PKIX Working Group M. Myers Internet Draft VeriSign Document: draft-ietf-pkix-cmc-compl-00.txt X. Liu February 2001 Cisco Expires: July 2001 J. Schaad Soaring Hawk Consulting J. Weinstein CMC Compliance Document Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 . Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Comments or suggestions for improvement may be made on the "ietf- pkix" mailing list, or directly to the author. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document provides a set of compliance statements about the CMC enrollment protocol. The documents [CMC-STRUCT] and [CMC-TRANS] provide the definitions of the structure and transport protocols defined for CMC. This document provides the information needed to make a compliant version of CMC. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. 1. Overview A set of structures and controls for providing an enrollment protocol has been provided in [CMC-STRUCT]. The design of this protocol was such that additional items could be added later as was designed. A set of transport mechanisms for CMC messages as been defined in [CMC-TRANS], again additional mechanisms may be defined at a later date. This document covers the compliance issues that are needed to implement a compliant CMC enrollment protocol. 2 Terminology There are several different terms, abbreviations and acronyms used in this document that we define here for convenience and consistency of usage: "End-Entity" (EE) refers to the entity that owns a key pair and for whom a certificate is issued. "LRA" or "RA" refers to a (Local) Registration Authority. A registration authority acts as an intermediary between an End-Entity and a Certification Authority. Multiple RAs can exist between the End-Entity and the Certification Authority. "CA" refers to a Certification Authority. A Certification Authority is the entity that performs the actual issuance of a certificate. "Client" refers to an entity that creates a PKI request. In this document both RAs and End-Entities can be clients. "Server" refers to the entities that process PKI requests and create PKI responses. CAs and RAs can be servers in this document. "PKCS#10" refers the Public Key Cryptography Standard #10. This is one of a set of standards defined by RSA Laboratories in the 1980s. PKCS#10 defines a Certificate Request Message syntax. "CRMF" refers to the Certificate Request Message Format RFC [CRMF]. We are using certificate request message format defined in this document as part of our management protocol. "CMS" refers to the Cryptographic Message Syntax RFC [CMS]. This document provides for basic cryptographic services including encryption and signing with and without key management. "POP" is an acronym for "Proof of Possession". POP refers to a value that can be used to prove that the private key corresponding to a public key is in the possession and can be used by an end- entity. "Transport wrapper" refers to the outermost CMS wrapping layer. 3. Requirements for All Entities [CMC-STRUCT] and [CMC-TRANS] compliance statements MUST be adhered to unless specifically stated otherwise in this document. If an entity implements a data encryption algorithm, Triple-DES as defined in [CMS-ALG] MUST be implemented. Other algorithms MAY be implemented. All entities MUST verify DSA and RSA-SHA1 signatures as defined in [CMS-ALG]. Other signature algorithms MAY be verified. All entities MUST generate either DSA or RSA-SHA1 signatures as defined in [CMS-ALG]. Other signatures algorithms MAY be used for generation. All entities MUST implement the DH-POP Proof-of-Possession as defined in [DH-POP] Section 4. No signature signing alg. The extendedFailInfo field SHOULD NOT be populated in the CMCStatusInfo object, the failInfo field SHOULD be used to relay this information. All entities MUST process the following control attributes: CMCStatusInfoEx, CMCStatusInfo, All entities MUST implement the HTTP transport mechanism as defined in [CMC-TRANS]. Other transport mechanisms MAY be implemented. 4. Requirements for End-Entities EEs MAY generate PKCS10 certificate requests. EEs SHOULD generate CRMF certificate requests. EEs MUST generate one of the certificate request messages. EEs MUST implement either the Simple or Full Enrollment protocol. 5. Requirements for CAs CAs MUST accept PKCS10 certificate requests. CAs MUST accept CRMF certificate requests. CAs MUST implement the Simple Enrollment protocol. CAs MUST implement the Full Enrollment protocol. CAs MUST implement the following additional control attributes: identification, identityProof, dataReturn, addExtensions, transactionID, senderNonce, recipientNonce, lraPOPWitness, revokeRequest 6. Requirements for RAs RAs MUST implement the following additional control attributes: identification, identityProof, dataReturn, transactionID, senderNonce, recipientNonce, lraPOPWitness, 7. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Brian LaMacchia for his work in developing and writing up many of the concepts presented in this document. The authors would also like to thank Alex Deacon and Barb Fox for their contributions. 8. References [CMS] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax", RFC 2630, June 1999. [CRMF] Myers, M., Adams, C., Solo, D. and D. Kemp, "Internet X.509 Certificate Request Message Format", RFC 2511, March 1999. [DH] B. Kaliski, "PKCS 3: Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement v1.4" [DH-POP] H. Prafullchandra, J. Schaad, "Diffie-Hellman Proof-of- Possession Algorithms", Work in Progress. [HMAC] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997. [PKCS1] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #1: RSA Encryption, Version 1.5", RFC 2313, March 1998. [PKCS7] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax v1.5", RFC 2315, October 1997. [PKCS8] RSA Laboratories, "PKCS#8: Private-Key Information Syntax Standard, Version 1.2", November 1, 1993. [PKCS10] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax v1.5", RFC 2314, October 1997. [PKIXCERT] Housley, R., Ford, W., Polk, W. and D. Solo "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile", RFC 2459, January 1999. [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [SMIMEV2] Dusse, S., Hoffman, P., Ramsdell, B., Lundblade, L. and L. Repka, "S/MIME Version 2 Message Specification", RFC 2311, March 1998. [SMIMEV3] Ramsdell, B., "S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification", RFC 2633, June 1999. [X942] Rescorla, E., "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method", RFC 2631, June 1999. 9. Authors' Addresses Michael Myers TraceRoute Security, Inc. EMail: email@example.com Xiaoyi Liu Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: (480) 526-7430 EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org Jim Schaad Soaring Hawk Consulting EMail: email@example.com Jeff Weinstein EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.