Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates
draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates
LAMPS Working Group H. Brockhaus, Ed.
Internet-Draft D. von Oheimb
Updates: 4210, 5912, 6712 (if approved) Siemens
Intended status: Standards Track J. Gray
Expires: 31 December 2022 Entrust
29 June 2022
Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) Updates
draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-23
Abstract
This document contains a set of updates to the syntax and transfer of
Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) version 2. This document
updates RFC 4210, RFC 5912, and RFC 6712.
The aspects of CMP updated in this document are using EnvelopedData
instead of EncryptedValue, clarifying the handling of p10cr messages,
improving the crypto agility, as well as adding new general message
types, extended key usages to identify certificates for use with CMP,
and well-known URI path segments.
CMP version 3 is introduced to enable signaling support of
EnvelopedData instead of EncryptedValue and signaling the use of an
explicit hash AlgorithmIdentifier in certConf messages, as far as
needed.
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 31 December 2022.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Convention and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Updates to RFC 4210 - Certificate Management Protocol
(CMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. New Section 1.1. - Changes Since RFC 4210 . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. New Section 4.5 - Extended Key Usage . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Update Section 5.1.1. - PKI Message Header . . . . . . . 7
2.4. New Section 5.1.1.3. - CertProfile . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5. Update Section 5.1.3.1. - Shared Secret Information . . . 9
2.6. Replace Section 5.1.3.4 - Multiple Protection . . . . . . 9
2.7. Replace Section 5.2.2. - Encrypted Values . . . . . . . . 10
2.8. New Section 5.2.9 - GeneralizedTime . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.9. Update Section 5.3.4. - Certification Response . . . . . 12
2.10. Update Section 5.3.18. - Certificate Confirmation
Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.11. Update Section 5.3.19.2. - Signing Key Pair Types . . . . 14
2.12. Update Section 5.3.19.3. - Encryption/Key Agreement Key
Pair Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.13. Replace Section 5.3.19.9. - Revocation Passphrase . . . . 15
2.14. New Section 5.3.19.14 - CA Certificates . . . . . . . . . 15
2.15. New Section 5.3.19.15 - Root CA Certificate Update . . . 15
2.16. New Section 5.3.19.16 - Certificate Request Template . . 16
2.17. New Section 5.3.19.17 - CRL Update Retrieval . . . . . . 18
2.18. Update Section 5.3.21 - Error Message Content . . . . . . 18
2.19. Replace Section 5.3.22 - Polling Request and Response . . 19
2.20. Update Section 7 - Version Negotiation . . . . . . . . . 24
2.21. Update Section 7.1.1. - Clients Talking to RFC 2510
Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.22. Add Section 8.4 - Private Keys for Certificate Signing and
CMP Message Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.23. Add Section 8.5 - Entropy of Random Numbers, Key Pairs, and
Shared Secret Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
2.24. Add Section 8.6 - Trust Anchor Provisioning Using CMP
Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.25. Add Section 8.7 - Authorizing requests for certificates
with specific EKUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.26. Update Appendix B - The Use of Revocation Passphrase . . 27
2.27. Update Appendix C - Request Message Behavioral
Clarifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.28. Update Appendix D.1. - General Rules for Interpretation of
These Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.29. Update Appendix D.2. - Algorithm Use Profile . . . . . . 30
2.30. Update Appendix D.4. - Initial Registration/Certification
(Basic Authenticated Scheme) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3. Updates to RFC 6712 - HTTP Transfer for the Certificate
Management Protocol (CMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.1. Update Section 1. - Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2. New Section 1.1. - Changes Since RFC 6712 . . . . . . . . 31
3.3. Replace Section 3.6. - HTTP Request-URI . . . . . . . . . 31
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix A. ASN.1 Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.1. Update to RFC4210 - 1988 ASN.1 Module . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.2. Update to RFC5912 - 2002 ASN.1 Module . . . . . . . . . . 52
Appendix B. History of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
1. Introduction
[RFC Editor:
Please perform the following substitution.
* RFCXXXX --> the assigned numerical RFC value for this draft
Please update the following references to associated drafts in
progress to reflect their final RFC assignments, if possible:
* I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms
* I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile
* I-D.ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport
]
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
While using CMP [RFC4210] in industrial and IoT environments and
developing the Lightweight CMP Profile
[I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile] some limitations were
identified in the original CMP specification. This document updates
RFC 4210 [RFC4210] and RFC 6712 [RFC6712] to overcome these
limitations.
Among others, this document improves the crypto agility of CMP, which
means to be flexible to react on future advances in cryptography.
This document also introduces new extended key usages to identify CMP
endpoints on registration and certification authorities.
As the main content of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] and RFC 6712 [RFC6712]
stays unchanged, this document lists all sections that are updated,
replaced, or added to the current text of the respective RFCs.
The authors acknowledge that the style of the document is hard to
read because the original RFCs must be read along with this document
to get the complete content. The working group decided to use this
approach in order to keep the changes to RFC 4210 [RFC4210] and
RFC 6712 [RFC6712] to the required minimum. This was meant to speed
up the editorial process and to minimize the effort spent on
reviewing the whole text of the original documents.
1.1. Convention and Terminology
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.
Technical terminology is used in conformance with RFC 4210 [RFC4210],
RFC 4211 [RFC4211], and RFC 5280 [RFC5280]. The following key words
are used:
CA: Certification authority, which issues certificates.
RA: Registration authority, an optional system component to which a
CA delegates certificate management functions such as
authorization checks.
KGA: Key generation authority, which generates key pairs on behalf
of an EE. The KGA could be co-located with an RA or a CA.
EE: End entity, a user, device, or service that holds a PKI
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
certificate. An identifier for the EE is given as its subject
of the certificate.
2. Updates to RFC 4210 - Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)
2.1. New Section 1.1. - Changes Since RFC 4210
The following subsection describes feature updates to RFC 4210
[RFC4210]. They are always related to the base specification.
Hence, references to the original sections in RFC 4210 [RFC4210] are
used whenever possible.
Insert this section at the end of the current Section 1:
1.1. Changes Since RFC 4210
The following updates are made in this document:
* Add new extended key usages for various CMP server types, e.g.,
registration authority and certification authority, to express the
authorization of the entity identified in the certificate
containing the respective extended key usage extension to act as
the indicated PKI management entity.
* Extend the description of multiple protection to cover additional
use cases, e.g., batch processing of messages.
* Offering EnvelopedData as the preferred choice next to
EncryptedValue to better support crypto agility in CMP. Note that
according to RFC 4211 [RFC4211] section 2.1. point 9 the use of
the EncryptedValue structure has been deprecated in favor of the
EnvelopedData structure. RFC 4211 [RFC4211] offers the
EncryptedKey structure, a choice of EncryptedValue and
EnvelopedData for migration to EnvelopedData. For reasons of
completeness and consistency the type EncryptedValue has been
exchanged in all occurrences in RFC 4210 [RFC4210]. This includes
the protection of centrally generated private keys, encryption of
certificates, and protection of revocation passphrases. To
properly differentiate the support of EnvelopedData instead of
EncryptedValue, the CMP version 3 is introduced in case a
transaction is supposed to use EnvelopedData.
* Offering an optional hashAlg field in CertStatus supporting
confirmation of certificates signed with signature algorithms,
e.g., EdDSA, not directly indicating a specific hash algorithm to
use to compute the certHash.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
* Adding new general message types to request CA certificates, a
root CA update, a certificate request template, or a CRL update.
* Extend the usage of polling to p10cr, certConf, rr, genm, and
error messages.
* Delete the mandatory algorithm profile in RFC 4210 Appendix D.2
[RFC4210] and refer to CMP Algorithms Section 7
[I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms].
2.2. New Section 4.5 - Extended Key Usage
The following subsection introduces a new extended key usage for CMP
servers authorized to centrally generate key pairs on behalf of end
entities.
Insert this section at the end of the current Section 4:
4.5. Extended Key Usage
The Extended Key Usage (EKU) extension indicates the purposes for
which the certified key pair may be used. It therefore restricts the
use of a certificate to specific applications.
A CA may want to delegate parts of its duties to other PKI management
entities. This section provides a mechanism to both prove this
delegation and enable an automated means for checking the
authorization of this delegation. Such delegation may also be
expressed by other means, e.g., explicit configuration.
To offer automatic validation for the delegation of a role by a CA to
another entity, the certificates used for CMP message protection or
signed data for central key generation MUST be issued by the
delegating CA and MUST contain the respective EKUs. This proves the
authorization of this entity by the delegating CA to act in the given
role as described below.
The OIDs to be used for these EKUs are:
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
id-kp-cmcCA OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) 27 }
id-kp-cmcRA OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) 28 }
id-kp-cmKGA OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) 32 }
Note: RFC 6402 section 2.10 [RFC6402] specifies OIDs for a CMC CA and
a CMC RA. As the functionality of a CA and RA is not specific to
using CMC or CMP as the certificate management protocol, these EKUs
are re-used by CMP.
The meaning of the id-kp-cmKGA EKU is as follows:
CMP KGA: CMP Key Generation Authorities are CAs or are identified by
the id-kp-cmKGA extended key usage. The CMP KGA knows the
private key it generated on behalf of the end entity. This
is a very sensitive service and needs specific
authorization, which by default is with the CA certificate
itself. The CA may delegate its authorization by placing
the id-kp-cmKGA extended key usage in the certificate used
to authenticate the origin of the generated private key.
The authorization may also be determined through local
configuration of the end entity.
2.3. Update Section 5.1.1. - PKI Message Header
Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] describes the PKI message header.
This document introduces the new version 3 indicating support of
EnvelopedData as specified in Section 2.7.
Replace the ASN.1 Syntax of PKIHeader and the subsequent description
of pvno with the following text:
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
PKIHeader ::= SEQUENCE {
pvno INTEGER { cmp1999(1), cmp2000(2),
cmp2021(3) },
sender GeneralName,
recipient GeneralName,
messageTime [0] GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL,
protectionAlg [1] AlgorithmIdentifier{ALGORITHM, {...}}
OPTIONAL,
senderKID [2] KeyIdentifier OPTIONAL,
recipKID [3] KeyIdentifier OPTIONAL,
transactionID [4] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
senderNonce [5] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
recipNonce [6] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
freeText [7] PKIFreeText OPTIONAL,
generalInfo [8] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
InfoTypeAndValue OPTIONAL
}
PKIFreeText ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF UTF8String
The usage of pvno values is described in Section 7.
2.4. New Section 5.1.1.3. - CertProfile
Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] defines the PKIHeader and id-it
OIDs to be used in the generalInfo field. This section introduces
id-it-certProfile.
Insert this section after Section 5.1.1.2:
5.1.1.3. CertProfile
This is used by the EE to indicate specific certificate profiles,
e.g., when requesting a new certificate or a certificate request
template, see Section 5.3.19.16.
id-it-certProfile OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 21}
CertProfileValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF UTF8String
When used in an ir/cr/kur/genm, the value MUST NOT contain more
elements than the number of CertReqMsg or InfoTypeAndValue elements
and the certificate profile names refer to the elements in the given
order.
When used in a p10cr, the value MUST NOT contain multiple certificate
profile names.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
2.5. Update Section 5.1.3.1. - Shared Secret Information
Section 5.1.3.1 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] describes the MAC based
protection of a PKIMessage using the algorithm id-PasswordBasedMac.
Replace the first paragraph with the following text:
In this case, the sender and recipient share secret information with
sufficient entropy (established via out-of-band means or from a
previous PKI management operation). PKIProtection will contain a MAC
value and the protectionAlg MAY be one of the options described in
CMP Algorithms [I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms]. The PasswordBasedMac
is specified as follows (see also [RFC4211] and [RFC9045]):
Replace the last paragraph with the following text (Note: This fixes
Errata ID 2616):
Note: It is RECOMMENDED that the fields of PBMParameter remain
constant throughout the messages of a single transaction (e.g.,
ir/ip/certConf/pkiConf) to reduce the overhead associated with
PasswordBasedMac computation.
2.6. Replace Section 5.1.3.4 - Multiple Protection
Section 5.1.3.4 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] describes the nested message.
This document enables using nested messages also for batch-delivery
transport of PKI messages between PKI management entities and with
mixed body types.
Replace the text of the section with the following text:
5.1.3.4. Multiple Protection
When receiving a protected PKI message, a PKI management entity such
as an RA MAY forward that message adding its own protection (which is
a MAC or a signature, depending on the information and certificates
shared between the RA and the CA). Additionally, multiple PKI
messages MAY be aggregated. There are several use cases for such
messages.
* The RA confirms having validated and authorized a message and
forwards the original message unchanged.
* The RA modifies the message(s) in some way (e.g., adds or modifies
particular field values or adds new extensions) before forwarding
them, then it MAY create its own desired PKIBody. If the changes
made by the RA to PKIMessage break the POP of a certificate
request, the RA MUST set the popo field to RAVerified. It MAY
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
include the original PKIMessage from the EE in the generalInfo
field of PKIHeader of a nested message (to accommodate, for
example, cases in which the CA wishes to check POP or other
information on the original EE message). The infoType to be used
in this situation is {id-it 15} (see Section 5.3.19 for the value
of id-it) and the infoValue is PKIMessages (contents MUST be in
the same order as the message in PKIBody).
* A PKI management entity collects several messages that are to be
forwarded in the same direction and forwards them in a batch.
Request messages can be transferred as batch upstream (towards the
CA); response or announce messages can be transferred as batch
downstream (towards an RA, but not to the EE). This can for
instance be used when bridging an off-line connection between two
PKI management entities.
These use cases are accomplished by nesting the messages within a new
PKI message. The structure used is as follows:
NestedMessageContent ::= PKIMessages
2.7. Replace Section 5.2.2. - Encrypted Values
Section 5.2.2 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] describes the use of
EncryptedValue to transport encrypted data. This document extends
the encryption of data to preferably use EnvelopedData.
Replace the text of the section with the following text:
5.2.2. Encrypted Values
Where encrypted data (in this specification, private keys,
certificates, or revocation passphrase) are sent in PKI messages, the
EncryptedKey data structure is used.
