Re: [lamps] examples in lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs

[Corey Bonnell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,
> The document has a SEQUENCE of CsrAttrs, while you have a SET at the top.

Apologies, that's a problem on my end. I mistakenly used the RFC 2986 Attributes SET as the top-level container as opposed to the RFC 7030 CsrAttrs SEQUENCE. The script has been updated to correct this: https://gist.github.com/CBonnell/a46f9065f121bcb1b88c02e1204fd4eb. It might be useful to use the term "CsrAttrs" in the document instead of "CSR Attributes" to clearly disambiguate the two types.

The script now outputs " MGgwZgYJKoZIhvcNAQkOMVkwVzBVBgNVHREBAf8ESzBJoEcGCCsGAQUFBwgKoDsWOXJmYzg5OTQrZmQ3MzlmYzIzYzM0NDAxMTIyMzM0NDU1MDAwMDAwMDArQGFjcC5leGFtcGxlLmNvbQ==", which translates to the following dumpasn1 output:

  0 104: SEQUENCE {
  2 102:   SEQUENCE {
  4   9:     OBJECT IDENTIFIER extensionRequest (1 2 840 113549 1 9 14)
 15  89:     SET {
 17  87:       SEQUENCE {
 19  85:         SEQUENCE {
 21   3:           OBJECT IDENTIFIER subjectAltName (2 5 29 17)
 26   1:           BOOLEAN TRUE
 29  75:           OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
 31  73:             SEQUENCE {
 33  71:               [0] {
 35   8:                 OBJECT IDENTIFIER '1 3 6 1 5 5 7 8 10'
 45  59:                 [0] {
 47  57:                   IA5String
       :                   '[e-mail]'
       :                   'ample.com'
       :                   }
       :                 }
       :               }
       :             }
       :           }
       :         }
       :       }
       :     }
       :   }

Thanks,
Corey

-----Original Message-----
From: Spasm <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 10:39 PM
To: Corey Bonnell <Corey.Bonnell=[e-mail]>; LAMPS WG <[e-mail]>
Cc: David von Oheimb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [lamps] examples in lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs


I'm sorry to take so long to get back to you.
other priorities have kept me away from this work.
I very much appreciate your time to help me get this right.

Corey Bonnell <Corey.Bonnell=[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Hi Michael, It appears that the example in the -01 draft has a few
    > issues, mainly surrounding implicit/explicit tagging and level of
    > nesting of SET/and SEQUENCE elements.

Yes.

    >   0 104: SET { 2 102: SEQUENCE { 4 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER

I'm finding the top-level SET confusing.
I implemented a parser for your example, but...

However, it's not at all consistent with the examples we have in RFC7030, or the ASN.1.  Section 4.3.2 has some encodings that we said we wanted to maintain.

The document has a SEQUENCE of CsrAttrs, while you have a SET at the top.
Is there something I'm missing, or is this a typo?

(The document has expired, alas, so I've reposted it again, mostly unchanged.
Well, it might not even reflect all the discussions as yet.  Maybe I have unpushed changes somewhere)

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide