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: 25 June 2022 Entrust 22 December 2021 Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) Updates draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-16 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' HTTP path segments. 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. 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 25 June 2022. Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 1] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include 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. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Convention and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Updates to RFC 4210 - Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. New Section 1.1. - Changes since RFC 4210 . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. New Section 4.5 - Extended Key Usage . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Update Section 5.1.1. - PKI Message Header . . . . . . . 7 2.4. New Section 5.1.1.3. - CertProfile . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5. Update Section 5.1.3.1. - Shared Secret Information . . . 8 2.6. Replace Section 5.1.3.4 - Multiple Protection . . . . . . 8 2.7. Replace Section 5.2.2. - Encrypted Values . . . . . . . . 9 2.8. Update Section 5.3.4. - Certification Response . . . . . 11 2.9. Update Section 5.3.18. - Certificate Confirmation Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.10. Update Section 5.3.19.2. - Signing Key Pair Types . . . . 13 2.11. Update Section 5.3.19.3. - Encryption/Key Agreement Key Pair Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.12. Replace Section 5.3.19.9. - Revocation Passphrase . . . . 13 2.13. New Section 5.3.19.14 - CA Certificates . . . . . . . . . 14 2.14. New Section 5.3.19.15 - Root CA Certificate Update . . . 14 Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 2] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 2.15. New Section 5.3.19.16 - Certificate Request Template . . 15 2.16. New Section 5.3.19.17 - CRL update retrieval . . . . . . 16 2.17. Update Section 5.3.21 - Error Message Content . . . . . . 17 2.18. Replace Section 5.3.22 - Polling Request and Response . . 18 2.19. Update Section 7 - Version Negotiation . . . . . . . . . 22 2.20. Update Section 7.1.1. - Clients Talking to RFC 2510 Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.21. Add Section 8.4 - Private keys for certificate signing and CMP message protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.22. Add Section 8.5 - Entropy of random numbers, key pairs, and shared secret information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.23. Add Section 8.6 - Trust anchor provisioning using CMP messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.24. Update Section 9 - IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . 26 2.25. Update Appendix B - The Use of Revocation Passphrase . . 28 2.26. Update Appendix C - Request Message Behavioral Clarifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.27. Update Appendix D.1. - General Rules for Interpretation of These Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.28. Update Appendix D.2. - Algorithm Use Profile . . . . . . 30 2.29. 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 3.4. Update Section 6. - IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . 32 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Appendix A. ASN.1 Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 A.1. 1988 ASN.1 Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 A.2. 2002 ASN.1 Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix B. History of changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 1. Introduction 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. Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 3] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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. 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 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 [thisRFC]: Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 4] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 * 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. * 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 Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 5] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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. The mechanism to prove this delegation explained in this section offers an automatic way of checking the authorization of such 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: 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 OIDs MAY be re-used. The meaning of the id-kp-cmKGA EKU is as follows: CMP KGA: CMP Key Generation Authorities 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 therefore needs specific authorization. This authorization is with the CA certificate itself. Alternatively, the CA MAY delegate the authorization by placing the id-kp-cmKGA extended key usage in the certificate used to authenticate the origin of the generated private key or the delegation MAY be determined through local configuration of the end entity. Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 6] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 Note: In device PKIs, especially those issuing IDevID certificates IEEE 802.1AR Section 8.5 [IEEE.802.1AR_2018], CA certificates may have very long validity (including the GeneralizedTime value 99991231235959Z to indicate a not well-defined expiration date as specified in IEEE 802.1AR Section 8.5 [IEEE.802.1AR_2018] and RFC 5280 Section 4.1.2.5 [RFC5280]). Such validity periods SHOULD NOT be used for protection of CMP messages and key generation. Certificates containing one of the above EKUs SHOULD NOT use indefinite expiration date. 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: 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: Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 7] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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. 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. Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 8] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 MAY be a MAC or a signature, depending on the information and certificates shared between the RA and the CA). Moreover, 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 add 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 POP RAVerified. It MAY 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). * The RA collects several messages that are to be forwarded in the same direction and forwards them in a batch. In communication to the CA request messages and in communication from the CA response or announcement messages will be collected. 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 Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 9] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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. 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 is introduced by this document. 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. Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 10] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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]. 