EncryptedKey ::= CHOICE {
encryptedValue EncryptedValue, -- deprecated
envelopedData [0] EnvelopedData }
See CRMF [RFC4211] for EncryptedKey and EncryptedValue syntax and CMS
[RFC5652] for EnvelopedData syntax. Using the EncryptedKey data
structure offers the choice to either use EncryptedValue (for
backward compatibility only) or EnvelopedData. The use of the
EncryptedValue structure has been deprecated in favor of the
EnvelopedData structure. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED to use
EnvelopedData.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
Note: The EncryptedKey structure defined in CRMF [RFC4211] is reused
here, which makes the update backward compatible. Using the new
syntax with the untagged default choice EncryptedValue is bits-on-
the-wire compatible with the old syntax.
To indicate support for EnvelopedData the pvno cmp2021 has been
introduced. Details on the usage of pvno values is described in
Section 7.
The EncryptedKey data structure is used in CMP to transport a private
key, certificate, or revocation passphrase in encrypted form.
EnvelopedData is used as follows:
* It contains only one RecipientInfo structure because the content
is encrypted only for one recipient.
* It may contain a private key in the AsymmetricKeyPackage structure
as defined in RFC 5958 [RFC5958] wrapped in a SignedData structure
as specified in CMS section 5 [RFC5652] and [RFC8933] signed by
the Key Generation Authority.
* It may contain a certificate or revocation passphrase directly in
the encryptedContent field.
The content of the EnvelopedData structure, as specified in CMS
section 6 [RFC5652], MUST be encrypted using a newly generated
symmetric content-encryption key. This content-encryption key MUST
be securely provided to the recipient using one of three key
management techniques.
The choice of the key management technique to be used by the sender
depends on the credential available at the recipient:
* Recipient's certificate that contains a key usage extension
asserting keyAgreement: The content-encryption key will be
protected using the key agreement key management technique, as
specified in CMS section 6.2.2 [RFC5652]. This is the preferred
technique.
* Recipient's certificate that contains a key usage extension
asserting keyEncipherment: The content-encryption key will be
protected using the key transport key management technique, as
specified in CMS section 6.2.1 [RFC5652].
* A password or shared secret: The content-encryption key will be
protected using the password-based key management technique, as
specified in CMS section 6.2.4 [RFC5652].
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
2.8. New Section 5.2.9 - GeneralizedTime
The following subsection point implementers to [RFC5280] regarding
usage of GeneralizedTime.
Insert this section after Section 5.2.8.4:
5.2.9 GeneralizedTime
GeneralizedTime is a standard ASN.1 type and SHALL be used as
specified in RFC 5280 Section 4.1.2.5.2 [RFC5280].
2.9. Update Section 5.3.4. - Certification Response
Section 5.3.4 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] describes the Certification
Response. This document updates the syntax by using the parent
structure EncryptedKey instead of EncryptedValue as described in
Section 2.7 above. Additionally, it clarifies the certReqId to be
used in response to a p10cr message.
Replace the ASN.1 syntax with the following text (Note: This also
fixes Errata ID 3949 and 4078):
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
CertRepMessage ::= SEQUENCE {
caPubs [1] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CMPCertificate
OPTIONAL,
response SEQUENCE OF CertResponse
}
CertResponse ::= SEQUENCE {
certReqId INTEGER,
status PKIStatusInfo,
certifiedKeyPair CertifiedKeyPair OPTIONAL,
rspInfo OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
-- analogous to the id-regInfo-utf8Pairs string defined
-- for regInfo in CertReqMsg [RFC4211]
}
CertifiedKeyPair ::= SEQUENCE {
certOrEncCert CertOrEncCert,
privateKey [0] EncryptedKey OPTIONAL,
-- see [RFC4211] for comment on encoding
publicationInfo [1] PKIPublicationInfo OPTIONAL
}
CertOrEncCert ::= CHOICE {
certificate [0] CMPCertificate,
encryptedCert [1] EncryptedKey
}
Add the following as a new paragraph right after the ASN.1 syntax:
A p10cr message contains exactly one CertificationRequestInfo data
structure as specified in PKCS#10 [RFC2986] but no certReqId.
Therefore, the certReqId in the corresponding certification response
(cp) message MUST be set to -1.
Add the following as new paragraphs to the end of the section:
The use of EncryptedKey is described in Section 5.2.2.
Note: To indicate support for EnvelopedData the pvno cmp2021 has been
introduced. Details on the usage of different pvno values are
described in Section 7.
2.10. Update Section 5.3.18. - Certificate Confirmation Content
This section introduces an optional hashAlg field to the CertStatus
type used in certConf messages to explicitly specify the hash
algorithm for those certificates where no hash algorithm is specified
in the signatureAlgorithm field.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
Replace the ASN.1 Syntax of CertStatus with the following text:
CertStatus ::= SEQUENCE {
certHash OCTET STRING,
certReqId INTEGER,
statusInfo PKIStatusInfo OPTIONAL,
hashAlg [0] AlgorithmIdentifier{DIGEST-ALGORITHM, {...}}
OPTIONAL
}
The hashAlg field SHOULD be used only in exceptional cases where the
signatureAlgorithm of the certificate to be confirmed does not
specify a hash algorithm in the OID or in the parameters. In such
cases, e.g., for EdDSA, the hashAlg MUST be used to specify the hash
algorithm to be used for calculating the certHash value. Otherwise,
the certHash value SHALL be computed using the same hash algorithm as
used to create and verify the certificate signature. If hashAlg is
used, the CMP version indicated by the certConf message header must
be cmp2021(3).
2.11. Update Section 5.3.19.2. - Signing Key Pair Types
The following section clarifies the usage of the Signing Key Pair
Types on referencing EC curves.
Insert this note at the end of Section 5.3.19.2:
Note: In case several EC curves are supported, several id-ecPublicKey
elements as defined in RFC 5480 [RFC5480] need to be given, one per
named curve.
2.12. Update Section 5.3.19.3. - Encryption/Key Agreement Key Pair
Types
The following section clarifies the use of the Encryption/Key
Agreement Key Pair Types on referencing EC curves.
Insert this note at the end of Section 5.3.19.3:
Note: In case several EC curves are supported, several id-ecPublicKey
elements as defined in RFC 5480 [RFC5480]need to be given, one per
named curve.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
2.13. Replace Section 5.3.19.9. - Revocation Passphrase
Section 5.3.19.9 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] describes the provisioning of
a revocation passphrase for authenticating a later revocation
request. This document updates the handling by using the parent
structure EncryptedKey instead of EncryptedValue to transport this
information as described in Section 2.7 above.
Replace the text of the section with the following text:
5.3.19.9. Revocation Passphrase
This MAY be used by the EE to send a passphrase to a CA/RA for the
purpose of authenticating a later revocation request (in the case
that the appropriate signing private key is no longer available to
authenticate the request). See Appendix B for further details on the
use of this mechanism.
GenMsg: {id-it 12}, EncryptedKey
GenRep: {id-it 12}, < absent >
The use of EncryptedKey is described in Section 5.2.2.
2.14. New Section 5.3.19.14 - CA Certificates
The following subsection describes PKI general messages using id-it-
caCerts. The intended use is specified in Lightweight CMP Profile
Section 4.3 [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile].
Insert this section after Section 5.3.19.13:
2.3.19.14 CA Certificates
This MAY be used by the client to get CA certificates.
GenMsg: {id-it 17}, < absent >
GenRep: {id-it 17}, SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
CMPCertificate | < absent >
2.15. New Section 5.3.19.15 - Root CA Certificate Update
The following subsection describes PKI general messages using id-it-
rootCaCert and id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate. The use is specified in
Lightweight CMP Profile Section 4.3
[I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile].
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
Insert this section after new Section 5.3.19.14:
5.3.19.15. Root CA Certificate Update
This MAY be used by the client to get an update of a root CA
certificate, which is provided in the body of the request message.
In contrast to the ckuann message this approach follows the request/
response model.
The EE SHOULD reference its current trust anchor in a TrustAnchor
structure in the request body, giving the root CA certificate if
available, otherwise the public key value of the trust anchor.
GenMsg: {id-it 20}, RootCaCertValue | < absent >
GenRep: {id-it 18}, RootCaKeyUpdateContent | < absent >
RootCaCertValue ::= CMPCertificate
RootCaKeyUpdateValue ::= RootCaKeyUpdateContent
RootCaKeyUpdateContent ::= SEQUENCE {
newWithNew CMPCertificate,
newWithOld [0] CMPCertificate OPTIONAL,
oldWithNew [1] CMPCertificate OPTIONAL
}
Note: In contrast to CAKeyUpdAnnContent, this type offers omitting
newWithOld and oldWithNew in the GenRep message, depending on the
needs of the EE.
2.16. New Section 5.3.19.16 - Certificate Request Template
The following subsection introduces the PKI general message using id-
it-certReqTemplate. Details are specified in the Lightweight CMP
Profile Section 4.3 [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile].
Insert this section after new Section 5.3.19.15:
5.3.19.16. Certificate Request Template
This MAY be used by the client to get a template containing
requirements for certificate request attributes and extensions. The
controls id-regCtrl-algId and id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen MAY contain
details on the types of subject public keys the CA is willing to
certify.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
The id-regCtrl-algId control MAY be used to identify a cryptographic
algorithm, see RFC 5280 Section 4.1.2.7 [RFC5280], other than
rsaEncryption. The algorithm field SHALL identify a cryptographic
algorithm. The contents of the optional parameters field will vary
according to the algorithm identified. For example, when the
algorithm is set to id-ecPublicKey, the parameters identify the
elliptic curve to be used, see [RFC5480].
The id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen control SHALL be used for algorithm
rsaEncryption and SHALL contain the intended modulus bit length of
the RSA key.
GenMsg: {id-it 19}, < absent >
GenRep: {id-it 19}, CertReqTemplateContent | < absent >
CertReqTemplateValue ::= CertReqTemplateContent
CertReqTemplateContent ::= SEQUENCE {
certTemplate CertTemplate,
keySpec Controls OPTIONAL }
Controls ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF AttributeTypeAndValue
id-regCtrl-algId OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
mechanisms(5) pkix(7) pkip(5) regCtrl(1) 11 }
AlgIdCtrl ::= AlgorithmIdentifier{ALGORITHM, {...}}
id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
mechanisms(5) pkix(7) pkip(5) regCtrl(1) 12 }
RsaKeyLenCtrl ::= INTEGER (1..MAX)
The CertReqTemplateValue contains the prefilled certTemplate to be
used for a future certificate request. The publicKey field in the
certTemplate MUST NOT be used. In case the PKI management entity
wishes to specify supported public-key algorithms, the keySpec field
MUST be used. One AttributeTypeAndValue per supported algorithm or
RSA key length MUST be used.
Note: The Controls ASN.1 type is defined in CRMF Section 6 [RFC4211]
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
2.17. New Section 5.3.19.17 - CRL Update Retrieval
The following subsection introduces the PKI general message using id-
it-crlStatusList and id-it-crls. Details are specified in the
Lightweight CMP Profile Section 4.3
[I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile]. Insert this section after
new Section 5.3.19.16:
5.3.19.17. CRL Update Retrieval
This MAY be used by the client to get new CRLs, specifying the source
of the CRLs and the thisUpdate value of the latest CRL it already
has, if available. A CRL source is given either by a
DistributionPointName or the GeneralNames of the issuing CA. The
DistributionPointName should be treated as an internal pointer to
identify a CRL that the server already has and not as a way to ask
the server to fetch CRLs from external locations. The server shall
provide only those CRLs that are more recent than the ones indicated
by the client.
GenMsg: {id-it 22}, SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CRLStatus
GenRep: {id-it 23}, SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
CertificateList | < absent >
CRLSource ::= CHOICE {
dpn [0] DistributionPointName,
issuer [1] GeneralNames }
CRLStatus ::= SEQUENCE {
source CRLSource,
thisUpdate Time OPTIONAL }
2.18. Update Section 5.3.21 - Error Message Content
Section 5.3.21 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] describes the regular use of
error messages. This document adds a use by a PKI management entity
to initiate delayed delivery in response to certConf, rr, and genm
requests and to error messages.
Replace the first sentence of the first paragraph with the following
one:
This data structure MAY be used by EE, CA, or RA to convey error info
and by a PKI management entity to initiate delayed delivery of
responses.
Replace the second paragraph with the following text:
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
This message MAY be generated at any time during a PKI transaction.
If the client sends this request, the server MUST respond with a
PKIConfirm response, or another ErrorMsg if any part of the header is
not valid. In case a PKI management entity sends an error message to
the EE with the pKIStatusInfo field containing the status "waiting",
the EE will initiate polling as described in Section 5.3.22.
Otherwise, both sides MUST treat this message as the end of the
transaction (if a transaction is in progress).
2.19. Replace Section 5.3.22 - Polling Request and Response
Section 5.3.22 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] describes when and how polling
messages are used for ir, cr, and kur messages. This document
extends the polling mechanism for outstanding responses to any kind
of request message. This update also fixes the inconsistent use of
the terms 'rReq' vs. 'pollReq' and 'pRep' vs. 'pollRep'.
Replace Section 5.3.22 with following text:
This pair of messages is intended to handle scenarios in which the
client needs to poll the server to determine the status of an
outstanding response (i.e., when the "waiting" PKIStatus has been
received).
PollReqContent ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
certReqId INTEGER }
PollRepContent ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
certReqId INTEGER,
checkAfter INTEGER, -- time in seconds
reason PKIFreeText OPTIONAL }
In response to an ir, cr, p10cr, or kur request message, polling is
initiated with an ip, cp, or kup response message containing status
"waiting". For any type of request message, polling can be initiated
with an error response messages with status "waiting". The following
clauses describe how polling messages are used. It is assumed that
multiple certConf messages can be sent during transactions. There
will be one sent in response to each ip, cp, or kup that contains a
CertStatus for an issued certificate.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
1 In response to an ip, cp, or kup message, an EE will send a
certConf for all issued certificates and expect a PKIconf for each
certConf. An EE will send a pollReq message in response to each
CertResponse element of an ip, cp, or kup message with status
"waiting" and in response to an error message with status
"waiting". Its certReqId MUST be either the index of a
CertResponse data structure with status "waiting" or -1 referring
to the complete response.
