Constrained Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-11
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (anima WG)
|
|
Authors |
|
Michael Richardson
,
Peter Van der Stok
,
Panos Kampanakis
,
Esko Dijk
|
|
Last updated |
|
2021-06-11
|
|
Replaces |
|
draft-richardson-anima-ace-constrained-voucher
|
|
Stream |
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
html
xml
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
|
Yang Validation |
|
☯
0 errors, 0 warnings.
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-11.txt:
xym 0.5:
Extracting 'ietf-constrained-voucher-request@2021-04-15.yang'
Removed 1 empty lines
Extracting 'ietf-constrained-voucher@2021-04-15.yang'
Removed 0 empty lines
ietf-constrained-voucher@2021-04-15.yang:
pyang 2.4.0: pyang --verbose --ietf -p {libs} {model}:
/bin/sh: pyang: command not found
yanglint SO 1.6.7: yanglint --verbose -p {tmplib} -p {rfclib} -p {draftlib} -p {ianalib} -p {cataloglib} {model} -i:
No validation errors
ietf-constrained-voucher-request@2021-04-15.yang:
pyang 2.4.0: pyang --verbose --ietf -p {libs} {model}:
/bin/sh: pyang: command not found
yanglint SO 1.6.7: yanglint --verbose -p {tmplib} -p {rfclib} -p {draftlib} -p {ianalib} -p {cataloglib} {model} -i:
No validation errors
|
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
Additional Resources |
|
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
WG Document
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
No shepherd assigned
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Yes
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
anima Working Group M. Richardson
Internet-Draft Sandelman Software Works
Intended status: Standards Track P. van der Stok
Expires: 12 December 2021 vanderstok consultancy
P. Kampanakis
Cisco Systems
E. Dijk
IoTconsultancy.nl
10 June 2021
Constrained Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-11
Abstract
This document defines a protocol to securely assign a Pledge to an
owner and to enroll it into the owner's network. The protocol uses
an artifact that is signed by the Pledge's manufacturer. This
artifact is known as a "voucher".
This document builds upon the work in [RFC8366] and [BRSKI], but
defines an encoding of the voucher in CBOR rather than JSON, and
enables the Pledge to perform its transactions using CoAP rather than
HTTPS.
The use of Raw Public Keys instead of X.509 certificates for security
operations is also explained.
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 12 December 2021.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Overview of Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. BRSKI-EST Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Discovery, URIs and Content Formats . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Extensions to BRSKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Extensions to EST-coaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3.1. Pledge Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3.2. Registrar Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. BRSKI-MASA Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Pinning in Voucher Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Registrar Identity Selection and Encoding . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. MASA Pinning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. Pinning of Raw Public Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Voucher Request artifact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.1. Tree Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.2. SID values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1.3. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1.4. Example voucher request artifact . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Voucher artifact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2.1. Tree Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2.2. SID values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2.3. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.2.4. Example voucher artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.3. Signing voucher and voucher-request artifacts with
COSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Raw Public Key Use Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.1. The Registrar Trust Anchor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.2. The Pledge Voucher Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
10.3. The Voucher Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.1. Clock Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.2. Protect Voucher PKI in HSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.3. Test Domain Certificate Validity when Signing . . . . . 28
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12.1. Resource Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12.2. The IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12.3. The YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12.4. The RFC SID range assignment sub-registry . . . . . . . 29
12.5. Media Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12.5.1. application/voucher-cose+cbor . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12.6. CoAP Content-Format Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix A. Library support for BRSKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
A.1. OpensSSL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A.2. mbedTLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A.3. wolfSSL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix B. Constrained BRSKI-EST messages . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.1. enrollstatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.2. voucher_status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix C. COSE examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
C.1. Pledge, Registrar and MASA keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
C.1.1. Pledge private key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
C.1.2. Registrar private key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
C.1.3. MASA private key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
C.2. Pledge, Registrar and MASA certificates . . . . . . . . . 43
C.2.1. Pledge IDevID certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
C.2.2. Registrar Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
C.2.3. MASA Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
C.3. COSE signed voucher request from Pledge to Registrar . . 49
C.4. COSE signed voucher request from Registrar to MASA . . . 51
C.5. COSE signed voucher from MASA to Pledge via Registrar . . 53
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1. Introduction
Secure enrollment of new nodes into constrained networks with
constrained nodes presents unique challenges. There are network
bandwidth and code size issues to contend with. A solution for
autonomous enrollment such as [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
may be too large in terms of code size or bandwidth required.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
Therefore, this document defines a constrained version of the voucher
artifact [RFC8366], along with a constrained version of BRSKI
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] that makes use of the
constrained CoAP-based version of EST, EST-coaps
[I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] rather than EST over HTTPS [RFC7030].
While the [RFC8366] voucher is by default serialized to JSON with a
signature in CMS, this document defines a new voucher serialization
to CBOR ([RFC7049]) with a signature in COSE
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. This COSE-signed CBOR-encoded
voucher can be transported using secured CoAP or HTTP. The CoAP
connection (between Pledge and Registrar) is to be protected by
either OSCORE+EDHOC, or DTLS (CoAPS). The HTTP connection (between
Registrar and MASA) is to be protected using TLS (HTTPS).
This document specifies a constrained voucher-request artifact based
on Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra], and
voucher(-request) transport over CoAP based on Section 3 of
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] and on
[I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est].
The CBOR definitions for the constrained voucher format are defined
using the mechanism described in [I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor] using the
SID mechanism explained in [I-D.ietf-core-sid]. As the tooling to
convert YANG documents into a list of SID keys is still in its
infancy, the table of SID values presented here should be considered
normative rather than the output of the pyang tool.
There is additional work when the voucher is integrated into the key-
exchange, described in [I-D.selander-ace-ake-authz]. This work is
not in scope for this document.
2. Terminology
The following terms are defined in [RFC8366], and are used
identically as in that document: artifact, domain, imprint, Join
Registrar/Coordinator (JRC), Manufacturer Authorized Signing
Authority (MASA), Pledge, Registrar, Trust of First Use (TOFU), and
Voucher.
The following terms from [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] are
used identically as in that document: Domain CA, enrollment, IDevID,
Join Proxy, LDevID, manufacturer, nonced, nonceless, PKIX.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
3. Requirements Language
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.
4. Overview of Protocol
[RFC8366] provides for vouchers that assert proximity, that
authenticate the Registrar and that can offer varying levels of anti-
replay protection.
This document does not make any extensions to the semantic meaning of
vouchers, only the encoding has been changed to optimize for
constrained devices and networks. The two main parts of the BRSKI
protocol are named separately in this document: BRSKI-EST for the
protocol between Pledge and Registrar, and BRSKI-MASA for the
protocol between the Registrar and the MASA.
Time-based vouchers are supported in this definition, but given that
constrained devices are extremely unlikely to have accurate time,
their use will be uncommon. Most Pledges using these constrained
vouchers will be online during enrollment and will use live nonces to
provide anti-replay protection rather than expiry times.
[RFC8366] defines the voucher artifact, while the Voucher Request
artifact was defined in [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra].
This document defines both a constrained voucher and a constrained
voucher-request. They are presented in the order "voucher-request",
followed by a "voucher" response as this is the order that they occur
in the protocol.
The constrained voucher request MUST be signed by the Pledge. It
signs using the private key associated with its IDevID X.509
certificate, or if an IDevID is not available, then the private key
associated with its manufacturer-installed raw public key (RPK).
Section 10 provides additional details on PKIX-less operations.
The constrained voucher MUST be signed by the MASA.
For the constrained voucher request this document defines two
distinct methods for the Pledge to identify the Registrar: using
either the Registrar's X.509 certificate, or using a raw public key
(RPK) of the Registrar.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
For the constrained voucher also these two methods are supported to
indicate (pin) a trusted domain identity: using either a pinned
domain X.509 certificate, or a pinned raw public key (RPK).
The BRSKI architectures mandates that the MASA be aware of the
capabilities of the pledge. This is not a hardship as the pledges
are constructed by a manufacturer who also arranges for the MASA to
be aware of the inventory of devices.
The MASA therefore knows if the pledge supports PKIX operations, PKIX
format certificates, or if the pledge is limited to Raw Public Keys
(RPK). Based upon this, the MASA can select which attributes to use
in the voucher for certain operations, like the pinning of the
Registrar identity. This is described in more detail in
Section 8.2.3, Section 7 and Section 7.3 (for RPK specifically).
5. BRSKI-EST Protocol
This section describes the constrained BRSKI extensions to EST-coaps
[I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] to transport the voucher between Registrar
and Pledge (optionally via a Join Proxy) over CoAP. The extensions
are targeting low-resource networks with small packets.
The constrained BRSKI-EST protocol described in this section is
between the Pledge and the Registrar only.
5.1. Discovery, URIs and Content Formats
Saving header space is important and this is the reason that the EST-
coaps and constrained-BRSKI URIs are shorter than the respective EST
and BRSKI URIs.
The EST-coaps server URIs differ from the EST URIs by replacing the
scheme https by coaps and by specifying shorter resource path names.
Below are some examples; the first two using a discovered short path
name and the last one using the well-known URI of EST which requires
no discovery.
coaps://server.example.com/est/<short-name>
coaps://server.example.com/e/<short-name>
coaps://server.example.com/.well-known/est/<short-name>
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
Similarly the constrained BRSKI server URIs differ from the BRSKI
URIs by replacing the scheme https by coaps and by specifying shorter
resource path names. Below are some examples; the first two using a
discovered short path name and the last one using the well-known URI
prefix which requires no discovery. This is the same "/.well-known/
brski" prefix as defined in [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
Section 5.
coaps://server.example.com/brski/<short-name>
coaps://server.example.com/b/<short-name>
coaps://server.example.com/.well-known/brski/<short-name>
Figure 5 in section 3.2.2 of [RFC7030] enumerates the operations
supported by EST, for which Table 1 in Section 5.1 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] enumerates the corresponding EST-coaps short
path names. Similarly, Table 1 provides the mapping from the
supported BRSKI extension URI paths to the constrained-BRSKI URI
paths.
