NETWORK WG                                            Sean Turner, IECA
Internet Draft                             Russ Housley, Vigil Security
Intended Status: Standards Track                        October 3, 2009
Expires: April 3, 2010



               Additional CMS Revocation Information Choices
               draft-turner-additional-cms-ri-choices-00.txt


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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 April 3, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.







Turner & Housley        Expires April 3, 2010                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft Additional CMS Revocation Information Choices  Sept 2009


Abstract

   The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) allows revocation information
   to be conveyed as part of the SignedData, EnvelopedData,
   AuthenticatedData, and AuthEnvelopedData content types.  The
   preferred format for revocation information is the Certificate
   Revocation List (CRL), but an extension mechanism supports other
   revocation information choices.  This document defines two additional
   revocation information formats for Online Certificate Status Protocol
   (OCSP) responses and Server-Based Certificate Validation Protocol
   (SCVP).

1. Introduction

   The RevocationInfoChoices type defined in [CMS] provides a set of
   revocation status information alternatives, which allows revocation
   information to be conveyed as part of the SignedData, EnvelopedData,
   AuthenticatedData, and AuthEnvelopedData content types.  The intent
   is to provide information sufficient to determine whether the
   certificates and attribute certificates carried elsewhere in the CMS
   protecting content are revoked.  However, there MAY be more
   revocation status information than necessary or there MAY be less
   revocation status information than necessary.

   X.509 Certificate revocation lists (CRLs) [PROFILE] are the primary
   source of revocation status information, but any other revocation
   information formats can be supported.  This document specifies two
   other formats: Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) responses
   [OCSP] and Server-Based Certificate Validation Protocol (SCVP)
   responses [SCVP].

1.1. Requirements Terminology

   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 [WORDS].

2. Revocation Information

   For simplicity, the ASN.1 definition of the RevocationInfoChoices
   type from [CMS] is repeated here:

   RevocationInfoChoices ::= SET OF RevocationInfoChoice

     RevocationInfoChoice ::= CHOICE {
     crl        CertificateList,
     other  [1] IMPLICIT OtherRevocationInfoFormat }


Turner & Housley        Expires April 3, 2010                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft Additional CMS Revocation Information Choices  Sept 2009


   OtherRevocationInfoFormat ::= SEQUENCE {
     otherRevInfoFormat  OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
     otherRevInfo        ANY DEFINED BY otherRevInfoFormat }

   The other CHOICE MUST be used to convey OCSP responses and SCVP
   responses.

   The revocation information choices are defiend under the following
   object identifier arc:

   id-ri OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3)
     dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) ri(16) }

3. OCSP Response

   To carry an OCSP response, the otherRevInfoFormat is set to
   id-ri-ocsp-response, which has the following ASN.1 definition:

   id-ri-ocsp-response OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri 2 }

   In this case, otherRevInfo MUST carry the OCSP response using the
   OCSPResponse type defined in [OCSP].

4. SCVP Response

   SCVP supports protected responses and unprotect responses.  This
   section addresses revocation information formats for each response
   type.

4.1. Protected Responses

   SCVP allows responses to be protected via digital signatures or
   message authentication codes.  The mechanism to attach either a
   digital signature or message authentication code involves
   encapsulating the SCVP response in a SignedData, for digitial
   signatures, or an AuthenticatedData, for message authentication
   codes.  This section describes revocation information formats for
   both.

4.1.1. Signed SCVP Response

   To carry a signed SCVP response, the otherRevInfoFormat is set to
   id-ri-signed-scvp-response, which has the following ASN.1 definition:

   id-ri-signed-scvp-response OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri TBD }




Turner & Housley        Expires April 3, 2010                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft Additional CMS Revocation Information Choices  Sept 2009


   In this case, otherRevInfo MUST carry the signed SCVP response,
   including the SignedData wrapper.  That is, the SignedData
   EncapsulatedContentInfo eContentType MUST be
   id-ct-scvp-certValResponse and eContent MUST contain the CVResponse
   defined in [SCVP].

4.1.2. Authenticated SCVP Response

   To carry an authenticated SCVP response, the otherRevInfoFormat is
   set to id-ri-auth-scvp-response, which has the following ASN.1
   definition:

   id-ri-auth-scvp-response OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri TBD }

   In this case, otherRevInfo MUST carry the authenticated SCVP
   response, including the AuthenticatedData wrapper.  That is, the
   AuthenticatedData EncapsulatedContentInfo eContentType MUST be
   id-ct-scvp-certValResponse and eContent MUST contain the CVResponse
   defined in [SCVP].

4.2. Unprotected SCVP Responses

   To carry an unprotected SCVP response, the otherRevInfoFormat is set
   to id-ct-scvp-certValResponse, which has the following ASN.1
   definition [SCVP]:

   id-ri-unprotected-scvp-response OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri TBD }

   In this case, otherRevInfo MUST carry the unprotected SCVP response
   using the CVResponse type defined in [SCVP].

5. Security Considerations

   The security considerations of [CMS], [CMS-ASN], [OCSP], [SCVP], and
   [PROFILE-ASN] apply.

6. IANA Considerations

   This document makes use of object identifiers.  These object
   identifiers are defined in an arc delegated by IANA to the PKIX
   Working Group.  No further action by IANA is necessary for this
   document or any anticipated updates.