2 In response to a pollReq, a CA/RA will return an ip, cp, or kup if
one or more of still pending requested certificates are ready or
the final response to some other type of request is available;
otherwise, it will return a pollRep.
3 If the EE receives a pollRep, it will wait for at least the number
of seconds given in the checkAfter field before sending another
pollReq.
4 If the EE receives an ip, cp, or kup, then it will be treated in
the same way as the initial response; if it receives any other
response, then this will be treated as the final response to the
original request.
The following client-side state machine describes polling for
individual CertResponse elements.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
START
|
v
Send ir
| ip
v
Check status
of returned <------------------------+
certs |
| |
+------------------------>|<------------------+ |
| | | |
| (issued) v (waiting) | |
Add to <----------- Check CertResponse ------> Add to |
conf list for each certificate pending list |
/ |
/ |
(conf list) / (empty conf list) |
/ ip |
/ +-----------------+
(empty pending list) / | pollRep
END <---- Send certConf Send pollReq---------->Wait
| ^ ^ |
| | | |
+-----------------+ +---------------+
(pending list)
In the following exchange, the end entity is enrolling for two
certificates in one request.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
Step End Entity PKI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Format ir
2 -> ir ->
3 Handle ir
4 Manual intervention is
required for both certs.
5 <- ip <-
6 Process ip
7 Format pollReq
8 -> pollReq ->
9 Check status of cert requests
10 Certificates not ready
11 Format pollRep
12 <- pollRep <-
13 Wait
14 Format pollReq
15 -> pollReq ->
16 Check status of cert requests
17 One certificate is ready
18 Format ip
19 <- ip <-
20 Handle ip
21 Format certConf
22 -> certConf ->
23 Handle certConf
24 Format ack
25 <- pkiConf <-
26 Format pollReq
27 -> pollReq ->
28 Check status of certificate
29 Certificate is ready
30 Format ip
31 <- ip <-
31 Handle ip
32 Format certConf
33 -> certConf ->
34 Handle certConf
35 Format ack
36 <- pkiConf <-
The following client-side state machine describes polling for a
complete response message.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
Start
|
| Send request
|
+----------- Receive response ------------+
| |
| ip/cp/kup/error with | other
| status "waiting" | response
| |
v |
+------> Polling |
| | |
| | Send pollReq |
| | Receive response |
| | |
| pollRep | other response |
+-----------+------------------->+<-------------------+
|
v
Handle response
|
v
End
In the following exchange, the end-entity is sending a general
message request, and the response is delayed by the server.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
Step End Entity PKI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Format genm
2 -> genm ->
3 Handle genm
4 delay in response is necessary
5 Format error message "waiting"
with certReqId set to -1
6 <- error <-
7 Process error
8 Format pollReq
9 -> pollReq ->
10 Check status of original request
general message response not ready
11 Format pollRep
12 <- pollRep <-
13 Wait
14 Format pollReq
15 -> pollReq ->
16 Check status of original request
general message response is ready
17 Format genp
18 <- genp <-
19 Handle genp
2.20. Update Section 7 - Version Negotiation
Section 7 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] describes the use of CMP protocol
versions. This document describes the handling of the additional CMP
version cmp2021 introduced to indicate support of EnvelopedData and
hashAlg.
Replace the text of the second paragraph with the following text:
If a client knows the protocol version(s) supported by the server
(e.g., from a previous PKIMessage exchange or via some out-of-band
means), then it MUST send a PKIMessage with the highest version
supported by both it and the server. If a client does not know what
version(s) the server supports, then it MUST send a PKIMessage using
the highest version it supports, with the following exception.
Version cmp2021 SHOULD only be used if cmp2021 syntax is needed for
the request being sent or for the expected response.
Note: Using cmp2000 as the default pvno is done to avoid extra
message exchanges for version negotiation and to foster compatibility
with cmp2000 implementations. Version cmp2021 syntax is only needed
if a message exchange uses hashAlg (in CertStatus) or EnvelopedData.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
2.21. Update Section 7.1.1. - Clients Talking to RFC 2510 Servers
Section 7.1.1 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] describes the behavior of a
client sending a cmp2000 message talking to a cmp1999 server as
specified in RFC 2510 [RFC2510]. This document extends the section
to clients with any higher version than cmp1999.
Replace the first sentence of Section 7.1.1 with the following text:
If, after sending a message with a protocol version number higher
than cmp1999, a client receives an ErrorMsgContent with a version of
cmp1999, then it MUST abort the current transaction.
2.22. Add Section 8.4 - Private Keys for Certificate Signing and CMP
Message Protection
The following subsection addresses the risk arising from reusing the
CA private key for CMP message protection.
Insert this section after Section 8.3 (Note: This fixes Errata ID
5731):
8.4. Private Keys for Certificate Signing and CMP Message Protection
A CA should not reuse its certificate signing key for other purposes
such as protecting CMP responses and TLS connections. This way,
exposure to other parts of the system and the number of uses of this
particularly critical key is reduced to a minimum.
2.23. Add Section 8.5 - Entropy of Random Numbers, Key Pairs, and
Shared Secret Information
The following subsection addresses the risk arising from low entropy
of random numbers, asymmetric keys, and shared secret information.
Insert this section after Section 8.4:
8.5. Entropy of Random Numbers, Key Pairs, and Shared Secret
Information
Implementations must generate nonces and private keys from random
input. The use of inadequate pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs)
to generate cryptographic keys can result in little or no security.
An attacker may find it much easier to reproduce the PRNG environment
that produced the keys and to search the resulting small set of
possibilities than brute-force searching the whole key space. As an
example of predictable random numbers see [CVE-2008-0166];
consequences of low-entropy random numbers are discussed in Mining
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
Your Ps and Qs [MiningPsQs]. The generation of quality random
numbers is difficult. ISO/IEC 20543:2019 [ISO.20543-2019], NIST SP
800-90A Rev.1 [NIST.SP.800-90Ar1], BSI AIS 31 V2.0 [AIS31], and
others offer valuable guidance in this area.
If shared secret information is generated by a cryptographically
secure random-number generator (CSRNG) it is safe to assume that the
entropy of the shared secret information equals its bit length. If
no CSRNG is used, the entropy of a shared secret information depends
on the details of the generation process and cannot be measured
securely after it has been generated. If user-generated passwords
are used as shared secret information, their entropy cannot be
measured and are typically insufficient for protected delivery of
centrally generated keys or trust anchors.
If the entropy of a shared secret information protecting the delivery
of a centrally generated key pair is known, it should not be less
than the security strength of that key pair; if the shared secret
information is re-used for different key pairs, the security of the
shared secret information should exceed the security strength of each
individual key pair.
For the case of a PKI management operation that delivers a new trust
anchor (e.g., a root CA certificate) using caPubs or genm (a) that is
not concluded in a timely manner or (b) where the shared secret
information is re-used for several key management operations, the
entropy of the shared secret information, if known, should not be
less than the security strength of the trust anchor being managed by
the operation. The shared secret information should have an entropy
that at least matches the security strength of the key material being
managed by the operation. Certain use cases may require shared
secret information that may be of a low security strength, e.g., a
human generated password. It is RECOMMENDED that such secret
information be limited to a single PKI management operation.
2.24. Add Section 8.6 - Trust Anchor Provisioning Using CMP Messages
The following subsection addresses the risk arising from in-band
provisioning of new trust anchors in a PKI management operation.
Insert this section after new Section 8.5:
8.6. Trust Anchor Provisioning Using CMP Messages
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
A provider of trust anchors, which may be an RA involved in
configuration management of its clients, MUST NOT include to-be-
trusted CA certificates in a CMP message unless the specific
deployment scenario can ensure that it is adequate that the receiving
EE trusts these certificates, e.g., by loading them into its trust
store.
Whenever an EE receives in a CMP message, e.g., in the caPubs field
of a certificate response or in a general response (genp), a CA
certificate for use as a trust anchor, it MUST properly authenticate
the message sender with existing trust anchors without requiring new
trust anchors included in the message.
Additionally, the EE MUST verify that the sender is an authorized
source of trust anchors. This authorization is governed by local
policy and typically indicated using shared secret information or
with a signature-based message protection using a certificate issued
by a PKI that is explicitly authorized for this purpose.
2.25. Add Section 8.7 - Authorizing requests for certificates with
specific EKUs
The following subsection addresses the security considerations to
follow when authorizing requests for certificates containing specific
EKUs.
Insert this section after new Section 8.6:
8.7. Authorizing requests for certificates with specific EKUs
When a CA issues a certificate containing extended key usage
extensions as defined in Section 4.5, this expresses delegation of an
authorization that originally is only with the CA certificate itself.
Such delegation is a very sensitive action in a PKI and therefore
special care must be taken when approving such certificate requests
to ensure that only legitimate entities receive a certificate
containing such an EKU.
2.26. Update Appendix B - The Use of Revocation Passphrase
Appendix B of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] describes the use of the revocation
passphrase. As this document updates RFC 4210 [RFC4210] to utilize
the parent structure EncryptedKey instead of EncryptedValue as
described in Section 2.7 above, the description is updated
accordingly.
Replace the first bullet point of this section with the following
text:
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
* The OID and value specified in Section 5.3.19.9 MAY be sent in a
GenMsg message at any time, or MAY be sent in the generalInfo
field of the PKIHeader of any PKIMessage at any time. (In
particular, the EncryptedKey structure as described in
Section 5.2.2 may be sent in the header of the certConf message
that confirms acceptance of certificates requested in an
initialization request or certificate request message.) This
conveys a revocation passphrase chosen by the entity to the
relevant CA/RA. When EnvelopedData is used, this is in the
decrypted bytes of encryptedContent field. When EncryptedValue is
used, this is in the decrypted bytes of the encValue field.
Furthermore, the transfer is accomplished with appropriate
confidentiality characteristics.
Replace the third bullet point of this section with the following
text:
* Either the localKeyId attribute of EnvelopedData as specified in
RFC 2985 [RFC2985] or the valueHint field of EncryptedValue MAY
contain a key identifier (chosen by the entity, along with the
passphrase itself) to assist in later retrieval of the correct
passphrase (e.g., when the revocation request is constructed by
the entity and received by the CA/RA).
2.27. Update Appendix C - Request Message Behavioral Clarifications
Appendix C of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] provides clarifications to the
request message behavior. As this document updates RFC 4210
[RFC4210] to utilize the parent structure EncryptedKey instead of
EncryptedValue as described in Section 2.7 above, the description is
updated accordingly.
Replace the comment within the ASN.1 syntax coming after the
definition of POPOSigningKey with the following text (Note: This
fixes Errata ID 2615):
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- **********
-- * For the purposes of this specification, the ASN.1 comment
-- * given in [RFC4211] pertains not only to certTemplate, but
-- * also to the altCertTemplate control.
-- **********
-- * The signature (using "algorithmIdentifier") is on the
-- * DER-encoded value of poposkInput (i.e., the "value" OCTETs
-- * of the POPOSigningKeyInput DER). NOTE: If CertReqMsg
-- * certReq certTemplate (or the altCertTemplate control)
-- * contains the subject and publicKey values, then poposkInput
-- * MUST be omitted and the signature MUST be computed on the
-- * DER-encoded value of CertReqMsg certReq (or the DER-
-- * encoded value of AltCertTemplate). If
-- * certTemplate/altCertTemplate does not contain both the
-- * subject and public key values (i.e., if it contains only
-- * one of these, or neither), then poposkInput MUST be present
-- * and MUST be signed.
-- **********
Replace the comment within the ASN.1 syntax coming after the
definition of POPOPrivKey with the following text:
-- **********
-- * the type of "thisMessage" is given as BIT STRING in RFC 4211
-- * [RFC4211]; it should be "EncryptedKey" (in accordance with
-- * Section 5.2.2 of this specification). Therefore, this
-- * document makes the behavioral clarification of specifying
-- * that the contents of "thisMessage" MUST be encoded either as
-- * "EnvelopedData" or "EncryptedValue" (only for backward
-- * compatibility) and then wrapped in a BIT STRING. This
-- * allows the necessary conveyance and protection of the
-- * private key while maintaining bits-on-the-wire compatibility
-- * with RFC4210 and [RFCXXXX].
-- **********
2.28. Update Appendix D.1. - General Rules for Interpretation of These
Profiles
Appendix D.1 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] provides general rules for
interpretation of the PKI management messages profiles specified in
Appendix D and Appendix E of RFC 4210 [RFC4210]. This document
updates a sentence regarding the new protocol version cmp2021.
Replace the last sentence of the first paragraph of the section with
the following text:
Mandatory fields are not mentioned if they have an obvious value
(e.g., in this version of these profiles, pvno is always cmp2000).
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
2.29. Update Appendix D.2. - Algorithm Use Profile
Appendix D.2 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] provides a list of algorithms that
implementations must support when claiming conformance with PKI
Management Message Profiles as specified in CMP Appendix D.2
[RFC4210]. This document redirects to the new algorithm profile as
specified in Section 7.1 of CMP Algorithms
[I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms].
Replace the text of the section with the following text:
D.2. Algorithm Use Profile
For specifications of algorithm identifiers and respective
conventions for conforming implementations, please refer to CMP
Algorithms Section 7.1 [I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms].
2.30. Update Appendix D.4. - Initial Registration/Certification (Basic
Authenticated Scheme)
Appendix D.4 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] provides the initial registration/
certification scheme. This scheme shall continue using
EncryptedValue for backward compatibility reasons.