+=================+============================+
| BRSKI resource | constrained-BRSKI resource |
+=================+============================+
| /requestvoucher | /rv |
+-----------------+----------------------------+
| /voucher_status | /vs |
+-----------------+----------------------------+
| /enrollstatus | /es |
+-----------------+----------------------------+
Table 1: BRSKI URI paths mapping to
constrained BRSKI URI paths
Note that /requestvoucher indicated above occurs between the Pledge
and Registrar (in scope of the BRSKI-EST protocol), but it also
occurs between Registrar and MASA. However, as described in
Section 5, this section and above table addresses only the BRSKI-EST
protocol.
Pledges that wish to discover the available BRSKI bootstrap options/
formats, or reduce the size of the CoAP headers by eliminating the
"/.well-known/brski" path, can do a discovery operation using
[RFC6690] Section 4 by sending a discovery query to the Registrar.
For example, if the Registrar supports a short BRSKI URL (/b) and
supports the voucher format "application/voucher-cose+cbor" (TBD3),
and status reporting in both CBOR and JSON formats:
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
REQ: GET /.well-known/core?rt=brski*
RES: 2.05 Content
Content-Format: 40
Payload:
</b>;rt=brski,
</b/rv>;rt=brski.rv;ct=TBD3,
</b/vs>;rt=brski.vs;ct="50 60",
</b/es>;rt=brski.es;ct="50 60"
The Registrar is under no obligation to provide shorter URLs, and MAY
respond to this query with only the "/.well-known/brski/<short-name>"
end points for the short names as defined in Table 1.
Registrars that have implemented shorter URLs MUST also respond in
equivalent ways to the corresponding "/.well-known/brski/<short-
name>" URLs, and MUST NOT distinguish between them. In particular, a
Pledge MAY use the longer and shorter URLs in combination.
When responding to a discovery request for BRSKI resources, the
server MAY in addition return the full resource paths and the content
types which are supported at those end-points as shown in above
example. This is useful when multiple content types are specified
for a particular resource on the server. The server responds with
only the root path for the BRSKI resource (rt=brski, resource /b in
above example) and no others in case the client queries for only
rt=brski type resources. (So, a query for rt=brski, without the
wildcard character.)
The return of multiple content-types in the "ct" attribute allows the
Pledge to choose the most appropriate one. Note that Content-Format
TBD3 ("application/voucher-cose+cbor") is defined in this document.
The Content-Format 50 ("application/json") MAY be supported and 60
("application/cbor") MUST be supported by the Registrar for the /vs
and /es resources. Content-Format TBD3 MUST be supported by the
Registrar for the /rv resource. If the "ct" attribute is not
indicated for the /rv resource in the link format description, this
implies that at least TBD3 is supported.
The Pledge and MASA need to support one or more formats (at least
TBD3) for the voucher and for the voucher request. The MASA needs to
support all formats that the Pledge, produced by that manufacturer,
supports.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
5.2. Extensions to BRSKI
A Pledge that only supports the BRSKI bootstrap method and already
knows the IP address and port of a Registrar or Join Proxy to use
SHOULD NOT use discovery. In such case it is more efficient to just
try its supported bootstrap method (e.g. /rv) via the well-known
BRSKI resource on the known address and port. This avoids the Pledge
having to unnecessarily implement CoRE Link Format parsing. The
method via which the Pledge learns the address/port of a Registrar or
Join Proxy to use is out of scope of this document.
A Registrar SHOULD host any discoverable BRSKI resources on the same
(UDP) server port that the Pledge's initial DTLS connection is using.
This avoids the overhead of the Pledge having to reconnect using
DTLS, in order to access discovered resource(s).
5.3. Extensions to EST-coaps
A Pledge that already is DTLS-connected to either a Join Proxy or
Registrar, and which only supports the EST-coaps enrollment method,
SHOULD NOT use discovery for EST-coaps resources. This is because it
is more efficient to just try its supported enrollment method (e.g.
/sen) via the well-known EST resource on the current DTLS connection.
This avoids an additional round-trip of packets and avoids the Pledge
having to unnecessarily implement CoRE Link Format parsing.
A Registrar SHOULD host any discoverable EST-coaps resources on the
same (UDP) server port that the Pledge's DTLS initial connection is
using. This avoids the Pledge having to reconnect using DTLS, in
order to proceed with EST enrollment after the BRSKI bootstrap. [TBD
EDNOTE: a Registrar that does host EST resources on another port
won't be able to onboard Pledges that skip the discovery, so not
interoperable. Should we fix this?]
5.3.1. Pledge Extensions
A constrained Pledge SHOULD NOT support the optional EST "CSR
attributes request" (/att) to minimize network traffic and reduce
code size.
When creating the CSR, the Pledge selects which attributes to
include. One or more Subject Distinguished Name fields MUST be
included. If the Pledge has no specific information on what
attributes/fields are desired in the CSR, it MUST use the Subject
Distinguished Name fields from its IDevID unmodified. The Pledge can
receive such information via the voucher (encoded in a vendor-
specific way) or some other, out-of-band means.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
A constrained Pledge MAY use the following optimized EST-coaps
procedure to minimize both network traffic and code size:
1. if the voucher, that validates the current Registrar, contains a
single pinned domain CA certificate, the Pledge provisionally
considers this certificate as the EST trust anchor, in other
words, it provisionally accepts this CA certificate as if it were
the result of "CA certificates request" (/crts) to the Registrar.
2. Using this CA certificate as trust anchor it proceeds with EST
simple enrollment (/sen) to obtain its provisionally trusted
LDevID.
3. If the Pledge validates that the trust anchor CA was used to sign
its LDevID, the Pledge accepts the pinned domain CA certificate
as the legitimate trust anchor CA for the Registrar's domain and
accepts the associated LDevID.
4. If the trust anchor CA was NOT used to sign its LDevID, the
Pledge MUST perform an actual "CA certificates request" (/crts)
to the EST server to obtain the EST CA trust anchor(s) since
these differ from the (temporary) pinned domain CA.
5. When doing this /crts request, the Pledge MAY use a CoAP Accept
Option with value TBD287 ("application/pkix-cert") to limit the
number of returned EST CA trust anchors to only one.
6. If the Pledge cannot obtain the single CA certificate or the
finally validated CA certificate cannot be chained to the LDevID,
then the Pledge MUST abort the enrollment process and report the
error using the enrollment status telemetry (/es).
5.3.2. Registrar Extensions
The Content-Format 50 MAY be supported and 60 MUST be supported by
the Registrar for the /vs and /es resources. Content-Format TBD3
MUST be supported by the Registrar for the /rv resource.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
When a Registrar receives a "CA certificates request" (/crts) request
with a CoAP Accept Option with value TBD287 ("application/pkix-cert")
it SHOULD return only the single CA certificate that is the
envisioned or actual authority for the current, authenticated Pledge
making the request. The only exception case is when the Registrar is
configured to not support a request for a single CA certificate for
operational or security reasons, e.g. because every device enrolled
into the domain needs to use at least multiple CAs. In such
exception case the Registrar returns the CoAP response 4.06 Not
Acceptable to indicate that only the default Content-Format of 281
"application/pkcs7-mime;smime-type=certs-only" which supports
multiple certificates is available.
6. BRSKI-MASA Protocol
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] section 5.4 describes a
connection between the Registrar and the MASA as being a normal TLS
connection using HTTPS. This document does not change that. The
Registrar MAY use the new format "application/voucher-cose+cbor" in
its voucher request to MASA, or the existing BRSKI format
"application/voucher-cms+json" defined by
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]. The MASA MUST support both
formats. The Registrar indicates the voucher format it wants to
receive from MASA using the HTTP Accept header.
At the moment of writing the creation of coaps based MASAs is deemed
unrealistic. The use of CoAP for the BRSKI-MASA connection can be
the subject of another document. Some consideration was made to
specify CoAP support for consistency, but:
* the Registrar is not expected to be so constrained that it cannot
support HTTPS client connections.
* the technology and experience to build Internet-scale HTTPS
responders (which the MASA is) is common, while the experience
doing the same for CoAP is much less common.
* in many Enterprise networks, outgoing UDP connections are often
treated as suspicious, and there seems to be no advantage to using
CoAP in that environment.
* a Registrar is likely to provide onboarding services to both
constrained and non-constrained devices. Such a Registrar would
need to speak HTTPS anyway.
* similarly, a manufacturer is likely to offer both constrained and
non-constrained devices, so there may in practice be no situation
in which the MASA could be CoAP-only. Additionally, as the MASA
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
is intended to be a function that can easily be oursourced to a
third-party service provider, reducing the complexity would also
seem to reduce the cost of that function.
7. Pinning in Voucher Artifacts
The voucher is a statement from the MASA to the Pledge indicating the
owner of the Pledge. This section describes how the owner's identity
is determined and how it is encoded within the voucher.
7.1. Registrar Identity Selection and Encoding
Section 5.5 of [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] describes
BRSKI policies for selection of the owner identity. It indicates
some of the flexibility that is possible for the Registrar. The
recommendation made there is for the Registrar to include only
certificates in the voucher request (CMS) signing structure which
participate in the certificate chain that is to be pinned.
The MASA is expected to evaluate the certificates included by the
Registrar in its voucher request, forming them into a chain with the
Registrar's (signing) identity on one end. Then, it pins a
certificate selected from the chain. For instance, for a domain with
a two-level certification authority (see Figure 1), where the
voucher-request has been signed by "Registrar", its signing structure
includes two additional CA certificates:
.------------------.
| domain CA (1) |
| trust anchor |
'------------------'
|
v
.------------.
| domain (2) |
| Sub-CA |
'------------'
|
|
v
.----------------.
| domain |
| Registrar (3) |
| EE certificate |
'----------------'
Figure 1: Two-Level CA PKI
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
When the Registrar is using a COSE-signed constrained voucher request
towards MASA, instead of a regular CMS-signed voucher request, the
COSE_Sign1 object contains a protected and an unprotected header, and
according to [I-D.ietf-cose-x509], would carry all the certificates
of the chain in an "x5bag" or "x5chain" attribute placed in the
unprotected header.
