Internet DRAFT - draft-birkholz-core-coid
draft-birkholz-core-coid
CoRE Working Group H. Birkholz
Internet-Draft Fraunhofer SIT
Intended status: Informational C. Bormann
Expires: January 7, 2020 Universitaet Bremen TZI
M. Pritikin
Cisco
R. Moskowitz
Huawei
July 06, 2019
Concise Identities
draft-birkholz-core-coid-02
Abstract
There is an increased demand of trustworthy claim sets -- a set of
system entity characteristics tied to an entity via signatures -- in
order to provide information. Claim sets represented via CBOR Web
Tokens (CWT) can compose a variety of evidence suitable for
constrained-node networks and to support secure device automation.
This document focuses on sets of identifiers and attributes that are
tied to a system entity and are typically used to compose identities
appropriate for Constrained RESTful Environment (CoRE) authentication
needs.
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 January 7, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
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
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Claims in a Concise Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. iss: CWT issuer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. sub: CWT subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. aud: CWT audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. exp: CWT expiration time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. nbf: CWT start of validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. iat: CWT time of issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7. cti: CWT ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.8. cnf: CWT proof-of-possession key claim . . . . . . . . . 6
3. The Essential Qualities of the Subject Claim . . . . . . . . 6
4. Signature Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Processing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Common Terminology on Identity Documents . . . . . . 10
A.1. Terms Specified in IEEE 802.1AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.2. Terms Specified in RFC 4949 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.3. Terms specified in ISO/IEC 9594-8:2017 . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Concise Identities and Trust Relationships . . . . . 11
Appendix C. Concise Identity (CoID) CDDL Data Definition based
on RFC 5280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix D. Concise Secure Device Identifier (CoDeID) based on
IEEE 802.1AR-2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
D.1. The Intended Use of DevIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
D.2. DevID Flavors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
D.3. Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
D.4. Concise DevID CDDL data definition (sans COSE header) . . 14
Appendix E. Concise Attribute Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix F. Attic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
F.1. Examples of claims taken from IEEE 802.1AR identifiers . 16
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
F.1.1. 7.2.1 version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
F.1.2. 7.2.2 serialNumber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
F.1.3. 7.2.3 signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
F.1.4. 7.2.4 issuer Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
F.1.5. 7.2.5 authoritykeyidentifier . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
F.1.6. 7.2.7.1 notBefore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
F.1.7. 7.2.7.2 notAfter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
F.1.8. 7.2.10 subjectPublicKeyInfo . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
F.1.9. 7.2.11 signatureAlgorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
F.1.10. 7.2.12 signatureValue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
F.2. Examples of claims taken from X.509 certificates . . . . 18
F.2.1. 2.5.29.35 - Authority Key Identifier . . . . . . . . 18
F.2.2. 2.5.29.14 - Subject Key Identifier . . . . . . . . . 18
F.2.3. 2.5.29.15 - Key Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
F.2.4. 2.5.29.37 - Extended key usage . . . . . . . . . . . 19
F.2.5. 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.1.1 - Authority Information Access . . 19
F.2.6. 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.20.2 - Certificate Template Name
Domain Controller (Microsoft) . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix G. Graveyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
G.1. 7.2.9 subjectAltName . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
G.2. 7.2.13 extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
G.3. 2.5.29.31 - CRL Distribution Points . . . . . . . . . . . 19
G.4. 2.5.29.17 - Subject Alternative Name . . . . . . . . . . 19
G.5. 2.5.29.19 - Basic Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
X.509 certificates [RFC5280] and Secure Device Identifier
[IEEE-802.1AR] are ASN.1 encoded Identity Documents and intended to
be tied to a system entity uniquely identified via these Identity
Documents. An Identity Document - in general, a public-key
certificate - can be conveyed to other system entities in order to
prove or authenticate the identity of the owner of the Identity
Document. Trust in the proof can be established by mutual trust of
the provider and assessor of the identity in a third party
verification (TVP) provided, for example, by a certificate authority
(CA) or its subsidiaries (sub CA).