Replace the line specifying protectionAlg of the Initialization
Response message with the following text (Note: This fixes Errata ID
5201):
protectionAlg MSG_MAC_ALG
Replace the comment after the privateKey field of
crc[1].certifiedKeyPair in the syntax of the Initialization Response
message with the following text:
-- see Appendix C, Request Message Behavioral Clarifications
-- for backward compatibility reasons, use EncryptedValue
3. Updates to RFC 6712 - HTTP Transfer for the Certificate Management
Protocol (CMP)
3.1. Update Section 1. - Introduction
To indicate and explain why delayed delivery of all kinds of
PKIMessages may be handled at transfer level and/or at CMP level, the
introduction of RFC 6712 [RFC6712] is updated.
Replace the third paragraph of this section with the following text:
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
In addition to reliable transport, CMP requires connection and error
handling from the transfer protocol, which is all covered by HTTP.
Additionally, delayed delivery of CMP response messages may be
handled at transfer level regardless of the message contents. Since
this document extends the polling mechanism specified in the second
version of CMP [RFC4210] to cover all types of PKI management
transactions, delays detected at application level may also be
handled within CMP, using pollReq and pollRep messages.
3.2. New Section 1.1. - Changes Since RFC 6712
The following subsection describes feature updates to RFC 6712
[RFC6712]. They are related to the base specification. Hence,
references to the original sections in RFC 6712 [RFC6712] are used
whenever possible.
Insert this section at the end of the current Section 1:
1.1 Changes Since RFC 6712
The following updates are made in this document:
* Introduce the HTTP path '/.well-known/cmp'.
* Extend the URI structure.
3.3. Replace Section 3.6. - HTTP Request-URI
Section 3.6 of RFC 6712 [RFC6712] specifies the used HTTP URIs. This
document introduces the HTTP path '/.well-known/cmp' and extends the
URIs.
Replace the text of the section with the following text:
3.6. HTTP Request-URI
Each CMP server on a PKI management entity supporting HTTP or HTTPS
transfer MUST support the use of the path prefix '/.well-known/' as
defined in RFC 8615 [RFC8615] and the registered name 'cmp' to ease
interworking in a multi-vendor environment.
The CMP client needs to be configured with sufficient information to
form the CMP server URI. This is at least the authority portion of
the URI, e.g., 'www.example.com:80', or the full operation path
segment of the PKI management entity. Additionally, OPTIONAL path
segments MAY be added after the registered application name as part
of the full operation path to provide further distinction. The path
segment 'p' followed by an arbitraryLabel <name> could for example
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
support the differentiation of specific CAs or certificate profiles.
Further path segments, e.g., as specified in the Lightweight CMP
Profile [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile], could indicate PKI
management operations using an operationLabel <operation>. A valid
full CMP URI can look like this:
http://www.example.com/.well-known/cmp
http://www.example.com/.well-known/cmp/<operation>
http://www.example.com/.well-known/cmp/p/<name>
http://www.example.com/.well-known/cmp/p/<name>/<operation>
4. IANA Considerations
This document updates the ASN.1 modules of RFC 4210 Appendix F
[RFC4210] and RFC 5912 Section 9 [RFC5912]. The OIDs 99 (id-mod-
cmp2021-88) and 100 (id-mod-cmp2021-02) were registered in the SMI
Security for PKIX Module Identifier registry to identify the updated
ASN.1 modules.
This document contains an update to the IANA Consideration sections
of [RFC4210] adding this content.
In the SMI-numbers registry "SMI Security for PKIX Extended Key
Purpose Identifiers (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3)" (see
https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-
numbers-1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3) as defined in RFC 7299 [RFC7299] one
addition has been performed.
One new entry has been added:
+=========+=============+============+
| Decimal | Description | References |
+=========+=============+============+
| 32 | id-kp-cmKGA | [RFCXXXX] |
+---------+-------------+------------+
Table 1: Addition to the PKIX
Extended Key Purpose Identifiers
Registry
In the SMI-numbers registry "SMI Security for PKIX CMP Information
Types (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.4)" (see https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-
numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-1.3.6.1.5.5.7.4) as defined in
RFC 7299 [RFC7299] seven additions have been performed.
Seven new entries have been added:
+=========+=======================+============+
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
| Decimal | Description | References |
+=========+=======================+============+
| 17 | id-it-caCerts | [RFCXXXX] |
+---------+-----------------------+------------+
| 18 | id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate | [RFCXXXX] |
+---------+-----------------------+------------+
| 19 | id-it-certReqTemplate | [RFCXXXX] |
+---------+-----------------------+------------+
| 20 | id-it-rootCaCert | [RFCXXXX] |
+---------+-----------------------+------------+
| 21 | id-it-certProfile | [RFCXXXX] |
+---------+-----------------------+------------+
| 22 | id-it-crlStatusList | [RFCXXXX] |
+---------+-----------------------+------------+
| 23 | id-it-crls | [RFCXXXX] |
+---------+-----------------------+------------+
Table 2: Addition to the PKIX CMP
Information Types Registry
In the SMI-numbers registry "SMI Security for PKIX CRMF Registration
Controls (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.5.1)" (see https://www.iana.org/assignments/
smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-1.3.6.1.5.5.7.5.1) as
defined in RFC 7299 [RFC7299] two additions have been performed.
Two new entries have been added:
+=========+======================+============+
| Decimal | Description | References |
+=========+======================+============+
| 11 | id-regCtrl-algId | [RFCXXXX] |
+---------+----------------------+------------+
| 12 | id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen | [RFCXXXX] |
+---------+----------------------+------------+
Table 3: Addition to the PKIX CRMF
Registration Controls Registry
This document contains an update to the IANA Consideration sections
of [RFC6712] adding this content.
This document defines a new entry with the following content in the
"Well-Known URIs" registry (see https://www.iana.org/assignments/
well-known-uris/) as defined in RFC 8615 [RFC8615].
URI Suffix: cmp
Change Controller: IETF
References: [RFCXXXX] [I-D.ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport]
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
Related Information: CMP has a sub-registry at
[https://www.iana.org/assignments/cmp/]
This document defines a new protocol registry group entitled
"Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)" (at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/cmp/) with a new registry "CMP Well-
Known URI Path Segments" containing three columns: Path Segment,
Description, and Reference. New items can be added using the
Specification Required RFC 8615 [RFC8615] process. The initial
contents of this registry is:
Path Segment: p
Description: Indicates that the next path segment specifies, e.g.,
a CA or certificate profile name
References: [RFCXXXX] [I-D.ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport]
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] are extended in
Section 2.22 to Section 2.24. No security considerations updates of
RFC 6712 [RFC6712] were required.
6. Acknowledgements
Special thank goes to Jim Schaad for his guidance and the inspiration
on structuring and writing this document we got from [RFC6402] which
updates CMC. Special thank also goes to Russ Housley, Lijun Liao,
Martin Peylo, and Tomas Gustavsson for reviewing and providing
valuable suggestions on improving this document.
We also thank all reviewers of this document for their valuable
feedback.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport]
Sahni, M. and S. Tripathi, "CoAP Transfer for the
Certificate Management Protocol", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-04, 8
November 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-04>.
[I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms]
Brockhaus, H., Aschauer, H., Ounsworth, M., and J. Gray,
"Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) Algorithms", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
algorithms-15, 2 June 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-
cmp-algorithms-15>.
[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>.
[RFC2510] Adams, C. and S. Farrell, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate Management Protocols",
RFC 2510, DOI 10.17487/RFC2510, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2510>.
[RFC2985] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #9: Selected Object
Classes and Attribute Types Version 2.0", RFC 2985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2985, November 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2985>.
[RFC2986] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #10: Certification
Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7", RFC 2986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2986, November 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2986>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[RFC4210] Adams, C., Farrell, S., Kause, T., and T. Mononen,
"Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
Management Protocol (CMP)", RFC 4210,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4210, September 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4210>.
[RFC4211] Schaad, J., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)", RFC 4211,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4211, September 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4211>.
[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>.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
[RFC5480] Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk,
"Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key
Information", RFC 5480, DOI 10.17487/RFC5480, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5480>.
[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.
[RFC5958] Turner, S., "Asymmetric Key Packages", RFC 5958,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5958, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5958>.
[RFC6402] Schaad, J., "Certificate Management over CMS (CMC)
Updates", RFC 6402, DOI 10.17487/RFC6402, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6402>.
[RFC6712] Kause, T. and M. Peylo, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure -- HTTP Transfer for the Certificate
Management Protocol (CMP)", RFC 6712,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6712, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6712>.
[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>.
[RFC8615] Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URIs)", RFC 8615, DOI 10.17487/RFC8615, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8615>.
[RFC8933] Housley, R., "Update to the Cryptographic Message Syntax
(CMS) for Algorithm Identifier Protection", RFC 8933,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8933, October 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8933>.
[RFC9045] Housley, R., "Algorithm Requirements Update to the
Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
Request Message Format (CRMF)", RFC 9045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9045, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9045>.
7.2. Informative References
[AIS31] Bundesamt fuer Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik
(BSI), Killmann, W., and W. Schindler, "A proposal for:
Functionality classes for random number generators,
version 2.0", 18 September 2011,
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
<https://www.bsi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/BSI/
Zertifizierung/Interpretationen/AIS_31_Functionality_class
es_for_random_number_generators_e.pdf>.
[CVE-2008-0166]
National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST),
"National Vulnerability Database - CVE-2008-0166", 13 May
2008, <https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-0166>.
[I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile]
Brockhaus, H., Oheimb, D. V., and S. Fries, "Lightweight
Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) Profile", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-
cmp-profile-12, 13 May 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-
lightweight-cmp-profile-12>.
[IEEE.802.1AR_2018]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Secure Device Identity", IEEE 802.1AR-2018,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8423794, 2 August 2018,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423794>.
[ISO.20543-2019]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
"Information technology -- Security techniques -- Test and
analysis methods for random bit generators within ISO/IEC
19790 and ISO/IEC 15408", ISO Draft Standard 20543-2019,
October 2019.
[MiningPsQs]
Security'12: Proceedings of the 21st USENIX conference on
Security symposium, Heninger, N., Durumeric, Z., Wustrow,
E., and J. A. Halderman, "Mining Your Ps and Qs: Detection
of Widespread Weak Keys in Network Devices", August 2012,
<https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity12/
technical-sessions/presentation/heninger>.
[NIST.SP.800-90Ar1]
Barker, Elaine B. and John M. Kelsey, "Recommendation for
Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit
Generators", NIST NIST SP 800-90Ar1,
DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-90Ar1, June 2015,
<https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/
NIST.SP.800-90Ar1.pdf>.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
[PKCS11] RSA Laboratories, "The Public-Key Cryptography Standards -
Cryptographic Token Interface Standard. Version 2.10",
December 1999,
<https://www.cryptsoft.com/pkcs11doc/STANDARD/
pkcs11v2-10.pdf>.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
[RFC2202] Cheng, P. and R. Glenn, "Test Cases for HMAC-MD5 and HMAC-
SHA-1", RFC 2202, DOI 10.17487/RFC2202, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2202>.
[RFC5912] Hoffman, P. and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for the
Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)", RFC 5912,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5912, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5912>.
[RFC7299] Housley, R., "Object Identifier Registry for the PKIX
Working Group", RFC 7299, DOI 10.17487/RFC7299, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7299>.
Appendix A. ASN.1 Modules
A.1. Update to RFC4210 - 1988 ASN.1 Module
This section contains the updated ASN.1 module for [RFC4210]. This
module replaces the module in Appendix F of that document. Although
a 2002 ASN.1 module is provided, this 1988 ASN.1 module remains the
normative module as per the policy of the PKIX working group.
PKIXCMP {iso(1) identified-organization(3)
dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)
id-mod(0) id-mod-cmp2021-88(99)}
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
-- EXPORTS ALL --
IMPORTS
Certificate, CertificateList, Extensions, Name, Time,
AlgorithmIdentifier, id-kp
--, UTF8String -- -- if required; otherwise, comment out
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
FROM PKIX1Explicit88 {iso(1) identified-organization(3)
dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)
id-mod(0) id-pkix1-explicit-88(18)}
-- The import of Name is added to define CertificationRequest
-- instead of importing it from PKCS#10 [RFC2986]
DistributionPointName, GeneralNames, GeneralName, KeyIdentifier
FROM PKIX1Implicit88 {iso(1) identified-organization(3)
dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)
id-mod(0) id-pkix1-implicit-88(19)}
CertTemplate, PKIPublicationInfo, EncryptedKey, CertId,
CertReqMessages, Controls, AttributeTypeAndValue, id-regCtrl
FROM PKIXCRMF-2005 {iso(1) identified-organization(3)
dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)
id-mod(0) id-mod-crmf2005(36)}
-- The import of EncryptedKey is added due to the updates made
-- in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]]. EncryptedValue does not need to
-- be imported anymore and is therefore removed here.
-- see also the behavioral clarifications to CRMF codified in
-- Appendix C of this specification
EnvelopedData, SignedData, Attribute
FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax2004 { iso(1)
member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9)
smime(16) modules(0) cms-2004(24) }
-- The import of EnvelopedData and SignedData is added due to
-- the updates made in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- The import of Attribute is added to define
-- CertificationRequest instead of importing it from
-- PKCS#10 [RFC2986]
;
-- the rest of the module contains locally-defined OIDs and
-- constructs
CMPCertificate ::= CHOICE {
x509v3PKCert Certificate
}
-- This syntax, while bits-on-the-wire compatible with the
-- standard X.509 definition of "Certificate", allows the
-- possibility of future certificate types (such as X.509
-- attribute certificates, WAP WTLS certificates, or other kinds
-- of certificates) within this certificate management protocol,
-- should a need ever arise to support such generality. Those
-- implementations that do not foresee a need to ever support
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- other certificate types MAY, if they wish, comment out the
-- above structure and "un-comment" the following one prior to
-- compiling this ASN.1 module. (Note that interoperability
-- with implementations that don't do this will be unaffected by
-- this change.)