7.2. MASA Pinning Policy
The MASA, having assembled and verified the chain in the signing
structure of the voucher request, will now need to select a
certificate to pin in the voucher in case there are multiple
available. (For the case that only the Registrar's End-Entity
certificate is included, only this certificate can be selected and
this section does not apply.) The BRSKI policy for pinning by the
MASA as described in Section 5.5.2 of
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] leaves much flexibility to
the manufacturer. The present document adds the following rules to
the MASA pinning policy to reduce the network load:
1. for a voucher containing a nonce, it SHOULD select the most
specific (lowest-level) CA certificate in the chain.
2. for a nonceless voucher, it SHOULD select the least-specific
(highest-level) CA certificate in the chain that is allowed under
the MASA's policy for this specific domain.
The rationale for 1. is that in case of a voucher with nonce, the
voucher is valid only in scope of the present DTLS connection between
Pledge and Registrar anyway, so it would have no benefit to pin a
higher-level CA. By pinning the most specific CA the constrained
Pledge can validate its DTLS connection using less crypto operations.
The rationale for pinning a CA instead of the Registrar's End-Entity
certificate directly is the following benefit on constrained
networks: the pinned certificate in the voucher can in common cases
be re-used as a Domain CA trust anchor during the EST enrollment and
during the operational phase that follows after EST enrollment, as
explained in Section 5.3.1.
The rationale for 2. follows from the flexible BRSKI trust model for,
and purpose of, nonceless vouchers (Sections 5.5.* and 7.4.1 of
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]).
Using the previous example of a domain with a two-level certification
authority, the most specific CA ("Sub-CA") is the identity that is
pinned by MASA in a nonced voucher. A Registrar that wished to have
only the Registrar's End-Entity certificate pinned would omit the
"domain CA" and "Sub-CA" certificates from the voucher-request.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
In case of a nonceless voucher, the MASA would depending on trust
level pin only "Registrar" certificate (low trust in customer), or
the "Sub-CA" certificate (in case of medium trust, implying that any
Registrar of that sub-domain is acceptable), or even the "domain CA"
certificate (in case of high trust in the customer, and possibly a
pre-agreed need of the customer to obtain flexible long-lived
vouchers).
7.3. Pinning of Raw Public Keys
Specifically for constrained use cases, the pinning of the raw public
key (RPK) of the Registrar is also supported in the constrained
voucher, instead of an X.509 certificate. If an RPK is pinned it
MUST be the RPK of the Registrar.
When the Pledge is known by MASA to support RPK but not X.509
certificates, the voucher produced by the MASA pins the RPK of the
Registrar in either the "pinned-domain-pubk" or "pinned-domain-pubk-
sha256" field of a voucher. This is described in more detail in
Section 8.2.3. A Pledge that does not support X.509 certificates
cannot use EST to enroll; it has to use another method for
certificate-less enrollment and the Registrar has to support this
method also. It is possible that the Pledge will not enroll, but
instead only a network join operation will occur, such as described
in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]. How the Pledge discovers this
method and details of the enrollment method are out of scope of this
document.
When the Pledge is known by MASA to support PKIX format certificates,
the "pinned-domain-cert" field present in a voucher typically pins a
domain certificate. That can be either the End-Entity certificate of
the Registrar, or the certificate of a domain CA of the Registrar's
domain as specified in Section 7.2. However, if the Pledge is known
to also support RPK pinning and the MASA intends to pin the
Registrar's identity (not a CA), then MASA SHOULD pin the RPK (RPK3
in Figure 2) of the Registrar instead of the Registrar's End-Entity
certificate to save space in the voucher.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
.---------------.
| domain CA (1) |
'---------------'
|
v
.---------------.
| Sub-CA (2) |
'---------------'
|
v
.-----------------.
| Registrar(3) |
| [RPK3] |
'-----------------'
Figure 2: Raw Public Key pinning
8. Artifacts
This section describes for both the voucher request and the voucher
first the abstract (tree) definition as explained in
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]. This provides a high-level
view of the contents of each artifact.
Then the assigned SID values are presented. These have been assigned
using the rules in [I-D.ietf-core-sid], with an allocation that was
made via the http://comi.space service.
8.1. Voucher Request artifact
8.1.1. Tree Diagram
The following diagram is largely a duplicate of the contents of
[RFC8366], with the addition of the fields proximity-registrar-pubk,
proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256, proximity-registrar-cert, and prior-
signed-voucher-request.
prior-signed-voucher-request is only used between the Registrar and
the MASA. proximity-registrar-pubk or proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256
optionally replaces proximity-registrar-cert for the most constrained
cases where RPK is used by the Pledge.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
module: ietf-constrained-voucher-request
grouping voucher-request-constrained-grouping
+-- voucher
+-- created-on? yang:date-and-time
+-- expires-on? yang:date-and-time
+-- assertion enumeration
+-- serial-number string
+-- idevid-issuer? binary
+-- pinned-domain-cert? binary
+-- domain-cert-revocation-checks? boolean
+-- nonce? binary
+-- last-renewal-date? yang:date-and-time
+-- proximity-registrar-pubk? binary
+-- proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256? binary
+-- proximity-registrar-cert? binary
+-- prior-signed-voucher-request? binary
8.1.2. SID values
SID Assigned to
--------- --------------------------------------------------
2501 data /ietf-constrained-voucher-request:voucher
2502 data .../assertion
2503 data .../created-on
2504 data .../domain-cert-revocation-checks
2505 data .../expires-on
2506 data .../idevid-issuer
2507 data .../last-renewal-date
2508 data /ietf-constrained-voucher-request:voucher/nonce
2509 data .../pinned-domain-cert
2510 data .../prior-signed-voucher-request
2511 data .../proximity-registrar-cert
2513 data .../proximity-registrar-pubk
2512 data .../proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256
2514 data .../serial-number
WARNING, obsolete definitions
8.1.3. YANG Module
In the constrained-voucher-request YANG module, the voucher is
"augmented" within the "used" grouping statement such that one
continuous set of SID values is generated for the constrained-
voucher-request module name, all voucher attributes, and the
constrained-voucher-request attributes. Two attributes of the
voucher are "refined" to be optional.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-constrained-voucher-request@2021-04-15.yang"
module ietf-constrained-voucher-request {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher-request";
prefix "constrained";
import ietf-restconf {
prefix rc;
description
"This import statement is only present to access
the yang-data extension defined in RFC 8040.";
reference "RFC 8040: RESTCONF Protocol";
}
import ietf-voucher {
prefix "v";
}
organization
"IETF ANIMA Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/anima/>
WG List: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
Author: Michael Richardson
<mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Author: Peter van der Stok
<mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org>
Author: Panos Kampanakis
<mailto: pkampana@cisco.com>";
description
"This module defines the format for a voucher request,
which is produced by a pledge to request a voucher.
The voucher-request is sent to the potential owner's
Registrar, which in turn sends the voucher request to
the manufacturer or its delegate (MASA).
A voucher is then returned to the pledge, binding the
pledge to the owner. This is a constrained version of the
voucher-request present in
{{I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrap-keyinfra}}
This version provides a very restricted subset appropriate
for very constrained devices.
In particular, it assumes that nonce-ful operation is
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
always required, that expiration dates are rather weak, as no
clocks can be assumed, and that the Registrar is identified
by either a pinned Raw Public Key of the Registrar, or by a
pinned X.509 certificate of the Registrar or domain CA.
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL',
'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY',
and 'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as
described in RFC 2119.";
revision "2021-04-15" {
description
"Initial version";
reference
"RFC XXXX: Voucher Profile for Constrained Devices";
}
rc:yang-data voucher-request-constrained-artifact {
// YANG data template for a voucher.
uses voucher-request-constrained-grouping;
}
// Grouping defined for future usage
grouping voucher-request-constrained-grouping {
description
"Grouping to allow reuse/extensions in future work.";
uses v:voucher-artifact-grouping {
refine voucher/created-on {
mandatory false;
}
refine voucher/pinned-domain-cert {
mandatory false;
}
augment "voucher" {
description "Base the constrained voucher-request upon the
regular one";
leaf proximity-registrar-pubk {
type binary;
description
"The proximity-registrar-pubk replaces
the proximity-registrar-cert in constrained uses of
the voucher-request.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
The proximity-registrar-pubk is the
Raw Public Key of the Registrar. This field is encoded
as specified in RFC7250, section 3.
The ECDSA algorithm MUST be supported.
The EdDSA algorithm as specified in
draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis-17 SHOULD be supported.
Support for the DSA algorithm is not recommended.
Support for the RSA algorithm is a MAY, but due to
size is discouraged.";
}
leaf proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256 {
type binary;
description
"The proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256
is an alternative to both
proximity-registrar-pubk and pinned-domain-cert.
In many cases the public key of the domain has already
been transmitted during the key agreement protocol,
and it is wasteful to transmit the public key another
two times.
The use of a hash of public key info, at 32-bytes for
sha256 is a significant savings compared to an RSA
public key, but is only a minor savings compared to
a 256-bit ECDSA public-key.
Algorithm agility is provided by extensions to this
specification which may define a new leaf for another
hash type.";
}
leaf proximity-registrar-cert {
type binary;
description
"An X.509 v3 certificate structure as specified by
RFC 5280,
Section 4 encoded using the ASN.1 distinguished encoding
rules (DER), as specified in ITU-T X.690.
The first certificate in the Registrar TLS server
certificate_list sequence (see [RFC5246]) presented by
the Registrar to the Pledge. This field or one of its
alternatives MUST be populated in a
Pledge's voucher request if the proximity assertion is
populated.";
}
leaf prior-signed-voucher-request {
type binary;
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
description
"If it is necessary to change a voucher, or re-sign and
forward a voucher that was previously provided along a
protocol path, then the previously signed voucher
SHOULD be included in this field.
For example, a pledge might sign a proximity voucher,
which an intermediate registrar then re-signs to
make its own proximity assertion. This is a simple
mechanism for a chain of trusted parties to change a
voucher, while maintaining the prior signature
information.
The pledge MUST ignore all prior voucher information
when accepting a voucher for imprinting. Other
parties MAY examine the prior signed voucher
information for the purposes of policy decisions.
For example, this information could be useful to a
MASA to determine that both pledge and registrar
agree on proximity assertions. The MASA SHOULD
remove all prior-signed-voucher-request information when
signing a voucher for imprinting so as to minimize the
final voucher size.";
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
8.1.4. Example voucher request artifact
Below is a CBOR serialization of an example constrained voucher
request from a Pledge to a Registrar, shown in CBOR diagnostic
notation. The enum value of the assertion field is calculated to be
2 by following the algorithm described in section 9.6.4.2 of
[RFC7950]. Four dots ("....") in a CBOR byte string denotes a
sequence of bytes that are not shown for brevity.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
{
2501: {
+2 : "2016-10-07T19:31:42Z", / SID=2503, created-on /
+4 : "2016-10-21T19:31:42Z", / SID=2505, expires-on /
+1 : 2, / SID=2502, assertion "proximity" /
+13: "JADA123456789", / SID=2514, serial-number /
+5 : h'08C2BF36....B3D2B3', / SID=2506, idevid-issuer /
+10: h'30820275....82c35f', / SID=2511, proximity-registrar-cert/
+3 : true, / SID=2504, domain-cert
-revocation-checks/
+6 : "2017-10-07T19:31:42Z" / SID=2507, last-renewal-date /
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
8.2. Voucher artifact
The voucher's primary purpose is to securely assign a Pledge to an
owner. The voucher informs the Pledge which entity it should
consider to be its owner.
8.2.1. Tree Diagram
The following diagram is largely a duplicate of the contents of
[RFC8366], with only the addition of the fields pinned-domain-pubk
and pinned-domain-pubk-sha256.
module: ietf-constrained-voucher
grouping voucher-constrained-grouping
+-- voucher
+-- created-on? yang:date-and-time
+-- expires-on? yang:date-and-time
+-- assertion enumeration
+-- serial-number string
+-- idevid-issuer? binary
+-- pinned-domain-cert? binary
+-- domain-cert-revocation-checks? boolean
+-- nonce? binary
+-- last-renewal-date? yang:date-and-time
+-- pinned-domain-pubk? binary
+-- pinned-domain-pubk-sha256? binary
<CODE ENDS>
8.2.2. SID values
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
SID Assigned to
--------- --------------------------------------------------
2451 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher
2452 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/assertion
2453 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/created-on
2454 data .../domain-cert-revocation-checks
2455 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/expires-on
2456 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/idevid-issuer
2457 data .../last-renewal-date
2458 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/nonce
2459 data .../pinned-domain-cert
2460 data .../pinned-domain-pubk
2461 data .../pinned-domain-pubk-sha256
2462 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/serial-number
WARNING, obsolete definitions
<CODE ENDS>
8.2.3. YANG Module
In the constrained-voucher YANG module, the voucher is "augmented"
within the "used" grouping statement such that one continuous set of
SID values is generated for the constrained-voucher module name, all
voucher attributes, and the constrained-voucher attributes. Two
attributes of the voucher are "refined" to be optional.
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-constrained-voucher@2021-04-15.yang"
module ietf-constrained-voucher {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher";
prefix "constrained";
import ietf-restconf {
prefix rc;
description
"This import statement is only present to access
the yang-data extension defined in RFC 8040.";
reference "RFC 8040: RESTCONF Protocol";
}
import ietf-voucher {
prefix "v";
}
organization
"IETF ANIMA Working Group";
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/anima/>
WG List: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
Author: Michael Richardson
<mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Author: Peter van der Stok
<mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org>
Author: Panos Kampanakis
<mailto: pkampana@cisco.com>";
description
"This module defines the format for a voucher, which
is produced by a pledge's manufacturer or its delegate
(MASA) to securely assign one or more pledges to an 'owner',
so that a pledge may establish a secure connection to the
owner's network infrastructure.
This version provides a very restricted subset appropriate
for very constrained devices.
In particular, it assumes that nonce-ful operation is
always required, that expiration dates are rather weak, as no
clocks can be assumed, and that the Registrar is identified
by either a pinned Raw Public Key of the Registrar, or by a
pinned X.509 certificate of the Registrar or domain CA.
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL',
'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY',
and 'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as
described in RFC 2119.";
revision "2021-04-15" {
description
"Initial version";
reference
"RFC XXXX: Voucher Profile for Constrained Devices";
}
rc:yang-data voucher-constrained-artifact {
// YANG data template for a voucher.
uses voucher-constrained-grouping;
}
// Grouping defined for future usage
grouping voucher-constrained-grouping {
description
"Grouping to allow reuse/extensions in future work.";
uses v:voucher-artifact-grouping {
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
refine voucher/created-on {
mandatory false;
}
refine voucher/pinned-domain-cert {
mandatory false;
}
augment "voucher" {
description "Base the constrained voucher
upon the regular one";
leaf pinned-domain-pubk {
type binary;
description
"The pinned-domain-pubk may replace the
pinned-domain-cert in constrained uses of
the voucher. The pinned-domain-pubk
is the Raw Public Key of the Registrar.
This field is encoded as a Subject Public Key Info block
as specified in RFC7250, in section 3.
The ECDSA algorithm MUST be supported.
The EdDSA algorithm as specified in
draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis-17 SHOULD be supported.
Support for the DSA algorithm is not recommended.
Support for the RSA algorithm is a MAY.";
}
leaf pinned-domain-pubk-sha256 {
type binary;
description
"The pinned-domain-pubk-sha256 is a second
alternative to pinned-domain-cert. In many cases the
public key of the domain has already been transmitted
during the key agreement process, and it is wasteful
to transmit the public key another two times.
The use of a hash of public key info, at 32-bytes for
sha256 is a significant savings compared to an RSA
public key, but is only a minor savings compared to
a 256-bit ECDSA public-key.
Algorithm agility is provided by extensions to this
specification which can define a new leaf for another
hash type.";
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
8.2.4. Example voucher artifacts
Below the CBOR serialization of an example constrained voucher is
shown in CBOR diagnostic notation. The enum value of the assertion
field is calculated to be zero by following the algorithm described
in section 9.6.4.2 of [RFC7950]. Four dots ("....") in a CBOR byte
string denotes a sequence of bytes that are not shown for brevity.
{
2451: {
+2 : "2016-10-07T19:31:42Z", / SID = 2453, created-on /
+4 : "2016-10-21T19:31:42Z", / SID = 2455, expires-on /
+1 : 0, / SID = 2452, assertion "verified" /
+11: "JADA123456789", / SID = 2462, serial-number /
+5 : h'E40393B4....68A3', / SID = 2456, idevid-issuer /
+8 : h'30820275....C35F', / SID = 2459, pinned-domain-cert/
+3 : true, / SID = 2454, domain-cert /
/ -revocation-checks /
+6 : "2017-10-07T19:31:42Z" / SID = 2457, last-renewal-date /
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
8.3. Signing voucher and voucher-request artifacts with COSE
The COSE-Sign1 structure is discussed in section 4.2 of
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. The CBOR object that carries the
body, the signature, and the information about the body and signature
is called the COSE_Sign1 structure. It is used when only one
signature is used on the body. Support for ECDSA with sha256
(secp256k1 and prime256v1 curves) is REQUIRED. Support for EdDSA is
encouraged. [TBD EDNOTE: Expand and add a reference why. ]
An example of the supported COSE-sign1 object structure is shown in
Figure 3.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
COSE_Sign1(
[
h'A101382E', # { "alg": EC256K1 }
{
"kid" : h'7890....1234' # hash256(public key)
},
h'1234....5678', #voucher-request binary content
h'4567....1234', #voucher-request binary public signature
]
)
Figure 3: cose-sign1 example in CBOR diagnostic notation
The [COSE-registry] specifies the integers that replace the strings
and the mnemonics in Figure 3. The value of the key identifier "kid"
parameter is an example value. Usually a hash of the public key is
used to identify the public key. The choice of key identifier method
is vendor-specific. The public key and its hash are derived from the
relevant certificate (Pledge, Registrar or MASA certificate). [TBD
EDNOTE: how can MASA know which kid method the Registrar has used/
supports? Does it matter?]
In Appendix C a binary cose-sign1 object is shown based on the
voucher-request example of Section 8.1.4.
9. Design Considerations
The design considerations for the CBOR encoding of vouchers are much
the same as for JSON vouchers in [RFC8366]. One key difference is
that the names of the leaves in the YANG definition do not affect the
size of the resulting CBOR, as the SID translation process assigns
integers to the names.
Any POST request to the Registrar with resource /vs or /es returns a
2.04 Changed response with empty payload. The client should be aware
that the server may use a piggybacked CoAP response (ACK, 2.04) but
may also respond with a separate CoAP response, i.e. first an (ACK,
0.0) that is an acknowledgement of the request reception followed by
a (CON, 2.04) response in a separate CoAP message.
10. Raw Public Key Use Considerations
This section explains techniques to reduce the number of bytes that
are sent over the wire during the BRSKI bootstrap. The use of a raw
public key (RPK) in the pinning process can significantly reduce the
number of bytes and round trips, but it comes with a few significant
operational limitations.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
10.1. The Registrar Trust Anchor
When the Pledge first connects to the Registrar, the connection to
the Registrar is provisional, as explained in section 5.6.2 of
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]. The Registrar provides its
public key in a TLSServerCertificate, and the Pledge uses that to
validate that integrity of the (D)TLS connection, but it does not
validate the identity of the provided certificate.
As the TLSServerCertificate object is never verified directly by the
pledge, sending it can be considered superfluous. Instead of using a
(TLSServer)Certificate of type X509 (see section 4.4.2 of [RFC8446]),
a RawPublicKey object is used.