Turner & Housley        Expires April 3, 2010                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft Additional CMS Revocation Information Choices  Sept 2009


7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [CMS]         Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax", RFC 5652,
                 September 2009.

   [OCSP]        Meyers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and
                 C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure
                 Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560,
                 June 1999.

   [SCVP]        Freeman, T., Housley, R., Malpani, A., Cooper, D., and
                 W. Polk, "Server-Based Certificate Validation Protocol
                 (SCVP)", RFC 5055, December 2007.

   [WORDS]       Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [X.680]       ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-
                 1:2002. Information Technology - Abstract Syntax
                 Notation One.

   [X.681]       ITU-T Recommendation X.681 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-
                 2:2002. Information Technology - Abstract Syntax
                 Notation One: Information Object Specification.

   [X.682]       ITU-T Recommendation X.682 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-
                 3:2002. Information Technology - Abstract Syntax
                 Notation One: Constraint Specification.

   [X.683]       ITU-T Recommendation X.683 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-
                 4:2002. Information Technology - Abstract Syntax
                 Notation One: Parameterization of ASN.1
                 Specifications, 2002.

7.2. Informative References

   [CMS-ASN]     Hoffman, P., and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for
                 CMS", draft-ietf-smime-new-asn1, work-in-progress.

   [PROFILE-ASN] Hoffman, P., and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for
                 PKIX", draft-ietf-pkix-new-asn1, work-in-progress.

   [PROFILE]     Cooper, D. et. al., "Internet X.509 Public Key
                 Infrastructure Certificate and Certification
                 Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.


Turner & Housley        Expires April 3, 2010                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft Additional CMS Revocation Information Choices  Sept 2009


Appendix A. ASN.1 Modules

   Appendix A.1 provides the normative ASN.1 definitions for the
   structures described in this specification using ASN.1 as defined in
   [X.680] for compilers that support the 1988 ASN.1.

   Appendix A.2 provides informative ASN.1 definitions for the
   structures described in this specification using ASN.1 as defined in
   [X.680], [X.681], [X.682], and [X.683] for compilers that support the
   2002 ASN.1. This appendix contains the same information as Appendix
   A.1 in a more recent (and precise) ASN.1 notation, however Appendix
   A.1 takes precedence in case of conflict.

A.1. 1988 ASN.1 Module

   CMS-Other-RIs-2009-88 { TBD }

   DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=

   BEGIN

   -- EXPORTS ALL

   -- IMPORTS NOTHING

   id-ri OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3)
     dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) ri(16) }

   id-ri-ocsp-response OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri 2 }

   id-ri-signed-scvp-response OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri TBD }

   id-ri-auth-scvp-response OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri TBD }

   id-ri-scvp-certValResponse OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri TBD }

   END

A.2. 2002 ASN.1 Module

   CMS-Other-RIs-2009-02 { TBD }

   DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=

   BEGIN

   -- EXPORT ALL


Turner & Housley        Expires April 3, 2010                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft Additional CMS Revocation Information Choices  Sept 2009


   IMPORTS

   -- FROM [PROFILE-ASN]

   OCSPResponse
     FROM OCSP-2009
     { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
       mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-ocsp-02(48) }

   -- FROM [CMS-ASN]

   SignedData, AuthenticatedData, OTHER-REVOK-INFO
     FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax-2009
       { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9)
         smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-cms-2004-02(41) }

   -- FROM [PROFILE-ASN]

   CVResponse
     FROM SCVP-2009
       { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
         security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
         id-mod-scvp-02(52) }

   ;

   SupportedOtherRevokInfo OTHER-REVOK-INFO ::= {
     ri-ocsp               |
     ri-scvp-sigProtected  |
     ri-scvp-authProtected |
     ri-scvp-unprotected,
     ... }

   ri-ocsp OTHER-REVOK-INFO ::= {
     OCSPResponse IDENTIFIED BY id-ri-ocsp-response }

   id-ri OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3)
     dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) ri(16) }

   id-ri-ocsp-response OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri 2 }

   ri-scvp-sigProtected OTHER-REVOK-INFO ::= {
     SignedData IDENTIFIED BY id-ri-signed-scvp-response }

   id-ri-signed-scvp-response OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri TBD }




Turner & Housley        Expires April 3, 2010                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft Additional CMS Revocation Information Choices  Sept 2009


   ri-scvp-authProtected OTHER-REVOK-INFO ::= {
     AuthenticatedData IDENTIFIED BY id-ri-auth-scvp-response }



   id-ri-auth-scvp-response OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri TBD }

   ri-scvp-unprotected OTHER-REVOK-INFO ::= {
     CVResponse IDENTIFIED BY id-ri-unprotected-scvp-response }

   id-ri-unprotected-scvp-response OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ri TBD }

   END

Authors' Addresses

   Sean Turner
   IECA, Inc.
   3057 Nutley Street, Suite 106
   Fairfax, VA 22031
   USA

   EMail: turners@ieca.com

   Russ Housley
   Vigil Security, LLC
   918 Spring Knoll Drive
   Herndon, VA 20170
   USA

   EMail: housley@vigilsec.com


















Turner & Housley        Expires April 3, 2010                  [Page 8]