9180>.
[WebAuthn] Hodges, J., Jones, J.C., Jones, M., Kumar, A., and E.
Lundberg, "Web Authentication: An API for accessing Public
Key Credentials - Level 2", World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C) Recommendation, 8 April 2021,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/REC-webauthn-2-20210408/>.
Appendix A. Document History
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
-02
* Expanded references for KEMs.
* Added example of a fully-specified KEM.
-01
* Included additional instructions for IANA.
* Added text on KEMs and Encapsulated keys.
* Added the section Fully-Specified Computations Using Multiple
Algorithms.
-00
* Created initial working group version based on draft-jones-jose-
fully-specified-algorithms-02.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank John Bradley, Brian Campbell, Ilari Liusvarra,
Tobias Looker, and Filip Skokan for their contributions to this
specification.
Authors' Addresses
Michael B. Jones
Self-Issued Consulting
Email: michael_b_jones@hotmail.com
URI: https://self-issued.info/
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Fully-Specified Algorithms February 2024
Orie Steele
Transmute
Email: orie@transmute.industries
Jones & Steele Expires 31 August 2024 [Page 13]