The evidence a certificate comprises is typically composed of a set
of claims that is signed using secret keys issued by a (sub) CA. The
core set of claims included in a certificate - its attributes - are
well defined in the X.509v3 specifications and IEEE 802.1AR.
This document summarizes the core set of attributes and provides a
corresponding list of claims using concise integer labels to be used
in claim sets for CBOR Web Tokens (CWT) [RFC8392]. A resulting
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
Concise Identity (CoID) is able to represent a signed set of claims
that composes an Identity as defined in [RFC4949].
The objective of using CWT as a basis for the signed claim sets
defined in this document is to gain more flexibility and at the same
time more rigorously defined semantics for the signed claim sets. In
addition, the benefits of using CBOR, COSE, and the corresponding CWT
structure accrue, including more compact encoding and a simpler
implementation in contrast to classical ASN.1 (DER/BER/PEM)
structures and the X.509 complexity and uncertainty that has accreted
since X.509 was released 29 years ago. One area where both the
compactness and the definiteness are highly desirable is in
Constrained-Node Networks [RFC7228], which may also make use of the
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP, [RFC7252]); however, the area
of application of Concise Identities is not limited to constrained-
node networks.
The present version of this document is a strawman that attempts to
indicate the direction the work is intended to take. Not all
inspirations this version takes from X.509 maybe need to be taken.
1.1. Terminology
This document uses terminology from [RFC8392] and therefore also
[RFC7519], as well as from [RFC8152]. Specifically, we note:
Assertion: A statement made by an entity without accompanying
evidence of its validity [X.1252].
Claim: A piece of information asserted about a subject. A claim is
represented as a name/value pair consisting of a Claim Name and a
Claim Value.
Claims are grouped into claims sets (represented here by a CWT),
which need to be interpreted as a whole. Note that this usage is a
bit different from idiomatic English usage, where a claim would stand
on its own.
(Note that the current version of this draft is not very explicit
about the relationship of identities and identifiers. To be done in
next version.)
1.2. 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
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Claims in a Concise Identity
A Concise Identity (CoID) is a CBOR Web Token [RFC8392] with certain
claims present. It can be signed in a number of ways, including a
COSE_Sign1 data object [RFC8152].
2.1. iss: CWT issuer
Optional: identifies the principal that is the claimant for the
claims in the CoID ([RFC8392] Section 3.1.1, cf. Section 4.1.1 in
[RFC7519]).
o Note that this is a StringOrURI (if it contains a ":" it needs to
be a URI)
o For the "string" case (no ":"), there is no way to extract
meaningful components from the string
o Make it a URI if it needs to be structured (not for routine
retrieval, unless specified so by an application)
o If this URI looks like an HTTP or HTTPS URI then something
retrievable by humans should exist there.
o Alternatively, some arithmetic can be applied to the URI (extract
origin, add /.well-known/...) to find relevant information.
2.2. sub: CWT subject
Optional: identifies the principal that is the subject for the claims
in the CoID ([RFC8392] Section 3.1.2, cf. Section 4.1.2 in
[RFC7519]).
2.3. aud: CWT audience
Optional: identifies the recipients that the CoID is intended for
([RFC8392] Section 3.1.4, cf. Section 4.1.4 in [RFC7519]).
2.4. exp: CWT expiration time
Optional: the time on or after which the CoID must no longer be
accepted for processing ([RFC8392] Section 3.1.4, cf. Section 4.1.4
in [RFC7519]).
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
2.5. nbf: CWT start of validity
Optional: the time before which the CoID must not be accepted for
processing ([RFC8392] Section 3.1.5, cf. Section 4.1.5 in [RFC7519]).
2.6. iat: CWT time of issue
Optional: the creation time of the CoID ([RFC8392] Section 3.1.6, cf.
Section 4.1.6 in [RFC7519]).
2.7. cti: CWT ID
The "cti" (CWT ID) claim provides a unique identifier for the CoID
([RFC8392] Section 3.1.7, cf. "jti" in Section 4.1.7 in [RFC7519]).
