Internet-Draft C509 Revocation May 2025
Preuß Mattsson, et al. Expires 24 November 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-cose-cbor-revocation-management-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
J. Preuß Mattsson
Ericsson AB
G. Selander
Ericsson AB
S. Raza
RISE AB
J. Höglund
RISE AB
M. Furuhed
Nexus Group

CBOR Encoded Certificate Revocation Management

Abstract

This document specifies CBOR encodings of messages for certificate revocation lists, and

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cose-cbor-revocation-management/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption Working Group mailing list (mailto:cose@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cose/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/cose-wg/CBOR-certificates.

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 24 November 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

One of the challenges with deploying a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for the Internet of Things (IoT) is the management of X.509 public key certificates [RFC5280], since that is not optimized for constrained environments with restricted hardware definitions and data transport capabilities, see [RFC7228].

A more compact representation of X.509 certificates has been specified through the use of the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, [RFC8949]). This CBOR encoding of X.509 certificates, referred to as C509 [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert], also enables reduced code complexity, code size, memory and CPU usage, while allowing compatibility with ordinary ASN.1 DER-encoded X.509 for use with legacy deployments. A "native" C509 encoding is specified, identical to the backwards compatible format except for the scope of the signature, suitable for very constrained greenfield deployments.

The current specification adds to this work by specifying corresponding revokation related encoding and strucure.

2. Notational Conventions

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.

This specification makes use of the terminology in [RFC5280], and [RFC6960]. When referring to CBOR, this specification always refers to Deterministically Encoded CBOR as specified in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of [RFC8949].

3. C509 Certificate Revocation List

The section defines the C509 Certificate Revocation List (CRL) format based on and compatible with [RFC5280] reusing the formatting for C509 certificates defined in [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert].

C509CertificateRevocationList = [
   TBSCertificateRevocationList,
   issuerSignatureValue : any,
]

; The elements of the following group are used in a CBOR Sequence:
TBSCertificateRevocationList = (
   C509CertificateRevocationListType: int,
   issuer: Name,
   thisUpdate: Time,
   nextUpdate: Time,
   revokedCertificates: RevokedCertificates,
   crlExtensions: Extensions,
   issuerSignatureAlgorithm: AlgorithmIdentifier,
)

RevokedCertificates = [
    userCertificate: CertificateSerialNumber,
    revocationDate: Time,
    crlEntryExtensions: Extensions,
]
Figure 1: CDDL for C509CertificateRevocationList.

4. C509 Online Certificate Status Protocol

4.1. C509 OCSP request

To encode OCSP requests, the CDDL below gives the cbor encoding corresponding to the ASN.1 encoding defined in RFC 6960 [RFC6960].

 C509OCSPRequest    =     [
       TBSRequest,
       optionalSignature : *any,
 ]

   TBSRequest   =     [
       version : uint .default 1,
       requestorName : *GeneralName,
       requestList : [+Request],
       requestExtensions : *[+extension]
   ]

   Request    =    [
       reqCert : CertID,
       singleRequestExtensions : *[+extension]
   ]

   CertID          =     [
       hashAlgorithm : AlgorithmIdentifier,
       issuerNameHash : bytes, -- Hash of issuer's DN
       issuerKeyHash : bytes, -- Hash of issuer's public key
       serialNumber : CertificateSerialNumber
   ]

   extension = TBD

   IMPORTS
        GeneralName, AlgorithmIdentifier, CertificateSerialNumber
   FROM
        Main C509 document
Figure 2: CDDL for C509OCSPRequest.

4.2. C509 OCSP response

Concerning OCSP responses we address the id-pkix-ocsp-basic response type as defined in defined in RFC 6960 [RFC6960].

   C509OCSPResponse = [
      responseStatus : C509OCSPResponseStatus,
      responseBytes : *BasicOCSPResponse
  ]

   OCSPResponseStatus = 0..6 ; inclusive range
        ; semantics of integer values as in rfc6960, 4.2.1.  ASN.1 Specification of the OCSP Response

   BasicOCSPResponse    =  [
      tbsResponseData : ResponseData,
      signatureAlgorithm : AlgorithmIdentifier,
      signature : any,
      certs : *[C509Certificate]
   ]

   ResponseData = [
      version : uint .default 1,
      responderID : ResponderID,
      producedAt : Time,
      responses : [+SingleResponse],
      responseExtensions : *[+extension]

   ResponderID = Name / KeyHash

   Name = TBD

   KeyHash = bytes -- SHA-1 hash of responder's public key (excluding the tag and length fields)
        ; OBSOLETE, but needed if we want to fully recreate RFC6960 style messages

   SingleResponse = [
      certID : CertID,
      certStatus : CertStatus,
      thisUpdate : Time,
      nextUpdate : *Time,
      singleExtensions : *[+extension]
   ]

   CertStatus = {1: NULL} / {2: RevokedInfo} / {3: NULL}
        ; good / revoked / unknown, semantics from RFC6960

   RevokedInfo = (
       revocationTime : Time,
       revocationReason : *CRLReason
   )

   CRLReason = 0..10 ; inclusive range
        ; semantics of integer values from RFC6960, 5.3.1.
Figure 3: CDDL for C509OCSPResponse.

5. Example C509 CRL Message

TODO

6. Example C509 OCSP Message

TODO

Acknowledgments

TODO

Normative References

[I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert]
Mattsson, J. P., Selander, G., Raza, S., Höglund, J., and M. Furuhed, "CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-13, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-13>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5280]
Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC6960]
Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 6960, DOI 10.17487/RFC6960, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6960>.
[RFC7228]
Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8949]
Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.

Authors' Addresses

John Preuß Mattsson
Ericsson AB
Göran Selander
Ericsson AB
Shahid Raza
RISE AB
Joel Höglund
RISE AB
Martin Furuhed
Nexus Group