CBOR Profile of X.509 Certificates
draft-raza-ace-cbor-certificates-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-03-09
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
ACE Working Group                                                S. Raza
Internet-Draft                                               J. Hoeglund
Intended status: Standards Track                                 RISE AB
Expires: September 10, 2020                                  G. Selander
                                                             J. Mattsson
                                                             Ericsson AB
                                                              M. Furuhed
                                                             Nexus Group
                                                          March 09, 2020

                   CBOR Profile of X.509 Certificates
                  draft-raza-ace-cbor-certificates-04

Abstract

   This document specifies a CBOR encoding and profiling of X.509 public
   key certificate suitable for Internet of Things (IoT) deployments.
   The full X.509 public key certificate format and commonly used ASN.1
   DER encoding is overly verbose for constrained IoT environments.
   Profiling together with CBOR encoding reduces the certificate size
   significantly with associated known performance benefits.

   The CBOR certificates are compatible with the existing X.509
   standard, enabling the use of profiled and compressed X.509
   certificates without modifications in the existing X.509 standard.

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 September 10, 2020.

Raza, et al.           Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     CBOR Profile of X.509 Certificates         March 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
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  CBOR Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Deployment settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Expected Certificate Sizes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Native CBOR Certificates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.1.  CBOR Certificate Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.2.  CBOR Certificate Signature Algorithms Registry  . . . . .   9
     9.3.  CBOR Certificate Public Key Algorithms Registry . . . . .   9
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Example CBOR Certificates  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.1.  Example X.509 Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.2.  Example CBOR Certificate Compression  . . . . . . . . . .  13
     A.3.  Example Native CBOR Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix B.  X.509 Certificate Profile, ASN.1 . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   One of the challenges with deploying a Public Key Infrastructure
   (PKI) for the Internet of Things (IoT) is the size and encoding of
   X.509 public key certificates [RFC5280], since those are not
   optimized for constrained environments [RFC7228].  More compact
   certificate representations are desirable.  Due to the current PKI
   usage of X.509 certificates, keeping X.509 compatibility is necessary
   at least for a transition period.  However, the use of a more compact
Show full document text