CWT IDs are intended to be unique within an application, so they need
to be either coordinated between issuers or based on sufficient
randomness (e.g., 112 bits or more).
2.8. cnf: CWT proof-of-possession key claim
The "cnf" claim identifies the key that can be used by the subject
for proof-of-possession and provides parameters to identify the CWT
Confirmation Method ([I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]
Section 3.1).
3. The Essential Qualities of the Subject Claim
As highlighted above, the base definition of the representation of
the "sub claim" is already covered by [RFC8392] and [RFC7519].
If claim sets need to be made about multiple subjects, the favored
approach in CoID is to create multiple CoIDs, one each per subject.
In certain cases, the subject of a CoID needs to be an X.500
Distinguished Name in its full glory. These are sequences of
relative names, where each relative name has a relative name type and
a (text string) value.
dn-subject = [*(relativenametype, relativenamevalue)]
(RFC 5280 does not appear to specify how many DN components must be
in a DN, so this uses a zero or more quantity.)
Any RelativeDistinguishedName values that are SETs of more than one
AttributeTypeAndValue are translated into a sequence of pairs of the
nametype used and each of the namevalues, lexicographically sorted.
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
To be able to map these to CBOR, we define labels for the relative
name types listed in Section 4.1.2.4 of [RFC5280]:
(Note that unusual relative name types could be represented as OIDs;
this would probably best be done by reviving the currently dormant
[I-D.bormann-cbor-tags-oid].)
relativenametype = &(
country: 1
organization: 2
organizational-unit: 3
distinguished-name-qualifier: 4
state-or-province-name: 5
common-name: 6
serial-number: 7
locality: 8
title: 9
surname: 10
given-name: 11
initials: 12
pseudonym: 13
generation-qualifier: 14
)
The relative name values for these types are always expressed as CBOR
text strings, i.e., in UTF-8:
relativenamevalue = text
4. Signature Envelope
The signature envelope [TBD: need not actually be envelope, may be
detached, too] carries additional information, e.g., the signature,
as well as the identification of the signature algorithm employed
(COSE: alg). Additional information may pertain to the signature (as
opposed to the claims being signed), e.g., a key id (COSE: kid) may
be given in the header of the signature.
5. Processing Rules
(TBD: This should contain some discussion of the processing rules
that apply for CoIDs. Some of this will just be pointers to
[I-D.ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp].)
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests of IANA
7. Security Considerations
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]
Jones, M., Seitz, L., Selander, G., Erdtman, S., and H.
Tschofenig, "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR
Web Tokens (CWTs)", draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-
possession-06 (work in progress), February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp]
Sheffer, Y., Hardt, D., and M. Jones, "JSON Web Token Best
Current Practices", draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp-06 (work in
progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-rats-eat]
Mandyam, G., Lundblade, L., Ballesteros, M., and J.
O'Donoghue, "The Entity Attestation Token (EAT)", draft-
ietf-rats-eat-01 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.tschofenig-rats-psa-token]
Tschofenig, H., Frost, S., Brossard, M., and A. Shaw,
"Arm's Platform Security Architecture (PSA) Attestation
Token", draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-01 (work in
progress), April 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC5755] Farrell, S., Housley, R., and S. Turner, "An Internet
Attribute Certificate Profile for Authorization",
RFC 5755, DOI 10.17487/RFC5755, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5755>.
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
"CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>.
[X.1252] "ITU-T X.1252 (04/2010)", n.d..
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.bormann-cbor-tags-oid]
Bormann, C. and S. Leonard, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR) Tags and Techniques for Object
Identifiers, UUIDs, Enumerations, Binary Entities, Regular
Expressions, and Sets", draft-bormann-cbor-tags-oid-06
(work in progress), March 2017.
[IEEE-802.1AR]
"ISO/IEC/IEEE International Standard for Information
technology -- Telecommunications and information exchange
between systems -- Local and metropolitan area networks --
Part 1AR: Secure device identity", IEEE standard,
DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6739984, n.d..
