Internet DRAFT - draft-turner-5480-ku-clarifications
draft-turner-5480-ku-clarifications
TBD T. Ito
Internet-Draft SECOM CO., LTD.
Updates: 5480 (if approved) S. Turner
Intended status: Standards Track sn3rd
Expires: February 14, 2020 August 13, 2019
Clarifications for Elliptic Curve Cryptogtaphy Subject Public Key
Information
draft-turner-5480-ku-clarifications-01
Abstract
This document updates RFC 5480 to specify semantics for the
keyEncipherment and dataEncipherment key usage bits when used in
certificates that support Elliptic Curve Cryptography.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 14, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Ito & Turner Expires February 14, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Clarifications for ECC SPKI August 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Updates to Section 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction
[RFC5480] specifies the syntax and semantics for the Subject Public
Key Information field in certificates that support Elliptic Curve
Cryptography. As part of these semantics, it defines what
combinations are permissible for the values of the key usage
extensions [RFC5280]. [RFC5480] specifies 7 of the 9 values; it
makes no mention of keyEncipherment and dataEncipherment key usage
bits. This document corrects this omission, by updating Section 3 of
[RFC5480] to make it clear that neither keyEncipherment nor the
dataEncipherment key usage bits are set for key agreement algorithms.
2. 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.
3. Updates to Section 3
If the keyUsage extension is present in a certificate that indicates
id-ecPublicKey as algorithm of AlgorithmIdentifier [RFC2986] in
SubjectPublicKeyInfo, then following values MUST NOT be present:
keyEncipherment; and
dataEncipherment.
If the keyUsage extension is present in a certificate that indicates
id-ecDH or id-ecMQV in SubjectPublicKeyInfo, then the following
values also MUST NOT be present:
keyEncipherment; and
dataEncipherment.
Ito & Turner Expires February 14, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Clarifications for ECC SPKI August 2019
4. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations beyond those
found in [RFC5480].
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
6. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Tadahiko Ito
SECOM CO., LTD.
Email: tadahiko.ito.public@gmail.com
Sean Turner
sn3rd
Email: sean@sn3rd.com
Ito & Turner Expires February 14, 2020 [Page 3]
