anima Working Group M. Richardson Internet-Draft Sandelman Software Works Intended status: Standards Track P. van der Stok Expires: 12 January 2022 vanderstok consultancy P. Kampanakis Cisco Systems E. Dijk IoTconsultancy.nl 11 July 2021 Constrained Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-12 Abstract This document defines a protocol to securely assign a Pledge to an owner and to enroll it into the owner's network. The protocol uses an artifact that is signed by the Pledge's manufacturer. This artifact is known as a "voucher". This document builds upon the work in [RFC8366] and [BRSKI], but defines an encoding of the voucher in CBOR rather than JSON, and enables the Pledge to perform its transactions using CoAP rather than HTTPS. The use of Raw Public Keys instead of X.509 certificates for security operations is also explained. 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 12 January 2022. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 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. 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Overview of Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. BRSKI-EST Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Discovery, URIs and Content Formats . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Extensions to BRSKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. Extensions to EST-coaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3.1. Pledge Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3.2. Registrar Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. BRSKI-MASA Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Pinning in Voucher Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. Registrar Identity Selection and Encoding . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. MASA Pinning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.3. Pinning of Raw Public Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1. Voucher Request artifact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1.1. Tree Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1.2. SID values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1.3. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1.4. Example voucher request artifact . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.2. Voucher artifact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.2.1. Tree Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.2.2. SID values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8.2.3. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8.2.4. Example voucher artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8.3. Signing voucher and voucher-request artifacts with COSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10. Raw Public Key Use Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.1. The Registrar Trust Anchor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.2. The Pledge Voucher Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 10.3. The Voucher Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11.1. Clock Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11.2. Protect Voucher PKI in HSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11.3. Test Domain Certificate Validity when Signing . . . . . 28 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12.1. Resource Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12.2. The IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12.3. The YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12.4. The RFC SID range assignment sub-registry . . . . . . . 29 12.5. Media Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12.5.1. application/voucher-cose+cbor . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12.6. CoAP Content-Format Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 14. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Appendix A. Library support for BRSKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 A.1. OpensSSL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 A.2. mbedTLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 A.3. wolfSSL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix B. Constrained BRSKI-EST messages . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B.1. enrollstatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B.2. voucher_status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Appendix C. COSE examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 C.1. Pledge, Registrar and MASA keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 C.1.1. Pledge private key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 C.1.2. Registrar private key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 C.1.3. MASA private key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 C.2. Pledge, Registrar and MASA certificates . . . . . . . . . 43 C.2.1. Pledge IDevID certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 C.2.2. Registrar Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 C.2.3. MASA Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 C.3. COSE signed voucher request from Pledge to Registrar . . 49 C.4. COSE signed voucher request from Registrar to MASA . . . 51 C.5. COSE signed voucher from MASA to Pledge via Registrar . . 53 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 1. Introduction Secure enrollment of new nodes into constrained networks with constrained nodes presents unique challenges. There are network bandwidth and code size issues to contend with. A solution for autonomous enrollment such as BRSKI [RFC8995] may be too large in terms of code size or bandwidth required. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 Therefore, this document defines a constrained version of the voucher artifact [RFC8366], along with a constrained version of BRSKI [RFC8995] that makes use of the constrained CoAP-based version of EST, EST-coaps [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] rather than EST over HTTPS [RFC7030]. While the [RFC8366] voucher is by default serialized to JSON with a signature in CMS, this document defines a new voucher serialization to CBOR ([RFC7049]) with a signature in COSE [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. This COSE-signed CBOR-encoded voucher can be transported using secured CoAP or HTTP. The CoAP connection (between Pledge and Registrar) is to be protected by either OSCORE+EDHOC or DTLS (CoAPS). The HTTP connection (between Registrar and MASA) is to be protected using TLS (HTTPS). This document specifies a constrained voucher-request artifact based on Section 3 of [RFC8995], and voucher(-request) transport over CoAP based on Section 3 of [RFC8995] and on [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est]. The CBOR definitions for the constrained voucher format are defined using the mechanism described in [I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor] using the SID mechanism explained in [I-D.ietf-core-sid]. As the tooling to convert YANG documents into a list of SID keys is still in its infancy, the table of SID values presented here MUST be considered normative rather than the output of the pyang tool. There is additional work when the voucher is integrated into the key- exchange, described in [I-D.selander-ace-ake-authz]. This work is not in scope for this document. 2. Terminology The following terms are defined in [RFC8366], and are used identically as in that document: artifact, domain, imprint, Join Registrar/Coordinator (JRC), Manufacturer Authorized Signing Authority (MASA), Pledge, Registrar, Trust of First Use (TOFU), and Voucher. The following terms from [RFC8995] are used identically as in that document: Domain CA, enrollment, IDevID, Join Proxy, LDevID, manufacturer, nonced, nonceless, PKIX. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 3. Requirements Language 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. 4. Overview of Protocol [RFC8366] provides for vouchers that assert proximity, that authenticate the Registrar and that can offer varying levels of anti- replay protection. This document does not make any extensions to the semantic meaning of vouchers, only the encoding has been changed to optimize for constrained devices and networks. The two main parts of the BRSKI protocol are named separately in this document: BRSKI-EST for the protocol between Pledge and Registrar, and BRSKI-MASA for the protocol between the Registrar and the MASA. Time-based vouchers are supported in this definition, but given that constrained devices are extremely unlikely to have accurate time, their use will be uncommon. Most Pledges using these constrained vouchers will be online during enrollment and will use live nonces to provide anti-replay protection rather than expiry times. [RFC8366] defines the voucher artifact, while the Voucher Request artifact was defined in [RFC8995]. This document defines both a constrained voucher and a constrained voucher-request. They are presented in the order "voucher-request", followed by a "voucher" response as this is the order that they occur in the protocol. The constrained voucher request MUST be signed by the Pledge. It signs using the private key associated with its IDevID X.509 certificate, or if an IDevID is not available, then the private key associated with its manufacturer-installed raw public key (RPK). Section 10 provides additional details on PKIX-less operations. The constrained voucher MUST be signed by the MASA. For the constrained voucher request this document defines two distinct methods for the Pledge to identify the Registrar: using either the Registrar's X.509 certificate, or using a raw public key (RPK) of the Registrar. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 For the constrained voucher also these two methods are supported to indicate (pin) a trusted domain identity: using either a pinned domain X.509 certificate, or a pinned raw public key (RPK). The BRSKI architectures mandates that the MASA be aware of the capabilities of the pledge. This is not a hardship as the pledges are constructed by a manufacturer who also arranges for the MASA to be aware of the inventory of devices. The MASA therefore knows if the pledge supports PKIX operations, PKIX format certificates, or if the pledge is limited to Raw Public Keys (RPK). Based upon this, the MASA can select which attributes to use in the voucher for certain operations, like the pinning of the Registrar identity. This is described in more detail in Section 8.2.3, Section 7 and Section 7.3 (for RPK specifically). 