A Registrar operating in a mixed environment can determine whether to
send a Certificate or a Raw Public key: this is determined by the
pledge including the server_certificate_type of RawPublicKey. This
is shown in section 5 of [RFC7250].
The Pledge continues to send a client_certificate_type of X509, so
that the Registrar can properly identify the pledge and distill the
MASA URI information from its certificate.
10.2. The Pledge Voucher Request
The Pledge puts the Registrar's public key into the proximity-
registrar-pubk field of the voucher-request. (The proximity-
registrar-pubk-sha256 can also be used if the 32-bytes of a SHA256
hash turns out to be smaller than a typical ECDSA key.)
As the format of the pubk field is identical to the TLS Certificate
RawPublicKey, no manipulation at all is needed to insert this into a
voucher-request.
10.3. The Voucher Response
A returned voucher will have a pinned-domain-subk field with the
identical key as was found in the proximity-registrar-pubk field
above, as well as in the TLS connection. Validation of this key by
the pledge is what takes the DTLS connection out of the provisional
state (see [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] section 5.6.2).
The voucher needs to be validated first. The Pledge needs to have a
public key to validate the signature from the MASA on the voucher.
In certain cases, the MASA's public key counterpart of the (private)
signing key is already installed in the Pledge at manufacturing time.
In other cases, if the MASA signing key is based upon a PKI (see
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
[I-D.richardson-anima-masa-considerations] Section 2.3), then a
certificate chain may need to be included with the voucher in order
for the pledge to validate the signature. In CMS signed artifacts,
the CMS structure has a place for such certificates. In the COSE-
signed Constrained Vouchers described in this document, the x5bag
attribute from [I-D.ietf-cose-x509] is to be used for this.
11. Security Considerations
11.1. Clock Sensitivity
TBD.
11.2. Protect Voucher PKI in HSM
TBD.
11.3. Test Domain Certificate Validity when Signing
TBD.
12. IANA Considerations
12.1. Resource Type Registry
Additions to the sub-registry "Resource Type Link Target Attribute
Values", within the "CoRE parameters" IANA registry are specified
below.
brski needs registration with IANA
brski.rv needs registration with IANA
brski.vs needs registration with IANA
brski.es needs registration with IANA
12.2. The IETF XML Registry
This document registers two URIs in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].
Following the format in [RFC3688], the following registration is
requested:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher
Registrant Contact: The ANIMA WG of the IETF.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher-request
Registrant Contact: The ANIMA WG of the IETF.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
12.3. The YANG Module Names Registry
This document registers two YANG modules in the YANG Module Names
registry [RFC6020]. Following the format defined in [RFC6020], the
the following registration is requested:
name: ietf-constrained-voucher
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher
prefix: vch
reference: RFC XXXX
name: ietf-constrained-voucher-request
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained
-voucher-request
prefix: vch
reference: RFC XXXX
12.4. The RFC SID range assignment sub-registry
------------ ------ --------------------------- ------------
Entry-point | Size | Module name | RFC Number
------------ ------ --------------------------- ------------
2450 50 ietf-constrained-voucher [ThisRFC]
2500 50 ietf-constrained-voucher [ThisRFC}
-request
----------- ------ --------------------------- ------------
Warning: These SID values are defined in [I-D.ietf-core-sid], not as
an Early Allocation.
12.5. Media Types Registry
This section registers the 'application/voucher-cose+cbor' in the
IANA "Media Types" registry. This media type is used to indicate
that the content is a CBOR voucher or voucher request signed with a
COSE_Sign1 structure [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct].
12.5.1. application/voucher-cose+cbor
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
Type name: application
Subtype name: voucher-cose+cbor
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: cose-type
Encoding considerations: COSE_Sign1 CBOR vouchers are COSE objects
signed with one signer.
Security considerations: See Security Considerations, Section
Interoperability considerations: The format is designed to be
broadly interoperable.
Published specification: THIS RFC.
Applications that use this media type: ANIMA, 6tisch, and other
zero-touch imprinting systems
Additional information:
Magic number(s): None
File extension(s): .vch
Macintosh file type code(s): none
Person & email address to contact for further information: IETF
ANIMA WG
Intended usage: LIMITED
Restrictions on usage: NONE
Author: ANIMA WG
Change controller: IETF
Provisional registration? (standards tree only): NO
12.6. CoAP Content-Format Registry
Additions to the sub-registry "CoAP Content-Formats", within the
"CoRE Parameters" registry are needed for two media types. These can
be registered either in the Expert Review range (0-255) or IETF
Review range (256-9999).
Media type mime type Encoding ID References
---------------------------- ----------- --------- ---- ----------
application/voucher-cose+cbor "COSE-Sign1" CBOR TBD3 [This RFC]
13. Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to Jim Schaad for explaining COSE and CMS
choices. Also thanks to Jim Schaad for correcting earlier version of
the COSE Sign1 objects.
Michel Veillette did extensive work on pyang to extend it to support
the SID allocation process, and this document was among its first
uses.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
14. Changelog
-10 Design considerations extended Examples made consistent
-08 Examples for cose_sign1 are completed and improved.
-06 New SID values assigned; regenerated examples
-04 voucher and request-voucher MUST be signed examples for signed
request are added in appendix IANA SID registration is updated SID
values in examples are aligned signed cms examples aligned with new
SIDs
-03
Examples are inverted.
-02
Example of requestvoucher with unsigned appllication/cbor is added
attributes of voucher "refined" to optional
CBOR serialization of vouchers improved
Discovery port numbers are specified
-01
application/json is optional, application/cbor is compulsory
Cms and cose mediatypes are introduced
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]
Vucinic, M., Simon, J., Pister, K., and M. Richardson,
"Constrained Join Protocol (CoJP) for 6TiSCH", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-
security-15, 10 December 2019,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6tisch-
minimal-security-15.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est]
Stok, P. V. D., Kampanakis, P., Richardson, M. C., and S.
Raza, "EST over secure CoAP (EST-coaps)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-18, 6
January 2020, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
ace-coap-est-18.txt>.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
Pritikin, M., Richardson, M. C., Eckert, T., Behringer, M.
H., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
Infrastructure (BRSKI)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-45, 11 November
2020, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-
bootstrapping-keyinfra-45.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-core-sid]
Veillette, M., Pelov, A., and I. Petrov, "YANG Schema Item
iDentifier (YANG SID)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-core-sid-15, 17 January 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-sid-
15.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor]
Veillette, M., Petrov, I., and A. Pelov, "CBOR Encoding of
Data Modeled with YANG", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-15, 25 January 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-yang-
cbor-15.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Structures and Process", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-15, 1 February 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-
rfc8152bis-struct-15.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-cose-x509]
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Header parameters for carrying and referencing X.509
certificates", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-cose-x509-08, 14 December 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-
x509-08.txt>.
[I-D.selander-ace-ake-authz]
Selander, G., Mattsson, J. P., Vucinic, M., Richardson,
M., and A. Schellenbaum, "Lightweight Authorization for
Authenticated Key Exchange.", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-selander-ace-ake-authz-03, 4 May 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-selander-ace-ake-
authz-03.txt>.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
[ieee802-1AR]
IEEE Standard, ., "IEEE 802.1AR Secure Device Identifier",
2009, <http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.1AR-2009.html>.
[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>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7250] Wouters, P., Ed., Tschofenig, H., Ed., Gilmore, J.,
Weiler, S., and T. Kivinen, "Using Raw Public Keys in
Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 7250, DOI 10.17487/RFC7250,
June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7250>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[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>.
[RFC8366] Watsen, K., Richardson, M., Pritikin, M., and T. Eckert,
"A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols",
RFC 8366, DOI 10.17487/RFC8366, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8366>.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
15.2. Informative References
[COSE-registry]
IANA, ., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
registry", 2017,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml>.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]
Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, "YANG Tree Diagrams", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-
diagrams-06, 8 February 2018,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-
tree-diagrams-06.txt>.
[I-D.richardson-anima-masa-considerations]
Richardson, M. and J. Yang, "Operatonal Considerations for
Voucher infrastructure for BRSKI MASA", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-richardson-anima-masa-
considerations-05, 12 March 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-anima-
masa-considerations-05.txt>.
[RFC6690] Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6690>.
[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>.
Appendix A. Library support for BRSKI
For the implementation of BRSKI, the use of a software library to
manipulate certificates and use crypto algorithms is often
beneficial. Two C-based examples are OPENSSL and mbedtls. Others
more targeted to specific platforms or languages exist. It is
important to realize that the library interfaces differ significantly
between libraries.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
Libraries do not support all known crypto algorithms. Before
deciding on a library, it is important to look at their supported
crypto algorithms and the roadmap for future support. Apart from
availability, the library footprint, and the required execution
cycles should be investigated beforehand.
The handling of certificates usually includes the checking of a
certificate chain. In some libraries, chains are constructed and
verified on the basis of a set of certificates, the trust anchor
(usually self signed root CA), and the target certificate. In other
libraries, the chain must be constructed beforehand and obey order
criteria. Verification always includes the checking of the
signatures. Less frequent is the checking the validity of the dates
or checking the existence of a revoked certificate in the chain
against a set of revoked certificates. Checking the chain on the
consistency of the certificate extensions which specify the use of
the certificate usually needs to be programmed explicitly.
A libary can be used to construct a (D)TLS connection. It is useful
to realize that differences beetween (D)TLS implementations will
occur due to the differences in the certicate checks supported by the
library. On top of that, checks between client and server
certificates enforced by (D)TLS are not always helpful for a BRSKI
implementation. For example, the certificates of Pledge and
Registrar are usually not related when the BRSKI protocol is started.
It must be verified that checks on the relation between client and
server certificates do not hamper a succeful DTLS connection
establishment.
