Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Symmetric Key Package Content Type
RFC 6031
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-01-21
|
11 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag) |
|
2015-10-14
|
11 | (System) | Notify list changed from keyprov-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
11 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Peter Saint-Andre |
|
2012-08-22
|
11 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko |
|
2012-08-22
|
11 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
|
2010-12-13
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
|
2010-12-13
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6031' |
|
2010-12-13
|
11 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-08-10
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2010-08-10
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-08-10
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-08-10
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-08-10
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-08-10
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-08-09
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-08-09
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-08-09
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] |
|
2010-08-09
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-11.txt |
|
2010-08-09
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu |
|
2010-08-09
|
11 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Harrington has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by David Harrington |
|
2010-08-05
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] Updated as per the latest revision: 1) 3.1.1.7 The date MUST be expressed in canonical form with no time zone component. Sorry … [Ballot discuss] Updated as per the latest revision: 1) 3.1.1.7 The date MUST be expressed in canonical form with no time zone component. Sorry for not catching this earlier: does this mean that the time zone is ommitted from the representation? I think the omitted timezone means "local timezone", which contradicts "in UTC form". You probably want to say that the dateTime is in the "canonical representation", as per XMLSchema, part 2, Section "3.2.7.2 Canonical representation": ------ Except for trailing fractional zero digits in the seconds representation, '24:00:00' time representations, and timezone (for timezoned values), the mapping from literals to values is one-to-one. Where there is more than one possible representation, the canonical representation is as follows: * The 2-digit numeral representing the hour must not be '24'; * The fractional second string, if present, must not end in '0'; * for timezoned values, the timezone must be represented with 'Z' (All timezoned dateTime values are UTC.). ------ Similar issues in several other sections. |
|
2010-08-05
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] Updated as per the latest revision: 1) 3.1.1.7 The date MUST be represented in a form that matches the dateTime production … [Ballot discuss] Updated as per the latest revision: 1) 3.1.1.7 The date MUST be represented in a form that matches the dateTime production from [XMLSCHEMA]. This Normative reference is not listed in the list of references. The date MUST be expressed in UTC form with no time zone component. Sorry for not catching this earlier: does this mean that the time zone is ommitted from the representation? I think the omitted timezone means "local timezone", which contradicts "in UTC form". You probably want to say that the dateTime is in the "canonical representation", as per XMLSchema, part 2, Section "3.2.7.2 Canonical representation": ------ Except for trailing fractional zero digits in the seconds representation, '24:00:00' time representations, and timezone (for timezoned values), the mapping from literals to values is one-to-one. Where there is more than one possible representation, the canonical representation is as follows: * The 2-digit numeral representing the hour must not be '24'; * The fractional second string, if present, must not end in '0'; * for timezoned values, the timezone must be represented with 'Z' (All timezoned dateTime values are UTC.). ------ Similar issues in several other sections. |
|
2010-08-05
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-10.txt |
|
2010-07-11
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] Updated as per the latest revision: 1) 3.1.1.7 The date MUST be represented in a form that matches the dateTime production … [Ballot discuss] Updated as per the latest revision: 1) 3.1.1.7 The date MUST be represented in a form that matches the dateTime production from [XMLSCHEMA]. This Normative reference is not listed in the list of references. The date MUST be expressed in UTC form with no time zone component. Sorry for not catching this earlier: does this mean that the time zone is ommitted from the representation? I think the omitted timezone means "local timezone", which contradicts "in UTC form". You probably want to say that the dateTime is in the "canonical representation", as per XMLSchema, part 2, Section "3.2.7.2 Canonical representation": ------ Except for trailing fractional zero digits in the seconds representation, '24:00:00' time representations, and timezone (for timezoned values), the mapping from literals to values is one-to-one. Where there is more than one possible representation, the canonical representation is as follows: * The 2-digit numeral representing the hour must not be '24'; * The fractional second string, if present, must not end in '0'; * for timezoned values, the timezone must be represented with 'Z' (All timezoned dateTime values are UTC.). ------ Similar issues in several other sections. 2) 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. Values for Manufacturer SHOULD be taken from either [OATHMAN] prefixes (i.e., the left column) or they SHOULD be taken from IANA Private Enterprise Number Registry [IANAPENREG], using the Organisation value. The document should allow a way to distinguish values from 2 registries, as they may overlap. For example a unique prefix can be used for one or both of them. |
