Simo, you said:

> The JOSE and COSE standards generally use signatures for authentication 
> purposes in online transactions

I am going to say that this is a case of common-case-blindness; ie
considering only the most common usecase and ignoring the other valid
usecases of a protocol.

Off the top of my head, here are a list of things I know about that
use either JWS or CWS as the underlying signature envelope:

- SCITT -- a public ledger for software supply chain integrity.
- C509 a port of X.509 using CBOR instead of DER
- COSE-based firmware signing
- The SPICE WG that creates all sorts of verifiable credentials
- RATS WG that has both JWS and CWS formats for devices to produce
attestations or manifests of their current configuration.

and that's just uses of JOSE and COSE that I know about within other
IETF WGs, let alone proprietary and non-IETF protocols and ecosystems.
JOSE and COSE are fundamental cryptographic building blocks; to say
that we can enumerate all the uses of JOSE / COSE, and that none of
them require long-term signatures seems ... wrong.

I support adoption of this draft :)

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 at 15:52, John Gray
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Composite signatures are already through the LAMPS working group and have 
> been submitted to IESG for publication.  The final OIDs have been assigned by 
> IANA so they are ready for production.
>
> At the IETF hackathons we have had at least 7 different vendors implement 
> composite signatures in many different programming languages.   So I think 
> the discussion on how to implement them has already been completed.   
> Adopting this draft doesn't mean we are the first movers.
>
> See:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-pq-composite-sigs/13/
>
>
> I support the adoption of this draft.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Gray
>
> ________________________________
> From: Simo Sorce <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 3:13 PM
> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [jose] Re: Call for adoption: 
> draft-prabel-jose-pq-composite-sigs-05 (Ends 2026-01-19)
>
> If this is the reason I would say adoption is premature. The JOSE and COSE 
> standards generally use signatures for authentication purposes in online 
> transactions, and breaking classical signature algorithms is not going to 
> happen so suddenly
>
> If this is the reason I would say adoption is premature.
>
> The JOSE and COSE standards generally use signatures for authentication
> purposes in online transactions, and breaking classical signature
> algorithms is not going to happen so suddenly that you need a dual
> composite signature protection, you will most probably have plenty of
> time to simply change what key/signature you use before an online
> attack becomes relevant, even after a Quantum Computer exists that can
> break classical algorithms.
>
> The negatives for composite signature that bind both algorithms is that
> you'll carry the cost (both computational and byte wise) of two schemes
> in such a way you can't immediately drop the broken algorithm from the
> implementation even though you have to assign zero security to it (this
> has maintenance and security costs associated).
>
> This kind of signature make sense only for long lived documents and to
> a lesser extent software signing, which are typically not domains where
> JOSE/COSE play a role today.
>
> It would be wise to let others that deal in those areas move first and
> then adopt what they do if good, or learn from their mistakes and come
> up with something better.
>
> Being first movers is not always the right thing to do.
>
> Best,
> Simo.
>
> On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 19:32 +0000, Michael Jones wrote:
> > I support adoption of this draft.  As John Bradley said during the 
> > discussion of the draft in Montreal, if we don't do this, somebody else 
> > will.  Better that we do it.
> >
> > There are enough long-lived signature use cases for both COSE and JOSE that 
> > it makes sense to have this in our toolbox.  We don't know whether Elliptic 
> > Curve algorithms or ML-DSA algorithms will be broken first.  If composite 
> > signatures are used, the signatures will still be valid no matter which is 
> > broken first (until they are both broken).  There are use cases where that 
> > extra buffer of protection may be worth having.
> >
> >                                                                 -- Mike
> >
> > From: Giuseppe De Marco <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 9:00 AM
> > To: Karen O'Donoghue <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: [jose] Re: Call for adoption: 
> > draft-prabel-jose-pq-composite-sigs-05 (Ends 2026-01-19)
> >
> > I support adoption,
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Il giorno mar 6 gen 2026 alle ore 06:13 Karen O'Donoghue via Datatracker 
> > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> ha scritto:
> > This message starts a jose WG Call for Adoption of:
> > draft-prabel-jose-pq-composite-sigs-05
> >
> > This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-01-19
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    This document describes JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) and
> >    CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) serializations for PQ/T
> >    hybrid composite signatures.  The composite algorithms described
> >    combine ML-DSA as the post-quantum component and either ECDSA or
> >    EdDSA as the traditional component.
> >
> > Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support 
> > adoption
> > of this Internet-Draft by the jose WG. Please provide some explanation for
> > your preference. Also, please reply to all recipients of this message and
> > include this message in your response.
> >
> > Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual
> > Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2].
> > Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the 
> > provisions
> > of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
> > Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be
> > found at [3].
> >
> > Thank you.
> > [1] 
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!azJEhzK3gTbkKrhwnUBu8i0RluhqTNAnuL9do9n5j8rnV9E8S46m0R1UM4bkJM1OUd6BOeeA-CKYXmqD29RzVxnvwP6dxa2d$
> > [2] 
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!azJEhzK3gTbkKrhwnUBu8i0RluhqTNAnuL9do9n5j8rnV9E8S46m0R1UM4bkJM1OUd6BOeeA-CKYXmqD29RzVxnvwD4GshPY$
> > [3] 
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!azJEhzK3gTbkKrhwnUBu8i0RluhqTNAnuL9do9n5j8rnV9E8S46m0R1UM4bkJM1OUd6BOeeA-CKYXmqD29RzVxnvwEfZS2eK$
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-prabel-jose-pq-composite-sigs/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!azJEhzK3gTbkKrhwnUBu8i0RluhqTNAnuL9do9n5j8rnV9E8S46m0R1UM4bkJM1OUd6BOeeA-CKYXmqD29RzVxnvwGl34b7z$
> >
> > There is also an HTML version available at:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-prabel-jose-pq-composite-sigs-05.html__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!azJEhzK3gTbkKrhwnUBu8i0RluhqTNAnuL9do9n5j8rnV9E8S46m0R1UM4bkJM1OUd6BOeeA-CKYXmqD29RzVxnvwNOLmKRw$
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-prabel-jose-pq-composite-sigs-05__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!azJEhzK3gTbkKrhwnUBu8i0RluhqTNAnuL9do9n5j8rnV9E8S46m0R1UM4bkJM1OUd6BOeeA-CKYXmqD29RzVxnvwJZZr8Qx$
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jose mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> > To unsubscribe send an email to 
> > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> > _______________________________________________
> > jose mailing list -- [email protected]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
> --
> Simo Sorce
> Distinguished Engineer
> RHEL Crypto Team
> Red Hat, Inc
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
> Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for 
> the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If this 
> message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy, distribute or 
> disclose of the information it contains. Please notify Entrust immediately 
> and delete the message from your system.
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to