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