|
2010-07-11
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] Updated as per the latest revision: 1) 3.1.1.7 The date MUST be represented in a form that matches the dateTime production … [Ballot discuss] Updated as per the latest revision: 1) 3.1.1.7 The date MUST be represented in a form that matches the dateTime production from [XMLSCHEMA]. This Normative reference is not listed in the list of references. The date MUST be expressed in UTC form with no time zone component. Sorry for not catching this earlier: does this mean that the time zone is ommitted from the representation? I think the omitted timezone means "local timezone", which contradicts "in UTC form". Similar issues in several other sections. 2) 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. Values for Manufacturer SHOULD be taken from either [OATHMAN] prefixes (i.e., the left column) or they SHOULD be taken from IANA Private Enterprise Number Registry [IANAPENREG], using the Organisation value. The document should allow a way to distinguish values from 2 registries, as they may overlap. For example a unique prefix can be used for one or both of them. |
|
2010-07-08
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. Values for Manufacturer SHOULD be taken from either [OATHMAN] … [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. Values for Manufacturer SHOULD be taken from either [OATHMAN] prefixes (i.e., the left column) or they SHOULD be taken from IANA Private Enterprise Number Registry [IANAPENREG], using the Organisation value. The document should allow a way to distinguish values from 2 registries, as they may overlap. For example a unique prefix can be used for one or both of them. |
|
2010-07-08
|
11 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot discuss] [cleared] |
|
2010-07-08
|
11 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Peter Saint-Andre has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Peter Saint-Andre |
|
2010-07-08
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2010-07-08
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-09.txt |
|
2010-05-27
|
11 | Tim Polk | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Tim Polk |
|
2010-05-12
|
11 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Revised ID Needed by system |
|
2010-05-07
|
11 | Amanda Baber | IANA questions/comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. However, this document refers to an OID … IANA questions/comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. However, this document refers to an OID that IANA has already assigned to the SMIME working group, and we're not sure what that is. Is this referring to the arc assigned to the PKIX WG (1.3.6.1.5.5.7)? |
|
2010-05-06
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call::Revised ID Needed from In Last Call by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-05-06
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] In support to Alexey DISCUSS DISCUSS on the manufacturer attribute - why not use the Enterprise number registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers? |
|
2010-05-06
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2010-05-06
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] This document specifies a format that carries a lot of information but at least for some attributes there are very little semantics associated … [Ballot discuss] This document specifies a format that carries a lot of information but at least for some attributes there are very little semantics associated with them. Its easy to understand some of the attributes, but for instance Device Start Date and Device Expiry Date do not seem obvious. I also checked the references and I could not find an explanation of what implementations are expected to do with these. What is the relationship to key lifetime? If the current time is outside device lifetime, just the key is invalid, or the device must never again be touched? What is the name space used for device identifiers and is there a possibility that, say, key meant for IMEI 12345 is used for some company's device with serial number 12345? |
|
2010-05-06
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-05-06
|
11 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo |
|
2010-05-06
|
11 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-05-06
|
11 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Agree with Peter's Discuss point 3. We need some clarity on this reference and the algorithm. It would seem that the patent is … [Ballot comment] Agree with Peter's Discuss point 3. We need some clarity on this reference and the algorithm. It would seem that the patent is very old, and this may mitigate the absence of a patent disclosure. However, in this case, I would expect this document to make some attempt to be self-contained or to refer to another specification for the details of the Luhn check digit. |