5. BRSKI-EST Protocol This section describes the constrained BRSKI extensions to EST-coaps [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] to transport the voucher between Registrar and Pledge (optionally via a Join Proxy) over CoAP. The extensions are targeting low-resource networks with small packets. The constrained BRSKI-EST protocol described in this section is between the Pledge and the Registrar only. 5.1. Discovery, URIs and Content Formats To keep the protocol messages small the EST-coaps and constrained- BRSKI URIs are shorter than the respective EST and BRSKI URIs. The EST-coaps server URIs differ from the EST URIs by replacing the scheme https by coaps and by specifying shorter resource path names. Below are some examples; the first two using a discovered short path name and the last one using the well-known URI of EST which requires no discovery. coaps://server.example.com/est/ coaps://server.example.com/e/ coaps://server.example.com/.well-known/est/ Similarly the constrained BRSKI server URIs differ from the BRSKI URIs by replacing the scheme https by coaps and by specifying shorter resource path names. Below are some examples; the first two using a discovered short path name and the last one using the well-known URI prefix which requires no discovery. This is the same "/.well-known/ brski" prefix as defined in [RFC8995] Section 5. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 coaps://server.example.com/brski/ coaps://server.example.com/b/ coaps://server.example.com/.well-known/brski/ Figure 5 in section 3.2.2 of [RFC7030] enumerates the operations supported by EST, for which Table 1 in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] enumerates the corresponding EST-coaps short path names. Similarly, Table 1 provides the mapping from the supported BRSKI extension URI paths to the constrained-BRSKI URI paths. +=================+============================+ | BRSKI resource | constrained-BRSKI resource | +=================+============================+ | /requestvoucher | /rv | +-----------------+----------------------------+ | /voucher_status | /vs | +-----------------+----------------------------+ | /enrollstatus | /es | +-----------------+----------------------------+ Table 1: BRSKI URI paths mapping to constrained BRSKI URI paths Note that /requestvoucher indicated above occurs between the Pledge and Registrar (in scope of the BRSKI-EST protocol), but it also occurs between Registrar and MASA. However, as described in Section 5, this section and above table addresses only the BRSKI-EST protocol. Pledges that wish to discover the available BRSKI bootstrap options/ formats, or reduce the size of the CoAP headers by eliminating the "/.well-known/brski" path, can do a discovery operation using [RFC6690] Section 4 by sending a discovery query to the Registrar. For example, if the Registrar supports a short BRSKI URL (/b) and supports the voucher format "application/voucher-cose+cbor" (TBD3), and status reporting in both CBOR and JSON formats: REQ: GET /.well-known/core?rt=brski* RES: 2.05 Content Content-Format: 40 Payload: ;rt=brski, ;rt=brski.rv;ct=TBD3, ;rt=brski.vs;ct="50 60", ;rt=brski.es;ct="50 60" Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 The Registrar is under no obligation to provide shorter URLs, and MAY respond to this query with only the "/.well-known/brski/" end points for the short names as defined in Table 1. Registrars that have implemented shorter URLs MUST also respond in equivalent ways to the corresponding "/.well-known/brski/" URLs, and MUST NOT distinguish between them. In particular, a Pledge MAY use the longer and shorter URLs in combination. When responding to a discovery request for BRSKI resources, the server MAY in addition return the full resource paths and the content types which are supported at those end-points as shown in above example. This is useful when multiple content types are specified for a particular resource on the server. The server responds with only the root path for the BRSKI resource (rt=brski, resource /b in above example) and no others in case the client queries for only rt=brski type resources. (So, a query for rt=brski, without the wildcard character.) The return of multiple content-types in the "ct" attribute allows the Pledge to choose the most appropriate one. Note that Content-Format TBD3 ("application/voucher-cose+cbor") is defined in this document. The Content-Format 50 ("application/json") MAY be supported and Content-Format 60 ("application/cbor") MUST be supported by the Registrar for the /vs and /es resources. Content-Format TBD3 MUST be supported by the Registrar for the /rv resource. If the "ct" attribute is not indicated for the /rv resource in the link format description, this implies that at least TBD3 is supported. The Pledge and MASA need to support one or more formats (at least TBD3) for the voucher and for the voucher request. The MASA needs to support all formats that the Pledge, produced by that manufacturer, supports. 5.2. Extensions to BRSKI A Pledge that only supports the BRSKI bootstrap method and already knows the IP address and port of a Registrar or Join Proxy to use SHOULD NOT use discovery. In such case it is more efficient to just try its supported bootstrap method (e.g. /rv) via the well-known BRSKI resource on the known address and port. This avoids the Pledge having to unnecessarily implement CoRE Link Format parsing. The method via which the Pledge learns the address/port of a Registrar or Join Proxy to use is out of scope of this document. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 A Registrar SHOULD host any discoverable BRSKI resources on the same (UDP) server port that the Pledge's initial DTLS connection is using. This avoids the overhead of the Pledge having to reconnect using DTLS, in order to access discovered resource(s). 5.3. Extensions to EST-coaps A Pledge that already is DTLS-connected to either a Join Proxy or Registrar, and which only supports the EST-coaps enrollment method, SHOULD NOT use discovery for EST-coaps resources. This is because it is more efficient to just try its supported enrollment method (e.g. /sen) via the well-known EST resource on the current DTLS connection. This avoids an additional round-trip of packets and avoids the Pledge having to unnecessarily implement CoRE Link Format parsing. A Registrar SHOULD host any discoverable EST-coaps resources on the same (UDP) server port that the Pledge's DTLS initial connection is using. This avoids the Pledge having to reconnect using DTLS, in order to proceed with EST enrollment after the BRSKI bootstrap. [TBD EDNOTE: a Registrar that does host EST resources on another port won't be able to onboard Pledges that skip the discovery, so not interoperable. Should we fix this?] 5.3.1. Pledge Extensions A constrained Pledge SHOULD NOT support the optional EST "CSR attributes request" (/att) to minimize network traffic and reduce code size. When creating the CSR, the Pledge selects which attributes to include. One or more Subject Distinguished Name fields MUST be included. If the Pledge has no specific information on what attributes/fields are desired in the CSR, it MUST use the Subject Distinguished Name fields from its IDevID unmodified. The Pledge can receive such information via the voucher (encoded in a vendor- specific way) or some other, out-of-band means. A constrained Pledge MAY use the following optimized EST-coaps procedure to minimize both network traffic and code size: 1. if the voucher, that validates the current Registrar, contains a single pinned domain CA certificate, the Pledge provisionally considers this certificate as the EST trust anchor, in other words, it provisionally accepts this CA certificate as if it were the result of "CA certificates request" (/crts) to the Registrar. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 2. Using this CA certificate as trust anchor it proceeds with EST simple enrollment (/sen) to obtain its provisionally trusted LDevID. 3. If the Pledge validates that the trust anchor CA was used to sign its LDevID, the Pledge accepts the pinned domain CA certificate as the legitimate trust anchor CA for the Registrar's domain and accepts the associated LDevID. 4. If the trust anchor CA was NOT used to sign its LDevID, the Pledge MUST perform an actual "CA certificates request" (/crts) to the EST server to obtain the EST CA trust anchor(s) since these differ from the (temporary) pinned domain CA. 5. When doing this /crts request, the Pledge MAY use a CoAP Accept Option with value TBD287 ("application/pkix-cert") to limit the number of returned EST CA trust anchors to only one. 6. If the Pledge cannot obtain the single CA certificate or the finally validated CA certificate cannot be chained to the LDevID, then the Pledge MUST abort the enrollment process and report the error using the enrollment status telemetry (/es). 5.3.2. Registrar Extensions The Content-Format 50 MAY be supported and 60 MUST be supported by the Registrar for the /vs and /es resources. Content-Format TBD3 MUST be supported by the Registrar for the /rv resource. When a Registrar receives a "CA certificates request" (/crts) request with a CoAP Accept Option with value TBD287 ("application/pkix-cert") it SHOULD return only the single CA certificate that is the envisioned or actual authority for the current, authenticated Pledge making the request. The only exception case is when the Registrar is configured to not support a request for a single CA certificate for operational or security reasons, e.g. because every device enrolled into the domain needs to use multiple CAs. In such exception case the Registrar returns the CoAP response 4.06 Not Acceptable to indicate that only the default Content-Format of 281 "application/ pkcs7-mime;smime-type=certs-only" which supports multiple certificates is available. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 6. BRSKI-MASA Protocol [RFC8995] section 5.4 describes a connection between the Registrar and the MASA as being a normal TLS connection using HTTPS. This document does not change that. The Registrar MAY use the new format "application/voucher-cose+cbor" in its voucher request to MASA, or the existing BRSKI format "application/voucher-cms+json" defined by [RFC8995]. The MASA MUST support both formats. The Registrar indicates the voucher format it wants to receive from MASA using the HTTP Accept header. At the moment of writing the creation of coaps based MASAs is deemed unrealistic. The use of CoAP for the BRSKI-MASA connection can be the subject of another document. Some consideration was made to specify CoAP support for consistency, but: * the Registrar is not expected to be so constrained that it cannot support HTTPS client connections. * the technology and experience to build Internet-scale HTTPS responders (which the MASA is) is common, while the experience doing the same for CoAP is much less common. * in many Enterprise networks, outgoing UDP connections are often treated as suspicious, and there seems to be no advantage to using CoAP in that environment. * a Registrar is likely to provide onboarding services to both constrained and non-constrained devices. Such a Registrar would need to speak HTTPS anyway. * similarly, a manufacturer is likely to offer both constrained and non-constrained devices, so there may in practice be no situation in which the MASA could be CoAP-only. Additionally, as the MASA is intended to be a function that can easily be oursourced to a third-party service provider, reducing the complexity would also seem to reduce the cost of that function. 