[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-richardson-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify) 00 01 02 06

LAMPS Working Group                                        M. Richardson
Internet-Draft                                  Sandelman Software Works
Updates: 7030 (if approved)                                    T. Werner
Intended status: Standards Track                                 Siemens
Expires: December 16, 2020                                        W. Pan
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           June 14, 2020


   Clarification of Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST): transfer
                          encodings and ASN.1
                 draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-06

Abstract

   This document updates RFC7030: Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST)
   to resolve some errata that was reported, and which has proven to
   cause interoperability issues when RFC7030 was extended.

   This document deprecates the specification of "Content-Transfer-
   Encoding" headers for EST endpoints.  This document fixes some
   syntactical errors in ASN.1 that was presented.

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 December 16, 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



Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


   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.  Changes to EST endpoint processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Whitespace processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Changes sections 4 of RFC7030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.2.1.  Section 4.1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.2.2.  Section 4.3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.2.3.  Section 4.3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.4.  Section 4.4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.5.  Section 4.5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Clarification of ASN.1 for Certificate Attribute set. . . . .   6
   5.  Clarification of error messages for certificate enrollment
       operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Updating section 4.2.3: Simple Enroll and Re-enroll
           Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Updating section 4.4.2: Server-Side Key Generation
           Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  ASN.1 Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) is defined in [RFC7030].  The
   EST specification defines a number of HTTP end points for certificate
   enrollment and management.  The details of the transaction were
   defined in terms of MIME headers as defined in [RFC2045], rather than
   in terms of the HTTP protocol as defined in [RFC2616] and [RFC7230].

   [RFC2616] and later [RFC7231] Appendix A.5 has text specifically
   deprecating Content-Transfer-Encoding.  However, [RFC7030]
   incorrectly uses this header.




Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


   Any updates to [RFC7030] to bring it inline with HTTP processing risk
   changing the on-wire protocol in a way that is not backwards
   compatible.  However, reports from implementers suggest that many
   implementations do not send the Content-Transfer-Encoding, and many
   of them ignore it.  The consequence is that simply deprecating the
   header would remain compatible with current implementations.

   [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] extends [RFC7030], adding new
   functionality, and interop testing of the protocol has revealed that
   unusual processing called out in [RFC7030] causes confusion.

   EST is currently specified as part of [IEC62351], and is widely used
   in Government, Utilities and Financial markets today.

   This document therefore revises [RFC7030] to reflect the field
   reality, deprecating the extraneous field.

   This document deals with errata numbers [errata4384], [errata5107],
   [errata5108], and [errata5904].

   This document deals explicitely with [errata5107] and [errata5904] in
   Section 3. [errata5108] is dealt with in section Section 5.

   [errata4384] is closed by correcting the ASN.1 Module in Section 4.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Changes to EST endpoint processing

   The [RFC7030] sections 4.1.3 (CA Certificates Response, /cacerts),
   4.3.1/4.3.2 (Full CMC, /fullcmc), 4.4.2 (Server-Side Key Generation,
   /serverkeygen), and 4.5.2 (CSR Attributes, /csrattrs) specify the use
   of base64 encoding with a Content-Transfer-Encoding for requests and
   response.

   This document updates [RFC7030] to require the POST request and
   payload response of all endpoints use Base64 encoding as specified in
   Section 4 of [RFC4648].  In both cases, the Distinguished Encoding
   Rules (DER) [X.690] are used to produce the input for the Base64
   encoding routine.  This format is to be used regardless of any
   Content-Transfer-Encoding header, and any value in such a header MUST
   be ignored.



Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


3.1.  Whitespace processing

   Note that "base64" as used in the HTTP [RFC2616] does not permit
   CRLF, while the "base64" used in MIME [RFC2045] does.  This
   specification clarifies that despite [RFC2616], that white space
   including CR, LF, spaces (ASCII 32) and, tabs (ASCII 9) SHOULD be
   tolerated by receivers.  Senders are not required to insert any kind
   of white space.

3.2.  Changes sections 4 of RFC7030

3.2.1.  Section 4.1.3

   Replace:

   A successful response MUST be a certs-only CMC Simple PKI Response,
   as defined in [RFC5272], containing the certificates described in the
   following paragraph.  The HTTP content-type of
   "application/pkcs7-mime" is used.  The Simple PKI Response is sent
   with a Content-Transfer-Encoding of "base64" [RFC2045].

   with:

   A successful response MUST be a certs-only CMC Simple PKI Response,
   as defined in [RFC5272], containing the certificates described in the
   following paragraph.  The HTTP content-type of
   "application/pkcs7-mime" is used.  The CMC Simple PKI Response is
   encoded in base64 [RFC4648].

3.2.2.  Section 4.3.1

   Replace:

    If the HTTP POST to /fullcmc is not a valid Full PKI Request, the
    server MUST reject the message.  The HTTP content-type used is
    "application/pkcs7-mime" with an smime-type parameter "CMC-request",
    as specified in [RFC5273].  The body of the message is the binary
    value of the encoding of the PKI Request with a
    Content-Transfer-Encoding of "base64" [RFC2045].

   with:

    If the HTTP POST to /fullcmc is not a valid Full PKI Request, the
    server MUST reject the message.  The HTTP content-type used is
    "application/pkcs7-mime" with an smime-type parameter "CMC-request",
    as specified in [RFC5273].  The body of the message is encoded
    in base64 [RFC4648].




Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


3.2.3.  Section 4.3.2

   Replace:

    The body of the message is the binary value of the encoding of the
    PKI Response with a Content-Transfer-Encoding of "base64" [RFC2045].

   with:

      The body of the message is the base64 [RFC4648] encoding of the
      PKI Response.

3.2.4.  Section 4.4.2

   Replace:

      An "application/pkcs8"
      part consists of the base64-encoded DER-encoded [X.690]
      PrivateKeyInfo with a Content-Transfer-Encoding of "base64"
      [RFC4648].

   with:

      An "application/pkcs8" part consists of the base64-encoded
      DER-encoded [X.690] PrivateKeyInfo.

   Replace:

    In all three additional encryption cases, the EnvelopedData is
    returned in the response as an "application/pkcs7-mime" part with an
    smime-type parameter of "server-generated-key" and a Content-
    Transfer-Encoding of "base64".

   with:

      In all three additional encryption cases, the EnvelopedData is
      returned in the response as an "application/pkcs7-mime" part
      with an smime-type parameter of "server-generated-key". It is
      base64 encoded [RFC4648].

3.2.5.  Section 4.5.2

   This section is updated in its entirety in Section 4.








Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


4.  Clarification of ASN.1 for Certificate Attribute set.

   Section 4.5.2 of [RFC7030] is to be replaced with the following text:

   4.5.2 CSR Attributes Response

   If locally configured policy for an authenticated EST client
   indicates a CSR Attributes Response is to be provided, the server
   response MUST include an HTTP 200 response code.  An HTTP response
   code of 204 or 404 indicates that a CSR Attributes Response is not
   available.  Regardless of the response code, the EST server and CA
   MAY reject any subsequent enrollment requests for any reason, e.g.,
   incomplete CSR attributes in the request.

   Responses to attribute request messages MUST be encoded as the
   content-type of "application/csrattrs", and are to be "base64"
   [RFC2045] encoded.  The syntax for application/csrattrs body is as
   follows:

   CsrAttrs ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (0..MAX) OF AttrOrOID

   AttrOrOID ::= CHOICE {
     oid        OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
     attribute  Attribute {{AttrSet}} }

   AttrSet ATTRIBUTE ::= { ... }

   An EST server includes zero or more OIDs or attributes [RFC2986] that
   it requests the client to use in the certification request.  The
   client MUST ignore any OID or attribute it does not recognize.  When
   the server encodes CSR Attributes as an empty SEQUENCE, it means that
   the server has no specific additional information it desires in a
   client certification request (this is functionally equivalent to an
   HTTP response code of 204 or 404).

   If the CA requires a particular cryptographic algorithm or use of a
   particular signature scheme (e.g., certification of a public key
   based on a certain elliptic curve, or signing using a certain hash
   algorithm) it MUST provide that information in the CSR Attribute
   Response.  If an EST server requires the linking of identity and POP
   information (see Section 3.5), it MUST include the challengePassword
   OID in the CSR Attributes Response.

   The structure of the CSR Attributes Response SHOULD, to the greatest
   extent possible, reflect the structure of the CSR it is requesting.
   Requests to use a particular signature scheme (e.g. using a
   particular hash function) are represented as an OID to be reflected
   in the SignatureAlgorithm of the CSR.  Requests to use a particular



Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


   cryptographic algorithm (e.g., certification of a public key based on
   a certain elliptic curve) are represented as an attribute, to be
   reflected as the AlgorithmIdentifier of the SubjectPublicKeyInfo,
   with a type indicating the algorithm and the values indicating the
   particular parameters specific to the algorithm.  Requests for
   descriptive information from the client are made by an attribute, to
   be represented as Attributes of the CSR, with a type indicating the
   [RFC2985] extensionRequest and the values indicating the particular
   attributes desired to be included in the resulting certificate's
   extensions.

   The sequence is Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) encoded [X.690]
   and then base64 encoded (Section 4 of [RFC4648]).  The resulting text
   forms the application/csrattr body, without headers.

   For example, if a CA requests a client to submit a certification
   request containing the challengePassword (indicating that linking of
   identity and POP information is requested; see Section 3.5), an
   extensionRequest with the Media Access Control (MAC) address
   ([RFC2307]) of the client, and to use the secp384r1 elliptic curve
   and to sign with the SHA384 hash function.  Then, it takes the
   following:

         OID:        challengePassword (1.2.840.113549.1.9.7)

         Attribute:  type = extensionRequest (1.2.840.113549.1.9.14)
                     value = macAddress (1.3.6.1.1.1.1.22)

         Attribute:  type = id-ecPublicKey (1.2.840.10045.2.1)
                     value = secp384r1 (1.3.132.0.34)

         OID:        ecdsaWithSHA384 (1.2.840.10045.4.3.3)

   and encodes them into an ASN.1 SEQUENCE to produce:

       30 41 06 09 2a 86 48 86 f7 0d 01 09 07 30 12 06 07 2a 86 48 ce 3d
       02 01 31 07 06 05 2b 81 04 00 22 30 16 06 09 2a 86 48 86 f7 0d 01
       09 0e 31 09 06 07 2b 06 01 01 01 01 16 06 08 2a 86 48 ce 3d 04 03
       03

   and then base64 encodes the resulting ASN.1 SEQUENCE to produce:

       MEEGCSqGSIb3DQEJBzASBgcqhkjOPQIBMQcGBSuBBAAiMBYGCSqGSIb3DQEJDjEJ
       BgcrBgEBAQEWBggqhkjOPQQDAw==







Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


5.  Clarification of error messages for certificate enrollment
    operations

   [errata5108] clarifies what format the error messages are to be in.
   Previously a client might be confused into believing that an error
   returned with type text/plain was not intended to be an error.

5.1.  Updating section 4.2.3: Simple Enroll and Re-enroll Response

   Replace:

       If the content-type is not set, the response data MUST be a
       plaintext human-readable error message containing explanatory
       information describing why the request was rejected (for
       example, indicating that CSR attributes are incomplete).

   with:

       If the content-type is not set, the response data MUST be a
       plaintext human-readable error message containing explanatory
       information describing why the request was rejected (for
       example, indicating that CSR attributes are incomplete).
       Servers MAY use the "text/plain" content-type [RFC2046]
       for human-readable errors.

5.2.  Updating section 4.4.2: Server-Side Key Generation Response

   Replace:

       If the content-type is not set, the response data MUST be a
       plaintext human-readable error message.

   with:

       If the content-type is not set, the response data must be a
       plaintext human-readable error message.
       Servers MAY use the "text/plain" content-type [RFC2046]
       for human-readable errors.

6.  Privacy Considerations

   This document does not disclose any additional identifies to either
   active or passive observer would see with [RFC7030].








Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


7.  Security Considerations

   This document clarifies an existing security mechanism.  It does not
   create any new protocol mechanism.

8.  IANA Considerations

   The ASN.1 module in Appendix A of this document makes use of object
   identifiers (OIDs).  This document requests that IANA register an OID
   in the SMI Security for PKIX Arc in the Module identifiers subarc
   (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0) for the ASN.1 module.  The OID for the Asymmetric
   Decryption Key Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2.54) was previously
   defined in [RFC7030].

   IANA is requested to update the "Reference" column for the Asymmetric
   Decryption Key Identifier attribute to also include a reference to
   this document.