|
2010-05-05
|
11 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot discuss] 1. The precise formats for Device Start Date, Device Expiry Date, Key Start Date, and Key Expiry Date are not specified. Use of … [Ballot discuss] 1. The precise formats for Device Start Date, Device Expiry Date, Key Start Date, and Key Expiry Date are not specified. Use of the Internet Date/Time Format from Section 5.6 of RFC 3339 is generally recommended for RFCs. 2. The specification says that "the friendlyNameLangTag should be a language tag as described in [RFC5646]." Why not MUST? 3. I second Alexey's DISCUSS about the [LUHN] reference. Furthermore, given that the reference is to a patent or patent application, has an IPR statement been filed? 4. Is the time interval value to be measured in number of seconds? 5. No guidance is provided regarding values for 'maxFailedAttempts'; for example, a reasonable number of retries might be at least 2 and no more than 5. |
|
2010-05-05
|
11 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot discuss] The precise formats for Device Start Date and Device Expiry Date are not specified. Use of the Internet Date/Time Format from Section 5.6 … [Ballot discuss] The precise formats for Device Start Date and Device Expiry Date are not specified. Use of the Internet Date/Time Format from Section 5.6 of RFC 3339 is generally recommended. |
|
2010-05-05
|
11 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre |
|
2010-05-05
|
11 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2010-05-05
|
11 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2010-05-04
|
11 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2010-05-03
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE ::= … [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-manufacturer } DISCUSS DISCUSS: Is there any IANA registry that can be recommended for use in this field? 3.2.6. Friendly Name The Friendly Name attribute contains a human readable name for the secret key. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-friendlyName ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-friendlyName } id-pskc-friendlyName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pskc 14 } The text is encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629], which accommodates most of the world's writing systems. The friendlyNameLangTag field identifies the language used to express the friendlyName. When friendlyNameLangTag is absent, English is used. Comment: please mention the associated language tag "en". The value of the friendlyNameLangTag should be a language tag as described in [RFC5646]. I don't see where friendlyNameLangTag is defined. 7.1. Normative References [LUHN] Luhn, H., "Luhn algorithm", US Patent 2950048, August 1960, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=2950048. This looks like a DOWNREF now. Addditionally, Simon Josefsson wrote during the Second IETF LC: >More worrisome, I cannot read the reference. The link goes to a page >which says 'Full text is not available for this patent. Click on >"Images" button above to view full patent' and when I click on "Images" >I get nothing because the page appears to require some non-standard >plugin that I don't have installed. This doesn't look like a good and stable normative reference. I think it would be better to describe the algorithm inline (and have an Informative reference to the patent), if it is simple. draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc-05.txt defines <UserId> XML element. There is no mapping of it in this document. |
|
2010-05-03
|
11 | David Harrington | [Ballot discuss] in 3.2.1, how does the key identifier attribute guarantee uniqueness? Across what administrative domain must the key be unique? is there a registry? … [Ballot discuss] in 3.2.1, how does the key identifier attribute guarantee uniqueness? Across what administrative domain must the key be unique? is there a registry? if so, how are assignments to the registry made (as compared to say the mechanisms such as IETF Review used by IANA? |
|
2010-05-03
|
11 | David Harrington | [Ballot discuss] in 3.2.1, how does the key identifier attribute gurantee uniqueness? Across what administrative domain must the key be unique? is there a registry? … [Ballot discuss] in 3.2.1, how does the key identifier attribute gurantee uniqueness? Across what administrative domain must the key be unique? is there a registry? if so, how are assignments to the registry made (as compared to say the mechanisms such as IETF Review used by IANA? |
|
2010-05-03
|
11 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by David Harrington |
|
2010-04-29