-- CMPCertificate ::= Certificate
PKIMessage ::= SEQUENCE {
header PKIHeader,
body PKIBody,
protection [0] PKIProtection OPTIONAL,
extraCerts [1] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CMPCertificate
OPTIONAL
}
PKIMessages ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF PKIMessage
PKIHeader ::= SEQUENCE {
pvno INTEGER { cmp1999(1), cmp2000(2),
cmp2021(3) },
sender GeneralName,
-- identifies the sender
recipient GeneralName,
-- identifies the intended recipient
messageTime [0] GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL,
-- time of production of this message (used when sender
-- believes that the transport will be "suitable"; i.e.,
-- that the time will still be meaningful upon receipt)
protectionAlg [1] AlgorithmIdentifier OPTIONAL,
-- algorithm used for calculation of protection bits
senderKID [2] KeyIdentifier OPTIONAL,
recipKID [3] KeyIdentifier OPTIONAL,
-- to identify specific keys used for protection
transactionID [4] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
-- identifies the transaction; i.e., this will be the same in
-- corresponding request, response, certConf, and PKIConf
-- messages
senderNonce [5] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
recipNonce [6] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
-- nonces used to provide replay protection, senderNonce
-- is inserted by the creator of this message; recipNonce
-- is a nonce previously inserted in a related message by
-- the intended recipient of this message
freeText [7] PKIFreeText OPTIONAL,
-- this may be used to indicate context-specific instructions
-- (this field is intended for human consumption)
generalInfo [8] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
InfoTypeAndValue OPTIONAL
-- this may be used to convey context-specific information
-- (this field not primarily intended for human consumption)
}
PKIFreeText ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF UTF8String
-- text encoded as UTF-8 String [RFC3629]
PKIBody ::= CHOICE { -- message-specific body elements
ir [0] CertReqMessages, --Initialization Request
ip [1] CertRepMessage, --Initialization Response
cr [2] CertReqMessages, --Certification Request
cp [3] CertRepMessage, --Certification Response
p10cr [4] CertificationRequest, --imported from [RFC2986]
popdecc [5] POPODecKeyChallContent, --pop Challenge
popdecr [6] POPODecKeyRespContent, --pop Response
kur [7] CertReqMessages, --Key Update Request
kup [8] CertRepMessage, --Key Update Response
krr [9] CertReqMessages, --Key Recovery Request
krp [10] KeyRecRepContent, --Key Recovery Response
rr [11] RevReqContent, --Revocation Request
rp [12] RevRepContent, --Revocation Response
ccr [13] CertReqMessages, --Cross-Cert. Request
ccp [14] CertRepMessage, --Cross-Cert. Response
ckuann [15] CAKeyUpdAnnContent, --CA Key Update Ann.
cann [16] CertAnnContent, --Certificate Ann.
rann [17] RevAnnContent, --Revocation Ann.
crlann [18] CRLAnnContent, --CRL Announcement
pkiconf [19] PKIConfirmContent, --Confirmation
nested [20] NestedMessageContent, --Nested Message
genm [21] GenMsgContent, --General Message
genp [22] GenRepContent, --General Response
error [23] ErrorMsgContent, --Error Message
certConf [24] CertConfirmContent, --Certificate confirm
pollReq [25] PollReqContent, --Polling request
pollRep [26] PollRepContent --Polling response
}
PKIProtection ::= BIT STRING
ProtectedPart ::= SEQUENCE {
header PKIHeader,
body PKIBody
}
id-PasswordBasedMac OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {1 2 840 113533 7 66 13}
PBMParameter ::= SEQUENCE {
salt OCTET STRING,
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- note: implementations MAY wish to limit acceptable sizes
-- of this string to values appropriate for their environment
-- in order to reduce the risk of denial-of-service attacks
owf AlgorithmIdentifier,
-- AlgId for a One-Way Function
iterationCount INTEGER,
-- number of times the OWF is applied
-- note: implementations MAY wish to limit acceptable sizes
-- of this integer to values appropriate for their environment
-- in order to reduce the risk of denial-of-service attacks
mac AlgorithmIdentifier
-- the MAC AlgId (e.g., DES-MAC, Triple-DES-MAC [PKCS11],
} -- or HMAC [RFC2104, RFC2202])
id-DHBasedMac OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {1 2 840 113533 7 66 30}
DHBMParameter ::= SEQUENCE {
owf AlgorithmIdentifier,
-- AlgId for a One-Way Function
mac AlgorithmIdentifier
-- the MAC AlgId (e.g., DES-MAC, Triple-DES-MAC [PKCS11],
} -- or HMAC [RFC2104, RFC2202])
NestedMessageContent ::= PKIMessages
PKIStatus ::= INTEGER {
accepted (0),
-- you got exactly what you asked for
grantedWithMods (1),
-- you got something like what you asked for; the
-- requester is responsible for ascertaining the differences
rejection (2),
-- you don't get it, more information elsewhere in the message
waiting (3),
-- the request body part has not yet been processed; expect to
-- hear more later (note: proper handling of this status
-- response MAY use the polling req/rep PKIMessages specified
-- in Section 5.3.22 of [RFC4210]; alternatively, polling in the
-- underlying transport layer MAY have some utility in this
-- regard)
revocationWarning (4),
-- this message contains a warning that a revocation is
-- imminent
revocationNotification (5),
-- notification that a revocation has occurred
keyUpdateWarning (6)
-- update already done for the oldCertId specified in
-- CertReqMsg
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
}
PKIFailureInfo ::= BIT STRING {
-- since we can fail in more than one way!
-- More codes may be added in the future if/when required.
badAlg (0),
-- unrecognized or unsupported Algorithm Identifier
badMessageCheck (1),
-- integrity check failed (e.g., signature did not verify)
badRequest (2),
-- transaction not permitted or supported
badTime (3),
-- messageTime was not sufficiently close to the system time,
-- as defined by local policy
badCertId (4),
-- no certificate could be found matching the provided criteria
badDataFormat (5),
-- the data submitted has the wrong format
wrongAuthority (6),
-- the authority indicated in the request is different from the
-- one creating the response token
incorrectData (7),
-- the requester's data is incorrect (for notary services)
missingTimeStamp (8),
-- when the timestamp is missing but should be there
-- (by policy)
badPOP (9),
-- the proof-of-possession failed
certRevoked (10),
-- the certificate has already been revoked
certConfirmed (11),
-- the certificate has already been confirmed
wrongIntegrity (12),
-- not valid integrity, password based instead of signature or
-- vice versa
badRecipientNonce (13),
-- not valid recipient nonce, either missing or wrong value
timeNotAvailable (14),
-- the TSA's time source is not available
unacceptedPolicy (15),
-- the requested TSA policy is not supported by the TSA.
unacceptedExtension (16),
-- the requested extension is not supported by the TSA.
addInfoNotAvailable (17),
-- the additional information requested could not be
-- understood or is not available
badSenderNonce (18),
-- not valid sender nonce, either missing or wrong size
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
badCertTemplate (19),
-- not valid cert. template or missing mandatory information
signerNotTrusted (20),
-- signer of the message unknown or not trusted
transactionIdInUse (21),
-- the transaction identifier is already in use
unsupportedVersion (22),
-- the version of the message is not supported
notAuthorized (23),
-- the sender was not authorized to make the preceding
-- request or perform the preceding action
systemUnavail (24),
-- the request cannot be handled due to system unavailability
systemFailure (25),
-- the request cannot be handled due to system failure
duplicateCertReq (26)
-- certificate cannot be issued because a duplicate
-- certificate already exists
}
PKIStatusInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
status PKIStatus,
statusString PKIFreeText OPTIONAL,
failInfo PKIFailureInfo OPTIONAL
}
OOBCert ::= CMPCertificate
OOBCertHash ::= SEQUENCE {
hashAlg [0] AlgorithmIdentifier OPTIONAL,
certId [1] CertId OPTIONAL,
hashVal BIT STRING
-- hashVal is calculated over the DER encoding of the
-- self-signed certificate with the identifier certID.
}
POPODecKeyChallContent ::= SEQUENCE OF Challenge
-- One Challenge per encryption key certification request (in the
-- same order as these requests appear in CertReqMessages).
Challenge ::= SEQUENCE {
owf AlgorithmIdentifier OPTIONAL,
-- MUST be present in the first Challenge; MAY be omitted in
-- any subsequent Challenge in POPODecKeyChallContent (if
-- omitted, then the owf used in the immediately preceding
-- Challenge is to be used).
witness OCTET STRING,
-- the result of applying the one-way function (owf) to a
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- randomly-generated INTEGER, A. [Note that a different
-- INTEGER MUST be used for each Challenge.]
challenge OCTET STRING
-- the encryption (under the public key for which the cert.
-- request is being made) of Rand.
}
-- Added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
Rand ::= SEQUENCE {
-- Rand is encrypted under the public key to form the challenge
-- in POPODecKeyChallContent
int INTEGER,
-- the randomly-generated INTEGER A (above)
sender GeneralName
-- the sender's name (as included in PKIHeader)
}
POPODecKeyRespContent ::= SEQUENCE OF INTEGER
-- One INTEGER per encryption key certification request (in the
-- same order as these requests appear in CertReqMessages). The
-- retrieved INTEGER A (above) is returned to the sender of the
-- corresponding Challenge.
CertRepMessage ::= SEQUENCE {
caPubs [1] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CMPCertificate
OPTIONAL,
response SEQUENCE OF CertResponse
}
CertificationRequest ::= SEQUENCE {
certificationRequestInfo SEQUENCE {
version INTEGER,
subject Name,
subjectPublicKeyInfo SEQUENCE {
algorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
subjectPublicKey BIT STRING },
attributes [0] IMPLICIT SET OF Attribute },
signatureAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
signature BIT STRING
}
CertResponse ::= SEQUENCE {
certReqId INTEGER,
-- to match this response with corresponding request (a value
-- of -1 is to be used if certReqId is not specified in the
-- corresponding request, which can only be a p10cr)
status PKIStatusInfo,
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
certifiedKeyPair CertifiedKeyPair OPTIONAL,
rspInfo OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
-- analogous to the id-regInfo-utf8Pairs string defined
-- for regInfo in CertReqMsg [RFC4211]
}
CertifiedKeyPair ::= SEQUENCE {
certOrEncCert CertOrEncCert,
privateKey [0] EncryptedKey OPTIONAL,
-- see [RFC4211] for comment on encoding
-- Changed from Encrypted Value to EncryptedKey as a CHOICE of
-- EncryptedValue and EnvelopedData due to the changes made in
-- CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- Using the choice EncryptedValue is bit-compatible to the
-- syntax without this change
publicationInfo [1] PKIPublicationInfo OPTIONAL
}
CertOrEncCert ::= CHOICE {
certificate [0] CMPCertificate,
encryptedCert [1] EncryptedKey
-- Changed from Encrypted Value to EncryptedKey as a CHOICE of
-- EncryptedValue and EnvelopedData due to the changes made in
-- CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- Using the choice EncryptedValue is bit-compatible to the
-- syntax without this change
}
KeyRecRepContent ::= SEQUENCE {
status PKIStatusInfo,
newSigCert [0] CMPCertificate OPTIONAL,
caCerts [1] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
CMPCertificate OPTIONAL,
keyPairHist [2] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
CertifiedKeyPair OPTIONAL
}
RevReqContent ::= SEQUENCE OF RevDetails
RevDetails ::= SEQUENCE {
certDetails CertTemplate,
-- allows requester to specify as much as they can about
-- the cert. for which revocation is requested
-- (e.g., for cases in which serialNumber is not available)
crlEntryDetails Extensions OPTIONAL
-- requested crlEntryExtensions
}
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
RevRepContent ::= SEQUENCE {
status SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF PKIStatusInfo,
-- in same order as was sent in RevReqContent
revCerts [0] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CertId
OPTIONAL,
-- IDs for which revocation was requested
-- (same order as status)
crls [1] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CertificateList
OPTIONAL
-- the resulting CRLs (there may be more than one)
}
CAKeyUpdAnnContent ::= SEQUENCE {
oldWithNew CMPCertificate, -- old pub signed with new priv
newWithOld CMPCertificate, -- new pub signed with old priv
newWithNew CMPCertificate -- new pub signed with new priv
}
CertAnnContent ::= CMPCertificate
RevAnnContent ::= SEQUENCE {
status PKIStatus,
certId CertId,
willBeRevokedAt GeneralizedTime,
badSinceDate GeneralizedTime,
crlDetails Extensions OPTIONAL
-- extra CRL details (e.g., crl number, reason, location, etc.)
}
CRLAnnContent ::= SEQUENCE OF CertificateList
CertConfirmContent ::= SEQUENCE OF CertStatus
CertStatus ::= SEQUENCE {
certHash OCTET STRING,
-- the hash of the certificate, using the same hash algorithm
-- as is used to create and verify the certificate signature
certReqId INTEGER,
-- to match this confirmation with the corresponding req/rep
statusInfo PKIStatusInfo OPTIONAL,
hashAlg [0] AlgorithmIdentifier OPTIONAL
-- the hash algorithm to use for calculating certHash
-- SHOULD NOT be used in all cases where the AlgorithmIdentifier
-- of the certificate signature specifies a hash algorithm
}
PKIConfirmContent ::= NULL
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- CertReqTemplateContent, id-regCtrl-algId, id-regCtrl-algId, and
-- id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen were added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
CertReqTemplateContent ::= SEQUENCE {
certTemplate CertTemplate,
-- prefilled certTemplate structure elements
-- The SubjectPublicKeyInfo field in the certTemplate MUST NOT
-- be used.
keySpec Controls OPTIONAL
-- MAY be used to specify supported algorithms.
