CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Header parameters for carrying and referencing X.509 certificates
draft-ietf-cose-x509-08
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (cose WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Jim Schaad | ||
| Last updated | 2021-01-21 (latest revision 2020-12-14) | ||
| Replaces | draft-schaad-cose-x509 | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Ivaylo Petrov | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2020-05-12) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Barry Leiba | ||
| Send notices to | Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylo@ackl.io> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
Network Working Group J. Schaad
Internet-Draft August Cellars
Intended status: Standards Track 13 December 2020
Expires: 16 June 2021
CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Header parameters for
carrying and referencing X.509 certificates
draft-ietf-cose-x509-08
Abstract
The CBOR Signing And Encrypted Message (COSE) structure uses
references to keys in general. For some algorithms, additional
properties are defined which carry parameters relating to keys as
needed. The COSE Key structure is used for transporting keys outside
of COSE messages. This document extends the way that keys can be
identified and transported by providing attributes that refer to or
contain X.509 certificates.
Contributing to this document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub. Suggested
changes should be submitted as pull requests at https://github.com/
cose-wg/X509. Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial
changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial issues need to
be discussed on the COSE mailing list.
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 16 June 2021.
Schaad Expires 16 June 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft COSE X.509 December 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. X.509 COSE Header Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. X.509 certificates and static-static ECDH . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. COSE Header Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. COSE Header Algorithm Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
In the process of writing [RFC8152], the working group discussed
X.509 certificates [RFC5280] and decided that no use cases were
presented that showed a need to support certificates. Since that
time, a number of cases have been defined in which X.509 certificate
support is necessary, and by implication, applications will need a
documented and consistent way to handle such certificates. This
document defines a set of attributes that will allow applications to
transport and refer to X.509 certificates in a consistent manner.
In some of these cases, a constrained device is being deployed in the
context of an existing X.509 PKI: for example, in the 6TiSCH
environment, [I-D.richardson-enrollment-roadmap] describes a device
enrollment solution that relies on the presence of a factory-
installed certificate on the device. The [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] draft
was also written with the idea that long term certificates could be
used to provide for authentication of devices, and uses them to
establish session keys. Another possible scenario is the use of COSE
Schaad Expires 16 June 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft COSE X.509 December 2020
Show full document text