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE ::= … [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-manufacturer } DISCUSS DISCUSS: Is there any IANA registry that can be recommended for use in this field? 3.2.6. Friendly Name The Friendly Name attribute contains a human readable name for the secret key. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-friendlyName ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-friendlyName } id-pskc-friendlyName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pskc 14 } The text is encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629], which accommodates most of the world's writing systems. The friendlyNameLangTag field identifies the language used to express the friendlyName. When friendlyNameLangTag is absent, English is used. Comment: please mention the associated language tag "en". The value of the friendlyNameLangTag should be a language tag as described in [RFC5646]. I don't see where friendlyNameLangTag is defined. 7.1. Normative References [LUHN] Luhn, H., "Luhn algorithm", US Patent 2950048, August 1960, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=2950048. This looks like a DOWNREF now. Addditionally, Simon Josefsson wrote during the Second IETF LC: >More worrisome, I cannot read the reference. The link goes to a page >which says 'Full text is not available for this patent. Click on >"Images" button above to view full patent' and when I click on "Images" >I get nothing because the page appears to require some non-standard >plugin that I don't have installed. This doesn't look like a good and stable normative reference. I think it would be better to describe the algorithm inline (and have an Informative reference to the patent), if it is simple. |
|
2010-04-28
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] [Updated] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE … [Ballot discuss] [Updated] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-manufacturer } DISCUSS DISCUSS: Is there any IANA registry that can be recommended for use in this field? 3.2.2. Algorithm The Algorithm attribute uniquely identifies the PSKC algorithm profile. [PSKC] defines two algorithm profiles "HOTP" and "KEYPROV-PIN". DISCUSS DISCUSS: It looks like this attribute needs an IANA registry. I am Ok if it is defined in [PSKC], or if you can argue why you don't need one. 3.2.6. Friendly Name The Friendly Name attribute contains a human readable name for the secret key. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-friendlyName ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-friendlyName } id-pskc-friendlyName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pskc 14 } The text is encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629], which accommodates most of the world's writing systems. The friendlyNameLangTag field identifies the language used to express the friendlyName. When friendlyNameLangTag is absent, English is used. Comment: please mention the associated language tag, e.g. '("en")' The value of the friendlyNameLangTag should be a language tag as described in [RFC5646]. I don't see where friendlyNameLangTag is defined. 3.3.5: o pinUsageMode indicates the way the PIN is used during the usage of the key. The following values are defined: Local, Prepend, Append, Algorithmic. The meaning of the choices is not clear to me. So I don't think they can be used in an interoperable fashion. <<Alexey's ToDo: Check [PSKC].>> 7.1. Normative References [LUHN] Luhn, H., "Luhn algorithm", US Patent 2950048, August 1960, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=2950048. This looks like a DOWNREF now. Addditionally, Simon Josefsson wrote during the Second IETF LC: >More worrisome, I cannot read the reference. The link goes to a page >which says 'Full text is not available for this patent. Click on >"Images" button above to view full patent' and when I click on "Images" >I get nothing because the page appears to require some non-standard >plugin that I don't have installed. This doesn't look like a good and stable normative reference. I think it would be better to describe the algorithm inline (and have an Informative reference to the patent), if it is simple. |
|
2010-04-28
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
|
2010-04-28
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-04-28
|
11 | Tim Polk | Last Call was requested by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-28
|
11 | Tim Polk | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-27
|
11 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey. |
|
2010-04-26
|
11 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
|
2010-04-26
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] |
|
2010-04-26
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE ::= … [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-manufacturer } DISCUSS DISCUSS: Is there any IANA registry that can be recommended for use in this field? 3.2.6. Friendly Name The Friendly Name attribute contains a human readable name for the secret key. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-friendlyName ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-friendlyName } <<Language tags>> 3.3.5: o pinUsageMode indicates the way the PIN is used during the usage of the key. The following values are defined: Local, Prepend, Append, Algorithmic. The meaning of the choices is not clear to me. So I don't think they can be used in an interoperable fashion. <<Check [PSKC].>> 7.1. Normative References [RFC4049] Housley, R., "BinaryTime: An Alternate Format for Representing Date and Time in ASN.1", RFC 4049, April 2005. DOWNREF to an Experimental RFC. I am willing to sponsor moving RFC 4049 to Standard Track. [LUHN] Luhn, H., "Luhn algorithm", US Patent 2950048, August 1960, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=2950048. This looks like a DOWNREF now? |