-- Controls ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF AttributeTypeAndValue
-- as specified in CRMF (RFC4211)
}
id-regCtrl-altCertTemplate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-regCtrl 7 }
AltCertTemplate ::= AttributeTypeAndValue
-- specifies a template for a certificate other than an X.509v3
-- public-key certificate
id-regCtrl-algId OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-regCtrl 11 }
AlgIdCtrl ::= AlgorithmIdentifier
-- SHALL be used to specify supported algorithms other than RSA
id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-regCtrl 12 }
RsaKeyLenCtrl ::= INTEGER (1..MAX)
-- SHALL be used to specify supported RSA key lengths
-- RootCaKeyUpdateContent, CRLSource, and CRLStatus were added in
-- CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
RootCaKeyUpdateContent ::= SEQUENCE {
newWithNew CMPCertificate,
-- new root CA certificate
newWithOld [0] CMPCertificate OPTIONAL,
-- X.509 certificate containing the new public root CA key
-- signed with the old private root CA key
oldWithNew [1] CMPCertificate OPTIONAL
-- X.509 certificate containing the old public root CA key
-- signed with the new private root CA key
}
CRLSource ::= CHOICE {
dpn [0] DistributionPointName,
issuer [1] GeneralNames }
CRLStatus ::= SEQUENCE {
source CRLSource,
thisUpdate Time OPTIONAL }
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
InfoTypeAndValue ::= SEQUENCE {
infoType OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
infoValue ANY DEFINED BY infoType OPTIONAL
}
-- Example InfoTypeAndValue contents include, but are not limited
-- to, the following (un-comment in this ASN.1 module and use as
-- appropriate for a given environment):
--
-- id-it-caProtEncCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 1}
-- CAProtEncCertValue ::= CMPCertificate
-- id-it-signKeyPairTypes OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 2}
-- SignKeyPairTypesValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- AlgorithmIdentifier
-- id-it-encKeyPairTypes OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 3}
-- EncKeyPairTypesValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- AlgorithmIdentifier
-- id-it-preferredSymmAlg OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 4}
-- PreferredSymmAlgValue ::= AlgorithmIdentifier
-- id-it-caKeyUpdateInfo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 5}
-- CAKeyUpdateInfoValue ::= CAKeyUpdAnnContent
-- id-it-currentCRL OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 6}
-- CurrentCRLValue ::= CertificateList
-- id-it-unsupportedOIDs OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 7}
-- UnsupportedOIDsValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- OBJECT IDENTIFIER
-- id-it-keyPairParamReq OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 10}
-- KeyPairParamReqValue ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER
-- id-it-keyPairParamRep OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 11}
-- KeyPairParamRepValue ::= AlgorithmIdentifier
-- id-it-revPassphrase OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 12}
-- RevPassphraseValue ::= EncryptedKey
-- - Changed from Encrypted Value to EncryptedKey as a CHOICE
-- - of EncryptedValue and EnvelopedData due to the changes
-- - made in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- - Using the choice EncryptedValue is bit-compatible to the
-- - syntax without this change
-- id-it-implicitConfirm OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 13}
-- ImplicitConfirmValue ::= NULL
-- id-it-confirmWaitTime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 14}
-- ConfirmWaitTimeValue ::= GeneralizedTime
-- id-it-origPKIMessage OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 15}
-- OrigPKIMessageValue ::= PKIMessages
-- id-it-suppLangTags OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 16}
-- SuppLangTagsValue ::= SEQUENCE OF UTF8String
-- id-it-caCerts OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 17}
-- CaCertsValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- CMPCertificate
-- - id-it-caCerts added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 18}
-- RootCaKeyUpdateValue ::= RootCaKeyUpdateContent
-- - id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- id-it-certReqTemplate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 19}
-- CertReqTemplateValue ::= CertReqTemplateContent
-- - id-it-certReqTemplate added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- id-it-rootCaCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 20}
-- RootCaCertValue ::= CMPCertificate
-- - id-it-rootCaCert added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- id-it-certProfile OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 21}
-- CertProfileValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- UTF8String
-- - id-it-certProfile added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- id-it-crlStatusList OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 22}
-- CRLStatusListValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- CRLStatus
-- - id-it-crlStatusList added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- id-it-crls OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 23}
-- CRLsValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- CertificateList
-- - id-it-crls added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
--
-- where
--
-- id-pkix OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
-- iso(1) identified-organization(3)
-- dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)}
-- and
-- id-it OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-pkix 4}
--
--
-- This construct MAY also be used to define new PKIX Certificate
-- Management Protocol request and response messages, or general-
-- purpose (e.g., announcement) messages for future needs or for
-- specific environments.
GenMsgContent ::= SEQUENCE OF InfoTypeAndValue
-- May be sent by EE, RA, or CA (depending on message content).
-- The OPTIONAL infoValue parameter of InfoTypeAndValue will
-- typically be omitted for some of the examples given above.
-- The receiver is free to ignore any contained OBJ. IDs that it
-- does not recognize. If sent from EE to CA, the empty set
-- indicates that the CA may send
-- any/all information that it wishes.
GenRepContent ::= SEQUENCE OF InfoTypeAndValue
-- Receiver MAY ignore any contained OIDs that it does not
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- recognize.
ErrorMsgContent ::= SEQUENCE {
pKIStatusInfo PKIStatusInfo,
errorCode INTEGER OPTIONAL,
-- implementation-specific error codes
errorDetails PKIFreeText OPTIONAL
-- implementation-specific error details
}
PollReqContent ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
certReqId INTEGER
}
PollRepContent ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
certReqId INTEGER,
checkAfter INTEGER, -- time in seconds
reason PKIFreeText OPTIONAL
}
--
-- Extended Key Usage extension for PKI entities used in CMP
-- operations, added due to the changes made in
-- CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- The EKUs for the CA and RA are reused from CMC as defined in
-- [RFC6402]
--
-- id-kp-cmcCA OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 27 }
-- id-kp-cmcRA OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 28 }
id-kp-cmKGA OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 32 }
-- There is no 1988 ASN.1 module of PKCS#9 available to import the
-- syntax of the localKeyId attribute type and value from. Therefore,
-- the syntax is added here as needed for the updates made in
-- CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
pkcs-9 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {iso(1) member-body(2) us(840)
rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) 9}
pkcs-9-at-localKeyId OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {pkcs-9 21}
LocalKeyIdValue ::= OCTET STRING
END -- of CMP module
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
A.2. Update to RFC5912 - 2002 ASN.1 Module
This section contains the updated 2002 ASN.1 module for [RFC5912].
This module replaces the module in Section 9 of [RFC5912]. The
module contains those changes to the normative ASN.1 module from
RFC4210 Appendix F [RFC4210] that were to update to 2002 ASN.1
standard done in [RFC5912] as well as changes made in this document.
PKIXCMP-2021
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-mod-cmp2021-02(100) }
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
IMPORTS
AttributeSet{}, SingleAttribute{}, Extensions{}, EXTENSION, ATTRIBUTE
FROM PKIX-CommonTypes-2009
{iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkixCommon-02(57)}
AlgorithmIdentifier{}, SIGNATURE-ALGORITHM, ALGORITHM,
DIGEST-ALGORITHM, MAC-ALGORITHM
FROM AlgorithmInformation-2009
{iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-mod-algorithmInformation-02(58)}
Certificate, CertificateList, Time, id-kp
FROM PKIX1Explicit-2009
{iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkix1-explicit-02(51)}
DistributionPointName, GeneralNames, GeneralName, KeyIdentifier
FROM PKIX1Implicit-2009
{iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkix1-implicit-02(59)}
CertTemplate, PKIPublicationInfo, EncryptedKey, CertId,
CertReqMessages, Controls, RegControlSet, id-regCtrl
FROM PKIXCRMF-2009
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-mod-crmf2005-02(55) }
-- The import of EncryptedKey is added due to the updates made
-- in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]. EncryptedValue does not need to
-- be imported anymore and is therefore removed here.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- see also the behavioral clarifications to CRMF codified in
-- Appendix C of this specification
CertificationRequest
FROM PKCS-10
{iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkcs10-2009(69)}
-- (specified in RFC 2986 with 1993 ASN.1 syntax and IMPLICIT
-- tags). Alternatively, implementers may directly include
-- the [RFC2986] syntax in this module
localKeyId
FROM PKCS-9
{iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9)
modules(0) pkcs-9(1)}
-- The import of localKeyId is added due to the updates made in
-- CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
EnvelopedData, SignedData
FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax-2009
{iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9)
smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-cms-2004-02(41)}
-- The import of EnvelopedData and SignedData is added due to
-- the updates made in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
;
-- the rest of the module contains locally defined OIDs and
-- constructs
CMPCertificate ::= CHOICE { x509v3PKCert Certificate, ... }
-- This syntax, while bits-on-the-wire compatible with the
-- standard X.509 definition of "Certificate", allows the
-- possibility of future certificate types (such as X.509
-- attribute certificates, WAP WTLS certificates, or other kinds
-- of certificates) within this certificate management protocol,
-- should a need ever arise to support such generality. Those
-- implementations that do not foresee a need to ever support
-- other certificate types MAY, if they wish, comment out the
-- above structure and "uncomment" the following one prior to
-- compiling this ASN.1 module. (Note that interoperability
-- with implementations that don't do this will be unaffected by
-- this change.)
-- CMPCertificate ::= Certificate
PKIMessage ::= SEQUENCE {
header PKIHeader,
body PKIBody,
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
protection [0] PKIProtection OPTIONAL,
extraCerts [1] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CMPCertificate
OPTIONAL }
PKIMessages ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF PKIMessage
PKIHeader ::= SEQUENCE {
pvno INTEGER { cmp1999(1), cmp2000(2),
cmp2012(3) },
sender GeneralName,
-- identifies the sender
recipient GeneralName,
-- identifies the intended recipient
messageTime [0] GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL,
-- time of production of this message (used when sender
-- believes that the transport will be "suitable"; i.e.,
-- that the time will still be meaningful upon receipt)
protectionAlg [1] AlgorithmIdentifier{ALGORITHM, {...}}
OPTIONAL,
-- algorithm used for calculation of protection bits
senderKID [2] KeyIdentifier OPTIONAL,
recipKID [3] KeyIdentifier OPTIONAL,
-- to identify specific keys used for protection
transactionID [4] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
-- identifies the transaction; i.e., this will be the same in
-- corresponding request, response, certConf, and PKIConf
-- messages
senderNonce [5] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
recipNonce [6] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
-- nonces used to provide replay protection, senderNonce
-- is inserted by the creator of this message; recipNonce
-- is a nonce previously inserted in a related message by
-- the intended recipient of this message
freeText [7] PKIFreeText OPTIONAL,
-- this may be used to indicate context-specific instructions
-- (this field is intended for human consumption)
generalInfo [8] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
InfoTypeAndValue OPTIONAL
-- this may be used to convey context-specific information
-- (this field not primarily intended for human consumption)
}
PKIFreeText ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF UTF8String
-- text encoded as UTF-8 String [RFC3629]
PKIBody ::= CHOICE { -- message-specific body elements
ir [0] CertReqMessages, --Initialization Request
ip [1] CertRepMessage, --Initialization Response
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
cr [2] CertReqMessages, --Certification Request
cp [3] CertRepMessage, --Certification Response
p10cr [4] CertificationRequest, --imported from [RFC2986]
popdecc [5] POPODecKeyChallContent, --pop Challenge
popdecr [6] POPODecKeyRespContent, --pop Response
kur [7] CertReqMessages, --Key Update Request
kup [8] CertRepMessage, --Key Update Response
krr [9] CertReqMessages, --Key Recovery Request
krp [10] KeyRecRepContent, --Key Recovery Response
rr [11] RevReqContent, --Revocation Request
rp [12] RevRepContent, --Revocation Response
ccr [13] CertReqMessages, --Cross-Cert. Request
ccp [14] CertRepMessage, --Cross-Cert. Response
ckuann [15] CAKeyUpdAnnContent, --CA Key Update Ann.
cann [16] CertAnnContent, --Certificate Ann.
rann [17] RevAnnContent, --Revocation Ann.
crlann [18] CRLAnnContent, --CRL Announcement
pkiconf [19] PKIConfirmContent, --Confirmation
nested [20] NestedMessageContent, --Nested Message
genm [21] GenMsgContent, --General Message
genp [22] GenRepContent, --General Response
error [23] ErrorMsgContent, --Error Message
certConf [24] CertConfirmContent, --Certificate confirm
pollReq [25] PollReqContent, --Polling request
pollRep [26] PollRepContent --Polling response
}
PKIProtection ::= BIT STRING
ProtectedPart ::= SEQUENCE {
header PKIHeader,
body PKIBody }
id-PasswordBasedMac OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
usa(840) nt(113533) nsn(7) algorithms(66) 13 }
PBMParameter ::= SEQUENCE {
salt OCTET STRING,
-- note: implementations MAY wish to limit acceptable sizes
-- of this string to values appropriate for their environment
-- in order to reduce the risk of denial-of-service attacks
owf AlgorithmIdentifier{DIGEST-ALGORITHM, {...}},
-- AlgId for a One-Way Function
iterationCount INTEGER,
-- number of times the OWF is applied
-- note: implementations MAY wish to limit acceptable sizes
-- of this integer to values appropriate for their environment
-- in order to reduce the risk of denial-of-service attacks
mac AlgorithmIdentifier{MAC-ALGORITHM, {...}}
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- the MAC AlgId (e.g., DES-MAC, Triple-DES-MAC [PKCS11],
-- or HMAC [RFC2104, RFC2202])
}
id-DHBasedMac OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
usa(840) nt(113533) nsn(7) algorithms(66) 30 }
DHBMParameter ::= SEQUENCE {
owf AlgorithmIdentifier{DIGEST-ALGORITHM, {...}},
-- AlgId for a One-Way Function
mac AlgorithmIdentifier{MAC-ALGORITHM, {...}}
-- the MAC AlgId (e.g., DES-MAC, Triple-DES-MAC [PKCS11],
-- or HMAC [RFC2104, RFC2202])
}
PKIStatus ::= INTEGER {
accepted (0),
-- you got exactly what you asked for
grantedWithMods (1),
-- you got something like what you asked for; the
-- requester is responsible for ascertaining the differences
rejection (2),
-- you don't get it, more information elsewhere in the message
waiting (3),
-- the request body part has not yet been processed; expect to
-- hear more later (note: proper handling of this status
-- response MAY use the polling req/rep PKIMessages specified
-- in Section 5.3.22 of [RFC4210]; alternatively, polling in the
-- underlying transport layer MAY have some utility in this
-- regard)
revocationWarning (4),
-- this message contains a warning that a revocation is
-- imminent
revocationNotification (5),
-- notification that a revocation has occurred
keyUpdateWarning (6)
-- update already done for the oldCertId specified in
-- CertReqMsg
}
PKIFailureInfo ::= BIT STRING {
-- since we can fail in more than one way!
