LAMPS Working Group M. Richardson, Ed. Internet-Draft Sandelman Software Works Intended status: Standards Track O. Friel Expires: 17 December 2023 Cisco D. von Oheimb Siemens D. Harkins The Industrial Lounge 15 June 2023 Clarification of RFC7030 CSR Attributes definition draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-03 Abstract The Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST, RFC7030) is ambiguous in its specification of the CSR Attributes Response. This has resulted in implementation challenges and implementor confusion. This document updates RFC7030 (EST) and clarifies how the CSR Attributes Response can be used by an EST server to specify both CSR attribute OIDs and also CSR attribute values, in particular X.509 extension values, that the server expects the client to include in subsequent CSR request. 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 17 December 2023. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 1] Internet-Draft CSRAttrs June 2023 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 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. CSR Attributes Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Extensions to RFC 7030 section 2.6. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Extensions to RFC 7030 section 4.5.2. . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Co-existence with existing implementations . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. RFC8994/ACP subjectAltName with specific otherName . . . 5 5.1.1. Base64 encoded example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1.2. ASN.1 DUMP output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. RFC7030 original example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2.1. Base64 encoded example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2.2. ASN.1 DUMP output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. EST server requires a specific subjectAltName extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3.1. Base64 encoded example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3.2. ASN.1 DUMP output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Identity and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Raw DER for examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A.1. Raw RFC8994/ACP subjectAltName with specific otherName . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Introduction Enrollment over Secure Transport [RFC7030] (EST) has been used in a wide variety of applications. In particular, [RFC8994] and [RFC8995] describe a way to use it in order to build out an autonomic control plane (ACP) [RFC8368]. Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 2] Internet-Draft CSRAttrs June 2023 The ACP requires that each node be given a very specific subjectAltName. In the ACP specification, the solution was for the EST server to use section 2.6 of [RFC7030] to convey to the EST client the actual subjectAltName that will end up in its certificate. As a result of some implementation challenges, it came to light that this particular way of using the CSR attributes was not universally agreed upon, and it was suggested that it went contrary to section 2.6. Section 2.6 says that the CSR attributes "can provide additional descriptive information that the EST server cannot access itself". This is extended to mention also values that the EST server demands to use. After significant discussion, it has been determined that Section 4.5 of [RFC7030] specification is sufficiently difficult to read and ambiguous to interpret that clarification is needed. This document motivates the different use cases, and provides additional worked out examples. Also, section 4.5.2 is extended to clarify the use of the existing ASN.1 syntax. This covers all uses and is fully backward compatible with the existing use. 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. CSR Attributes Handling 3.1. Extensions to RFC 7030 section 2.6. Replace the second paragraph with the following text: These attributes can provide additional descriptive information that the EST server cannot access itself, such as the Media Access Control (MAC) address of an interface of the EST client. The EST server can also provide concrete values that it tells the client to include in the CSR, such as a specific X.509 Subject Alternative Name extension. Moreover, these attributes can indicate the kind of enrollment request, such as a specific elliptic curve or a specific hash function that the client is expected to use when generating the CSR. Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 3] Internet-Draft CSRAttrs June 2023 3.2. Extensions to RFC 7030 section 4.5.2. The ASN.1 for CSR Attributes as defined in EST section 4.5.2 is as follows: CsrAttrs ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (0..MAX) OF AttrOrOID AttrOrOID ::= CHOICE (oid OBJECT IDENTIFIER, attribute Attribute } Attribute { ATTRIBUTE:IOSet } ::= SEQUENCE { type ATTRIBUTE.