|
2010-04-26
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-08.txt |
|
2010-04-26
|
11 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2010-04-24
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] 2. Symmetric Key Package Content Type This content type must be Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) encoded [X.690]. s/must/MUST ? 3.2.7. Algorithm … [Ballot comment] 2. Symmetric Key Package Content Type This content type must be Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) encoded [X.690]. s/must/MUST ? 3.2.7. Algorithm Parameters o min defines the minimum size of the challenge accepted by the device for CR mode. If encoding is 'DECIMAL', 'HEXADECIMAL' or 'ALPHANUMERIC' this value indicates the minimum number of digits/characters. So just to double check: for a HEXADECIMAL value "ABCD", min is 4, not 2? (The same question about "max", ResponseFormat/"length", PINPolicy/"minLength" & "maxLength") If encoding is 'BASE64' or 'BINARY', this value indicates the minimum number of bytes of the unencoded value. 4.1. AES Key Encoding [FIPS197] section 5.2, titled Key Expansion, uses the input key as an array of bytes indexed starting at 0. The first octet of sKey SHALL become the key byte in AES labeled index 0 in [FIPS197] SHALL be the first octet of sKey, COMMENT: Too many SHALLs? and the other key bytes SHALL follow in index order. |
|
2010-04-24
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE ::= … [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-manufacturer } DISCUSS DISCUSS: Is there any IANA registry that can be recommended for use in this field? 3.2.6. Friendly Name The Friendly Name attribute contains a human readable name for the secret key. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-friendlyName ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-friendlyName } <<Language tags>> 3.2.7. Algorithm Parameters Encoding ::= UTF8STRING ("DECIMAL" | "HEXADECIMAL" | "ALPHANUMERIC" |"BASE64" |"BINARY") BASE64 needs a reference. 3.2.12. Value MAC o mac is the base64 encoded [RFC4648] mac value. This should point to a specific section in RFC 4648. 3.3.5: o pinUsageMode indicates the way the PIN is used during the usage of the key. The following values are defined: Local, Prepend, Append, Algorithmic. The meaning of the choices is not clear to me. So I don't think they can be used in an interoperable fashion. 6. IANA Considerations None: All identifiers are already registered. Please remove this section prior to publication as an RFC. This doesn't seem to match text elsewhere in the document: id-pskc-manufacturer OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-serialNo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-model OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-issueNo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-deviceBinding OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-startDate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-expiryDate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-id OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-algorithm OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-issuer OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-keyProfileId OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-keyReference OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-friendlyName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-algorithmParameters OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-counter OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-time OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-timeInterval OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-timeDrift OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-numberOfTransactions OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-pinPolicy OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } Note that there are lots of "TBD"s. 7.1. Normative References [RFC4049] Housley, R., "BinaryTime: An Alternate Format for Representing Date and Time in ASN.1", RFC 4049, April 2005. DOWNREF to an Experimental RFC. I am willing to sponsor moving RFC 4049 to Standard Track. 7.2. Non-Normative References [PSKC] Hoyer, P., Pei, M., and S. Machani, "Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC), draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc-05.txt, work-in-progress. This reference looks Normative, because it defines the normative XML representation [PSKC-ALGORITHM-PROFILES] Hoyer, P., Pei, M., Machani, S., and A. Doherty, "Additional Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) Algorithm Profiles", Internet Draft Informational, URL: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoyer-keyprov-pskc-algorithm- profiles-00, December 2008. Use in Section 3.2.2 seems Normative to me. [LUHN] Luhn, H., "Luhn algorithm", US Patent 2950048, August 1960, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=2950048. Use in Section 3.2.7 looks Normative to me. |
|
2010-04-24