2.8. 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. Moreover, 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 25 June 2022 [Page 11] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 [CRMF] } CertifiedKeyPair ::= SEQUENCE { certOrEncCert CertOrEncCert, privateKey [0] EncryptedKey OPTIONAL, -- see [CRMF] 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 is introduced by this document. Details on the usage of different pvno values are described in Section 7. 2.9. 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 25 June 2022 [Page 12] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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, neither in the OID nor 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). 2.10. 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 need to be given, one per named curve. 2.11. 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 need to be given, one per named curve. 2.12. 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. Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 13] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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. 2.13. 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 > 2.14. 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]. 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. Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 14] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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. 2.15. 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. 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. Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 15] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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] 2.16. 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 Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 16] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 TBD1}, SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CRLStatus GenRep: {id-it TBD2}, SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF CertificateList | < absent > CRLSource ::= CHOICE { dpn [0] DistributionPointName, issuer [1] GeneralNames } CRLStatus ::= SEQUENCE { source CRLSource, thisUpdate Time OPTIONAL } < TBD: Add requested OIDs for id-it-crlStatusList (TBD1) and id-it- crls (TBD2). > 2.17. 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: 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). Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 17] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 2.18. 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. 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. Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 18] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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. 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 25 June 2022 [Page 19] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 25 June 2022 [Page 20] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 25 June 2022 [Page 21] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 2.19. 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 first three paragraphs with the following text: This section defines the version negotiation between client and server used to choose among cmp1999 (specified in RFC 2510 [RFC2510]), cmp2000 (specified in RFC 4210 [RFC4210]), and cmp2021 (specified in this document). The only difference between protocol versions cmp2021 and cmp2000 is that EnvelopedData replaces EncryptedValue and the optional hashAlg field is added to CertStatus. If a client does not support cmp2021 it chooses the versions for a request as follows: Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 22] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 * If the 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 itself and the server. * If the client does not know what version(s) the server supports, then it MUST send a PKIMessage using the highest version it supports. If a client supports cmp2021 and encrypted values are supposed to be transferred in the PKI management operation the client MUST choose the version for a request message containing the CertReqMessages data structure as follows: * If the client accepts EnvelopedData, but not EncryptedValue, then it MUST use cmp2021. * If the client does not accept EnvelopedData, but EncryptedValue, then it MUST use cmp2000. * If the client accepts both EnvelopedData and EncryptedValue: - If the client knows that the Server supports EnvelopedData (e.g., from a previous PKIMessage exchange or via some out-of- band means), then it MUST use cmp2021. - If the client knows that the server supports only EncryptedValue, then it MUST use cmp2000. - If the client does not know whether the server supports EnvelopedData or EncryptedValue, then it MUST send the request message using cmp2021. If a client sends a certConf message and the signatureAlgorithm of the certificate to be confirmed does not specify a hash algorithm (neither in its OID nor in its parameters) there are two cases: * A client supporting cmp2021 MUST use cmp2021 in the certConf message. * A client not supporting cmp2021 will not be able to handle this situation and will fail or reject the certificate. If a server receives a message with version cmp1999 and supports it, then the version of the response message MUST also be cmp1999. If a server receives a message with a version higher or lower than it supports, then it MUST send back an ErrorMsg with the unsupportedVersion bit set (in the failureInfo field of the Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 23] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 pKIStatusInfo). If the received version is higher than the highest supported version for this request message, then the version in the error message MUST be the highest version the server supports for this message type; if the received version is lower than the lowest supported version for this request message then the version in the error message MUST be the lowest version the server supports for this message type. 2.20. 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. 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. 2.21. 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: 8.4. Private keys for certificate signing and CMP message protection When a CA acts as a CMP endpoint, it should not use the same private key for issuing certificates and for protecting CMP responses, to reduce the number of usages of the key to the minimum required. 2.22. 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. 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 Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 24] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 [CVE-2008-0166]; consequences of low-entropy random numbers are discussed in Mining 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 measure 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 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. For other cases it is recommended to (a) use a shared secret information of possibly low security strength (e.g., a password) only for a single PKI management operation or (b) use a shared secret information with an entropy that at least matches the security strength of the key material being managed by the operation. 