7. Pinning in Voucher Artifacts The voucher is a statement by the MASA for use by the Pledge that provide the identity of the Pledge's owner. This section describes how the owner's identity is determined and how it is encoded within the voucher. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 7.1. Registrar Identity Selection and Encoding Section 5.5 of [RFC8995] describes BRSKI policies for selection of the owner identity. It indicates some of the flexibility that is possible for the Registrar. The recommendation made there is for the Registrar to include only certificates in the voucher request (CMS) signing structure which participate in the certificate chain that is to be pinned. The MASA is expected to evaluate the certificates included by the Registrar in its voucher request, forming them into a chain with the Registrar's (signing) identity on one end. Then, it pins a certificate selected from the chain. For instance, for a domain with a two-level certification authority (see Figure 1), where the voucher-request has been signed by "Registrar", its signing structure includes two additional CA certificates: .------------------. | domain CA (1) | | trust anchor | '------------------' | v .------------. | domain (2) | | Sub-CA | '------------' | | v .----------------. | domain | | Registrar (3) | | EE certificate | '----------------' Figure 1: Two-Level CA PKI When the Registrar is using a COSE-signed constrained voucher request towards MASA, instead of a regular CMS-signed voucher request, the COSE_Sign1 object contains a protected and an unprotected header. The Registrar MUST place all the certificates for the chain in an "x5bag" attribute in the unprotected header [I-D.ietf-cose-x509]. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 7.2. MASA Pinning Policy The MASA, having assembled and verified the chain in the signing structure of the voucher request, will now need to select a certificate to pin. (For the case that only the Registrar's End- Entity certificate is included, only this certificate can be selected and this section does not apply.) The BRSKI policy for pinning by the MASA as described in Section 5.5.2 of [RFC8995] leaves much flexibility to the manufacturer. The present document adds the following rules to the MASA pinning policy to reduce the network load: 1. for a voucher containing a nonce, it SHOULD select the most specific (lowest-level) CA certificate in the chain. 2. for a nonceless voucher, it SHOULD select the least-specific (highest-level) CA certificate in the chain that is allowed under the MASA's policy for this specific domain. The rationale for 1. is that in case of a voucher with nonce, the voucher is valid only in scope of the present DTLS connection between Pledge and Registrar anyway, so it would have no benefit to pin a higher-level CA. By pinning the most specific CA the constrained Pledge can validate its DTLS connection using less crypto operations. The rationale for pinning a CA instead of the Registrar's End-Entity certificate directly is the following benefit on constrained networks: the pinned certificate in the voucher can in common cases be re-used as a Domain CA trust anchor during the EST enrollment and during the operational phase that follows after EST enrollment, as explained in Section 5.3.1. The rationale for 2. follows from the flexible BRSKI trust model for, and purpose of, nonceless vouchers (Sections 5.5.* and 7.4.1 of [RFC8995]). Using the previous example of a domain with a two-level certification authority, the most specific CA ("Sub-CA") is the identity that is pinned by MASA in a nonced voucher. A Registrar that wished to have only the Registrar's End-Entity certificate pinned would omit the "domain CA" and "Sub-CA" certificates from the voucher-request. In case of a nonceless voucher, the MASA would depending on trust level pin only "Registrar" certificate (low trust in customer), or the "Sub-CA" certificate (in case of medium trust, implying that any Registrar of that sub-domain is acceptable), or even the "domain CA" certificate (in case of high trust in the customer, and possibly a pre-agreed need of the customer to obtain flexible long-lived vouchers). Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 7.3. Pinning of Raw Public Keys Specifically for constrained use cases, the pinning of the raw public key (RPK) of the Registrar is also supported in the constrained voucher, instead of an X.509 certificate. If an RPK is pinned it MUST be the RPK of the Registrar. When the Pledge is known by MASA to support RPK but not X.509 certificates, the voucher produced by the MASA pins the RPK of the Registrar in either the "pinned-domain-pubk" or "pinned-domain-pubk- sha256" field of a voucher. This is described in more detail in Section 8.2.3. A Pledge that does not support X.509 certificates cannot use EST to enroll; it has to use another method for enrollment without certificates and the Registrar has to support this method also. It is possible that the Pledge will not enroll, but instead only a network join operation will occur, such as described in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]. How the Pledge discovers this method and details of the enrollment method are out of scope of this document. When the Pledge is known by MASA to support PKIX format certificates, the "pinned-domain-cert" field present in a voucher typically pins a domain certificate. That can be either the End-Entity certificate of the Registrar, or the certificate of a domain CA of the Registrar's domain as specified in Section 7.2. However, if the Pledge is known to also support RPK pinning and the MASA intends to pin the Registrar's identity (not a CA), then MASA SHOULD pin the RPK (RPK3 in Figure 2) of the Registrar instead of the Registrar's End-Entity certificate to save space in the voucher. .------------. | pub-CA (1) | '------------' | v .------------. | sub-CA (2) | '------------' | v .--------------. | Registrar(3) | | RPK3 | '--------------' Figure 2: Raw Public Key pinning Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 8. Artifacts This section describes for both the voucher request and the voucher first the abstract (tree) definition as explained in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]. This provides a high-level view of the contents of each artifact. Then the assigned SID values are presented. These have been assigned using the rules in [I-D.ietf-core-sid], with an allocation that was made via the http://comi.space service. 8.1. Voucher Request artifact 8.1.1. Tree Diagram The following diagram is largely a duplicate of the contents of [RFC8366], with the addition of the fields proximity-registrar-pubk, proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256, proximity-registrar-cert, and prior- signed-voucher-request. prior-signed-voucher-request is only used between the Registrar and the MASA. proximity-registrar-pubk or proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256 optionally replaces proximity-registrar-cert for the most constrained cases where RPK is used by the Pledge. module: ietf-constrained-voucher-request grouping voucher-request-constrained-grouping +-- voucher +-- created-on? yang:date-and-time +-- expires-on? yang:date-and-time +-- assertion enumeration +-- serial-number string +-- idevid-issuer? binary +-- pinned-domain-cert? binary +-- domain-cert-revocation-checks? boolean +-- nonce? binary +-- last-renewal-date? yang:date-and-time +-- proximity-registrar-pubk? binary +-- proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256? binary +-- proximity-registrar-cert? binary +-- prior-signed-voucher-request? binary 8.1.2. SID values Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 SID Assigned to --------- -------------------------------------------------- 2501 data /ietf-constrained-voucher-request:voucher 2502 data .../assertion 2503 data .../created-on 2504 data .../domain-cert-revocation-checks 2505 data .../expires-on 2506 data .../idevid-issuer 2507 data .../last-renewal-date 2508 data /ietf-constrained-voucher-request:voucher/nonce 2509 data .../pinned-domain-cert 2510 data .../prior-signed-voucher-request 2511 data .../proximity-registrar-cert 2513 data .../proximity-registrar-pubk 2512 data .../proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256 2514 data .../serial-number WARNING, obsolete definitions 8.1.3. YANG Module In the constrained-voucher-request YANG module, the voucher is "augmented" within the "used" grouping statement such that one continuous set of SID values is generated for the constrained- voucher-request module name, all voucher attributes, and the constrained-voucher-request attributes. Two attributes of the voucher are "refined" to be optional. file "ietf-constrained-voucher-request@2021-04-15.yang" module ietf-constrained-voucher-request { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher-request"; prefix "constrained"; import ietf-restconf { prefix rc; description "This import statement is only present to access the yang-data extension defined in RFC 8040."; reference "RFC 8040: RESTCONF Protocol"; } import ietf-voucher { prefix "v"; } Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 organization "IETF ANIMA Working Group"; contact "WG Web: WG List: Author: Michael Richardson Author: Peter van der Stok Author: Panos Kampanakis "; description "This module defines the format for a voucher request, which is produced by a pledge to request a voucher. The voucher-request is sent to the potential owner's Registrar, which in turn sends the voucher request to the manufacturer or its delegate (MASA). A voucher is then returned to the pledge, binding the pledge to the owner. This is a constrained version of the voucher-request present in {{I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrap-keyinfra}} This version provides a very restricted subset appropriate for very constrained devices. In particular, it assumes that nonce-ful operation is always required, that expiration dates are rather weak, as no clocks can be assumed, and that the Registrar is identified by either a pinned Raw Public Key of the Registrar, or by a pinned X.509 certificate of the Registrar or domain CA. The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119."; revision "2021-04-15" { description "Initial version"; reference "RFC XXXX: Voucher Profile for Constrained Devices"; } rc:yang-data voucher-request-constrained-artifact { // YANG data template for a voucher. uses voucher-request-constrained-grouping; Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 } // Grouping defined for future usage grouping voucher-request-constrained-grouping { description "Grouping to allow reuse/extensions in future work."; uses v:voucher-artifact-grouping { refine voucher/created-on { mandatory false; } refine voucher/pinned-domain-cert { mandatory false; } augment "voucher" { description "Base the constrained voucher-request upon