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
Appendix A. Common Terminology on Identity Documents
To illustrate the purpose and intent of Identity Documents,
typically, terms, such as certificates, certificate chains/paths and
trust anchors, are used. To provide more context and for the
convenience of the reader, three sources of definitions are
highlighted in this section.
A.1. Terms Specified in IEEE 802.1AR
1. a certificate is "a digitally signed object that binds
information identifying an entity that possesses a secret private
key to the corresponding public key."
2. a certificate chain is "an ordered list of intermediate
certificates that links an end entity certificate ([...] a DevID
certificate) to a trust anchor."
3. a trust anchor is "a Certificate Authority that is trusted and
for which the trusting party holds information, usually in the
form of a self-signed certificate issued by the trust anchor".
A.2. Terms Specified in RFC 4949
1. a public-key certificate is "a digital certificate that binds a
system entity's identifier to a public key value, and possibly to
additional, secondary data items; i.e., a digitally signed data
structure that attests to the ownership of a public key".
2. a certification path is "a linked sequence of one or more public-
key certificates [...] that enables a certificate user to verify
the signature on the last certificate in the path, and thus
enables the user to obtain (from that last certificate) a
certified public key, or certified attributes, of the system
entity that is the subject of that last certificate".
3. a trust anchor is "a CA that is the subject of a trust anchor
certificate or otherwise establishes a trust anchor key".
Correspondingly, a trust anchor has a trust anchor certificate
that "is a public-key certificate that is used to provide the
first public key in a certification path".
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
A.3. Terms specified in ISO/IEC 9594-8:2017
1. a public-key certificate is "the public key of an entity,
together with some other information, rendered unforgeable by
digital signature with the private key of the certification
authority (CA) that issued it".
2. a certification path is "an ordered list of one or more public-
key certificates, starting with a public-key certificate signed
by the trust anchor, and ending with the end-entity public-key
certificate to be validated. All intermediate public-key
certificates, if any, are certification authority (CA)
certificates in which the subject of the preceding public-key
certificate is the issuer of the following public-key
certificate".
3. a trust anchor is "an entity that is trusted by a relying party
and used for validating public-key certificates".
Appendix B. Concise Identities and Trust Relationships
Following the terminology highlighted above, Concise Identities are
signed CBOR Web Tokens that compose public-key Identity Documents
based on asymmetric key pairs, potentially including additional
assertions: claims that are secondary data items.
In the context of certification paths, the "last certificate" in the
certification path is the Identity Document that resides on the
system component, which presents its Identity Document to relying
partyies in order to be authenticated. The "first certificate" in
the certification path resides on the trust anchor.
In order to be able to rely on the trust put into the Identity
Document presented to relying parties, these have to put trust into
two assumptions first:
o the corresponding trust anchor (certificate) is trusted. In
consequence, the consumer of the Identity Document requires a
basis for decision whether to rely on the trust put in the trust
anchor certificate, or not (e.g. via policies or a known
certification paths).
o the secret key included in the system component that is presenting
its Identity Document is protected. In consequence, the secret
key has to be stored in a shielded location. Type and quality of
the protection or shielding or even its location are assertions
that can be included as secondary data items in the Identity
Document.
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
In summary, a path of trust relationships between a system
component's Identity Document and a trusted authority's Identity
Document is required to enable transitive trust in the system
component that presents the Identity Document.
Appendix C. Concise Identity (CoID) CDDL Data Definition based on RFC
5280
COSE MUST be used to sign this CoID template flavor.
"signatureAlgorithm" and "signature" are not part of the CoID map but
of the COSE envelope.