A.1. OpensSSL
from openssl's apps/verify.c
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
X509 *x = NULL;
int i = 0, ret = 0;
X509_STORE_CTX *csc;
STACK_OF(X509) *chain = NULL;
int num_untrusted;
x = load_cert(file, "certificate file");
if (x == NULL)
goto end;
csc = X509_STORE_CTX_new();
if (csc == NULL) {
BIO_printf(bio_err, "error %s: X.509 store context"
"allocation failed\n",
(file == NULL) ? "stdin" : file);
goto end;
}
X509_STORE_set_flags(ctx, vflags);
if (!X509_STORE_CTX_init(csc, ctx, x, uchain)) {
X509_STORE_CTX_free(csc);
BIO_printf(bio_err,
"error %s: X.509 store context"
"initialization failed\n",
(file == NULL) ? "stdin" : file);
goto end;
}
if (tchain != NULL)
X509_STORE_CTX_set0_trusted_stack(csc, tchain);
if (crls != NULL)
X509_STORE_CTX_set0_crls(csc, crls);
i = X509_verify_cert(csc);
X509_STORE_CTX_free(csc);
<CODE ENDS>
A.2. mbedTLS
mbedtls_x509_crt cert;
mbedtls_x509_crt caCert;
uint32_t certVerifyResultFlags;
...
int result = mbedtls_x509_crt_verify(&cert, &caCert, NULL, NULL,
&certVerifyResultFlags, NULL, NULL);
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
A.3. wolfSSL
To be added (TBD).
Appendix B. Constrained BRSKI-EST messages
This section extends the examples from Appendix A of
[I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] with the constrained BRSKI requests. The
CoAP headers are only worked out for the enrollstatus example.
B.1. enrollstatus
A coaps enrollstatus message can be :
POST coaps://192.0.2.1:8085/b/es
The corresponding CoAP header fields are shown below.
Ver = 1
T = 0 (CON)
Code = 0x02 (0.02 is POST)
Options
Option (Uri-Path)
Option Delta = 0xb (option nr = 11)
Option Length = 0x1
Option Value = "b"
Option (Uri-Path)
Option Delta = 0x0 (option nr = 11)
Option Length = 0x2
Option Value = "es"
Payload Marker = 0xFF
Payload = <binary CBOR enrollstatus document>
The Uri-Host and Uri-Port Options are omitted because they coincide
with the transport protocol destination address and port
respectively.
A 2.04 Changed response will then be:
2.04 Changed
With CoAP fields:
Ver=1
T=2 (ACK)
Code = 0x44 (2.04 Changed)
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
TBD - remove this payload or modify example to be the request payload
of the POST. // The binary payload is:
A46776657273696F6E6131665374617475730166526561736F6E7822
496E666F726D61746976652068756D616E207265616461626C65206D
6573736167656e726561736F6E2D636F6E74657874
764164646974696F6E616C20696E666F726D6174696F6E
The binary payload disassembles to the above CBOR diagnostic code.
B.2. voucher_status
A coaps voucher_status message can be:
POST coaps://[2001:db8::2:1]:61616/b/vs
A 2.04 Changed response will then be:
TBD modify this example to let Pledge POST status to Registrar -
direction change. Change 2.05 to 2.04.
2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/cbor)
Payload =
a46776657273696f6e6131665374617475730166526561736f6e7822496e666f7
26d61746976652068756d616e207265616461626c65206d6573736167656e7265
61736f6e2d636f6e74657874764164646974696f6e616c20696e666f726d61746
96f6e<CODE ENDS>
The payload above is represented in hexadecimal.
{"version": "1", "Status": 1,
"Reason": "Informative human readable message",
"reason-context": "Additional information"}
<CODE ENDS>
Appendix C. COSE examples
These examples are generated on a pie 4 and a PC running BASH. Keys
and Certificates have been generated with openssl with the following
shell script:
#!/bin/bash
#try-cert.sh
export dir=./brski/intermediate
export cadir=./brski
export cnfdir=./conf
export format=pem
export default_crl_days=30
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
sn=8
DevID=pledge.1.2.3.4
serialNumber="serialNumber=$DevID"
export hwType=1.3.6.1.4.1.6715.10.1
export hwSerialNum=01020304 # Some hex
export subjectAltName="otherName:1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.4;SEQ:hmodname"
echo $hwType - $hwSerialNum
echo $serialNumber
OPENSSL_BIN="openssl"
# remove all files
rm -r ./brski/*
#
# initialize file structure
# root level
cd $cadir
mkdir certs crl csr newcerts private
chmod 700 private
touch index.txt
touch serial
echo 11223344556600 >serial
echo 1000 > crlnumber
# intermediate level
mkdir intermediate
cd intermediate
mkdir certs crl csr newcerts private
chmod 700 private
touch index.txt
echo 11223344556600 >serial
echo 1000 > crlnumber
cd ../..
# file structure is cleaned start filling
echo "#############################"
echo "create registrar keys and certificates "
echo "#############################"
echo "create root registrar certificate using ecdsa with sha 256 key"
$OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1 -genkey \
-noout -out $cadir/private/ca-regis.key
$OPENSSL_BIN req -new -x509 \
-config $cnfdir/openssl-regis.cnf \
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
-key $cadir/private/ca-regis.key \
-out $cadir/certs/ca-regis.crt \
-extensions v3_ca\
-days 365 \
-subj "/C=NL/ST=NB/L=Helmond/O=vanderstok/OU=consultancy \
/CN=registrar.stok.nl"
# Combine authority certificate and key
echo "Combine authority certificate and key"
$OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\
-inkey $cadir/private/ca-regis.key \
-in $cadir/certs/ca-regis.crt -export \
-out $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.pfx
# converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem
echo "converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem"
$OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\
-in $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.pfx \
-out $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.crt -nodes
#show certificate in registrar combined certificate
$OPENSSL_BIN x509 -in $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.crt -text
#
# Certificate Authority for MASA
#
echo "#############################"
echo "create MASA keys and certificates "
echo "#############################"
echo "create root MASA certificate using ecdsa with sha 256 key"
$OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1 -genkey -noout \
-out $cadir/private/ca-masa.key
$OPENSSL_BIN req -new -x509 \
-config $cnfdir/openssl-masa.cnf \
-days 1000 -key $cadir/private/ca-masa.key \
-out $cadir/certs/ca-masa.crt \
-extensions v3_ca\
-subj "/C=NL/ST=NB/L=Helmond/O=vanderstok/OU=manufacturer\
/CN=masa.stok.nl"
# Combine authority certificate and key
echo "Combine authority certificate and key for masa"
$OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\
-inkey $cadir/private/ca-masa.key \
-in $cadir/certs/ca-masa.crt -export \
-out $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.pfx
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
# converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem for masa
echo "converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem for masa"
$OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\
-in $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.pfx \
-out $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.crt -nodes
#show certificate in pledge combined certificate
$OPENSSL_BIN x509 -in $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.crt -text
#
# Certificate for Pledge derived from MASA certificate
#
echo "#############################"
echo "create pledge keys and certificates "
echo "#############################"
# Pledge derived Certificate
echo "create pledge derived certificate using ecdsa with sha 256 key"
$OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1 -genkey -noout \
-out $dir/private/pledge.key
echo "create pledge certificate request"
$OPENSSL_BIN req -nodes -new -sha256 \
-key $dir/private/pledge.key -out $dir/csr/pledge.csr \
-subj "/C=NL/ST=NB/L=Helmond/O=vanderstok/OU=manufacturing\
/CN=uuid:$DevID/$serialNumber"
# Sign pledge derived Certificate
echo "sign pledge derived certificate "
$OPENSSL_BIN ca -config $cnfdir/openssl-pledge.cnf \
-extensions 8021ar_idevid\
-days 365 -in $dir/csr/pledge.csr \
-out $dir/certs/pledge.crt
# Add pledge key and pledge certificate to pkcs12 file
echo "Add derived pledge key and derived pledge \
certificate to pkcs12 file"
$OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\
-inkey $dir/private/pledge.key \
-in $dir/certs/pledge.crt -export \
-out $dir/certs/pledge-comb.pfx
# converteer pledge pkcs12 file to pem
echo "converteer pledge pkcs12 file to pem"
$OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
-in $dir/certs/pledge-comb.pfx \
-out $dir/certs/pledge-comb.crt -nodes
#show certificate in pledge-comb.crt
$OPENSSL_BIN x509 -in $dir/certs/pledge-comb.crt -text
#show private key in pledge-comb.crt
$OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1\
-in $dir/certs/pledge-comb.crt -text
<CODE ENDS>
The xxxx-comb certificates have been generated as required by libcoap
for the DTLS connection generation.
C.1. Pledge, Registrar and MASA keys
This first section documents the public and private keys used in the
subsequent test vectors below. These keys come from test code and
are not used in any production system, and should only be used only
to validate implementations.