-- More codes may be added in the future if/when required.
badAlg (0),
-- unrecognized or unsupported Algorithm Identifier
badMessageCheck (1),
-- integrity check failed (e.g., signature did not verify)
badRequest (2),
-- transaction not permitted or supported
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
badTime (3),
-- messageTime was not sufficiently close to the system time,
-- as defined by local policy
badCertId (4),
-- no certificate could be found matching the provided criteria
badDataFormat (5),
-- the data submitted has the wrong format
wrongAuthority (6),
-- the authority indicated in the request is different from the
-- one creating the response token
incorrectData (7),
-- the requester's data is incorrect (for notary services)
missingTimeStamp (8),
-- when the timestamp is missing but should be there
-- (by policy)
badPOP (9),
-- the proof-of-possession failed
certRevoked (10),
-- the certificate has already been revoked
certConfirmed (11),
-- the certificate has already been confirmed
wrongIntegrity (12),
-- not valid integrity, password based instead of signature or
-- vice versa
badRecipientNonce (13),
-- not valid recipient nonce, either missing or wrong value
timeNotAvailable (14),
-- the TSA's time source is not available
unacceptedPolicy (15),
-- the requested TSA policy is not supported by the TSA
unacceptedExtension (16),
-- the requested extension is not supported by the TSA
addInfoNotAvailable (17),
-- the additional information requested could not be
-- understood or is not available
badSenderNonce (18),
-- not valid sender nonce, either missing or wrong size
badCertTemplate (19),
-- not valid cert. template or missing mandatory information
signerNotTrusted (20),
-- signer of the message unknown or not trusted
transactionIdInUse (21),
-- the transaction identifier is already in use
unsupportedVersion (22),
-- the version of the message is not supported
notAuthorized (23),
-- the sender was not authorized to make the preceding
-- request or perform the preceding action
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
systemUnavail (24),
-- the request cannot be handled due to system unavailability
systemFailure (25),
-- the request cannot be handled due to system failure
duplicateCertReq (26)
-- certificate cannot be issued because a duplicate
-- certificate already exists
}
PKIStatusInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
status PKIStatus,
statusString PKIFreeText OPTIONAL,
failInfo PKIFailureInfo OPTIONAL }
OOBCert ::= CMPCertificate
OOBCertHash ::= SEQUENCE {
hashAlg [0] AlgorithmIdentifier{DIGEST-ALGORITHM, {...}}
OPTIONAL,
certId [1] CertId OPTIONAL,
hashVal BIT STRING
-- hashVal is calculated over the DER encoding of the
-- self-signed certificate with the identifier certID.
}
POPODecKeyChallContent ::= SEQUENCE OF Challenge
-- One Challenge per encryption key certification request (in the
-- same order as these requests appear in CertReqMessages).
Challenge ::= SEQUENCE {
owf AlgorithmIdentifier{DIGEST-ALGORITHM, {...}}
OPTIONAL,
-- MUST be present in the first Challenge; MAY be omitted in
-- any subsequent Challenge in POPODecKeyChallContent (if
-- omitted, then the owf used in the immediately preceding
-- Challenge is to be used).
witness OCTET STRING,
-- the result of applying the one-way function (owf) to a
-- randomly-generated INTEGER, A. [Note that a different
-- INTEGER MUST be used for each Challenge.]
challenge OCTET STRING
-- the encryption (under the public key for which the cert.
-- request is being made) of Rand.
}
-- Added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
Rand ::= SEQUENCE {
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- Rand is encrypted under the public key to form the challenge
-- in POPODecKeyChallContent
int INTEGER,
-- the randomly-generated INTEGER A (above)
sender GeneralName
-- the sender's name (as included in PKIHeader)
}
POPODecKeyRespContent ::= SEQUENCE OF INTEGER
-- One INTEGER per encryption key certification request (in the
-- same order as these requests appear in CertReqMessages). The
-- retrieved INTEGER A (above) is returned to the sender of the
-- corresponding Challenge.
CertRepMessage ::= SEQUENCE {
caPubs [1] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CMPCertificate
OPTIONAL,
response SEQUENCE OF CertResponse }
CertResponse ::= SEQUENCE {
certReqId INTEGER,
-- to match this response with the corresponding request (a value
-- of -1 is to be used if certReqId is not specified in the
-- corresponding request, which can only be a p10cr)
status PKIStatusInfo,
certifiedKeyPair CertifiedKeyPair OPTIONAL,
rspInfo OCTET STRING OPTIONAL
-- analogous to the id-regInfo-utf8Pairs string defined
-- for regInfo in CertReqMsg [RFC4211]
}
CertifiedKeyPair ::= SEQUENCE {
certOrEncCert CertOrEncCert,
privateKey [0] EncryptedKey OPTIONAL,
-- see [RFC4211] for comment on encoding
-- Changed from Encrypted Value to EncryptedKey as a CHOICE of
-- EncryptedValue and EnvelopedData due to the changes made in
-- CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- Using the choice EncryptedValue is bit-compatible to the
-- syntax without this change
publicationInfo [1] PKIPublicationInfo OPTIONAL }
CertOrEncCert ::= CHOICE {
certificate [0] CMPCertificate,
encryptedCert [1] EncryptedKey
-- Changed from Encrypted Value to EncryptedKey as a CHOICE of
-- EncryptedValue and EnvelopedData due to the changes made in
-- CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- Using the choice EncryptedValue is bit-compatible to the
-- syntax without this change
}
KeyRecRepContent ::= SEQUENCE {
status PKIStatusInfo,
newSigCert [0] CMPCertificate OPTIONAL,
caCerts [1] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
CMPCertificate OPTIONAL,
keyPairHist [2] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
CertifiedKeyPair OPTIONAL }
RevReqContent ::= SEQUENCE OF RevDetails
RevDetails ::= SEQUENCE {
certDetails CertTemplate,
-- allows requester to specify as much as they can about
-- the cert. for which revocation is requested
-- (e.g., for cases in which serialNumber is not available)
crlEntryDetails Extensions{{...}} OPTIONAL
-- requested crlEntryExtensions
}
RevRepContent ::= SEQUENCE {
status SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF PKIStatusInfo,
-- in same order as was sent in RevReqContent
revCerts [0] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CertId OPTIONAL,
-- IDs for which revocation was requested
-- (same order as status)
crls [1] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CertificateList OPTIONAL
-- the resulting CRLs (there may be more than one)
}
CAKeyUpdAnnContent ::= SEQUENCE {
oldWithNew CMPCertificate, -- old pub signed with new priv
newWithOld CMPCertificate, -- new pub signed with old priv
newWithNew CMPCertificate -- new pub signed with new priv
}
CertAnnContent ::= CMPCertificate
RevAnnContent ::= SEQUENCE {
status PKIStatus,
certId CertId,
willBeRevokedAt GeneralizedTime,
badSinceDate GeneralizedTime,
crlDetails Extensions{{...}} OPTIONAL
-- extra CRL details (e.g., crl number, reason, location, etc.)
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
}
CRLAnnContent ::= SEQUENCE OF CertificateList
PKIConfirmContent ::= NULL
NestedMessageContent ::= PKIMessages
-- CertReqTemplateContent, AttributeTypeAndValue,
-- ExpandedRegControlSet, id-regCtrl-altCertTemplate,
-- AltCertTemplate, regCtrl-algId, id-regCtrl-algId, AlgIdCtrl,
-- regCtrl-rsaKeyLen, id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen, and RsaKeyLenCtrl
-- were added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
CertReqTemplateContent ::= SEQUENCE {
certTemplate CertTemplate,
-- prefilled certTemplate structure elements
-- The SubjectPublicKeyInfo field in the certTemplate MUST NOT
-- be used.
keySpec Controls OPTIONAL
-- MAY be used to specify supported algorithms.
-- Controls ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF AttributeTypeAndValue
-- as specified in CRMF (RFC4211)
}
AttributeTypeAndValue ::= SingleAttribute{{ ... }}
ExpandedRegControlSet ATTRIBUTE ::= { RegControlSet |
regCtrl-altCertTemplate | regCtrl-algId | regCtrl-rsaKeyLen, ... }
regCtrl-altCertTemplate ATTRIBUTE ::=
{ TYPE AltCertTemplate IDENTIFIED BY id-regCtrl-altCertTemplate }
id-regCtrl-altCertTemplate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-regCtrl 7 }
AltCertTemplate ::= AttributeTypeAndValue
-- specifies a template for a certificate other than an X.509v3
-- public-key certificate
regCtrl-algId ATTRIBUTE ::=
{ TYPE AlgIdCtrl IDENTIFIED BY id-regCtrl-algId }
id-regCtrl-algId OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-regCtrl 11 }
AlgIdCtrl ::= AlgorithmIdentifier{ALGORITHM, {...}}
-- SHALL be used to specify supported algorithms other than RSA
regCtrl-rsaKeyLen ATTRIBUTE ::=
{ TYPE RsaKeyLenCtrl IDENTIFIED BY id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen }
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-regCtrl 12 }
RsaKeyLenCtrl ::= INTEGER (1..MAX)
-- SHALL be used to specify supported RSA key lengths
-- RootCaKeyUpdateContent, CRLSource, and CRLStatus were added in
-- CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
RootCaKeyUpdateContent ::= SEQUENCE {
newWithNew CMPCertificate,
-- new root CA certificate
newWithOld [0] CMPCertificate OPTIONAL,
-- X.509 certificate containing the new public root CA key
-- signed with the old private root CA key
oldWithNew [1] CMPCertificate OPTIONAL
-- X.509 certificate containing the old public root CA key
-- signed with the new private root CA key
}
CRLSource ::= CHOICE {
dpn [0] DistributionPointName,
issuer [1] GeneralNames }
CRLStatus ::= SEQUENCE {
source CRLSource,
thisUpdate Time OPTIONAL }
INFO-TYPE-AND-VALUE ::= TYPE-IDENTIFIER
InfoTypeAndValue ::= SEQUENCE {
infoType INFO-TYPE-AND-VALUE.
&id({SupportedInfoSet}),
infoValue INFO-TYPE-AND-VALUE.
&Type({SupportedInfoSet}{@infoType}) }
SupportedInfoSet INFO-TYPE-AND-VALUE ::= { ... }
-- Example InfoTypeAndValue contents include, but are not limited
-- to, the following (uncomment in this ASN.1 module and use as
-- appropriate for a given environment):
--
-- id-it-caProtEncCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 1}
-- CAProtEncCertValue ::= CMPCertificate
-- id-it-signKeyPairTypes OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 2}
-- SignKeyPairTypesValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- AlgorithmIdentifier{{...}}
-- id-it-encKeyPairTypes OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 3}
-- EncKeyPairTypesValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- AlgorithmIdentifier{{...}}
-- id-it-preferredSymmAlg OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 4}
-- PreferredSymmAlgValue ::= AlgorithmIdentifier{{...}}
-- id-it-caKeyUpdateInfo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 5}
-- CAKeyUpdateInfoValue ::= CAKeyUpdAnnContent
-- id-it-currentCRL OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 6}
-- CurrentCRLValue ::= CertificateList
-- id-it-unsupportedOIDs OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 7}
-- UnsupportedOIDsValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- OBJECT IDENTIFIER
-- id-it-keyPairParamReq OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 10}
-- KeyPairParamReqValue ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER
-- id-it-keyPairParamRep OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 11}
-- KeyPairParamRepValue ::= AlgorithmIdentifier{{...}}
-- id-it-revPassphrase OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 12}
-- RevPassphraseValue ::= EncryptedKey
-- - Changed from Encrypted Value to EncryptedKey as a CHOICE
-- - of EncryptedValue and EnvelopedData due to the changes
-- - made in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- - Using the choice EncryptedValue is bit-compatible to
-- - the syntax without this change
-- id-it-implicitConfirm OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 13}
-- ImplicitConfirmValue ::= NULL
-- id-it-confirmWaitTime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 14}
-- ConfirmWaitTimeValue ::= GeneralizedTime
-- id-it-origPKIMessage OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 15}
-- OrigPKIMessageValue ::= PKIMessages
-- id-it-suppLangTags OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 16}
-- SuppLangTagsValue ::= SEQUENCE OF UTF8String
-- id-it-caCerts OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 17}
-- CaCertsValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- CMPCertificate
-- - id-it-caCerts added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 18}
-- RootCaKeyUpdateValue ::= RootCaKeyUpdateContent
-- - id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- id-it-certReqTemplate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 19}
-- CertReqTemplateValue ::= CertReqTemplateContent
-- - id-it-certReqTemplate added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- id-it-rootCaCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 20}
-- RootCaCertValue ::= CMPCertificate
-- - id-it-rootCaCert added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- id-it-certProfile OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 21}
-- CertProfileValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- UTF8String
-- - id-it-certProfile added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- id-it-crlStatusList OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 22}
-- CRLStatusListValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- CRLStatus
-- - id-it-crlStatusList added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- id-it-crls OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 23}
-- CRLsValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
-- CertificateList
-- - id-it-crls added in CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
--
-- where
--
-- id-pkix OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
-- iso(1) identified-organization(3)
-- dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)}
-- and
-- id-it OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-pkix 4}
--
--
-- This construct MAY also be used to define new PKIX Certificate
-- Management Protocol request and response messages, or general-
-- purpose (e.g., announcement) messages for future needs or for
-- specific environments.
GenMsgContent ::= SEQUENCE OF InfoTypeAndValue
-- May be sent by EE, RA, or CA (depending on message content).
-- The OPTIONAL infoValue parameter of InfoTypeAndValue will
-- typically be omitted for some of the examples given above.
-- The receiver is free to ignore any contained OBJECT IDs that it
-- does not recognize. If sent from EE to CA, the empty set
-- indicates that the CA may send
-- any/all information that it wishes.