the regular one"; leaf proximity-registrar-pubk { type binary; description "The proximity-registrar-pubk replaces the proximity-registrar-cert in constrained uses of the voucher-request. The proximity-registrar-pubk is the Raw Public Key of the Registrar. This field is encoded as specified in RFC7250, section 3. The ECDSA algorithm MUST be supported. The EdDSA algorithm as specified in draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis-17 SHOULD be supported. Support for the DSA algorithm is not recommended. Support for the RSA algorithm is a MAY, but due to size is discouraged."; } leaf proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256 { type binary; description "The proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256 is an alternative to both proximity-registrar-pubk and pinned-domain-cert. In many cases the public key of the domain has already been transmitted during the key agreement protocol, and it is wasteful to transmit the public key another Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 two times. The use of a hash of public key info, at 32-bytes for sha256 is a significant savings compared to an RSA public key, but is only a minor savings compared to a 256-bit ECDSA public-key. Algorithm agility is provided by extensions to this specification which may define a new leaf for another hash type."; } leaf proximity-registrar-cert { type binary; description "An X.509 v3 certificate structure as specified by RFC 5280, Section 4 encoded using the ASN.1 distinguished encoding rules (DER), as specified in ITU-T X.690. The first certificate in the Registrar TLS server certificate_list sequence (see [RFC5246]) presented by the Registrar to the Pledge. This field or one of its alternatives MUST be populated in a Pledge's voucher request if the proximity assertion is populated."; } leaf prior-signed-voucher-request { type binary; description "If it is necessary to change a voucher, or re-sign and forward a voucher that was previously provided along a protocol path, then the previously signed voucher SHOULD be included in this field. For example, a pledge might sign a proximity voucher, which an intermediate registrar then re-signs to make its own proximity assertion. This is a simple mechanism for a chain of trusted parties to change a voucher, while maintaining the prior signature information. The pledge MUST ignore all prior voucher information when accepting a voucher for imprinting. Other parties MAY examine the prior signed voucher information for the purposes of policy decisions. For example, this information could be useful to a MASA to determine that both pledge and registrar agree on proximity assertions. The MASA SHOULD Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 remove all prior-signed-voucher-request information when signing a voucher for imprinting so as to minimize the final voucher size."; } } } } } 8.1.4. Example voucher request artifact Below is a CBOR serialization of an example constrained voucher request from a Pledge to a Registrar, shown in CBOR diagnostic notation. The enum value of the assertion field is calculated to be 2 by following the algorithm described in section 9.6.4.2 of [RFC7950]. Four dots ("....") in a CBOR byte string denotes a sequence of bytes that are not shown for brevity. { 2501: { +2 : "2016-10-07T19:31:42Z", / SID=2503, created-on / +4 : "2016-10-21T19:31:42Z", / SID=2505, expires-on / +1 : 2, / SID=2502, assertion "proximity" / +13: "JADA123456789", / SID=2514, serial-number / +5 : h'08C2BF36....B3D2B3', / SID=2506, idevid-issuer / +10: h'30820275....82c35f', / SID=2511, proximity-registrar-cert/ +3 : true, / SID=2504, domain-cert -revocation-checks/ +6 : "2017-10-07T19:31:42Z" / SID=2507, last-renewal-date / } } 8.2. Voucher artifact The voucher's primary purpose is to securely assign a Pledge to an owner. The voucher informs the Pledge which entity it should consider to be its owner. 8.2.1. Tree Diagram The following diagram is largely a duplicate of the contents of [RFC8366], with only the addition of the fields pinned-domain-pubk and pinned-domain-pubk-sha256. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 module: ietf-constrained-voucher grouping voucher-constrained-grouping +-- voucher +-- created-on? yang:date-and-time +-- expires-on? yang:date-and-time +-- assertion enumeration +-- serial-number string +-- idevid-issuer? binary +-- pinned-domain-cert? binary +-- domain-cert-revocation-checks? boolean +-- nonce? binary +-- last-renewal-date? yang:date-and-time +-- pinned-domain-pubk? binary +-- pinned-domain-pubk-sha256? binary 8.2.2. SID values SID Assigned to --------- -------------------------------------------------- 2451 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher 2452 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/assertion 2453 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/created-on 2454 data .../domain-cert-revocation-checks 2455 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/expires-on 2456 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/idevid-issuer 2457 data .../last-renewal-date 2458 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/nonce 2459 data .../pinned-domain-cert 2460 data .../pinned-domain-pubk 2461 data .../pinned-domain-pubk-sha256 2462 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/serial-number WARNING, obsolete definitions 8.2.3. YANG Module In the constrained-voucher YANG module, the voucher is "augmented" within the "used" grouping statement such that one continuous set of SID values is generated for the constrained-voucher module name, all voucher attributes, and the constrained-voucher attributes. Two attributes of the voucher are "refined" to be optional. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 file "ietf-constrained-voucher@2021-04-15.yang" module ietf-constrained-voucher { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher"; prefix "constrained"; import ietf-restconf { prefix rc; description "This import statement is only present to access the yang-data extension defined in RFC 8040."; reference "RFC 8040: RESTCONF Protocol"; } import ietf-voucher { prefix "v"; } organization "IETF ANIMA Working Group"; contact "WG Web: WG List: Author: Michael Richardson Author: Peter van der Stok Author: Panos Kampanakis "; description "This module defines the format for a voucher, which is produced by a pledge's manufacturer or its delegate (MASA) to securely assign one or more pledges to an 'owner', so that a pledge may establish a secure connection to the owner's network infrastructure. This version provides a very restricted subset appropriate for very constrained devices. In particular, it assumes that nonce-ful operation is always required, that expiration dates are rather weak, as no clocks can be assumed, and that the Registrar is identified by either a pinned Raw Public Key of the Registrar, or by a pinned X.509 certificate of the Registrar or domain CA. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119."; revision "2021-04-15" { description "Initial version"; reference "RFC XXXX: Voucher Profile for Constrained Devices"; } rc:yang-data voucher-constrained-artifact { // YANG data template for a voucher. uses voucher-constrained-grouping; } // Grouping defined for future usage grouping voucher-constrained-grouping { description "Grouping to allow reuse/extensions in future work."; uses v:voucher-artifact-grouping { refine voucher/created-on { mandatory false; } refine voucher/pinned-domain-cert { mandatory false; } augment "voucher" { description "Base the constrained voucher upon the regular one"; leaf pinned-domain-pubk { type binary; description "The pinned-domain-pubk may replace the pinned-domain-cert in constrained uses of the voucher. The pinned-domain-pubk is the Raw Public Key of the Registrar. This field is encoded as a Subject Public Key Info block as specified in RFC7250, in section 3. The ECDSA algorithm MUST be supported. The EdDSA algorithm as specified in draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis-17 SHOULD be supported. Support for the DSA algorithm is not recommended. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 Support for the RSA algorithm is a MAY."; } leaf pinned-domain-pubk-sha256 { type binary; description "The pinned-domain-pubk-sha256 is a second alternative to pinned-domain-cert. In many cases the public key of the domain has already been transmitted during the key agreement process, and it is wasteful to transmit the public key another two times. The use of a hash of public key info, at 32-bytes for sha256 is a significant savings compared to an RSA public key, but is only a minor savings compared to a 256-bit ECDSA public-key. Algorithm agility is provided by extensions to this specification which can define a new leaf for another hash type."; } } } } } 8.2.4. Example voucher artifacts Below the CBOR serialization of an example constrained voucher is shown in CBOR diagnostic notation. The enum value of the assertion field is calculated to be zero by following the algorithm described in section 9.6.4.2 of [RFC7950]. Four dots ("....") in a CBOR byte string denotes a sequence of bytes that are not shown for brevity. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 { 2451: { +2 : "2016-10-07T19:31:42Z", / SID = 2453, created-on / +4 : "2016-10-21T19:31:42Z", / SID = 2455, expires-on / +1 : 0, / SID = 2452, assertion "verified" / +11: "JADA123456789", / SID = 2462, serial-number / +5 : h'E40393B4....68A3', / SID = 2456, idevid-issuer / +8 : h'30820275....C35F', / SID = 2459, pinned-domain-cert/ +3 : true, / SID = 2454, domain-cert / / -revocation-checks / +6 : "2017-10-07T19:31:42Z" / SID = 2457, last-renewal-date / } } 8.3. Signing voucher and voucher-request artifacts with COSE The COSE-Sign1 structure is discussed in section 4.2 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. The CBOR object that carries the body, the signature, and the information about the body and signature is called the COSE_Sign1 structure. It is used when only one signature is used on the body. Support for ECDSA with sha256 (secp256k1 and prime256v1 curves) is REQUIRED. Support for EdDSA is encouraged. [TBD EDNOTE: Expand and add a reference why. ] An example of the supported COSE-sign1 object structure is shown in Figure 3. COSE_Sign1( [ h'A101382E', # { "alg": EC256K1 } { "kid" : h'7890....1234' # hash256(public key) }, h'1234....5678', #voucher-request binary content h'4567....1234', #voucher-request binary public signature ] ) Figure 3: cose-sign1 example in CBOR diagnostic notation The [COSE-registry] specifies the integers that replace the strings and the mnemonics in Figure 3. The value of the key identifier "kid" parameter is an example value. Usually a hash of the public key is used to identify the public key. The choice of key identifier method Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 is vendor-specific. The public key and its hash are derived from the relevant certificate (Pledge, Registrar or MASA certificate). [TBD EDNOTE: how can MASA know which kid method the Registrar has used/ supports? Does it matter?] In Appendix C a binary cose-sign1 object is shown based on the voucher-request example of Section 8.1.4. 