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] 2. Symmetric Key Package Content Type This content type must be Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) encoded [X.690]. s/must/MUST ? 3.2.7. Algorithm … [Ballot comment] 2. Symmetric Key Package Content Type This content type must be Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) encoded [X.690]. s/must/MUST ? 3.2.7. Algorithm Parameters o min defines the minimum size of the challenge accepted by the device for CR mode. If encoding is 'DECIMAL', 'HEXADECIMAL' or 'ALPHANUMERIC' this value indicates the minimum number of digits/characters. So just to double check: for a HEXADECIMAL value "ABCD", min is 4, not 2? (The same question about "max", ResponseFormat/"length", PINPolicy/"minLength" & "maxLength") If encoding is 'BASE64' or 'BINARY', this value indicates the minimum number of bytes of the unencoded value. 4.1. AES Key Encoding [FIPS197] section 5.2, titled Key Expansion, uses the input key as an array of bytes indexed starting at 0. The first octet of sKey SHALL become the key byte in AES labeled index 0 in [FIPS197] SHALL be the first octet of sKey, COMMENT: Too many SHALLs? and the other key bytes SHALL follow in index order. |
|
2010-04-24
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE ::= … [Ballot discuss] 3.1.1.1. Manufacturer The Manufacturer attribute indicates the manufacturer of the device. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-manufacturer ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-manufacturer } DISCUSS DISCUSS: Is there any IANA registry that can be recommended for use in this field? 3.2.6. Friendly Name The Friendly Name attribute contains a human readable name for the secret key. The attribute definition is as follows: at-pskc-friendlyName ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE UTF8String IDENTIFIED BY id-pskc-friendlyName } <<Language tags>> 3.2.7. Algorithm Parameters Encoding ::= UTF8STRING ("DECIMAL" | "HEXADECIMAL" | "ALPHANUMERIC" |"BASE64" |"BINARY") BASE64 needs a reference. 3.2.12. Value MAC o mac is the base64 encoded [RFC4648] mac value. This should point to a specific section in RFC 4648. 3.3.5: o pinUsageMode indicates the way the PIN is used during the usage of the key. The following values are defined: Local, Prepend, Append, Algorithmic. The meaning of the choices is not clear to me. So I don't think they can be used in an interoperable fashion. 6. IANA Considerations None: All identifiers are already registered. Please remove this section prior to publication as an RFC. This doesn't seem to match text elsewhere in the document: id-pskc-manufacturer OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-serialNo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-model OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-issueNo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-deviceBinding OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-startDate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-expiryDate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-id OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-algorithm OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-issuer OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-keyProfileId OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-keyReference OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-friendlyName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-algorithmParameters OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-counter OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-time OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-timeInterval OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-timeDrift OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-numberOfTransactions OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } id-pskc-pinPolicy OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { TBD } Note that there are lots of "TBD"s. 7.1. Normative References [RFC4049] Housley, R., "BinaryTime: An Alternate Format for Representing Date and Time in ASN.1", RFC 4049, April 2005. DOWNREF to an Experimental RFC. I am willing to sponsor moving RFC 4049 to Standard Track. 7.2. Non-Normative References [PSKC] Hoyer, P., Pei, M., and S. Machani, "Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC), draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc-05.txt, work-in-progress. This reference looks Normative, because it defines the normative XML representation [PSKC-ALGORITHM-PROFILES] Hoyer, P., Pei, M., Machani, S., and A. Doherty, "Additional Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) Algorithm Profiles", Internet Draft Informational, URL: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoyer-keyprov-pskc-algorithm- profiles-00, December 2008. Use in Section 3.2.2 seems Normative to me. [LUHN] Luhn, H., "Luhn algorithm", US Patent 2950048, August 1960, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=2950048. Use in Section 3.2.7 looks Normative to me. |
|
2010-04-24
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-04-22
|
11 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Sean Turner |
|
2010-04-22
|
11 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-22
|
11 | Tim Polk | Ballot has been issued by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-22
|
11 | Tim Polk | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-04-22
|
11 | Tim Polk | Telechat date was changed to 2010-05-06 from by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-22
|
11 | Tim Polk | Telechat date was changed to 2010-05-06 from by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-22
|
11 | Tim Polk | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-05-06 by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-22
|