GenRepContent ::= SEQUENCE OF InfoTypeAndValue
-- Receiver MAY ignore any contained OIDs that it does not
-- recognize.
ErrorMsgContent ::= SEQUENCE {
pKIStatusInfo PKIStatusInfo,
errorCode INTEGER OPTIONAL,
-- implementation-specific error codes
errorDetails PKIFreeText OPTIONAL
-- implementation-specific error details
}
CertConfirmContent ::= SEQUENCE OF CertStatus
CertStatus ::= SEQUENCE {
certHash OCTET STRING,
-- the hash of the certificate, using the same hash algorithm
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
-- as is used to create and verify the certificate signature
certReqId INTEGER,
-- to match this confirmation with the corresponding req/rep
statusInfo PKIStatusInfo OPTIONAL,
hashAlg [0] AlgorithmIdentifier{DIGEST-ALGORITHM, {...}} OPTIONAL
-- the hash algorithm to use for calculating certHash
-- SHOULD NOT be used in all cases where the AlgorithmIdentifier
-- of the certificate signature specifies a hash algorithm
}
PollReqContent ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
certReqId INTEGER }
PollRepContent ::= SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
certReqId INTEGER,
checkAfter INTEGER, -- time in seconds
reason PKIFreeText OPTIONAL }
--
-- Extended Key Usage extension for PKI entities used in CMP
-- operations, added due to the changes made in
-- CMP Updates [RFCXXXX]
-- The EKUs for the CA and RA are reused from CMC as defined in
-- [RFC6402]
--
-- id-kp-cmcCA OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 27 }
-- id-kp-cmcRA OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 28 }
id-kp-cmKGA OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 32 }
END
Appendix B. History of Changes
[RFC Editor: This appendix must be deleted in the final version of
the document.]
From version 22 -> 23:
* Addressed comments from IESG discussion (see thread "Francesca
Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-22: (with
COMMENT)")
* Addressed comment from Carl (see thread "Paul Wouters' Discuss on
draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)")
From version 21 -> 22:
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
* Addressed comments from IESG discussion (see thread " Paul
Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-21: (with DISCUSS
and COMMENT)")
From version 20 -> 21:
* Extended Section 1 based on feedback from the IESG telechat
* Removed a redundant paragraph from the Abstract
From version 19 -> 20:
* Addressed comments reported after GEN AD review
From version 18 -> 19:
* Deleted the Comments on IANA ToDos and changed the decimals TBD1
-> 22 and TBD2 -> 23
* Updated Section 3.4 regarding ToDos updating the well-known URI
registration
From version 17 -> 18:
* Addressed comments from AD Evaluation (see thread "AD Review of
draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-17")
* Added Section 2.8 to clarify on the usage of GeneralizedTime (see
thread "draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates: fractional seconds")
* Updated Section 3.4 introducing the path segment 'p' to indicate
the following arbitrary label according to the discussion during
IETF 113 (see thread "/.well-known/brski reference to brski-
registry")
* Capitalized all headlines
From version 16 -> 17:
* Removed the pre-RFC5378 work disclaimer after the RFC 4210 authors
granted BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust
* Removed note on usage of language tags in UTF8String due to
reference to references to outdated/historic RFCs
* Resolved some nits reported by I-D nit checker tool
From version 15 -> 16:
* Updated IPR disclaimer
From version 14 -> 15:
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
* Updated Section 2.16 clarifying the usage of CRLSource (see thread
"CRL update retrieval - WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-
updates-14 and draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-08")
* Updated Section 2.22 adding further references regarding random
number generation (see thread "CMP draft WGLC: measuring entropy,
CA certificates")
* Fixed some nits
From version 13 -> 14:
* Extended id-it-caCerts support message to allow transporting to-
be-trusted root CA certificates; added respective security
consideration (see thread "Generalizing the CMP "Get CA
certificates" use case")
* Rolled back changes made in previous version regarding root CA
update to avoid registration of new OIDs. Yet we sticked to using
id-it-rootCaCert in the genm body instead its headers' generalInfo
field and removed the ToDos and TBDs on re-arranging id-it OIDs
(see thread "Allocation of OIDs for CRL update retrieval (draft-
ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-13)")
From version 12 -> 13:
* Added John Gray to the list of authors due to fruitful discussion
and important proposals
* Fixed errata no. 2615, 2616, 3949, 4078, and 5201 on RFC 4210
* Added reference on RFC 8933 regarding CMS signedAttrs to
Section 2.7
* Updated Section 2.9 and the ASN.1 modules moving the position of
the hashAlg field (see thread "[CMP Updates] position of hashAlg
in certStatus")
* Changed "rootCaCert" from generalInfo to genm body and generalized
to "oldTrustAnchor", renaming "rootCaKeyUpdate" to
"trustAnchorUpdate" in Sections 2.14, A.1, and A.2, removing
former Section 2.4
* Added genm use case "CRL update retrieval" in Section 2.16, A.1,
and A.2. (see thread "[CMP Updates] Requesting a current CRL")
* Updated Section 2.18 and 2.17 to support polling for all kinds of
CMP request messages initiated by an error message with status
"waiting" as initially discussed at IETF 111
* Updated Sections 2.19 and 2.20 regarding version handling
* Added further OIDs and a TBD regarding reordering of the OIDs
* Added Sections 2.21 to 2.23 with new security considerations and
updated Section 5 accordingly
* Added a ToDo regarding OID registration, renaming, and re-ordering
* Added Section 3.1 updating the introduction of RFC 6712
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
* Fixed some nits in the ASN.1 modules (see thread "draft-ietf-
lamps-cmp-updates-12: Comments on A.1. 1988 ASN.1 Module" and
"draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-12: Comments on A.2. 2002 ASN.1
Module")
* Replaced the term "transport" by "transfer" where appropriate to
prevent confusion
* Minor editorial changes
From version 11 -> 12:
* Extended Section 2.5 and the ASN.1 modules in Appendix A to allow
a sequence of certificate profiles in CertProfileValue (see thread
"id-it-CertProfile in draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates")
From version 10 -> 11:
* Add Section 2.10 to add an additional hashAlg field to the
CertStatus type to support certificates signed with a signature
algorithm not explicitly indicating a hash algorithm in the
AlgorithmIdentifier (see thread "Hash algorithm to us for
calculating certHash")
* Added newly registered OIDs and temporarily registered URI suffix
* Exchanged the import of CertificationRequest from RFC 2986 to the
definition from RFC 6402 Appendix A.1 (see thread "CMP Update of
CertificationRequest")
* Corrected the definition of LocalKeyIdValue in Appendix A.1
* Updated new RFC numbers for draft-lamps-crmf-update-algs
From version 9 -> 10:
* Added 1988 ASN.1 syntax for localKeyId attribute to Appendix A.1
From version 08 -> 09:
* Deleted specific definition of CMP CA and CMP RA in Section 2.2
and only reference RFC 6402 for definition of id-kp-cmcCA and id-
kp-cmcRA to resolve the ToDo below based on feedback of Tomas
Gustavsson
* Added Section 2.4. and 2.5 to define id-it-rootCaCert and id-it-
certProfile to be used in Section 2.14 and 2.15
* Added reference to CMP Algorithms in Section 2.8
* Extended Section 2.14 to explicitly indicate the root CA an update
is requested for by using id-it-rootCaCert and changing the ASN.1
syntax to require providing the newWithOld certificate in the
response message
* Extended Section 2.15 to explicitly indicate the certificate
request template by using id-it-certProfile and on further details
of the newly introduced controls
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
* Deleted the table on id-kp-cmcCA and id-kp-cmcRA and adding id-it-
rootCaCert and id-it-certProfile in Section 2.19
* Adding the definition of id-it-rootCaCert and id-it-certProfile in
both ASN.1 modules in Appendix A
* Minor editorial changes reflecting the above changes
From version 07 -> 08:
* Added a ToDo to Section 2.2 to reflect a current discussion on the
need of an additional CMP-CA role and EKU and differentiation from
CMP-RA
* Added ToDos to Section 2.12 and 2.13
From version 06 -> 07:
* Added David von Oheimb as co-author
* Changed to XML V3
* Added Section 2.3 to enable a CMP protocol version number 3 in the
PKIHeader for cases where EnvelopedData is to be used (see thread
"Mail regarding draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates").
* Added Section 2.4 to refer to draft-ietf-lamps-crmf-update-algs
for the update of id-PasswordBasedMac for PKI message protection
using passwords or shared secrets.
* Updated Section 2.6 to introduce the protocol version number 3 to
properly indicate support of EnvelopedData instead of
EncryptedValue in case a transaction requires use of EnvelopedData
(see thread "Mail regarding draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates").
* Update Section 2.14 to make the minimal changes to the respective
section in CMP more explicit.
* Added Sections 2.15 and 2.16 to address the new cmp2021 protocol
version in Section 7 Version Negotiation.
* Updated Section 2.17 to add new OIDs for id-regCtrl-algId and id-
regCtrl-rsaKeyLen for registration at IANA.
* Added Section 2.20 to update the general rules of interpretation
in Appendix D.1 regarding the new cmp2021 version.
* Added Section 2.21 to update the Algorithm Use Profile in
Appendix D.2 with the reference to the new CMP Algorithms document
as decided at IETF 108.
* Updates Section 3.1 to delete the description of a discovery
mechanism as decided at IETF 108.
* Various changes and corrections in wording.
From version 05 -> 06:
* Added the update of Appendix D.2 with the reference to the new CMP
Algorithms document as decided in IETF 108
* Updated the IANA considerations to register new OIDs for id-
regCtrl-algId and d-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen.
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
* Minor changes and corrections
From version 04 -> 05:
* Added Section 2.11 and Section 2.12 to clarify the usage of these
general messages types with EC curves (see thread
"AlgorithmIdentifier parameters NULL value - Re: InfoTypeAndValue
in CMP headers")
* Split former section 2.7 on adding 'CA Certificates', 'Root CA
Certificates Update', and 'Certificate Request Template' in three
separate sections for easier readability
* Changed in Section 2.15 the ASN.1 syntax of CertReqTemplateValue
from using rsaKeyLen to usage of controls as specified in CRMF
Section 6 [RFC4211] (see thread "dtaft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates and
rsaKeyLen")
* Updated the IANA considerations in Section 4 to introduce new OID
for id-regCtrl-algId and id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen (see thread "dtaft-
ietf-lamps-cmp-updates and rsaKeyLen")
* Updated the IANA Considerations in and the Appendixes to introduce
new OID for the updates ASN.1 modules (see thread "I-D Action:
draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-04.txt")
* Removed EncryptedValue from and added Controls to the list of
types imported from CRMF [RFC4211] in ASN.1 modules (see thread
"draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates and the ASN.1 modules")
* Moved declaration of Rand out of the comment in ASN.1 modules (see
thread "draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates and the ASN.1 modules")
* Minor changes and corrections
From version 03 -> 04:
* Added Section 2.7 to introduce three new id-it IDs for uses in
general messages as discussed (see thread "draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-
updates add section to introduce id-it-caCerts, id-it-
rootCaKeyUpdate, and id-it-certReqTemplate")
* Added the new id-it IDs and the /.well-known/cmp to the IANA
Considerations of [RFC4210] in Section 2.9
* Updated the IANA Considerations of [RFC4210] in Section 2.26
* Some changes in wording on Section 3 due to review comments from
Martin Peylo
From version 02 -> 03:
* Added a ToDo on aligning with the CMP Algorithms draft that will
be set up as decided in IETF 108
* Updated section on Encrypted Values in Section 2.7 to add the
AsymmetricKey Package structure to transport a newly generated
private key as decided in IETF 108
* Updated the IANA Considerations of [RFC4210] in Section 2.26
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
* Added the pre-registered OID in Section 2.26 and the ASN.1 module
* Added Section 3 to document the changes to RFC 6712 [RFC6712]
regarding URI discovery and using the path-prefix of '/.well-
known/' as discussed in IETF 108
* Updated the IANA Considerations section
* Added a complete updated ASN.1 module in 1988 syntax to update
Appendix F of [RFC4210] and a complete updated ASN.1 module in
2002 syntax to update Section 9 of [RFC5912]
* Minor changes in wording
From version 01 -> 02:
* Updated section on EKU OIDs in Section 2.2 as decided in IETF 107
* Changed from symmetric key-encryption to password-based key
management technique in Section 2.7 as discussed with Russ and Jim
on the mailing list
* Defined the attribute containing the key identifier for the
revocation passphrase in Section 2.26
* Moved the change history to the Appendix
From version 00 -> 01:
* Minor changes in wording
From draft-brockhaus-lamps-cmp-updates-03 -> draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-
updates-00:
* Changes required to reflect WG adoption
From version 02 -> 03:
* Added some clarification in Section 2.1
From version 01 -> 02:
* Added clarification to section on multiple protection
* Added clarification on new EKUs after some exchange with Tomas
Gustavsson
* Reused OIDs from RFC 6402 [RFC6402] as suggested by Sean Turner at
IETF 106
* Added clarification on the field containing the key identifier for
a revocation passphrase
* Minor changes in wording
From version 00 -> 01:
* Added a section describing the new extended key usages
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft CMP Updates June 2022
* Completed the section on changes to the specification of encrypted
values
* Added a section on clarification to Appendix D.4
* Minor generalization in RFC 4210 [RFC4210] Sections 5.1.3.4 and
5.3.22
* Minor changes in wording
Authors' Addresses
Hendrik Brockhaus (editor)
Siemens
Werner-von-Siemens-Strasse 1
80333 Munich
Germany
Email: hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com
URI: https://www.siemens.com
David von Oheimb
Siemens
Werner-von-Siemens-Strasse 1
80333 Munich
Germany
Email: david.von.oheimb@siemens.com
URI: https://www.siemens.com
John Gray
Entrust
1187 Park Place
Minneapolis, MN 55379
United States of America
Email: john.gray@entrust.com
URI: https://www.entrust.com
Brockhaus, et al. Expires 31 December 2022 [Page 72]
