Use of Password Based Message Authentication Code 1 (PBMAC1) in PKCS #12 Syntax
draft-ietf-lamps-pkcs12-pbmac1-09

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-lamps-pkcs12-pbmac1 and RFC 9579, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lamps-pkcs12-pbmac1-08

Thank you for the work put into this document. As indicated below, I wonder why it is an informational only document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Russ Housley for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *but* it lacks the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 3, BCP14, and intended status

There should be no such BCP14 in an informational I-D and normative language does not seem relevant in my view. The 2 RFC obsoleted by this I-D do not rely on normative language.

OTOH, this kind of document should probably be standards track as it is key for interoperation. I urge the SEC AD to upgrade the status of this document to PS even if it requires another IETF Last Call.

## Section 5

A lot of "SHOULD" without any explanation about the case when this "SHOULD" can be bypassed.

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 2

Usually, I-Ds do not use a personal tone such as `we propose`.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document. When I initially opened it to review, I was somewhat apprehensive - PKCS #12 and I are not friends, and this implied that I was going to endure it for ~17 pages...
and then I was pleasantly surprised to discover that 1: there is very little actual PKCS #12 involved, and 2: it's really only ~5 pages of text, and the rest is test vectors (which I'll happily admit I just ignored :-))

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the document and the effort to get rid of SHA-1.

I noticed the lack of mentioning of Argon (RFC 9106). I know I have myself had to use a construct of PBKDF2(Argon(...)) to get the benefit of modern KDFs while being compliant to NIST. It was my understanding that Argon will be (or is already?) allowed by NIST. So I wonder if that might be worth mentioning anyway to use as a construct.

(I'm currently only finding the comments, eg https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Projects/crypto-publication-review-project/documents/initial-comments/sp800-132-initial-public-comments-2023.pdf but I vaguely remember this was in a further stage at this point)

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkcs12-pbmac1-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) registry in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: pbkc12-pbamc1-2023
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-22):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-lamps-pkcs12-pbmac1@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, spasm@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of Password Based Message Authentication Code 1 (PBMAC1) in PKCS #12 Syntax) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Limited Additional Mechanisms for
PKIX and SMIME WG (lamps) to consider the following document: - 'Use of
Password Based Message Authentication Code 1 (PBMAC1) in PKCS
  #12 Syntax'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-22. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies additions and amendments to RFCs 7292 and
  8018.  It defines a way to use the Password Based Message
  Authentication Code 1, defined in RFC 8018, inside the PKCS #12
  syntax.  The purpose of this specification is to permit use of more
  modern Password-Based Key Derivation Functions (PBKDFs) and allow for
  regulatory compliance.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-pkcs12-pbmac1/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-pkcs12-pbmac1-04

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  There is support in the LAMPS WG for this document.  It allows
  implementations of PKCS#12 that use PBMAC1 to avoid the obsolete
  SHA-1 hash function.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  There was little controversy, and suggested improvements were readily
  accepted by the author.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No one has threatened an appeal or expressed any discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  There has been some code written.  It was used for the test vectors in
  the document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No concerns about interaction with other technologies.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No special reviews are needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  This document does not include a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  The ASN.1 module compiles without errors.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    No concerns were noticed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    As reflected in the Datatracker: Informational on the IETF Stream.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    The author has explicitly stated that he is unaware of any IPR
    that needs to be declared.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front
    page is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    IDnits complains about the Abstract.  The Abstract says, "This document
    specifies additions and amendments", but IDnits seems to expect the word
    "update" in this sentence.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No concerns.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    There are no downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    All normative references are published RFCs or ITU-T Recommendations.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No, this document will not change the status of any other document.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    IANA is requested to assign an object identifier from the SMI
    Security for S/MIME Module Identifier registry:
   
    https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#security-smime-0

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    No new IANA registries are needed.

# Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-pkcs12-pbmac1-04

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  There is support in the LAMPS WG for this document.  It allows
  implementations of PKCS#12 that use PBMAC1 to avoid the obsolete
  SHA-1 hash function.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  There was little controversy, and suggested improvements were readily
  accepted by the author.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No one has threatened an appeal or expressed any discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  There has been some code written.  It was used for the test vectors in
  the document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No concerns about interaction with other technologies.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No special reviews are needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  This document does not include a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  The ASN.1 module compiles without errors.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    No concerns were noticed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    As reflected in the Datatracker: Informational on the IETF Stream.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    The author has explicitly stated that he is unaware of any IPR
    that needs to be declared.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front
    page is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    IDnits complains about the Abstract.  The Abstract says, "This document
    specifies additions and amendments", but IDnits seems to expect the word
    "update" in this sentence.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No concerns.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    There are no downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    All normative references are published RFCs or ITU-T Recommendations.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No, this document will not change the status of any other document.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    No updates to any IANA registries are needed.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    No new IANA registries are needed.

# Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-pkcs12-pbmac1-04

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  There is support in the LAMPS WG for this document.  It allows
  implementations of PKCS#12 that use PBMAC1 to avoid the obsolete
  SHA-1 hash function.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  There was little controversy, and suggested improvements were readily
  accepted by the author.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No one has threatened an appeal or expressed any discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  There has been some code written.  It was used for the test vectors in
  the document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No concerns about interaction with other technologies.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No special reviews are needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  This document does not include a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  The ASN.1 module compiles without errors.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    No concerns were noticed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    As reflected in the Datatracker: Informational on the IETF Stream.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    The author has explicitly stated that he is unaware of any IPR
    that needs to be declared.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front
    page is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    IDnits complains about the Abstract.  The Abstract says, "This document
    specifies additions and amendments", but IDnits seems to expect the word
    "update" in this sentence.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No concerns.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    There are no downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    All normative references are published RFCs or ITU-T Recommendations.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No, this document will not change the status of any other document.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    No updates to any IANA registries are needed.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    No new IANA registries are needed.