9. Design Considerations The design considerations for the CBOR encoding of vouchers are much the same as for JSON vouchers in [RFC8366]. One key difference is that the names of the leaves in the YANG definition do not affect the size of the resulting CBOR, as the SID translation process assigns integers to the names. Any POST request to the Registrar with resource /vs or /es returns a 2.04 Changed response with empty payload. The client should be aware that the server may use a piggybacked CoAP response (ACK, 2.04) but may also respond with a separate CoAP response, i.e. first an (ACK, 0.0) that is an acknowledgement of the request reception followed by a (CON, 2.04) response in a separate CoAP message. 10. Raw Public Key Use Considerations This section explains techniques to reduce the number of bytes that are sent over the wire during the BRSKI bootstrap. The use of a raw public key (RPK) in the pinning process can significantly reduce the number of bytes and round trips, but it comes with a few significant operational limitations. 10.1. The Registrar Trust Anchor When the Pledge first connects to the Registrar, the connection to the Registrar is provisional, as explained in section 5.6.2 of [RFC8995]. The Registrar provides its public key in a TLSServerCertificate, and the Pledge uses that to validate that integrity of the (D)TLS connection, but it does not validate the identity of the provided certificate. As the TLSServerCertificate object is never verified directly by the pledge, sending it can be considered superfluous. Instead of using a (TLSServer)Certificate of type X509 (see section 4.4.2 of [RFC8446]), a RawPublicKey object is used. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 A Registrar operating in a mixed environment can determine whether to send a Certificate or a Raw Public key: this is determined by the pledge including the server_certificate_type of RawPublicKey. This is shown in section 5 of [RFC7250]. The Pledge continues to send a client_certificate_type of X509, so that the Registrar can properly identify the pledge and distill the MASA URI information from its certificate. 10.2. The Pledge Voucher Request The Pledge puts the Registrar's public key into the proximity- registrar-pubk field of the voucher-request. (The proximity- registrar-pubk-sha256 can also be used if the 32-bytes of a SHA256 hash turns out to be smaller than a typical ECDSA key.) As the format of the pubk field is identical to the TLS Certificate RawPublicKey, no manipulation at all is needed to insert this into a voucher-request. 10.3. The Voucher Response A returned voucher will have a pinned-domain-subk field with the identical key as was found in the proximity-registrar-pubk field above, as well as in the TLS connection. Validation of this key by the pledge is what takes the DTLS connection out of the provisional state (see [RFC8995] section 5.6.2). The voucher needs to be validated first. The Pledge needs to have a public key to validate the signature from the MASA on the voucher. In certain cases, the MASA's public key counterpart of the (private) signing key is already installed in the Pledge at manufacturing time. In other cases, if the MASA signing key is based upon a PKI (see [I-D.richardson-anima-masa-considerations] Section 2.3), then a certificate chain may need to be included with the voucher in order for the pledge to validate the signature. In CMS signed artifacts, the CMS structure has a place for such certificates. In the COSE- signed Constrained Vouchers described in this document, the x5bag attribute from [I-D.ietf-cose-x509] is to be used for this. 11. Security Considerations 11.1. Clock Sensitivity TBD. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 11.2. Protect Voucher PKI in HSM TBD. 11.3. Test Domain Certificate Validity when Signing TBD. 12. IANA Considerations 12.1. Resource Type Registry Additions to the sub-registry "Resource Type Link Target Attribute Values", within the "CoRE parameters" IANA registry are specified below. brski needs registration with IANA brski.rv needs registration with IANA brski.vs needs registration with IANA brski.es needs registration with IANA 12.2. The IETF XML Registry This document registers two URIs in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688]. Following the format in [RFC3688], the following registration is requested: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher Registrant Contact: The ANIMA WG of the IETF. XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher-request Registrant Contact: The ANIMA WG of the IETF. XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. 12.3. The YANG Module Names Registry This document registers two YANG modules in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]. Following the format defined in [RFC6020], the the following registration is requested: Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 name: ietf-constrained-voucher namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher prefix: vch reference: RFC XXXX name: ietf-constrained-voucher-request namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained -voucher-request prefix: vch reference: RFC XXXX 12.4. The RFC SID range assignment sub-registry ------------ ------ --------------------------- ------------ Entry-point | Size | Module name | RFC Number ------------ ------ --------------------------- ------------ 2450 50 ietf-constrained-voucher [ThisRFC] 2500 50 ietf-constrained-voucher [ThisRFC} -request ----------- ------ --------------------------- ------------ Warning: These SID values are defined in [I-D.ietf-core-sid], not as an Early Allocation. 12.5. Media Types Registry This section registers the 'application/voucher-cose+cbor' in the IANA "Media Types" registry. This media type is used to indicate that the content is a CBOR voucher or voucher request signed with a COSE_Sign1 structure [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. 12.5.1. application/voucher-cose+cbor Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 Type name: application Subtype name: voucher-cose+cbor Required parameters: none Optional parameters: cose-type Encoding considerations: COSE_Sign1 CBOR vouchers are COSE objects signed with one signer. Security considerations: See Security Considerations, Section Interoperability considerations: The format is designed to be broadly interoperable. Published specification: THIS RFC. Applications that use this media type: ANIMA, 6tisch, and other zero-touch imprinting systems Additional information: Magic number(s): None File extension(s): .vch Macintosh file type code(s): none Person & email address to contact for further information: IETF ANIMA WG Intended usage: LIMITED Restrictions on usage: NONE Author: ANIMA WG Change controller: IETF Provisional registration? (standards tree only): NO 12.6. CoAP Content-Format Registry Additions to the sub-registry "CoAP Content-Formats", within the "CoRE Parameters" registry are needed for two media types. These can be registered either in the Expert Review range (0-255) or IETF Review range (256-9999). Media type mime type Encoding ID References ---------------------------- ----------- --------- ---- ---------- application/voucher-cose+cbor "COSE-Sign1" CBOR TBD3 [This RFC] 13. Acknowledgements We are very grateful to Jim Schaad for explaining COSE and CMS choices. Also thanks to Jim Schaad for correcting earlier version of the COSE Sign1 objects. Michel Veillette did extensive work on pyang to extend it to support the SID allocation process, and this document was among its first uses. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 30] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 14. Changelog -10 Design considerations extended Examples made consistent -08 Examples for cose_sign1 are completed and improved. -06 New SID values assigned; regenerated examples -04 voucher and request-voucher MUST be signed examples for signed request are added in appendix IANA SID registration is updated SID values in examples are aligned signed cms examples aligned with new SIDs -03 Examples are inverted. -02 Example of requestvoucher with unsigned appllication/cbor is added attributes of voucher "refined" to optional CBOR serialization of vouchers improved Discovery port numbers are specified -01 application/json is optional, application/cbor is compulsory Cms and cose mediatypes are introduced 15. References 15.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] Vucinic, M., Simon, J., Pister, K., and M. Richardson, "Constrained Join Protocol (CoJP) for 6TiSCH", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal- security-15, 10 December 2019, . [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] Stok, P. V. D., Kampanakis, P., Richardson, M. C., and S. Raza, "EST over secure CoAP (EST-coaps)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-18, 6 January 2020, . Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 31] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 [I-D.ietf-core-sid] Veillette, M., Pelov, A., Petrov, I., and C. Bormann, "YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-sid-16, 24 June 2021, . [I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor] Veillette, M., Petrov, I., Pelov, A., and C. Bormann, "CBOR Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-16, 24 June 2021, . [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Structures and Process", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-15, 1 February 2021, . [I-D.ietf-cose-x509] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Header parameters for carrying and referencing X.509 certificates", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-cose-x509-08, 14 December 2020, . [I-D.selander-ace-ake-authz] Selander, G., Mattsson, J. P., Vucinic, M., Richardson, M., and A. Schellenbaum, "Lightweight Authorization for Authenticated Key Exchange.", Work in Progress, Internet- Draft, draft-selander-ace-ake-authz-03, 4 May 2021, . [ieee802-1AR] IEEE Standard, ., "IEEE 802.1AR Secure Device Identifier", 2009, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 32] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, . [RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70, RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009, . [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, . [RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049, October 2013, . [RFC7250] Wouters, P., Ed., Tschofenig, H., Ed., Gilmore, J., Weiler, S., and T. Kivinen, "Using Raw Public Keys in Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 7250, DOI 10.17487/RFC7250, June 2014, . [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8366] Watsen, K., Richardson, M., Pritikin, M., and T. Eckert, "A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols", RFC 8366, DOI 10.17487/RFC8366, May 2018, . [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, . [RFC8995] Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Eckert, T., Behringer, M., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI)", RFC 8995, DOI 10.17487/RFC8995, May 2021, . 