11 | Tim Polk | [Note]: 'Document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig (Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net).' added by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-15
|
11 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
|
2010-04-15
|
11 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
|
2010-04-12
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-04-12
|
11 | Tim Polk | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-12
|
11 | Tim Polk | Last Call was requested by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-12
|
11 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-04-12
|
11 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-04-12
|
11 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-03-02
|
11 | Tim Polk | Responsible AD has been changed to Tim Polk from Pasi Eronen |
|
2010-03-01
|
11 | Pasi Eronen | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig (Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net). I have personally reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document was reviewed by working group members. There are no concerns regarding the depth or breadth of the review. Most members of the KEYPROV working group, however, do not have a lot of expertise with ASN.1. Fortunately, this document was created inline with PSKC and represents the ASN.1 based encoded version of PSKC. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? There are no concerns with this document. The document contains ASN.1 code that has been verified by tools. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are no concerns with this document. No IPR disclosures have been field. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus in the WG behind the document. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) There is no opposition to this document. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The document does not contain nits. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has been split into normative and informative references. ***BEGIN DOWREF ALERT*** This document refers normatively to two informative documents (draft-ietf-pkix-new-asn1 and draft-ietf-smime-new-asn1), one experimental RFC (RFC 4049), and 5 "superseded" ITU/ISO standards ('02 X.680, X.681, X.682, X.683, X.690). The references to the two informative documents are necessary because we're using '02 ASN.1 and we want to import ASN.1 objects instead of copying them. The '02 ASN.1 is used instead of the '08 ASN.1 because that's what PKIX/SMIME use (there are freeware compilers available). The experimental ID reference is necessary to allow us to import syntax for binary time instead of duplicating it. Note that I believe the IETF LC message will need to be manually modified to indicate these these DOWNREFs. ***END DOWNREF ALERT*** (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? There are no IANA considerations. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? The ASN.1 modules were compiled with dummy OID values while we await final assignment. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document provides the ASN.1 variant of the Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC), which is defined using XML in draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc-05. The symmetric key container defines a transport independent mechanism for one or more symmetric keys as well as any associated attributes. The container by itself is insecure; it can be secured using either the Dynamic Symmetric Key Provisioning Protocol (DSKPP) [draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp] or a CMS protecting content types [RFC5652]. In addition to the key container, this document also defines ASN.1 version of the XML elements and attributes defined in PSKC. Working Group Summary The WG agreed that this container would be the optional container, but there was a contingent (both in the WG and in the IEEE) that wanted the ASN.1 container. The format for the container has been stable since version -02. The ASN.1 converted XML elements and attributes were added in the last version to ensure alignment with PSKC. Document Quality The document is a product of the KEYPROV working group. The text of this document is derived from the XML elements and attributes defined in draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc. As such, this document represents the ASN.1 based version of the XML-based counterpart. Personnel Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document. |
|
2010-03-01
|
11 | Pasi Eronen | Draft Added by Pasi Eronen in state Publication Requested |
|
2010-03-01
|
11 | Pasi Eronen | [Note]: 'Document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig (Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net).' added by Pasi Eronen |
|
2010-02-02
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-07.txt |
|
2009-10-20
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-06.txt |
|
2009-07-13
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-05.txt |
|
2009-01-20
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-04.txt |
|
2008-07-14
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-03.txt |
|
2008-02-26
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-02.txt |
|
2007-11-18
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-01.txt |
|
2007-09-04
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-00.txt |