2.23. 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 25 June 2022 [Page 25] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 The provider of trust anchors, which typically will be an RA involved in configuration management of its clients, MUST NOT include to-be- trusted CA certificates in a CMP message unless it can take responsibility for making the recipient trust them. When doing so, it MUST exert the same due diligence as for its own trust anchors. 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 without already trusting any of the CA certificates given in the message. Moreover, the EE MUST verify that the sender is an authorized source of trust anchors. This authorization is 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. 2.24. Update Section 9 - IANA Considerations Section 9 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] contains the IANA Considerations of that document. As this document defines a new Extended Key Usage, the IANA Considerations need to be updated accordingly. Add the following paragraphs after the third paragraph of the section: 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 | [thisRFC] | +---------+-------------+------------+ Table 1: Addition to the PKIX Extended Key Purpose Identifiers registry Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 26] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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: +=========+=======================+============+ | Decimal | Description | References | +=========+=======================+============+ | 17 | id-it-caCerts | [thisRFC] | +---------+-----------------------+------------+ | 18 | id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate | [thisRFC] | +---------+-----------------------+------------+ | 19 | id-it-certReqTemplate | [thisRFC] | +---------+-----------------------+------------+ | 20 | id-it-rootCaCert | [thisRFC] | +---------+-----------------------+------------+ | 21 | id-it-certProfile | [thisRFC] | +---------+-----------------------+------------+ | TBD1 | id-it-crlStatusList | [thisRFC] | +---------+-----------------------+------------+ | TBD2 | id-it-crls | [thisRFC] | +---------+-----------------------+------------+ Table 2: Addition to the PKIX CMP Information Types registry < TBD: Add requested OIDs for id-it-crlStatusList (TBD1) and id-it- crls (TBD2). > 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 | [thisRFC] | +---------+----------------------+------------+ | 12 | id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen | [thisRFC] | +---------+----------------------+------------+ Table 3: Addition to the PKIX CRMF Registration Controls registry Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 27] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 2.25. 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: * 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. For use of EnvelopedData this is in the decrypted bytes of encryptedContent field and for use of EncryptedValue 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: * When using EnvelopedData the localKeyId attribute as specified in RFC 2985 [RFC2985] and when using EncryptedValue the valueHint field 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). 2.26. 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 25 June 2022 [Page 28] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- ********** -- * For the purposes of this specification, the ASN.1 comment -- * given in [CRMF] 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 RFC 4211 [RFC4211]. -- ********** 2.27. 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 25 June 2022 [Page 29] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 2.28. 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 Appendix A.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 Appendix A.1 [I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms]. 2.29. 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 25 June 2022 [Page 30] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 In addition to reliable transport, CMP requires connection and error handling from the transfer protocol, which is all covered by HTTP. Moreover, delayed delivery of CMP response messages may be handled at transfer level regardless of the message contents. Since CMP Updates [I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-updates] 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 pollReq 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 [thisRFC]: * 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. A path segment could for example support the differentiation of specific Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 31] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 CAs, certificate profiles, or PKI management operations. A valid full CMP path can look like this: http://www.example.com/.well-known/cmp http://www.example.com/.well-known/cmp/operationLabel http://www.example.com/.well-known/cmp/profileLabel http://www.example.com/.well-known/cmp/profileLabel/operationLabel 3.4. Update Section 6. - IANA Considerations Section 6 of RFC 6712 [RFC6712] contains the IANA Considerations of that document. As this document defines a new '.well-known' URI prefix, the IANA Considerations need to be updated accordingly. Add the following text between the first and second paragraph of the section: In the registry of well-known URIs (see https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known- uris.xhtml#well-known-uris-1) as defined in RFC 8615 [RFC8615] the following change has been performed. One new name entry has been added: +============+===================+============+ | URI suffix | Change controller | References | +============+===================+============+ | cmp | IETF | [thisRFC] | +------------+-------------------+------------+ Table 4: Addition to the well-known URI registry 4. IANA Considerations This document contains an update to the IANA Consideration sections to be added to [RFC4210] and [RFC6712]. 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. < TBD: The temporary registration of cmp URI suffix expires 2022-05-20. The registration must be extended in time or update from provisional to permanent. > Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 32] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 5. Security Considerations The security considerations of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] are extended in Section 2.21 to Section 2.23. No changes are made to the existing security considerations of RFC 6712 [RFC6712]. 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 also 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-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- algorithms-08, 17 November 2021, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC2510] Adams, C. and S. Farrell, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Management Protocols", RFC 2510, DOI 10.17487/RFC2510, March 1999, . [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, . [RFC2986] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7", RFC 2986, DOI 10.17487/RFC2986, November 2000, . Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 33] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 [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, . [RFC4211] Schaad, J., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)", RFC 4211, DOI 10.17487/RFC4211, September 2005, . [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, . [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, . [RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70, RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009, . [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, . [RFC5958] Turner, S., "Asymmetric Key Packages", RFC 5958, DOI 10.17487/RFC5958, August 2010, . [RFC6402] Schaad, J., "Certificate Management over CMS (CMC) Updates", RFC 6402, DOI 10.17487/RFC6402, November 2011, . [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, . [RFC7299] Housley, R., "Object Identifier Registry for the PKIX Working Group", RFC 7299, DOI 10.17487/RFC7299, July 2014, . Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 34] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8615] Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 8615, DOI 10.17487/RFC8615, May 2019, . [RFC8933] Housley, R., "Update to the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) for Algorithm Identifier Protection", RFC 8933, DOI 10.17487/RFC8933, October 2020, . [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, . 7.2. Informative References [AIS31] Bundesamt für 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, . [CVE-2008-0166] National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), "National Vulnerability Database - CVE-2008-0166", 13 May 2008, . [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-08, 19 November 2021, . [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, . Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 35] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 [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, . [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, . Appendix A. ASN.1 Modules A.1. 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 FROM PKIX1Explicit88 {iso(1) identified-organization(3) Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 36] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 [thisRFC]]. 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 [thisRFC] -- 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 -- other certificate types MAY, if they wish, comment out the Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 37] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- 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 InfoTypeAndValue OPTIONAL Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 38] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- 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] (note: Each -- UTF8String MAY include an [RFC3066] language tag -- to indicate the language of the contained text -- see [RFC2482] for details) 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 [PKCS10] 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} Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 39] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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, -- AlgId for a One-Way Function (SHA-1 recommended) 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 (SHA-1 recommended) 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; 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 Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 40] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- 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 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), -- invalid integrity, password based instead of signature or -- vice versa badRecipientNonce (13), -- invalid 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), Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 41] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- invalid sender nonce, either missing or wrong size badCertTemplate (19), -- invalid 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, Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 42] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- 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 [thisRFC] 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) Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 43] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 status PKIStatusInfo, certifiedKeyPair CertifiedKeyPair OPTIONAL, rspInfo OCTET STRING OPTIONAL -- analogous to the id-regInfo-utf8Pairs string defined -- for regInfo in CertReqMsg [CRMF] } CertifiedKeyPair ::= SEQUENCE { certOrEncCert CertOrEncCert, privateKey [0] EncryptedKey OPTIONAL, -- see [CRMF] 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 [thisRFC] -- 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 [thisRFC] -- 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 25 June 2022 [Page 44] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 25 June 2022 [Page 45] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- CertReqTemplateContent, id-regCtrl-algId, id-regCtrl-algId, and -- id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen were added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] 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 [thisRFC] 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 25 June 2022 [Page 46] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 [thisRFC] -- - 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 [thisRFC] Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 47] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 18} -- RootCaKeyUpdateValue ::= RootCaKeyUpdateContent -- - id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- id-it-certReqTemplate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 19} -- CertReqTemplateValue ::= CertReqTemplateContent -- - id-it-certReqTemplate added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- id-it-rootCaCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 20} -- RootCaCertValue ::= CMPCertificate -- - id-it-rootCaCert added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- id-it-certProfile OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 21} -- CertProfileValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF -- UTF8String -- - id-it-certProfile added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- id-it-crlStatusList OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it TBD1} -- CRLStatusListValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF -- CRLStatus -- - id-it-crlStatusList added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- id-it-crls OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it TBD2} -- CRLsValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF -- CertificateList -- - id-it-crls added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- -- 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 25 June 2022 [Page 48] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- 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 [thisRFC] -- 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 [thisRFC] 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 25 June 2022 [Page 49] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 A.2. 2002 ASN.1 Module This section contains the updated 2002 ASN.1 module for [RFC5912]. This module replaces the module in Section 9 of that document. 