15.2. Informative References Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 33] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 [COSE-registry] IANA, ., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) registry", 2017, . [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, "YANG Tree Diagrams", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree- diagrams-06, 8 February 2018, . [I-D.richardson-anima-masa-considerations] Richardson, M. and J. Yang, "Operatonal Considerations for Voucher infrastructure for BRSKI MASA", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-richardson-anima-masa- considerations-05, 12 March 2021, . [RFC6690] Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012, . [RFC7030] Pritikin, M., Ed., Yee, P., Ed., and D. Harkins, Ed., "Enrollment over Secure Transport", RFC 7030, DOI 10.17487/RFC7030, October 2013, . Appendix A. Library support for BRSKI For the implementation of BRSKI, the use of a software library to manipulate certificates and use crypto algorithms is often beneficial. Two C-based examples are OPENSSL and mbedtls. Others more targeted to specific platforms or languages exist. It is important to realize that the library interfaces differ significantly between libraries. Libraries do not support all known crypto algorithms. Before deciding on a library, it is important to look at their supported crypto algorithms and the roadmap for future support. Apart from availability, the library footprint, and the required execution cycles should be investigated beforehand. The handling of certificates usually includes the checking of a certificate chain. In some libraries, chains are constructed and verified on the basis of a set of certificates, the trust anchor (usually self signed root CA), and the target certificate. In other Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 34] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 libraries, the chain must be constructed beforehand and obey order criteria. Verification always includes the checking of the signatures. Less frequent is the checking the validity of the dates or checking the existence of a revoked certificate in the chain against a set of revoked certificates. Checking the chain on the consistency of the certificate extensions which specify the use of the certificate usually needs to be programmed explicitly. A libary can be used to construct a (D)TLS connection. It is useful to realize that differences beetween (D)TLS implementations will occur due to the differences in the certicate checks supported by the library. On top of that, checks between client and server certificates enforced by (D)TLS are not always helpful for a BRSKI implementation. For example, the certificates of Pledge and Registrar are usually not related when the BRSKI protocol is started. It must be verified that checks on the relation between client and server certificates do not hamper a succeful DTLS connection establishment. A.1. OpensSSL from openssl's apps/verify.c Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 35] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 X509 *x = NULL; int i = 0, ret = 0; X509_STORE_CTX *csc; STACK_OF(X509) *chain = NULL; int num_untrusted; x = load_cert(file, "certificate file"); if (x == NULL) goto end; csc = X509_STORE_CTX_new(); if (csc == NULL) { BIO_printf(bio_err, "error %s: X.509 store context" "allocation failed\n", (file == NULL) ? "stdin" : file); goto end; } X509_STORE_set_flags(ctx, vflags); if (!X509_STORE_CTX_init(csc, ctx, x, uchain)) { X509_STORE_CTX_free(csc); BIO_printf(bio_err, "error %s: X.509 store context" "initialization failed\n", (file == NULL) ? "stdin" : file); goto end; } if (tchain != NULL) X509_STORE_CTX_set0_trusted_stack(csc, tchain); if (crls != NULL) X509_STORE_CTX_set0_crls(csc, crls); i = X509_verify_cert(csc); X509_STORE_CTX_free(csc); A.2. mbedTLS mbedtls_x509_crt cert; mbedtls_x509_crt caCert; uint32_t certVerifyResultFlags; ... int result = mbedtls_x509_crt_verify(&cert, &caCert, NULL, NULL, &certVerifyResultFlags, NULL, NULL); Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 36] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 A.3. wolfSSL To be added (TBD). Appendix B. Constrained BRSKI-EST messages This section extends the examples from Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] with the constrained BRSKI requests. The CoAP headers are only worked out for the enrollstatus example. B.1. enrollstatus A coaps enrollstatus message can be : POST coaps://192.0.2.1:8085/b/es The corresponding CoAP header fields are shown below. Ver = 1 T = 0 (CON) Code = 0x02 (0.02 is POST) Options Option (Uri-Path) Option Delta = 0xb (option nr = 11) Option Length = 0x1 Option Value = "b" Option (Uri-Path) Option Delta = 0x0 (option nr = 11) Option Length = 0x2 Option Value = "es" Option (Content-Format) Option Delta = 0x1 (option nr = 12) Option Length = 0x1 Option Value = 60 (application/cbor) Payload Marker = 0xFF Payload = The Uri-Host and Uri-Port Options are omitted because they coincide with the transport protocol destination address and port respectively. TBD - Show the binary CBOR payload of this example. A 2.04 Changed response from the Registrar will then be: 2.04 Changed With CoAP fields: Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 37] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 Ver=1 T=2 (ACK) Code = 0x44 (2.04 Changed) B.2. voucher_status A coaps voucher_status message can be: POST coaps://[2001:db8::2:1]:61616/b/vs Content-Format: 60 (application/cbor) Payload = a46776657273696f6e0166737461747573f466726561736f6e7828496e66 6f726d61746976652068756d616e2d7265616461626c65206572726f7220 6d6573736167656e726561736f6e2d636f6e74657874a100764164646974 696f6e616c20696e666f726d6174696f6e The request payload above is binary CBOR but represented here in hexadecimal for readability. Below is the equivalent CBOR diagnostic format. {"version": 1, "status": false, "reason": "Informative human-readable error message", "reason-context": { 0: "Additional information" } } A 2.04 Changed response without payload will then be sent by the Registrar back to the Pledge. 2.04 Changed Appendix C. COSE examples These examples are generated on a Pi 4 and a PC running BASH. Keys and Certificates have been generated with openssl with the following shell script: #!/bin/bash #try-cert.sh export dir=./brski/intermediate export cadir=./brski export cnfdir=./conf export format=pem export default_crl_days=30 sn=8 DevID=pledge.1.2.3.4 Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 38] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 serialNumber="serialNumber=$DevID" export hwType=1.3.6.1.4.1.6715.10.1 export hwSerialNum=01020304 # Some hex export subjectAltName="otherName:1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.4;SEQ:hmodname" echo $hwType - $hwSerialNum echo $serialNumber OPENSSL_BIN="openssl" # remove all files rm -r ./brski/* # # initialize file structure # root level cd $cadir mkdir certs crl csr newcerts private chmod 700 private touch index.txt touch serial echo 11223344556600 >serial echo 1000 > crlnumber # intermediate level mkdir intermediate cd intermediate mkdir certs crl csr newcerts private chmod 700 private touch index.txt echo 11223344556600 >serial echo 1000 > crlnumber cd ../.. # file structure is cleaned start filling echo "#############################" echo "create registrar keys and certificates " echo "#############################" echo "create root registrar certificate using ecdsa with sha 256 key" $OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1 -genkey \ -noout -out $cadir/private/ca-regis.key $OPENSSL_BIN req -new -x509 \ -config $cnfdir/openssl-regis.cnf \ -key $cadir/private/ca-regis.key \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-regis.crt \ -extensions v3_ca\ Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 39] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 -days 365 \ -subj "/C=NL/ST=NB/L=Helmond/O=vanderstok/OU=consultancy \ /CN=registrar.stok.nl" # Combine authority certificate and key echo "Combine authority certificate and key" $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -inkey $cadir/private/ca-regis.key \ -in $cadir/certs/ca-regis.crt -export \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.pfx # converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem echo "converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem" $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -in $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.pfx \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.crt -nodes #show certificate in registrar combined certificate $OPENSSL_BIN x509 -in $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.crt -text # # Certificate Authority for MASA # echo "#############################" echo "create MASA keys and certificates " echo "#############################" echo "create root MASA certificate using ecdsa with sha 256 key" $OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1 -genkey -noout \ -out $cadir/private/ca-masa.key $OPENSSL_BIN req -new -x509 \ -config $cnfdir/openssl-masa.cnf \ -days 1000 -key $cadir/private/ca-masa.key \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-masa.crt \ -extensions v3_ca\ -subj "/C=NL/ST=NB/L=Helmond/O=vanderstok/OU=manufacturer\ /CN=masa.stok.nl" # Combine authority certificate and key echo "Combine authority certificate and key for masa" $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -inkey $cadir/private/ca-masa.key \ -in $cadir/certs/ca-masa.crt -export \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.pfx # converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem for masa echo "converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem for masa" Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 40] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -in $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.pfx \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.crt -nodes #show certificate in pledge combined certificate $OPENSSL_BIN x509 -in $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.crt -text # # Certificate for Pledge derived from MASA certificate # echo "#############################" echo "create pledge keys and certificates " echo "#############################" # Pledge derived Certificate echo "create pledge derived certificate using ecdsa with sha 256 key" $OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1 -genkey -noout \ -out $dir/private/pledge.key echo "create pledge certificate request" $OPENSSL_BIN req -nodes -new -sha256 \ -key $dir/private/pledge.key -out $dir/csr/pledge.csr \ -subj "/C=NL/ST=NB/L=Helmond/O=vanderstok/OU=manufacturing\ /CN=uuid:$DevID/$serialNumber" # Sign pledge derived