&id({IOSet}), values SET SIZE(1..MAX) OF ATTRIBUTE.&Type({IOSet}{@type}) } This remains unchanged, such that bits-on-the-wire compatibility is maintained. Key parts that were unclear were which OID to use in the 'type' field and that the 'values' field can contain an entire sequence of X.509 extensions. The OID to use for such attributes in the 'type' field MUST be extensionRequest, which has the numerical value 1.2.840.113549.1.9.14. There MUST be only one such The 'values' field of this attribute MUST contain a set with exactly one element, and this element MUST by of type Extensions, as per Section 4.1 of [RFC5280]: Extensions ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF Extension Extension ::= SEQUENCE { extnID OBJECT IDENTIFIER, critical BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE, extnValue OCTET STRING -- contains the DER encoding of an ASN.1 value -- corresponding to the extension type identified -- by extnID } In each such Extensions sequence, an extnID OID MUST appear at most once. An Extension comprises of the OID of the specific X.509 extension (extnID), optionally the 'critical' bit, and the extension value (extnValue). With this understanding, the needs of [RFC8994] and [RFC8995] are satisfied with no change to the bits on the wire. Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 4] Internet-Draft CSRAttrs June 2023 4. Co-existence with existing implementations 5. Examples Each example has a high-level (english) explanation of what is expected. Some mapping back to the Attribute and Extension definitions above are included. The base64 encode DER is then shown. The output of "dumpasn1" is then provided to detail what the contents are. 5.1. RFC8994/ACP subjectAltName with specific otherName A single subjectAltName extension is specified in a single Extension attribute. This is what might be created by an [RFC8995] Registrar that is asking for [RFC8994] AcpNodeName format otherNames. 5.1.1. Base64 encoded example MGQwYgYJKoZIhvcNAQkOMVUwUwYDVR0RAQH/BEmgRzBFBggr BgEFBQcICgw5cmZjODk5NCtmZDczOWZjMjNjMzQ0MDExMjIz MzQ0NTUwMDAwMDAwMCtAYWNwLmV4YW1wbGUuY29t 5.1.2. ASN.1 DUMP output There is a single subjectAltName Extension with an Attribute with Extension type. Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 5] Internet-Draft CSRAttrs June 2023 <30 64> 0 100: SEQUENCE { <30 62> 2 98: SEQUENCE { <06 09> 4 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER extensionRequest (1 2 840 113549 1 9 14) : (PKCS #9 via CRMF) <31 55> 15 85: SET { <30 53> 17 83: SEQUENCE { <06 03> 19 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER subjectAltName (2 5 29 17) : (X.509 extension) <01 01> 24 1: BOOLEAN TRUE <04 49> 27 73: OCTET STRING : A0 47 30 45 06 08 2B 06 .G0E..+. : 01 05 05 07 08 0A 0C 39 .......9 : 72 66 63 38 39 39 34 2B rfc8994+ : 66 64 37 33 39 66 63 32 fd739fc2 : 33 63 33 34 34 30 31 31 3c344011 : 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 22334455 : 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 00000000 : 2B 40 61 63 70 2E 65 78 +@acp.ex : 61 6D 70 6C 65 2E 63 6F ample.co : 6D m : } : } : } : } 5.2. RFC7030 original example In this example, taken from [RFC7030], a few different attributes are included. 5.2.1. Base64 encoded example MEEGCSqGSIb3DQEJBzASBgcqhkjOPQIBMQcGBSuBBAAiMBYG CSqGSIb3DQEJDjEJBgcrBgEBAQEWBggqhkjOPQQDAw== 5.2.2. ASN.1 DUMP output Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 6] Internet-Draft CSRAttrs June 2023 1. The challengePassword attribute is included to indicate that the CSR should included this value. 2. An ecPublicKey attribute is provided with the value secp384r1 to indicate what kind of key should be submitted. 3. An extensionRequest container with an OID 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.22 (macAddress), but without a value, to indicate that the CSR should include an extensionRequest with this value. 4. The ecdsaWithSHA384 OID is included to indicate what kind of hash is expected to be used with the ecPublicKey provided. <30 41> 0 65: SEQUENCE { <06 09> 2 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER challengePassword (1 2 840 113549 1 9 7) : (PKCS #9) <30 12> 13 18: SEQUENCE { <06 07> 15 7: OBJECT IDENTIFIER ecPublicKey (1 2 840 10045 2 1) : (ANSI X9.62 public key type) <31 07> 24 7: SET { <06 05> 26 5: OBJECT IDENTIFIER secp384r1 (1 3 132 0 34) : (SECG (Certicom) named elliptic curve) : } : } <30 16> 33 22: SEQUENCE { <06 09> 35 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER extensionRequest (1 2 840 113549 1 9 14) : (PKCS #9 via CRMF) <31 09> 46 9: SET { <06 07> 48 7: OBJECT IDENTIFIER '1 3 6 1 1 1 1 22' : } : } <06 08> 57 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER ecdsaWithSHA384 (1 2 840 10045 4 3 3) : (ANSI X9.62 ECDSA algorithm with SHA384) : } Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 7] Internet-Draft CSRAttrs June 2023 5.3. EST server requires a specific subjectAltName extension A single subjectAltName extension is specified in a single Extension attribute. 