CoID = { version: uint .range 1..3 ; (8)
issuer: text, ; iss(1)
subject: text / bytes, ; sub(2)
notAfter: uint, ; exp(4)
notBefore: uint ; nbf(5)
serialNumber: uint,; (7)
subjectPublicKeyInfo: [ algorithm: COSE-Algorithm-Value,
subjectPublicKey: bytes,
], ;(9)
? extensions: [ + [ extension-id: uint / registeredID,
extension-value: any,
? criticality: bool,
]
], ;(0)
}
COSE-Algorithm-Value = uint .size 0..2 / nint .size 0..2
registeredID = [ + uint ] ; OID
extensions = 0
issuer = 1
subject = 2
notAfter = 4
notBefore = 5
serialNumber = 7
version = 8
subjectPublicKeyInfo = 9
Appendix D. Concise Secure Device Identifier (CoDeID) based on IEEE
802.1AR-2018
This section illustrates the context and background of Secure Device
Identifiers.
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
D.1. The Intended Use of DevIDs
IEEE 802.1AR Secure Device Identifier are a specific subset of X.509
Identity Documents that are intended to "authenticate a device's
identity", where the corresponding Identity Document is
"cryptographically bound to that device". In this context,
"cryptographically bound" means that the Identity Document is
"constructed using cryptographic operations to combine a secret with
other arbitrary data objects such that it may be proven that the
result could only be created by an entity having knowledge of the
secret."
While the intent of using X.509 Identity Documents as Device
Identifiers starts to blur the line between authentication and
authorization, the specification of IEEE 802.1AR Identity Documents
provides a meaningful subset of assertions that can be used to
identify one or more system components. The following CDDL data
definition maps the semantics of an RFC 5280 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate Profile, which provides the basis for the
Secure Device Identifier semantics. Both are mapped to a CWT
representation.
D.2. DevID Flavors
In order to provide consistent semantics for the claims as defined
below, understanding the distinction of IDevIDs (mandatory
representation capabilities) and LDevIDs (recommended representation
capabilities) is of the essence.
Both flavors of Secure Device Identifiers share most of their
assertion semantics (claim sets).
IDevIDs are the _initially_ Secure Device Identifiers that "are
normally created during manufacturing or initial provisioning" and
are "installed on the device by the manufacturer". IDevIDs are
intended to be globally unique and to be stored in a way that
protects it from modification (typically, a shielded location). It
is important to note that a potential segregation of a manufacturer
into separate supply chain/tree entities is not covered by the
802.1AR specification.
LDevIDs are the _local significant_ Secure Device Identifiers that
are intended to be "unique in the local administrative domain in
which the device is used". In essence, LDevIDs "can be created at
any time [after IDevID provisioning], in accordance with local
policies". An "LDevID is bound to the device in a way that makes it
infeasible for it to be forged or transferred to a device with a
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
different IDevID without knowledge of the private key used to effect
the cryptographic binding".
D.3. Privacy
The exposition iof IDevID Identity Documents enables global unique
identification of a system component. To mitigate the obvious
privacy LDevIDs may also be used as the sole identifier (by disabling
the IDevID) to assure the privacy of the user of a DevID and the
equipment in which it is installed.
D.4. Concise DevID CDDL data definition (sans COSE header)
COSE MUST be used to sign this DevID flavor, if represented via CoID.
"signature" and "signatureValue" are not part of the CoID map but of
the COSE envelope.
"AlgorithmIdentifier" and corresponding "algorithm" and "parameters"
should be part of the COSE envelope.
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
CoDeID = { version: 3, ;(8)
serialNumber: uint,(7)
issuer: text, ; iss(1)
notAfter: uint, ; exp(4)
notBefore: uint ; nbf(5)
subject: text / URI, ; sub(2)
subjectPublicKeyInfo: [ algorithm: COSE-Algorithm-Value,
subjectPublicKey: bytes,
], ;(9)
signatureAlgorithm: COSE-Algorithm-Value ; 802.1ar-2018 states
; this must be identical
; to cose sig-alg (rm?)
authorityKeyidentifier: bytes, ; all, non-critical,
? subjectKeyIdentifier; bytes, ; only intermediates, non-critical
? keyUsage : [ bitmask: bytes .size 1,
? criticality: bool,
]
? subjectAltName: text / iPAddress / registeredID,
? HardwareModuleName: [ hwType: registeredID,
hwSerialNum: bytes,
],
? extensions: [ + [ extension-id: uint,
extension-value: any,
? criticality: bool,
],
}
COSE-Algorithm-Value = uint .size 0..2 / nint .size 0..2
iPAddress = bytes .size 4 / bytes .size 16
registeredID = [ + uint ] ; OID
extensions = 0
issuer = 1
subject = 2
notAfter = 4
notBefore = 5
serialNumber = 7
version = 8
subjectPublicKeyInfo = 9
signatureAlgorithm = 10
authorityKeyidentifier = 11
subjectKeyIdentifier = 12
keyUsage = 13 ; could move to COSE header?
subjectAltName = 14
HardwareModuleName = 15
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
Appendix E. Concise Attribute Documents
Additional well-defined sets of characteristics can be bound to
Identity Documents [RFC5280] or Secure Device Identifiers
[IEEE-802.1AR]. CDDL specifications to define these can be found in
the corresponding appendices above and the Profile for X.509 Internet
Attribute Certificates is defined in [RFC5755].
Essentially, various existing CWT specializations, such as the Entity
Attestation Tokens [I-D.ietf-rats-eat] and the Platform Security
Architecture Tokens [I-D.tschofenig-rats-psa-token] already compose a
type of Attribute Certificates today. In order to bridge the gap
between these already existing Concise Attribute Documents and
binding them to traditional X.509 Identity Documents (pub-key
certificates), a sub claim referencing the corresponding Identity
Document has to be included in the signed CBOR Web Token (flavor).
The mechanics of how to handle the corresponding key material is also
defined in [RFC5755] (and this document will elaborate on these in
future versions).
With respect to Concise Identity Documents the dn-subject claim
should be used. If a Concise Attribute Certificate has to refer to a
traditional ASN.1 encoded X.509 Identity document the subject claim
should be used. This procedure provides a migration path from ASN.1
encoded Identity documents [RFC5280] to CBOR encoded Concise Identity
documents that allows to bind Concise Attribute Documents, such as
EAT or PSA Tokens to both kinds of certificates. In an ideal
scenario CBOR encoding in the form of [RFC8392] is used both for
Concise Identity Documents and Concise Attribute Documents. The
alternate uses of subject claims or dn-subject claims addresses the
fact that the vast majority of constrained node devices still use an
ASN.1 encoding and simplified interoperability between CBOR encoded
and ASN.1 encoded documents is still of essence today.
Appendix F. Attic
Notes and previous content that will be pruned in next versions.
F.1. Examples of claims taken from IEEE 802.1AR identifiers
This appendix briefly discusses common fields in a X.509 certificate
or an IEEE 802.1AR Secure Device Identifier and relates them to
claims in a CoID.
The original purpose of X.509 was only to sign the association
between a name and a public key. In principle, if something else
needs to be signed as well, CMS [RFC5652] is required. This
principle has not been strictly upheld over time; this is
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
demonstrated by the growth of various extensions to X.509
certificates that might or might not be interpreted to carry various
additional claims.
This document details only the claim sets for CBOR Web Tokens that
are necessary for authentication. The plausible integration or
replacement of ASN.1 formats in enrollment protocols, (D)TLS
handshakes and similar are not in scope of this document.
Subsections in this appendix are marked by the ASN.1 Object
Identifier (OID) typically used for the X.509 item. [TODO: Make this
true; there are still some section numbers.]
F.1.1. 7.2.1 version
The version field is typically not employed usefully in an X.509
certificate, except possibly in legacy applications that accept
original (pre-v3) X.509 certificates.
Generally, the point of versioning is to deliberately inhibit
interoperability (due to semantic meaning changes). CoIDs do not
employ versioning. Where future work requires semantic changes,
these will be expressed by making alternate kinds of claims.
F.1.2. 7.2.2 serialNumber
Covered by cti claim.
