PKIX WG Sean Turner, IECA
Internet Draft Daniel Brown, Certicom
Intended Status: Standard Track Kelvin Yiu, Microsoft
Updates: 4055 (once approved) Russ Housley, Vigil Security
Expires: November 1, 2008 Tim Polk, NIST
May 1, 2008
Update for RSAES-OAEP Algorithm Parameters
draft-ietf-pkix-rfc4055-update-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 1, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This document updates RFC 4055. It updates the conventions for using
the RSA Encryption Scheme - Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding
(RSAES-OAEP) key transport algorithm with the Public-Key Cryptography
Standards (PKCS) #1 version 1.5 signature algorithm in the Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). Specifically, it updates the
conventions for algorithm parameters in an X.509 certificate's
subjectPublicKeyInfo field.
Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 4055 Update April 2008
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Discussion
This draft is being discussed on the 'ietf-pkix' mailing list. To
subscribe, send a message to ietf-pkix-request@imc.org with the
single word subscribe in the body of the message. There is a Web site
for the mailing list at <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/>.
1. Introduction
RFC 4055 specifies conventions for using the RSA Encryption Scheme -
Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding (RSAES-OAEP) key transport
algorithm with the Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1
version 1.5 signature algorithm in the Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure (PKI). It provides algorithm identifiers and
parameters for RSAES-OAEP.
This document updates the conventions for RSAES-OAEP parameters in
the subjectPublicKeyInfo field of an X.509 certificate. The PKIX WG
Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) design team recommended that Key
Derivation Functions (KDFs) should not be constrained within a
certificate; rather, KDF constraints should be negotiated in
protocols that need to employ certificates.
Only two paragraphs in [RFC4055] discuss RSAES-OAEP parameters in
X.509 certificates: the second paragraph of section 4 and the first
paragraph of section 4.1. This document only updates these two
paragraphs. Section 3 updates the second paragraph in section 4
while section 3 updates the second paragraph in section 4.1. "Old:"
prefaces the text to be replaced and "New:" prefaces the replacement
text.
This document also replaces incorrect references to the
publicKeyAlgorithms field in Section 3 with references to the
parameters field in the subjectPublicKeyInfo algorithm field. No
other changes are made to the RSASSA-PSS sections.
Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 4055 Update April 2008
2. Changes to Section 3 2nd Paragraph
Old:
CAs that issue certificates with the id-RSASSA-PSS algorithm
identifier SHOULD require the presence of parameters in the
publicKeyAlgorithms field if the cA boolean flag is set in the basic
constraints certificate extension. CAs MAY require that the
parameters be present in the publicKeyAlgorithms field for end-entity
certificates.
New:
CAs that issue certificates with the id-RSASSA-PSS algorithm
identifier SHOULD require the presence of parameters in the
subjectPublicKeyInfo algorithm field if the cA boolean flag is set in
the basic constraints certificate extension. CAs MAY require that
the parameters be present in the subjectPublicKeyInfo algorithm field
for end-entity certificates.
3. Changes to Section 4 2nd Paragraph
Old:
CAs that issue certificates with the id-RSAES-OAEP algorithm
identifier SHOULD require the presence of parameters in the
publicKeyAlgorithms field for all certificates. Entities that use a
certificate with a publicKeyAlgorithm value of id-RSA-OAEP where the
parameters are absent SHOULD use the default set of parameters for
RSAES-OAEP-params. Entities that use a certificate with a
publicKeyAlgorithm value of rsaEncryption SHOULD use the default set
of parameters for RSAES-OAEP-params.
New:
CAs that issue certificates with the id-RSAES-OAEP algorithm
identifier MUST NOT include parameters in the subjectPublicKeyInfo
algorithm field.
4. Changes to Section 4.1 1st Paragraph
Old:
When id-RSAES-OAEP is used in an AlgorithmIdentifier, the parameters
MUST employ the RSAES-OAEP-params syntax. The parameters may be
either absent or present when used as subject public key information.
Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 4055 Update April 2008
The parameters MUST be present when used in the algorithm identifier
associated with an encrypted value.
New:
When id-RSAES-OAEP is used in an AlgorithmIdentifier, the parameters
MUST employ the RSAES-OAEP-params syntax. The parameters MUST be
absent when used in the subjectPublicKeyInfo field. The parameters
MUST be present when used in the algorithm identifier associated with
an encrypted value.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations from [RFC4055] apply. No new security
considerations are introduced.
6. IANA Considerations
None
{{Please remove this section prior to publication as an RFC.}}
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC4055] Schaad, J., Kaliski, B., and R. Housley, "Additional
Algorithms and Identifiers for RSA Cryptography for
use in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL)
Profile", RFC 4055, June 2005.
7.2. Informative References
None
Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 4055 Update April 2008
Author's Addresses
Sean Turner
IECA, Inc.
3057 Nutley Street, Suite 106
Fairfax, VA 22031
USA
EMail: turners@ieca.com
Kelvin Yiu
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
USA
Email: kelviny@microsoft.com
Daniel R. L. Brown
Certicom Corp
5520 Explorer Drive #400
Mississauga, ON L4W 5L1
CANADA
EMail: dbrown@certicom.com
Russ Housley
Vigil Security, LLC
918 Spring Knoll Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
USA
EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
Tim Polk
NIST
Building 820, Room 426
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
USA
EMail: wpolk@nist.gov
Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC 4055 Update April 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Turner, et al Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 6]