9.  Acknowledgements

   This work was supported by Huawei Technologies.

   The ASN.1 Module was assembled by Russ Housley and formatted by Sean
   Turner.  Russ Housley provided editorial review.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [errata4384]
              "EST errata 4384: ASN.1 encoding error", n.d.,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4384>.

   [errata5107]
              "EST errata 5107: use Content-Transfer-Encoding", n.d.,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5107>.

   [errata5108]
              "EST errata 5108: use of Content-Type for error message",
              n.d., <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5108>.

   [errata5904]
              "EST errata 5904: use Content-Transfer-Encoding", n.d.,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5904>.







Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


   [IEC62351]
              International Electrotechnical Commission, "Power systems
              management and associated information exchange - Data and
              communications security - Part 9: Cyber security key
              management for power system equipment", ISO/
              IEC 62351-9:2017, 2017.

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2986]  Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #10: Certification
              Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7", RFC 2986,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2986, November 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2986>.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.

   [RFC5212]  Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux,
              M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
              Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5212, July 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5212>.

   [RFC6268]  Schaad, J. and S. Turner, "Additional New ASN.1 Modules
              for the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and the Public
              Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)", RFC 6268,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6268, July 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6268>.

   [RFC7030]  Pritikin, M., Ed., Yee, P., Ed., and D. Harkins, Ed.,
              "Enrollment over Secure Transport", RFC 7030,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7030, October 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7030>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.





Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


   [RFC8179]  Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
              Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.

   [X.680]    ITU-T, "Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation
              One.", ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002, 2002.

   [X.681]    ITU-T, "Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation
              One: Information Object Specification.", ISO/
              IEC 8824-2:2002, 2002.

   [X.682]    ITU-T, "Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation
              One: Constraint Specification.", ISO/IEC 8824-2:2002,
              2002.

   [X.683]    ITU-T, "Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation
              One: Parameterization of ASN.1 Specifications.", ISO/
              IEC 8824-2:2002, 2002.

   [X.690]    ITU-T, "Information technology - ASN.1 encoding Rules:
              Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
              Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
              (DER).", ISO/IEC 8825-1:2002, 2002.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
              Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Eckert, T., Behringer, M.,
              and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
              Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-
              keyinfra-41 (work in progress), April 2020.

   [RFC2307]  Howard, L., "An Approach for Using LDAP as a Network
              Information Service", RFC 2307, DOI 10.17487/RFC2307,
              March 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2307>.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>.

   [RFC2985]  Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #9: Selected Object
              Classes and Attribute Types Version 2.0", RFC 2985,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2985, November 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2985>.




Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

Appendix A.  ASN.1 Module

   This annex provides the normative 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].

   The ASN.1 modules makes imports from the ASN.1 modules in [RFC5212]
   and [RFC6268].

   There is no ASN.1 Module in RFC 7030.  This module has been created
   by combining the lines that are contained in the document body.






























Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


  PKIXEST-2019
       { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
         internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
         id-mod-est-2019(TBD) }

  DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
  BEGIN

  -- EXPORTS ALL --

  IMPORTS

  Attribute
  FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax-2010  -- [RFC6268]
        { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
          pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0)
           id-mod-cms-2009(58) }

  ATTRIBUTE
  FROM PKIX-CommonTypes-2009 -- [RFC5912]
      { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
        mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkixCommon-02(57) } ;


  -- CSR Attributes

  CsrAttrs ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (0..MAX) OF AttrOrOID

  AttrOrOID ::= CHOICE {
     oid        OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
     attribute  Attribute {{AttrSet}} }

  AttrSet ATTRIBUTE ::= { ... }


  -- Asymmetric Decrypt Key Identifier Attribute

  aa-asymmDecryptKeyID ATTRIBUTE ::=
      { TYPE AsymmetricDecryptKeyIdentifier
        IDENTIFIED BY id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID }

  id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
      us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) aa(2) 54 }

  AsymmetricDecryptKeyIdentifier ::= OCTET STRING

  END




Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 rfc7030est                      June 2020


Authors' Addresses

   Michael Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works

   Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca


   Thomas Werner
   Siemens

   Email: thomas-werner@siemens.com


   Wei Pan
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: william.panwei@huawei.com

































Richardson, et al.      Expires December 16, 2020              [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/