Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS charter
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sun, 28 July 2019 16:49 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBB612001B for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aAMiZhoxAb4V for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 09:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A972212000F for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 09:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9439300AFB for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 12:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id bBVgFGdfhDr0 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 12:30:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.20.3.215] (unknown [50.235.191.99]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3339A3005DB; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 12:30:16 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <9CE09410-5F6B-407F-B239-888E3136F24A@vigilsec.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 12:49:33 -0400
Cc: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CE07DF40-8AC7-45B2-9BFD-268F1C94CE8E@vigilsec.com>
References: <21504.1564174053@dooku.sandelman.ca> <9CE09410-5F6B-407F-B239-888E3136F24A@vigilsec.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/qMYrkZjO6iituCcFf2qYnQuKlqA>
Subject: Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS charter
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:49:40 -0000
Thinking about this some more, I think that the best way to resolve this errata is to provide an appendix with an ASN.1 module. Here is my suggestion: ~~~ -- There is no ASN.1 Module in RFC 7030. This module has been created -- by combining the lines that are contained in the document body. -- A module identifier needs to be assigned for this to be used. PKIXEST-2019 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-est-2019(TBD) } DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN -- EXPORTS ALL -- IMPORTS Attribute FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax-2009 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-cms-2004-02(41) } ATTRIBUTE FROM PKIX-CommonTypes-2009 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkixCommon-02(57) } ; -- CSR Attributes CsrAttrs ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (0..MAX) OF AttrOrOID AttrOrOID ::= CHOICE { oid OBJECT IDENTIFIER, attribute Attribute {{AttrSet}} } AttrSet ATTRIBUTE ::= { AttributesDefinedInRFC7030, ... } -- Asymmetric Decrypt Key Identifier Attribute AttributesDefinedInRFC7030 ATTRIBUTE ::= { aa-asymmDecryptKeyID, ... } aa-asymmDecryptKeyID ATTRIBUTE ::= { TYPE AsymmetricDecryptKeyIdentifier IDENTIFIED BY id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID } id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) aa(2) 54 } AsymmetricDecryptKeyIdentifier ::= OCTET STRING END ~~~ A module identifier is needed. I do not know if IANA has ever assigned an object identifier for an errata, but this seems like a much better way to fix this issue. In addition, I made an assumption that the authors intended to use IMPLICIT TAGS. That is the most common. Having this is the specification will improve clarity and increase interoperability. Russ > On Jul 27, 2019, at 7:51 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote: > > The definition of ATTRIBUTE and Attribute should be IMPORTed, not included here. > > That leads to: > > AttrOrOID ::= CHOICE { > oid OBJECT IDENTIFIER, > attribute Attribute {{AttrSet}} } > > AttrSet ATTRIBUTE ::= { ... } > > Russ > >> On Jul 26, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> >> secdispatch said that >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify/ >> >> belongs in LAMPS. The word was that the charter did not include fixing >> things. The first paragragh includes: >> >> "Some updates have been proposed to the X.509 certificate documents >> produced by the PKIX Working Group and the electronic mail security >> documents produced by the S/MIME Working Group. >> >> The LAMPS (Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME) Working >> Group is chartered to make updates where there is a known constituency >> interested in real deployment and there is at least one sufficiently >> well specified approach to the update so that the working group can >> sensibly evaluate whether to adopt a proposal." >> >> but the last paragraph says: >> >> "In addition, the LAMPS WG may investigate other updates to documents >> produced by the PKIX and S/MIME WGs, but the LAMPS WG shall not adopt >> any of these potential work items without rechartering." >> >> so I guess despite the weasel room at the beginning, it has to add >> a #. point for RFC7030. We have also discussed doing a light CMP profile. >> >> Maybe a single point could say something about updates to Certificate >> Enrollment protocols, include EST and CMP. >> >> In the meantime, I need help evaluating the comments in >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4384 >> >> I simply don't have the ASN.1-fu to understand &Type. >> >> }Section 4.5.2 says: >> }CsrAttrs ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (0..MAX) OF AttrOrOID >> } >> }AttrOrOID ::= CHOICE (oid OBJECT IDENTIFIER, attribute Attribute } >> } >> }Attribute { ATTRIBUTE:IOSet } ::= SEQUENCE { >> } type ATTRIBUTE.&id({IOSet}), >> } values SET SIZE(1..MAX) OF ATTRIBUTE.&Type({IOSet}{@type}) } >> ]It should say: >> } >> }AttrOrOID ::= CHOICE { >> } oid OBJECT IDENTIFIER, >> } attribute Attribute{YouNeedToDefineOrReferenceAnObjectSet} >> }} >> >> I presumed that while the ATTRIBUTE.&Type({IOSet}{@type}) was pretty much >> not understandable to me, that it was legitimate. I didn't know exactly >> what the series of SET/SEQ it represented, but I just tweaked a bit >> and matched against the examples shown. I wound up with: >> Attribute = [ rfc822Name-OID, { [rfc822Name-value] } ] >> >> []-seq >> {}-set >> >> -- >> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ >> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ >> ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works >> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- >> >> >> >> >> >
- [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS char… Michael Richardson
- Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS … Russ Housley
- Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS … Russ Housley
- Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS … Russ Housley
- Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS … Michael Richardson
- Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS … Sean Turner
- Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS … Russ Housley
- Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS … Sean Turner