[Sis-dtn] RE: CCSDS BP Security Trade Status

[Burleigh, Scott C (312B)]

Which I think suggests that the security-canonical representation we settle on in the IETF WG for BP blocks needs to be one that is compatible with JOSE/COSE, and also that JOSE or COSE or whatever other format(s) we end up standardizing on will need to be representable in each of our supported on-the-wire representations.  (Which may well be a non-issue; I just want to make sure we don't lose track of it.)

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie] 
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:51 PM
To: Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCA0) <charles.j.sheehe at nasa.gov>; Mayer, Jeremy P. (JSC-OT/ESA)[EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY] <jeremy.mayer at dlr.de>; Burleigh, Scott C (312B) <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>; Iannicca, Dennis C. (GRC-LCA0) <dennis.c.iannicca at nasa.gov>; Edward.Birrane at jhuapl.edu
Cc: Scott, Keith L (9730-Affiliate) <kscott at mitre.org>; susan at mitre.org; plovell at mac.com; Howard.Weiss at parsons.com; sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: CCSDS BP Security Trade Status



On 31/08/15 20:39, Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCA0) wrote:
> Just wish to get consensus on what is going to be done.

So the consensus, for the IETF, for this as for other topics, will be established on the DTN WG mailing list.

I think getting input from folks here on these topics on that list is highly desirable.

But please expect that others may suggest other cryptographic formats, in particular JOSE or COSE, both of which will have valid arguments in favour. (And note that both could be used for representing the abstract security block and for a way to represent the ciphertext/signatures, whereas CMS only gives us the latter.)

S.