C.1.1. Pledge private key
Private-Key: (256 bit)
priv:
9b:4d:43:b6:a9:e1:7c:04:93:45:c3:13:d9:b5:f0:
41:a9:6a:9c:45:79:73:b8:62:f1:77:03:3a:fc:c2:
9c:9a
pub:
04:d6:b7:6f:74:88:bd:80:ae:5f:28:41:2c:72:02:
ef:5f:98:b4:81:e1:d9:10:4c:f8:1b:66:d4:3e:5c:
ea:da:73:e6:a8:38:a9:f1:35:11:85:b6:cd:e2:04:
10:be:fe:d5:0b:3b:14:69:2e:e1:b0:6a:bc:55:40:
60:eb:95:5c:54
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
<CODE ENDS>
C.1.2. Registrar private key
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
Private-Key: (256 bit)
priv:
81:df:bb:50:a3:45:58:06:b5:56:3b:46:de:f3:e9:
e9:00:ae:98:13:9e:2f:36:68:81:fc:d9:65:24:fb:
21:7e
pub:
04:50:7a:c8:49:1a:8c:69:c7:b5:c3:1d:03:09:ed:
35:ba:13:f5:88:4c:e6:2b:88:cf:30:18:15:4f:a0:
59:b0:20:ec:6b:eb:b9:4e:02:b8:93:40:21:89:8d:
a7:89:c7:11:ce:a7:13:39:f5:0e:34:8e:df:0d:92:
3e:d0:2d:c7:b7
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
<CODE ENDS>
C.1.3. MASA private key
Private-Key: (256 bit)
priv:
c6:bb:a5:8f:b6:d3:c4:75:28:d8:d3:d9:46:c3:31:
83:6d:00:0a:9a:38:ce:22:5c:e9:d9:ea:3b:98:32:
ec:31
pub:
04:59:80:94:66:14:94:20:30:3c:66:08:85:55:86:
db:e7:d4:d1:d7:7a:d2:a3:1a:0c:73:6b:01:0d:02:
12:15:d6:1f:f3:6e:c8:d4:84:60:43:3b:21:c5:83:
80:1e:fc:e2:37:85:77:97:94:d4:aa:34:b5:b6:c6:
ed:f3:17:5c:f1
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
<CODE ENDS>
C.2. Pledge, Registrar and MASA certificates
Below the certificates that accompany the keys. The certificate
description is followed by the hexadecimal DER of the certificate
C.2.1. Pledge IDevID certificate
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number: 4822678189204992 (0x11223344556600)
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
Issuer: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=manufacturer,
CN=masa.stok.nl
Validity
Not Before: Dec 9 10:02:36 2020 GMT
Not After : Dec 31 23:59:59 9999 GMT
Subject: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=manufacturing,
CN=uuid:pledge.1.2.3.4/serialNumber=pledge.1.2.3.4
Subject Public Key Info:
Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey
Public-Key: (256 bit)
pub:
04:d6:b7:6f:74:88:bd:80:ae:5f:28:41:2c:72:02:
ef:5f:98:b4:81:e1:d9:10:4c:f8:1b:66:d4:3e:5c:
ea:da:73:e6:a8:38:a9:f1:35:11:85:b6:cd:e2:04:
10:be:fe:d5:0b:3b:14:69:2e:e1:b0:6a:bc:55:40:
60:eb:95:5c:54
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Basic Constraints:
CA:FALSE
X509v3 Authority Key Identifier:
keyid:
E4:03:93:B4:C3:D3:F4:2A:80:A4:77:18:F6:96:49:03:01:17:68:A3
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
30:46:02:21:00:d2:e6:45:3b:b0:c3:00:b3:25:8d:f1:83:fe:
d9:37:c1:a2:49:65:69:7f:6b:b9:ef:2c:05:07:06:31:ac:17:
bd:02:21:00:e2:ce:9e:7b:7f:74:50:33:ad:9e:ff:12:4e:e9:
a6:f3:b8:36:65:ab:7d:80:bb:56:88:bc:03:1d:e5:1e:31:6f
<CODE ENDS>
This is the hexadecimal representation in (request-)voucher examples
referred to as pledge-cert-hex.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
30820226308201cba003020102020711223344556600300a06082a8648ce3d04
0302306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110
300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e6465
7273746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e75666163747572657231153013
06035504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c3020170d323031323039313030
3233365a180f39393939313233313233353935395a308190310b300906035504
0613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c
6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31163014060355
040b0c0d6d616e75666163747572696e67311c301a06035504030c1375756964
3a706c656467652e312e322e332e34311730150603550405130e706c65646765
2e312e322e332e343059301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703
420004d6b76f7488bd80ae5f28412c7202ef5f98b481e1d9104cf81b66d43e5c
eada73e6a838a9f1351185b6cde20410befed50b3b14692ee1b06abc554060eb
955c54a32e302c30090603551d1304023000301f0603551d23041830168014e4
0393b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3300a06082a8648ce3d04030203
49003046022100d2e6453bb0c300b3258df183fed937c1a24965697f6bb9ef2c
05070631ac17bd022100e2ce9e7b7f745033ad9eff124ee9a6f3b83665ab7d80
bb5688bc031de51e316f<CODE ENDS>
C.2.2. Registrar Certificate
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number:
70:56:ea:aa:30:66:d8:82:6a:55:5b:90:88:d4:62:bf:9c:f2:8c:fd
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
Issuer: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=consultancy,
CN=registrar.stok.nl
Validity
Not Before: Dec 9 10:02:36 2020 GMT
Not After : Dec 9 10:02:36 2021 GMT
Subject: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=consultancy,
CN=registrar.stok.nl
Subject Public Key Info:
Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey
Public-Key: (256 bit)
pub:
04:50:7a:c8:49:1a:8c:69:c7:b5:c3:1d:03:09:ed:
35:ba:13:f5:88:4c:e6:2b:88:cf:30:18:15:4f:a0:
59:b0:20:ec:6b:eb:b9:4e:02:b8:93:40:21:89:8d:
a7:89:c7:11:ce:a7:13:39:f5:0e:34:8e:df:0d:92:
3e:d0:2d:c7:b7
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Subject Key Identifier:
08:C2:BF:36:88:7F:79:41:21:85:87:2F:16:A7:AC:A6:EF:B3:D2:B3
X509v3 Authority Key Identifier:
keyid:
08:C2:BF:36:88:7F:79:41:21:85:87:2F:16:A7:AC:A6:EF:B3:D2:B3
X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical
CA:TRUE
X509v3 Extended Key Usage:
CMC Registration Authority, TLS Web Server
Authentication, TLS Web Client Authentication
X509v3 Key Usage: critical
Digital Signature, Non Repudiation, Key Encipherment,
Data Encipherment, Certificate Sign, CRL Sign
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
30:44:02:20:74:4c:99:00:85:13:b2:f1:bc:fd:f9:02:1a:46:
fb:17:4c:f8:83:a2:7c:a1:d9:3f:ae:ac:f3:1e:4e:dd:12:c6:
02:20:11:47:14:db:f5:1a:5e:78:f5:81:b9:42:1c:6e:47:02:
ab:53:72:70:c5:ba:fb:2d:16:c3:de:9a:a1:82:c3:5f
<CODE ENDS>
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
This the hexadecimal representation, in (request-)voucher examples
referred to as regis-cert-hex
308202753082021ca00302010202147056eaaa3066d8826a555b9088d462bf9c
f28cfd300a06082a8648ce3d0403023073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b
300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e64311330
11060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e
73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f
6b2e6e6c301e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d323131323039313030
3233365a3073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e42
3110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e
64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e73756c74616e6379311a30
1806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f6b2e6e6c3059301306072a
8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703420004507ac8491a8c69c7b5c31d03
09ed35ba13f5884ce62b88cf3018154fa059b020ec6bebb94e02b8934021898d
a789c711cea71339f50e348edf0d923ed02dc7b7a3818d30818a301d0603551d
0e0416041408c2bf36887f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3301f0603551d23
04183016801408c2bf36887f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3300f0603551d
130101ff040530030101ff30270603551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c
06082b0601050507030106082b06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff0404
030201f6300a06082a8648ce3d04030203470030440220744c99008513b2f1bc
fdf9021a46fb174cf883a27ca1d93faeacf31e4edd12c60220114714dbf51a5e
78f581b9421c6e4702ab537270c5bafb2d16c3de9aa182c35f<CODE ENDS>
C.2.3. MASA Certificate
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number:
14:26:b8:1c:ce:d8:c3:e8:14:05:cb:87:67:0d:be:ef:d5:81:25:b4
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
Issuer: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok,
OU=manufacturer, CN=masa.stok.nl
Validity
Not Before: Dec 9 10:02:36 2020 GMT
Not After : Sep 5 10:02:36 2023 GMT
Subject: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok,
OU=manufacturer, CN=masa.stok.nl
Subject Public Key Info:
Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey
Public-Key: (256 bit)
pub:
04:59:80:94:66:14:94:20:30:3c:66:08:85:55:86:
db:e7:d4:d1:d7:7a:d2:a3:1a:0c:73:6b:01:0d:02:
12:15:d6:1f:f3:6e:c8:d4:84:60:43:3b:21:c5:83:
80:1e:fc:e2:37:85:77:97:94:d4:aa:34:b5:b6:c6:
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
ed:f3:17:5c:f1
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Subject Key Identifier:
E4:03:93:B4:C3:D3:F4:2A:80:A4:77:18:F6:96:49:03:01:17:68:A3
X509v3 Authority Key Identifier:
keyid:
E4:03:93:B4:C3:D3:F4:2A:80:A4:77:18:F6:96:49:03:01:17:68:A3
X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical
CA:TRUE
X509v3 Extended Key Usage:
CMC Registration Authority,
TLS Web Server Authentication,
TLS Web Client Authentication
X509v3 Key Usage: critical
Digital Signature, Non Repudiation, Key Encipherment,
Data Encipherment, Certificate Sign, CRL Sign
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
30:44:02:20:2e:c5:f2:24:72:70:20:ea:6e:74:8b:13:93:67:
8a:e6:fe:fb:8d:56:7f:f5:34:18:a9:ef:a5:0f:c3:99:ca:53:
02:20:3d:dc:91:d0:e9:6a:69:20:01:fb:e4:20:40:de:7c:7d:
98:ed:d8:84:53:61:84:a7:f9:13:06:4c:a9:b2:8f:5c
<CODE ENDS>
This is the hexadecimal representation, in (request-)voucher examples
referred to as masa-cert-hex.
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
3082026d30820214a00302010202141426b81cced8c3e81405cb87670dbeefd5
8125b4300a06082a8648ce3d040302306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b
300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e64311330
11060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e
7566616374757265723115301306035504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c
301e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d3233303930353130303233365a
306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110300e
06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e64657273
746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e756661637475726572311530130603
5504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c3059301306072a8648ce3d02010608
2a8648ce3d0301070342000459809466149420303c6608855586dbe7d4d1d77a
d2a31a0c736b010d021215d61ff36ec8d48460433b21c583801efce237857797
94d4aa34b5b6c6edf3175cf1a3818d30818a301d0603551d0e04160414e40393
b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3301f0603551d23041830168014e403
93b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3300f0603551d130101ff04053003
0101ff30270603551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c06082b0601050507
030106082b06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff0404030201f6300a0608
2a8648ce3d040302034700304402202ec5f224727020ea6e748b1393678ae6fe
fb8d567ff53418a9efa50fc399ca5302203ddc91d0e96a692001fbe42040de7c
7d98edd884536184a7f913064ca9b28f5c<CODE ENDS>
C.3. COSE signed voucher request from Pledge to Registrar
In this example the voucher request has been signed by the Pledge,
and has been sent to the JRC over CoAPS. The Pledge uses the
proximity assertion together with an included proximity-registrar-
cert field to inform MASA about its proximity to the specific
Registrar.