F.1.3. 7.2.3 signature
The signature, as well as the identification of the signature
algorithm, are provided by the COSE container (e.g., COSE_Sign1) used
to sign the CoID's CWT.
F.1.4. 7.2.4 issuer Name
Covered by iss claim.
F.1.5. 7.2.5 authoritykeyidentifier
Covered by COSE kid in signature, if needed.
F.1.6. 7.2.7.1 notBefore
Covered by nbf claim.
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
F.1.7. 7.2.7.2 notAfter
Covered by exp claim.
For Secured Device identifiers, this claim is typically left out.
o get a new one whenver you think you need it ("normal path")
o nonced ocsp? might benefit from a more lightweight freshness
verification of existing signed assertion - exploration required!
o (first party only verfiable freshness may be cheaper than third-
party verifiable?)
F.1.8. 7.2.10 subjectPublicKeyInfo
Covered by cnf claim.
F.1.9. 7.2.11 signatureAlgorithm
In COSE_Sign1 envelope.
F.1.10. 7.2.12 signatureValue
In COSE_Sign1 envelope.
F.2. Examples of claims taken from X.509 certificates
Most claims in X.509 certificates take the form of certificate
extensions. This section reviews a few common (and maybe not so
common) certificate extensions and assesses their usefulness in
signed claim sets.
F.2.1. 2.5.29.35 - Authority Key Identifier
Used in certificate chaining. Can be mapped to COSE "kid" of the
issuer.
F.2.2. 2.5.29.14 - Subject Key Identifier
Used in certificate chaining. Can be mapped to COSE "kid" in the
"cnf" (see Section 3.4 of [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]).
F.2.3. 2.5.29.15 - Key Usage
Usage information for a key claim that is included in the signed
claims. Can be mapped to COSE "key_ops" [TBD: Explain details].
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
F.2.4. 2.5.29.37 - Extended key usage
Can include additional usage information such as 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.1
for TLS server certificates or 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.2 for TLS client
certificates.
F.2.5. 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.1.1 - Authority Information Access
More information about the signer. May include a pointer to signers
higher up in the certificate chain (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.2), typically in
the form of a URI to their certificate.
F.2.6. 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.20.2 - Certificate Template Name Domain
Controller (Microsoft)
This is an example for many ill-defined extensions that are on some
arcs of the OID space somewhere.
E.g., the UCS-2 string (ASN.1 BMPString) "IPSECIntermediateOffline"
Appendix G. Graveyard
Items and Content that was already discarded.
G.1. 7.2.9 subjectAltName
(See "sub").
G.2. 7.2.13 extensions
Extensions are handled by adding CWT claims to the CWT.
G.3. 2.5.29.31 - CRL Distribution Points
Usually URIs of places where a CRL germane to the certificate can be
obtained. Other forms of validating claim sets may be more
appropriate than CRLs for the applications envisaged here.
(Might be replaced by a more general freshness verification approach
later. For example one could define a generic "is this valid"
request to an authority.)
G.4. 2.5.29.17 - Subject Alternative Name
Additional names for the Subject.
These may be an "OtherName", i.e. a mistery blob "defined by" an
ASN.1 OID such as 1.3.6.1.4.1.9.21.2.3, or one out of a few formats
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft CoID July 2019
such as URIs (which may, then, turn out not to be really URIs).
Naming subjects obviously is a major issue that needs attention.
G.5. 2.5.29.19 - Basic Constraints
Can identify the key claim as that for a CA, and can limit the length
of a certificate path. Empty in all the examples analyzed.
Any application space can define new fields / claims as appropriate
and use them. There is no need for the underlying structure to
define an additional extension method for this. Instead, they can
use the registry as defined in Section 9.1 of [RFC8392].>
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
Henk Birkholz
Fraunhofer SIT
Rheinstrasse 75
Darmstadt 64295
Germany
Email: henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Max Pritikin
Cisco
Email: pritikin@cisco.com
Robert Moskowitz
Huawei
Oak Park, MI 48237
Email: rgm@labs.htt-consult.com
Birkholz, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 20]
