[Sis-dtn] [EXT] Canonical CBOR in BPv7 a MUST for block field encoding?

[Birrane, Edward J.]

I believe this is changed to deterministic CBOR with the exception the indefinite length items are not prohibited.

Sent with BlackBerry Work
(www.blackberry.com)


From: Dr. Keith L Scott <kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>>
Date: Wednesday, Dec 01, 2021, 12:01 PM
To: Scott Burleigh <scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:scott.c.burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Birrane, Edward J. <Edward.Birrane at jhuapl.edu<mailto:Edward.Birrane at jhuapl.edu>>
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [EXT] Canonical CBOR in BPv7 a MUST for block field encoding?

APL external email warning: Verify sender kscott at mitre.org before clicking links or attachments


The draft-31 spec says:


Cryptographic verification of a block is possible only if the

   sequence of octets on which the verifying node computes its hash -

   the canonicalized representation of the block - is identical to the

   sequence of octets on which the hash declared for that block was

   computed.  To ensure that blocks are always in canonical

   representation when they are transmitted and received, the CBOR

   representations of the values of all fields in all blocks must

   conform to the rules for Canonical CBOR as specified in [RFC8949<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8949>].

Note the non-capitalization of the MUST requirement.  Was that intended to be capitalized (and is it in the version that the RFC editor sent back)?  What are folks thoughts on capitalizing it as part of AUTH48?

                                v/r,

                                --keith


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20211201/8516984c/attachment.htm>