PKIX WG Sean Turner, IECA Internet Draft Daniel Brown, Certicom Intended Status: Standard Track Kelvin Yiu, Microsoft Updates: 4055 (once approved) Russ Housley, Vigil Security Expires: November 1, 2008 Tim Polk, NIST May 1, 2008 Update for RSAES-OAEP Algorithm Parameters draft-ietf-pkix-rfc4055-update-01.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 1, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document updates RFC 4055. It updates the conventions for using the RSA Encryption Scheme - Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding (RSAES-OAEP) key transport algorithm with the Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1 version 1.5 signature algorithm in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). Specifically, it updates the conventions for algorithm parameters in an X.509 certificate's subjectPublicKeyInfo field. Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 4055 Update April 2008 Conventions used in this document 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 [RFC2119]. Discussion This draft is being discussed on the 'ietf-pkix' mailing list. To subscribe, send a message to ietf-pkix-request@imc.org with the single word subscribe in the body of the message. There is a Web site for the mailing list at <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/>. 1. Introduction RFC 4055 specifies conventions for using the RSA Encryption Scheme - Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding (RSAES-OAEP) key transport algorithm with the Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1 version 1.5 signature algorithm in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). It provides algorithm identifiers and parameters for RSAES-OAEP. This document updates the conventions for RSAES-OAEP parameters in the subjectPublicKeyInfo field of an X.509 certificate. The PKIX WG Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) design team recommended that Key Derivation Functions (KDFs) should not be constrained within a certificate; rather, KDF constraints should be negotiated in protocols that need to employ certificates. Only two paragraphs in [RFC4055] discuss RSAES-OAEP parameters in X.509 certificates: the second paragraph of section 4 and the first paragraph of section 4.1. This document only updates these two paragraphs. Section 3 updates the second paragraph in section 4 while section 3 updates the second paragraph in section 4.1. "Old:" prefaces the text to be replaced and "New:" prefaces the replacement text. This document also replaces incorrect references to the publicKeyAlgorithms field in Section 3 with references to the parameters field in the subjectPublicKeyInfo algorithm field. No other changes are made to the RSASSA-PSS sections. Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 4055 Update April 2008 2. Changes to Section 3 2nd Paragraph Old: CAs that issue certificates with the id-RSASSA-PSS algorithm identifier SHOULD require the presence of parameters in the publicKeyAlgorithms field if the cA boolean flag is set in the basic constraints certificate extension. CAs MAY require that the parameters be present in the publicKeyAlgorithms field for end-entity certificates. New: CAs that issue certificates with the id-RSASSA-PSS algorithm identifier SHOULD require the presence of parameters in the subjectPublicKeyInfo algorithm field if the cA boolean flag is set in the basic constraints certificate extension. CAs MAY require that the parameters be present in the subjectPublicKeyInfo algorithm field for end-entity certificates. 3. Changes to Section 4 2nd Paragraph Old: CAs that issue certificates with the id-RSAES-OAEP algorithm identifier SHOULD require the presence of parameters in the publicKeyAlgorithms field for all certificates. Entities that use a certificate with a publicKeyAlgorithm value of id-RSA-OAEP where the parameters are absent SHOULD use the default set of parameters for RSAES-OAEP-params. Entities that use a certificate with a publicKeyAlgorithm value of rsaEncryption SHOULD use the default set of parameters for RSAES-OAEP-params. New: CAs that issue certificates with the id-RSAES-OAEP algorithm identifier MUST NOT include parameters in the subjectPublicKeyInfo algorithm field. 4. Changes to Section 4.1 1st Paragraph Old: When id-RSAES-OAEP is used in an AlgorithmIdentifier, the parameters MUST employ the RSAES-OAEP-params syntax. The parameters may be either absent or present when used as subject public key information. Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 4055 Update April 2008 The parameters MUST be present when used in the algorithm identifier associated with an encrypted value. New: When id-RSAES-OAEP is used in an AlgorithmIdentifier, the parameters MUST employ the RSAES-OAEP-params syntax. The parameters MUST be absent when used in the subjectPublicKeyInfo field. The parameters MUST be present when used in the algorithm identifier associated with an encrypted value. 5. Security Considerations The security considerations from [RFC4055] apply. No new security considerations are introduced. 6. IANA Considerations None {{Please remove this section prior to publication as an RFC.}} 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. [RFC4055] Schaad, J., Kaliski, B., and R. Housley, "Additional Algorithms and Identifiers for RSA Cryptography for use in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 4055, June 2005. 7.2. Informative References None Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 4055 Update April 2008 Author's Addresses Sean Turner IECA, Inc. 3057 Nutley Street, Suite 106 Fairfax, VA 22031 USA EMail: turners@ieca.com Kelvin Yiu Microsoft One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052-6399 USA Email: kelviny@microsoft.com Daniel R. L. Brown Certicom Corp 5520 Explorer Drive #400 Mississauga, ON L4W 5L1 CANADA EMail: dbrown@certicom.com Russ Housley Vigil Security, LLC 918 Spring Knoll Drive Herndon, VA 20170 USA EMail: housley@vigilsec.com Tim Polk NIST Building 820, Room 426 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA EMail: wpolk@nist.gov Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC 4055 Update April 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 6]