POST coaps://registrar.example.com/b/rv
(Content-Format: application/voucher-cose+cbor)
signed_request_voucher
The payload signed_request_voucher is shown as hexadecimal dump (with
lf added):
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
d28444a101382ea104582097113db094eee8eae48683e7337875c0372164
be89d023a5f3df52699c0fbfb55902d2a11909c5a60274323032302d3132
2d32335431323a30353a32325a0474323032322d31322d32335431323a30
353a32325a01020750684ca83e27230aff97630cf2c1ec409a0d6e706c65
6467652e312e322e332e340a590279308202753082021ca0030201020214
7056eaaa3066d8826a555b9088d462bf9cf28cfd300a06082a8648ce3d04
03023073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e42
3110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76
616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e73756c74616e63
79311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f6b2e6e6c30
1e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d323131323039313030323336
5a3073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e4231
10300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a7661
6e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e73756c74616e6379
311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f6b2e6e6c3059
301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703420004507ac8491a
8c69c7b5c31d0309ed35ba13f5884ce62b88cf3018154fa059b020ec6beb
b94e02b8934021898da789c711cea71339f50e348edf0d923ed02dc7b7a3
818d30818a301d0603551d0e0416041408c2bf36887f79412185872f16a7
aca6efb3d2b3301f0603551d2304183016801408c2bf36887f7941218587
2f16a7aca6efb3d2b3300f0603551d130101ff040530030101ff30270603
551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c06082b0601050507030106082b
06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff0404030201f6300a06082a8648
ce3d04030203470030440220744c99008513b2f1bcfdf9021a46fb174cf8
83a27ca1d93faeacf31e4edd12c60220114714dbf51a5e78f581b9421c6e
4702ab537270c5bafb2d16c3de9aa182c35f58473045022063766c7bbd1b
339dbc398e764af3563e93b25a69104befe9aac2b3336b8f56e1022100cd
0419559ad960ccaed4dee3f436eca40b7570b25a52eb60332bc1f2991484
e9
<CODE ENDS>
The representiation of signed_voucher_request in CBOR diagnostic
format is:
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
Diagnose(signed_request_voucher) =
18([
h'A101382E', // {"alg": -47}
{4: h'97113DB094EEE8EAE48683E7337875C0372164B
E89D023A5F3DF52699C0FBFB5'},
h'1234', // request_voucher
h'3045022063766C7BBD1B339DBC398E764AF3563E93B
25A69104BEFE9AAC2B3336B8F56E1022100CD0419559A
D960CCAED4DEE3F436ECA40B7570B25A52EB60332BC1F
2991484E9'
])
Diagnose(request_voucher) =
{2501: {2: "2020-12-23T12:05:22Z",
4: "2022-12-23T12:05:22Z",
1: 2,
7: h'684CA83E27230AFF97630CF2C1EC409A',
13: "pledge.1.2.3.4",
10: h'1234' // regis-cert-hex
}}
<CODE ENDS>
C.4. COSE signed voucher request from Registrar to MASA
TBD - modify example to use full paths to MASA, not short-names.
Also not use CoAP but HTTP protocol.
In this example the voucher request has been signed by the JRC using
the private key from Appendix C.1.2. Contained within this voucher
request is the voucher request from the Pledge to JRC.
POST coaps://masa.example.com/b/rv
(Content-Format: application/voucher-cose+cbor)
signed_masa_request_voucher
The payload signed_masa_voucher_request is shown as hexadecimal dump
(with lf added):
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
d28444a101382ea1045820e8735bc4b470c3aa6a7aa9aa8ee584c09c1113
1b205efec5d0313bad84c5cd05590414a11909c5a60274323032302d3132
2d32385431303a30333a33355a0474323032322d31322d32385431303a30
333a33355a07501551631f6e0416bd162ba53ea00c2a050d6e706c656467
652e312e322e332e3405587131322d32385431303a30333a33355a075015
51631f6e0416bd162ba53ea00c2a050d6e706c656467652e312e322e332e
3405587131322d32385431303a300000000000000000000000000416bd16
2ba53ea00c2a050d6e706c656467652e312e322e332e3405587131322d32
385431303a09590349d28444a101382ea104582097113db094eee8eae486
83e7337875c0372164be89d023a5f3df52699c0fbfb55902d2a11909c5a6
0274323032302d31322d32385431303a30333a33355a0474323032322d31
322d32385431303a30333a33355a010207501551631f6e0416bd162ba53e
a00c2a050d6e706c656467652e312e322e332e340a590279308202753082
021ca00302010202147056eaaa3066d8826a555b9088d462bf9cf28cfd30
0a06082a8648ce3d0403023073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b3009
06035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e64311330
11060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b63
6f6e73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c11726567697374726172
2e73746f6b2e6e6c301e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d323131
3230393130303233365a3073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906
035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011
060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f
6e73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e
73746f6b2e6e6c3059301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d030107
03420004507ac8491a8c69c7b5c31d0309ed35ba13f5884ce62b88cf3018
154fa059b020ec6bebb94e02b8934021898da789c711cea71339f50e348e
df0d923ed02dc7b7a3818d30818a301d0603551d0e0416041408c2bf3688
7f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3301f0603551d2304183016801408c2
bf36887f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3300f0603551d130101ff0405
30030101ff30270603551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c06082b06
01050507030106082b06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff04040302
01f6300a06082a8648ce3d04030203470030440220744c99008513b2f1bc
fdf9021a46fb174cf883a27ca1d93faeacf31e4edd12c60220114714dbf5
1a5e78f581b9421c6e4702ab537270c5bafb2d16c3de9aa182c35f584730
45022063766c7bbd1b339dbc398e764af3563e93b25a69104befe9aac2b3
336b8f56e1022100cd0419559ad960ccaed4dee3f436eca40b7570b25a52
eb60332bc1f2991484e958473045022100e6b45558c1b806bba23f4ac626
c9bdb6fd354ef4330d8dfb7c529f29cca934c802203c1f2ccbbac89733d1
7ee7775bc2654c5f1cc96afba2741cc31532444aa8fed8
<CODE ENDS>
The representiation of signed_masa_voucher_request in CBOR diagnostic
format is:
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
Diagnose(signed_registrar_request-voucher)
18([
h'A101382E', // {"alg": -47}
h'E8735BC4B470C3AA6A7AA9AA8EE584C09C11131B205EFEC5D0313BAD84
C5CD05'},
h'1234', // registrar_request_voucher',
h'3045022100E6B45558C1B806BBA23F4AC626C9BDB6FD354EF4330D8DFB
7C529F29CCA934C802203C1F2CCBBAC89733D17EE7775BC2654C5F1CC96A
FBA2741CC31532444AA8FED8'
])
Diagnose(registrar_request_voucher)
{2501:
{2: "2020-12-28T10:03:35Z",
4: "2022-12-28T10:03:35Z",
7: h'1551631F6E0416BD162BA53EA00C2A05',
13: "pledge.1.2.3.4",
5: h'31322D32385431303A30333A33355A07501551631F6E0416BD
162BA53EA00C2A050D6E706C656467652E312E322E332E3405
587131322D32385431303A3000000000000000000000000004
16BD162BA53EA00C2A050D6E706C656467652E312E322E332E
3405587131322D32385431303A',
9: h'1234' // signature
}}
<CODE ENDS>
C.5. COSE signed voucher from MASA to Pledge via Registrar
The resulting voucher is created by the MASA and returned via the JRC
to the Pledge. It is signed by the MASA's private key Appendix C.1.3
and can be verified by the Pledge using the MASA's public key
contained within the MASA certificate.
This is the raw binary signed_voucher, encoded in hexadecimal (with
lf added):
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
d28444a101382ea104582039920a34ee92d3148ab3a729f58611193270c9
029f7784daf112614b19445d5158cfa1190993a70274323032302d31322d
32335431353a30333a31325a0474323032302d31322d32335431353a3233
3a31325a010007506508e06b2959d5089d7a3169ea889a490b6e706c6564
67652e312e322e332e340858753073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b
300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431
133011060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c
0b636f6e73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c1172656769737472
61722e73746f6b2e6e6c03f458473045022022515d96cd12224ee5d3ac67
3237163bba24ad84815699285d9618f463ee73fa022100a6bff9d8585c1c
9256371ece94da3d26264a5dfec0a354fe7b3aef58344c512f
<CODE ENDS>
The representiation of signed_voucher in CBOR diagnostic format is:
Diagnose(signed_voucher) =
18([
h'A101382E', # {"alg": -47}
{4: h'39920A34EE92D3148AB3A729F58611193270C9029F7784DAF112614B194
45D51'},
h'voucher',
h'3045022022515D96CD12224EE5D3AC673237163BBA24AD84815699285D9618F
463EE73FA022100A6BFF9D8585C1C9256371ECE94DA3D26264A5DFEC0A354FE7B
3AEF58344C512F'
])
Diagnose(voucher) =
{2451:
{2: "2020-12-23T15:03:12Z",
4: "2020-12-23T15:23:12Z",
1: 0,
7: h'6508E06B2959D5089D7A3169EA889A49',
11: "pledge.1.2.3.4",
8: h'regis-cert-hex',
3: false}}
<CODE ENDS>
Authors' Addresses
Michael Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Constrained Voucher June 2021
Peter van der Stok
vanderstok consultancy
Email: consultancy@vanderstok.org
Panos Kampanakis
Cisco Systems
Email: pkampana@cisco.com
Esko Dijk
IoTconsultancy.nl
Email: esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl
Richardson, et al. Expires 12 December 2021 [Page 55]