Re: [lamps] draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Hendrik:

>> Von: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>
>> 
>>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 12:22 PM, Brockhaus, Hendrik
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Third, id-it-revPassphrase (which is in a comment) is associated with
>>>> EncryptedKey instead of EncryptedValue.
>>> 
>>> Finally, I do not fully understand this specification, too.
>>> My goal is to update OID {id-it 12}  as specified in section 5.3.19.9 and the
>> only lines in the ASN.1 module on this OID is in comments?
>> 
>> Right, so it is just and updated comment; however, the place were this is
>> defined needs to be updated too, right?
> 
> Yes. But the only place I am aware of where this OID is defined is in section 5.3.19.9 of RFC4210. I update this section in section 2.6 of the draft.
> Are there any other place I should update?


If that is the case, I suspect that all of the id-it- OID values need to appear in this new module.

Looking at RFC 5912, is seem that Jim and Paul defined these constructs for this purpose:

~~~
 INFO-TYPE-AND-VALUE ::= TYPE-IDENTIFIER

 InfoTypeAndValue ::= SEQUENCE {
     infoType    INFO-TYPE-AND-VALUE.
                     &id({SupportedInfoSet}),
     infoValue   INFO-TYPE-AND-VALUE.
                     &Type({SupportedInfoSet}{@infoType}) }
~~~

This is probably something that should be carried forward.

So, for example, that would lead to this in the ASN.1 module:

~~~
    it-caProtEncCert INFO-TYPE-AND-VALUE ::= {
      CMPCertificate IDENTIFIED BY id-it-caProtEncCert  }
~~~

You need a statement like this for each of the id-it- OID values.

Russ