Certificate echo "sign pledge derived certificate " $OPENSSL_BIN ca -config $cnfdir/openssl-pledge.cnf \ -extensions 8021ar_idevid\ -days 365 -in $dir/csr/pledge.csr \ -out $dir/certs/pledge.crt # Add pledge key and pledge certificate to pkcs12 file echo "Add derived pledge key and derived pledge \ certificate to pkcs12 file" $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -inkey $dir/private/pledge.key \ -in $dir/certs/pledge.crt -export \ -out $dir/certs/pledge-comb.pfx # converteer pledge pkcs12 file to pem echo "converteer pledge pkcs12 file to pem" $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -in $dir/certs/pledge-comb.pfx \ -out $dir/certs/pledge-comb.crt -nodes Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 41] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 #show certificate in pledge-comb.crt $OPENSSL_BIN x509 -in $dir/certs/pledge-comb.crt -text #show private key in pledge-comb.crt $OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1\ -in $dir/certs/pledge-comb.crt -text The xxxx-comb certificates have been generated as required by libcoap for the DTLS connection generation. C.1. Pledge, Registrar and MASA keys This first section documents the public and private keys used in the subsequent test vectors below. These keys come from test code and are not used in any production system, and should only be used only to validate implementations. C.1.1. Pledge private key Private-Key: (256 bit) priv: 9b:4d:43:b6:a9:e1:7c:04:93:45:c3:13:d9:b5:f0: 41:a9:6a:9c:45:79:73:b8:62:f1:77:03:3a:fc:c2: 9c:9a pub: 04:d6:b7:6f:74:88:bd:80:ae:5f:28:41:2c:72:02: ef:5f:98:b4:81:e1:d9:10:4c:f8:1b:66:d4:3e:5c: ea:da:73:e6:a8:38:a9:f1:35:11:85:b6:cd:e2:04: 10:be:fe:d5:0b:3b:14:69:2e:e1:b0:6a:bc:55:40: 60:eb:95:5c:54 ASN1 OID: prime256v1 NIST CURVE: P-256 C.1.2. Registrar private key Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 42] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 Private-Key: (256 bit) priv: 81:df:bb:50:a3:45:58:06:b5:56:3b:46:de:f3:e9: e9:00:ae:98:13:9e:2f:36:68:81:fc:d9:65:24:fb: 21:7e pub: 04:50:7a:c8:49:1a:8c:69:c7:b5:c3:1d:03:09:ed: 35:ba:13:f5:88:4c:e6:2b:88:cf:30:18:15:4f:a0: 59:b0:20:ec:6b:eb:b9:4e:02:b8:93:40:21:89:8d: a7:89:c7:11:ce:a7:13:39:f5:0e:34:8e:df:0d:92: 3e:d0:2d:c7:b7 ASN1 OID: prime256v1 NIST CURVE: P-256 C.1.3. MASA private key Private-Key: (256 bit) priv: c6:bb:a5:8f:b6:d3:c4:75:28:d8:d3:d9:46:c3:31: 83:6d:00:0a:9a:38:ce:22:5c:e9:d9:ea:3b:98:32: ec:31 pub: 04:59:80:94:66:14:94:20:30:3c:66:08:85:55:86: db:e7:d4:d1:d7:7a:d2:a3:1a:0c:73:6b:01:0d:02: 12:15:d6:1f:f3:6e:c8:d4:84:60:43:3b:21:c5:83: 80:1e:fc:e2:37:85:77:97:94:d4:aa:34:b5:b6:c6: ed:f3:17:5c:f1 ASN1 OID: prime256v1 NIST CURVE: P-256 C.2. Pledge, Registrar and MASA certificates Below the certificates that accompany the keys. The certificate description is followed by the hexadecimal DER of the certificate C.2.1. Pledge IDevID certificate Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 43] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 Certificate: Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Serial Number: 4822678189204992 (0x11223344556600) Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 Issuer: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=manufacturer, CN=masa.stok.nl Validity Not Before: Dec 9 10:02:36 2020 GMT Not After : Dec 31 23:59:59 9999 GMT Subject: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=manufacturing, CN=uuid:pledge.1.2.3.4/serialNumber=pledge.1.2.3.4 Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey Public-Key: (256 bit) pub: 04:d6:b7:6f:74:88:bd:80:ae:5f:28:41:2c:72:02: ef:5f:98:b4:81:e1:d9:10:4c:f8:1b:66:d4:3e:5c: ea:da:73:e6:a8:38:a9:f1:35:11:85:b6:cd:e2:04: 10:be:fe:d5:0b:3b:14:69:2e:e1:b0:6a:bc:55:40: 60:eb:95:5c:54 ASN1 OID: prime256v1 NIST CURVE: P-256 X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Basic Constraints: CA:FALSE X509v3 Authority Key Identifier: keyid: E4:03:93:B4:C3:D3:F4:2A:80:A4:77:18:F6:96:49:03:01:17:68:A3 Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 30:46:02:21:00:d2:e6:45:3b:b0:c3:00:b3:25:8d:f1:83:fe: d9:37:c1:a2:49:65:69:7f:6b:b9:ef:2c:05:07:06:31:ac:17: bd:02:21:00:e2:ce:9e:7b:7f:74:50:33:ad:9e:ff:12:4e:e9: a6:f3:b8:36:65:ab:7d:80:bb:56:88:bc:03:1d:e5:1e:31:6f This is the hexadecimal representation in (request-)voucher examples referred to as pledge-cert-hex. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 44] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 30820226308201cba003020102020711223344556600300a06082a8648ce3d04 0302306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110 300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e6465 7273746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e75666163747572657231153013 06035504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c3020170d323031323039313030 3233365a180f39393939313233313233353935395a308190310b300906035504 0613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c 6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31163014060355 040b0c0d6d616e75666163747572696e67311c301a06035504030c1375756964 3a706c656467652e312e322e332e34311730150603550405130e706c65646765 2e312e322e332e343059301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703 420004d6b76f7488bd80ae5f28412c7202ef5f98b481e1d9104cf81b66d43e5c eada73e6a838a9f1351185b6cde20410befed50b3b14692ee1b06abc554060eb 955c54a32e302c30090603551d1304023000301f0603551d23041830168014e4 0393b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3300a06082a8648ce3d04030203 49003046022100d2e6453bb0c300b3258df183fed937c1a24965697f6bb9ef2c 05070631ac17bd022100e2ce9e7b7f745033ad9eff124ee9a6f3b83665ab7d80 bb5688bc031de51e316f C.2.2. Registrar Certificate Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 45] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 Certificate: Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Serial Number: 70:56:ea:aa:30:66:d8:82:6a:55:5b:90:88:d4:62:bf:9c:f2:8c:fd Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 Issuer: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=consultancy, CN=registrar.stok.nl Validity Not Before: Dec 9 10:02:36 2020 GMT Not After : Dec 9 10:02:36 2021 GMT Subject: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=consultancy, CN=registrar.stok.nl Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey Public-Key: (256 bit) pub: 04:50:7a:c8:49:1a:8c:69:c7:b5:c3:1d:03:09:ed: 35:ba:13:f5:88:4c:e6:2b:88:cf:30:18:15:4f:a0: 59:b0:20:ec:6b:eb:b9:4e:02:b8:93:40:21:89:8d: a7:89:c7:11:ce:a7:13:39:f5:0e:34:8e:df:0d:92: 3e:d0:2d:c7:b7 ASN1 OID: prime256v1 NIST CURVE: P-256 X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Subject Key Identifier: 08:C2:BF:36:88:7F:79:41:21:85:87:2F:16:A7:AC:A6:EF:B3:D2:B3 X509v3 Authority Key Identifier: keyid: 08:C2:BF:36:88:7F:79:41:21:85:87:2F:16:A7:AC:A6:EF:B3:D2:B3 X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical CA:TRUE X509v3 Extended Key Usage: CMC Registration Authority, TLS Web Server Authentication, TLS Web Client Authentication X509v3 Key Usage: critical Digital Signature, Non Repudiation, Key Encipherment, Data Encipherment, Certificate Sign, CRL Sign Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 30:44:02:20:74:4c:99:00:85:13:b2:f1:bc:fd:f9:02:1a:46: fb:17:4c:f8:83:a2:7c:a1:d9:3f:ae:ac:f3:1e:4e:dd:12:c6: 02:20:11:47:14:db:f5:1a:5e:78:f5:81:b9:42:1c:6e:47:02: ab:53:72:70:c5:ba:fb:2d:16:c3:de:9a:a1:82:c3:5f Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 46] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 This the hexadecimal representation, in (request-)voucher examples referred to as regis-cert-hex 308202753082021ca00302010202147056eaaa3066d8826a555b9088d462bf9c f28cfd300a06082a8648ce3d0403023073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b 300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e64311330 11060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e 73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f 6b2e6e6c301e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d323131323039313030 3233365a3073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e42 3110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e 64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e73756c74616e6379311a30 1806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f6b2e6e6c3059301306072a 8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703420004507ac8491a8c69c7b5c31d03 09ed35ba13f5884ce62b88cf3018154fa059b020ec6bebb94e02b8934021898d a789c711cea71339f50e348edf0d923ed02dc7b7a3818d30818a301d0603551d 0e0416041408c2bf36887f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3301f0603551d23 04183016801408c2bf36887f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3300f0603551d 130101ff040530030101ff30270603551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c 06082b0601050507030106082b06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff0404 030201f6300a06082a8648ce3d04030203470030440220744c99008513b2f1bc fdf9021a46fb174cf883a27ca1d93faeacf31e4edd12c60220114714dbf51a5e 78f581b9421c6e4702ab537270c5bafb2d16c3de9aa182c35f C.2.3. MASA Certificate Certificate: Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Serial Number: 14:26:b8:1c:ce:d8:c3:e8:14:05:cb:87:67:0d:be:ef:d5:81:25:b4 Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 Issuer: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=manufacturer, CN=masa.stok.nl Validity Not Before: Dec 9 10:02:36 2020 GMT Not After : Sep 5 10:02:36 2023 GMT Subject: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=manufacturer, CN=masa.stok.nl Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey Public-Key: (256 bit) pub: 04:59:80:94:66:14:94:20:30:3c:66:08:85:55:86: db:e7:d4:d1:d7:7a:d2:a3:1a:0c:73:6b:01:0d:02: 12:15:d6:1f:f3:6e:c8:d4:84:60:43:3b:21:c5:83: 80:1e:fc:e2:37:85:77:97:94:d4:aa:34:b5:b6:c6: Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 47] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 ed:f3:17:5c:f1 ASN1 OID: prime256v1 NIST CURVE: P-256 X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Subject Key Identifier: E4:03:93:B4:C3:D3:F4:2A:80:A4:77:18:F6:96:49:03:01:17:68:A3 X509v3 Authority Key Identifier: keyid: E4:03:93:B4:C3:D3:F4:2A:80:A4:77:18:F6:96:49:03:01:17:68:A3 X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical CA:TRUE X509v3 Extended Key Usage: CMC Registration Authority, TLS Web Server Authentication, TLS Web Client Authentication X509v3 Key Usage: critical Digital Signature, Non Repudiation, Key Encipherment, Data Encipherment, Certificate Sign, CRL Sign Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 30:44:02:20:2e:c5:f2:24:72:70:20:ea:6e:74:8b:13:93:67: 8a:e6:fe:fb:8d:56:7f:f5:34:18:a9:ef:a5:0f:c3:99:ca:53: 02:20:3d:dc:91:d0:e9:6a:69:20:01:fb:e4:20:40:de:7c:7d: 98:ed:d8:84:53:61:84:a7:f9:13:06:4c:a9:b2:8f:5c This is the hexadecimal representation, in (request-)voucher examples referred to as masa-cert-hex. Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 48] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 3082026d30820214a00302010202141426b81cced8c3e81405cb87670dbeefd5 8125b4300a06082a8648ce3d040302306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b 300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e64311330 11060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e 7566616374757265723115301306035504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c 301e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d3233303930353130303233365a 306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110300e 06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e64657273 746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e756661637475726572311530130603 5504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c3059301306072a8648ce3d02010608 2a8648ce3d0301070342000459809466149420303c6608855586dbe7d4d1d77a d2a31a0c736b010d021215d61ff36ec8d48460433b21c583801efce237857797 94d4aa34b5b6c6edf3175cf1a3818d30818a301d0603551d0e04160414e40393 b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3301f0603551d23041830168014e403 93b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3300f0603551d130101ff04053003 0101ff30270603551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c06082b0601050507 030106082b06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff0404030201f6300a0608 2a8648ce3d040302034700304402202ec5f224727020ea6e748b1393678ae6fe fb8d567ff53418a9efa50fc399ca5302203ddc91d0e96a692001fbe42040de7c 7d98edd884536184a7f913064ca9b28f5c C.3. COSE signed voucher request from Pledge to Registrar In this example the voucher request has been signed by the Pledge, and has been sent to the JRC over CoAPS. The Pledge uses the proximity assertion together with an included proximity-registrar- cert field to inform MASA about its proximity to the specific Registrar. POST coaps://registrar.example.com/b/rv (Content-Format: application/voucher-cose+cbor) signed_request_voucher The payload signed_request_voucher is shown as hexadecimal dump (with lf added): Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 49] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 d28444a101382ea104582097113db094eee8eae48683e7337875c0372164 be89d023a5f3df52699c0fbfb55902d2a11909c5a60274323032302d3132 2d32335431323a30353a32325a0474323032322d31322d32335431323a30 353a32325a01020750684ca83e27230aff97630cf2c1ec409a0d6e706c65 6467652e312e322e332e340a590279308202753082021ca0030201020214 7056eaaa3066d8826a555b9088d462bf9cf28cfd300a06082a8648ce3d04 03023073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e42 3110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76 616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e73756c74616e63 79311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f6b2e6e6c30 1e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d323131323039313030323336 5a3073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e4231 10300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a7661 6e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e73756c74616e6379 311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f6b2e6e6c3059 301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703420004507ac8491a 8c69c7b5c31d0309ed35ba13f5884ce62b88cf3018154fa059b020ec6beb b94e02b8934021898da789c711cea71339f50e348edf0d923ed02dc7b7a3 818d30818a301d0603551d0e0416041408c2bf36887f79412185872f16a7 aca6efb3d2b3301f0603551d2304183016801408c2bf36887f7941218587 2f16a7aca6efb3d2b3300f0603551d130101ff040530030101ff30270603 551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c06082b0601050507030106082b 06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff0404030201f6300a06082a8648 ce3d04030203470030440220744c99008513b2f1bcfdf9021a46fb174cf8 83a27ca1d93faeacf31e4edd12c60220114714dbf51a5e78f581b9421c6e 4702ab537270c5bafb2d16c3de9aa182c35f58473045022063766c7bbd1b 339dbc398e764af3563e93b25a69104befe9aac2b3336b8f56e1022100cd 0419559ad960ccaed4dee3f436eca40b7570b25a52eb60332bc1f2991484 e9 The representiation of signed_voucher_request in CBOR diagnostic format is: Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 50] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 Diagnose(signed_request_voucher) = 18([ h'A101382E', // {"alg": -47} {4: h'97113DB094EEE8EAE48683E7337875C0372164B E89D023A5F3DF52699C0FBFB5'}, h'1234', // request_voucher h'3045022063766C7BBD1B339DBC398E764AF3563E93B 25A69104BEFE9AAC2B3336B8F56E1022100CD0419559A D960CCAED4DEE3F436ECA40B7570B25A52EB60332BC1F 2991484E9' ]) Diagnose(request_voucher) = {2501: {2: "2020-12-23T12:05:22Z", 4: "2022-12-23T12:05:22Z", 1: 2, 7: h'684CA83E27230AFF97630CF2C1EC409A', 13: "pledge.1.2.3.4", 10: h'1234' // regis-cert-hex }} C.4. COSE signed voucher request from Registrar to MASA TBD - modify example to use full paths to MASA, not short-names. Also not use CoAP but HTTP protocol. In this example the voucher request has been signed by the JRC using the private key from Appendix C.1.2. Contained within this voucher request is the voucher request from the Pledge to JRC. POST coaps://masa.example.com/b/rv (Content-Format: application/voucher-cose+cbor) signed_masa_request_voucher The payload signed_masa_voucher_request is shown as hexadecimal dump (with lf added): Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 51] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 d28444a101382ea1045820e8735bc4b470c3aa6a7aa9aa8ee584c09c1113 1b205efec5d0313bad84c5cd05590414a11909c5a60274323032302d3132 2d32385431303a30333a33355a0474323032322d31322d32385431303a30 333a33355a07501551631f6e0416bd162ba53ea00c2a050d6e706c656467 652e312e322e332e3405587131322d32385431303a30333a33355a075015 51631f6e0416bd162ba53ea00c2a050d6e706c656467652e312e322e332e 3405587131322d32385431303a300000000000000000000000000416bd16 2ba53ea00c2a050d6e706c656467652e312e322e332e3405587131322d32 385431303a09590349d28444a101382ea104582097113db094eee8eae486 83e7337875c0372164be89d023a5f3df52699c0fbfb55902d2a11909c5a6 0274323032302d31322d32385431303a30333a33355a0474323032322d31 322d32385431303a30333a33355a010207501551631f6e0416bd162ba53e a00c2a050d6e706c656467652e312e322e332e340a590279308202753082 021ca00302010202147056eaaa3066d8826a555b9088d462bf9cf28cfd30 0a06082a8648ce3d0403023073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b3009 06035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e64311330 11060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b63 6f6e73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c11726567697374726172 2e73746f6b2e6e6c301e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d323131 3230393130303233365a3073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906 035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011 060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f 6e73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e 73746f6b2e6e6c3059301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d030107 03420004507ac8491a8c69c7b5c31d0309ed35ba13f5884ce62b88cf3018 154fa059b020ec6bebb94e02b8934021898da789c711cea71339f50e348e df0d923ed02dc7b7a3818d30818a301d0603551d0e0416041408c2bf3688 7f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3301f0603551d2304183016801408c2 bf36887f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3300f0603551d130101ff0405 30030101ff30270603551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c06082b06 01050507030106082b06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff04040302 01f6300a06082a8648ce3d04030203470030440220744c99008513b2f1bc fdf9021a46fb174cf883a27ca1d93faeacf31e4edd12c60220114714dbf5 1a5e78f581b9421c6e4702ab537270c5bafb2d16c3de9aa182c35f584730 45022063766c7bbd1b339dbc398e764af3563e93b25a69104befe9aac2b3 336b8f56e1022100cd0419559ad960ccaed4dee3f436eca40b7570b25a52 eb60332bc1f2991484e958473045022100e6b45558c1b806bba23f4ac626 c9bdb6fd354ef4330d8dfb7c529f29cca934c802203c1f2ccbbac89733d1 7ee7775bc2654c5f1cc96afba2741cc31532444aa8fed8 The representiation of signed_masa_voucher_request in CBOR diagnostic format is: Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 52] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 Diagnose(signed_registrar_request-voucher) 18([ h'A101382E', // {"alg": -47} h'E8735BC4B470C3AA6A7AA9AA8EE584C09C11131B205EFEC5D0313BAD84 C5CD05'}, h'1234', // registrar_request_voucher', h'3045022100E6B45558C1B806BBA23F4AC626C9BDB6FD354EF4330D8DFB 7C529F29CCA934C802203C1F2CCBBAC89733D17EE7775BC2654C5F1CC96A FBA2741CC31532444AA8FED8' ]) Diagnose(registrar_request_voucher) {2501: {2: "2020-12-28T10:03:35Z", 4: "2022-12-28T10:03:35Z", 7: h'1551631F6E0416BD162BA53EA00C2A05', 13: "pledge.1.2.3.4", 5: h'31322D32385431303A30333A33355A07501551631F6E0416BD 162BA53EA00C2A050D6E706C656467652E312E322E332E3405 587131322D32385431303A3000000000000000000000000004 16BD162BA53EA00C2A050D6E706C656467652E312E322E332E 3405587131322D32385431303A', 9: h'1234' // signature }} C.5. COSE signed voucher from MASA to Pledge via Registrar The resulting voucher is created by the MASA and returned via the JRC to the Pledge. It is signed by the MASA's private key Appendix C.1.3 and can be verified by the Pledge using the MASA's public key contained within the MASA certificate. This is the raw binary signed_voucher, encoded in hexadecimal (with lf added): Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 53] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 d28444a101382ea104582039920a34ee92d3148ab3a729f58611193270c9 029f7784daf112614b19445d5158cfa1190993a70274323032302d31322d 32335431353a30333a31325a0474323032302d31322d32335431353a3233 3a31325a010007506508e06b2959d5089d7a3169ea889a490b6e706c6564 67652e312e322e332e340858753073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b 300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431 133011060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c 0b636f6e73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c1172656769737472 61722e73746f6b2e6e6c03f458473045022022515d96cd12224ee5d3ac67 3237163bba24ad84815699285d9618f463ee73fa022100a6bff9d8585c1c 9256371ece94da3d26264a5dfec0a354fe7b3aef58344c512f The representiation of signed_voucher in CBOR diagnostic format is: Diagnose(signed_voucher) = 18([ h'A101382E', # {"alg": -47} {4: h'39920A34EE92D3148AB3A729F58611193270C9029F7784DAF112614B194 45D51'}, h'voucher', h'3045022022515D96CD12224EE5D3AC673237163BBA24AD84815699285D9618F 463EE73FA022100A6BFF9D8585C1C9256371ECE94DA3D26264A5DFEC0A354FE7B 3AEF58344C512F' ]) Diagnose(voucher) = {2451: {2: "2020-12-23T15:03:12Z", 4: "2020-12-23T15:23:12Z", 1: 0, 7: h'6508E06B2959D5089D7A3169EA889A49', 11: "pledge.1.2.3.4", 8: h'regis-cert-hex', 3: false}} Contributors Russ Housley Email: housley@vigilsec.com Authors' Addresses Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 54] Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher July 2021 Michael Richardson Sandelman Software Works Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca Peter van der Stok vanderstok consultancy Email: consultancy@vanderstok.org Panos Kampanakis Cisco Systems Email: pkampana@cisco.com Esko Dijk IoTconsultancy.nl Email: esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl Richardson, et al. Expires 12 January 2022 [Page 55]