5.3.1. Base64 encoded example MGYGCSqGSIb3DQEJBzASBgcqhkjOPQIBMQcGBSuBBAAiMDsG CSqGSIb3DQEJDjEuMCwGA1UdEQEB/wQioCAwHgYIKwYBBQUH CAoMEnBvdGF0b0BleGFtcGxlLmNvbQYIKoZIzj0EAwM= 5.3.2. ASN.1 DUMP output 1. The challengePassword attribute is included to indicate that the CSR should included this value. 2. An ecPublicKey attribute is provided with the value secp384r1 to indicate what kind of key should be submitted. 3. An extensionRequest container with a subjectAltName value containing the name potato@example.com 4. The ecdsaWithSHA384 OID is included to indicate what kind of hash is expected to be used with the ecPublicKey provided. Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 8] Internet-Draft CSRAttrs June 2023 <30 66> 0 102: SEQUENCE { <06 09> 2 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER challengePassword (1 2 840 113549 1 9 7) : (PKCS #9) <30 12> 13 18: SEQUENCE { <06 07> 15 7: OBJECT IDENTIFIER ecPublicKey (1 2 840 10045 2 1) : (ANSI X9.62 public key type) <31 07> 24 7: SET { <06 05> 26 5: OBJECT IDENTIFIER secp384r1 (1 3 132 0 34) : (SECG (Certicom) named elliptic curve) : } : } <30 3B> 33 59: SEQUENCE { <06 09> 35 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER extensionRequest (1 2 840 113549 1 9 14) : (PKCS #9 via CRMF) <31 2E> 46 46: SET { <30 2C> 48 44: SEQUENCE { <06 03> 50 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER subjectAltName (2 5 29 17) : (X.509 extension) <01 01> 55 1: BOOLEAN TRUE <04 22> 58 34: OCTET STRING : A0 20 30 1E 06 08 2B 06 . 0...+. : 01 05 05 07 08 0A 0C 12 ........ : 70 6F 74 61 74 6F 40 65 potato@e : 78 61 6D 70 6C 65 2E 63 xample.c : 6F 6D om : } : } : } <06 08> 94 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER ecdsaWithSHA384 (1 2 840 10045 4 3 3) : (ANSI X9.62 ECDSA algorithm with SHA384) : } Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 9] Internet-Draft CSRAttrs June 2023 6. Security Considerations The security considerations from EST [RFC7030] section 6 are unchanged. 6.1. Identity and Privacy Considerations An EST server may use this mechanism to instruct the EST client about the identities it should include in the CSR it sends as part of enrollment. The client may only be aware of its IDevID Subject, which includes a manufacturer serial number. The EST server can use this mechanism to tell the client to include a specific fully qualified domain name in the CSR in order to complete domain ownership proofs required by the CA. Additionally, the EST server may deem the manufacturer serial number in an IDevID as personally identifiable information, and may want to specify a new random opaque identifier that the pledge should use in its CSR. This may be desirable if the CA and EST server have different operators. 7. IANA Considerations No requests are made to IANA. 8. Acknowledgements TODO 9. Changelog 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [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, May 2008, . [RFC7030] Pritikin, M., Ed., Yee, P., Ed., and D. Harkins, Ed., "Enrollment over Secure Transport", RFC 7030, DOI 10.17487/RFC7030, October 2013, . Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 10] Internet-Draft CSRAttrs June 2023 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8994] Eckert, T., Ed., Behringer, M., Ed., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)", RFC 8994, DOI 10.17487/RFC8994, May 2021, . [RFC8995] Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Eckert, T., Behringer, M., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI)", RFC 8995, DOI 10.17487/RFC8995, May 2021, . 10.2. Informative References [RFC8368] Eckert, T., Ed. and M. Behringer, "Using an Autonomic Control Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)", RFC 8368, DOI 10.17487/RFC8368, May 2018, . Appendix A. Raw DER for examples This section contains Base64 versions of all examples that were decoded. A.1. Raw RFC8994/ACP subjectAltName with specific otherName example in Section 5.1 MGQwYgYJKoZIhvcNAQkOMVUwUwYDVR0RAQH/BEmgRzBFBggrBgEFBQcICgw5cmZjODk5NCtmZDcz OWZjMjNjMzQ0MDExMjIzMzQ0NTUwMDAwMDAwMCtAYWNwLmV4YW1wbGUuY29t Authors' Addresses Michael Richardson (editor) Sandelman Software Works Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca Owen Friel Cisco Email: ofriel@cisco.com Dr. David von Oheimb Siemens Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 11] Internet-Draft CSRAttrs June 2023 Email: dev@ddvo.net Dan Harkins The Industrial Lounge Email: dharkins@lounge.org Richardson, et al. Expires 17 December 2023 [Page 12]