Network Working Group | J. Schaad |
Internet-Draft | August Cellars |
Intended status: Informational | November 22, 2016 |
Expires: May 26, 2017 |
CBOR Encoded Message Syntax (COSE): Headers for carrying and referencing X.509 certificates
draft-schaad-cose-x509-00
This document defines the headers and usage for referring to and transporting X.509 certificates in the CBOR Encoded Message (COSE) Syntax.
The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub. Suggested changes should be submitted as pull requests at <https://github.com/cose-wg/X509>. Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial issues need to be discussed on the COSE mailing list.
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 http://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 May 26, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2016 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 (http://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.
In the process of writing RFCXXXX [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] discussions where held on the question of X.509 certificates [RFC5280] and if there were needed. At the time there were no use cases presented that appeared to hve a sufficient set of support to include these headers. Since that time a number of cases where X.509 certificate support is necessary have been defined. This document provides a set of headers that will allow applications to transport and refer to X.509 certificates in a consistent manner.
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 [RFC2119].
When the words appear in lower case, their natural language meaning is used.
The use of X.509 certificates allows for an existing trust infrastructure to be used with COSE.
When the header parameters defined in this section are placed in a COSE_Signature or COSE_Sign0 object, they identify the key that was used for generating signature.
When the header parameters defined in this section are placed in a COSE_recipient structure, they identify the key that was used by the sender when used with static-static key agreement algorithms.
Certificates obtained from any of these methods MUST still be validated according to the PKIX rules in [RFC5280]. This includes matching against the trust anchors configured for the application. This applies certificates of a chain length of one as well as longer chains.
The header parameters defined in this document are:
name | label | value type | description |
---|---|---|---|
x5t | TBD1 | COSE_CertHash | Hash of an X.509 certificate |
x5u | TBD2 | uri | URL pointing to an X.509 certificate |
x5c | TBD3 | COSE_X509 | Collection of X.509 certificates |
COSE_X509 = bstr / [ ordered: bool, certs: +bstr ] COSE_CertHash = [ hashAlg: (int / tstr), hashValue: bstr ]
Define an algorithm identifier for SHA-256.
Put in the registrations.
Put in the registrations.
There are security considerations:
[I-D.ietf-cose-msg] | Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-cose-msg-23, October 2016. |
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
[RFC5280] | Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R. and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008. |
[RFC7049] | Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049, October 2013. |
[I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl] | Vigano, C. and H. Birkholz, "CBOR data definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to express CBOR data structures", Internet-Draft draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl-09, September 2016. |
[I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis] | Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0 Message Specification", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-02, October 2016. |
[RFC2585] | Housley, R. and P. Hoffman, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP", RFC 2585, DOI 10.17487/RFC2585, May 1999. |
[RFC5246] | Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008. |