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 [thisRFC]. EncryptedValue does not need to -- be imported anymore and is therefore removed here. Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 50] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- 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 [PKCS10] 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 [thisRFC] 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 [thisRFC] ; -- 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 25 June 2022 [Page 51] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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] (note: each -- UTF8String MAY include an [RFC3066] language tag -- to indicate the language of the contained text; -- see [RFC2482] for details) Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 52] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 [PKCS10] 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 (SHA-1 recommended) iterationCount INTEGER, -- number of times the OWF is applied -- note: implementations MAY wish to limit acceptable sizes Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 53] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- of this integer to values appropriate for their environment -- in order to reduce the risk of denial-of-service attacks mac AlgorithmIdentifier{MAC-ALGORITHM, {...}} -- 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 (SHA-1 recommended) 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; 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) Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 54] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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), -- invalid integrity, password based instead of signature or -- vice versa badRecipientNonce (13), -- invalid 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), -- invalid sender nonce, either missing or wrong size badCertTemplate (19), -- invalid 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), Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 55] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- 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{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 [thisRFC] Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 56] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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 } 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 [thisRFC] -- 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 Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 57] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- 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 Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 58] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- extra CRL details (e.g., crl number, reason, location, etc.) } 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 [thisRFC] 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 ::= Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 59] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 { TYPE RsaKeyLenCtrl IDENTIFIED BY id-regCtrl-rsaKeyLen } 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 [thisRFC] 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{{...}} Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 60] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- 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 [thisRFC] -- - 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 [thisRFC] -- id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 18} -- RootCaKeyUpdateValue ::= RootCaKeyUpdateContent -- - id-it-rootCaKeyUpdate added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- id-it-certReqTemplate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 19} -- CertReqTemplateValue ::= CertReqTemplateContent -- - id-it-certReqTemplate added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- id-it-rootCaCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 20} -- RootCaCertValue ::= CMPCertificate -- - id-it-rootCaCert added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- id-it-certProfile OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it 21} -- CertProfileValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF -- UTF8String -- - id-it-certProfile added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 61] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 -- id-it-crlStatusList OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it TBD1} -- CRLStatusListValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF -- CRLStatus -- - id-it-crlStatusList added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- id-it-crls OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-it TBD2} -- CRLsValue ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF -- CertificateList -- - id-it-crls added in CMP Updates [thisRFC] -- -- 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 { Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 62] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 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{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 [thisRFC] -- 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 Note: This appendix will be deleted in the final version of the document. From version 15 -> 16: * Updated IPR disclaimer From version 14 -> 15: * 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") Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 63] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 * 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 * 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") Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 64] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 * 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 I-D.ietf-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 * 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 Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 65] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 * 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 [I-D.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. * Minor changes and corrections From version 04 -> 05: Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 66] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 * Added Section 2.10 and Section 2.11 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 2.14 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 2.24 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 2.25 * 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 2.25 * Added the pre-registered OID in Section 2.25 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 Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 67] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 * 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 2.25 * 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 * 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 Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 68] Internet-Draft CMP Updates December 2021 * Minor changes in wording Authors' Addresses Hendrik Brockhaus (editor) Siemens AG Email: hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com David von Oheimb Siemens AG Email: david.von.oheimb@siemens.com John Gray Entrust Email: john.gray@entrust.com Brockhaus, et al. Expires 25 June 2022 [Page 69]