draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-03.txt   draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04.txt 
SIDR G. Huston SIDR G. Huston
Internet-Draft G. Michaelson, Ed. Internet-Draft G. Michaelson, Ed.
Obsoletes: 6485 (if approved) APNIC Obsoletes: 6485 (if approved) APNIC
Intended status: Standards Track July 24, 2015 Intended status: Standards Track October 16, 2015
Expires: January 25, 2016 Expires: April 18, 2016
The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for use in the Resource Public The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for use in the Resource Public
Key Infrastructure Key Infrastructure
draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-03.txt draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the algorithms, algorithms' parameters, This document specifies the algorithms, algorithms' parameters,
asymmetric key formats, asymmetric key size, and signature format for asymmetric key formats, asymmetric key size, and signature format for
the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) subscribers that the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) subscribers that
generate digital signatures on certificates, Certificate Revocation generate digital signatures on certificates, Certificate Revocation
Lists (CRLs), Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) signed objects and Lists (CRLs), Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) signed objects and
certification requests as well as for the relying parties (RPs) that certification requests as well as for the relying parties (RPs) that
verify these digital signatures. verify these digital signatures.
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 25, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Asymmetric Key Pair Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Asymmetric Key Pair Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Public Key Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Public Key Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Private Key Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Private Key Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Signature Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Signature Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Additional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Additional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Changes Aplied to RFC6485 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Changes Aplied to RFC6485 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies: This document specifies:
* the digital signature algorithm and parameters; * the digital signature algorithm and parameters;
* the hash algorithm and parameters; * the hash algorithm and parameters;
* the public and private key formats; and, * the public and private key formats; and,
* the signature format * the signature format
skipping to change at page 4, line 11 skipping to change at page 4, line 11
NOTE: The exception is the use of SHA-1 [SHS] when CAs generate NOTE: The exception is the use of SHA-1 [SHS] when CAs generate
authority and subject key identifiers [RFC6487]. authority and subject key identifiers [RFC6487].
In certificates, CRLs, and certification requests the hashing and In certificates, CRLs, and certification requests the hashing and
digital signature algorithms are identified together, i.e., "RSA digital signature algorithms are identified together, i.e., "RSA
PKCS#1 v1.5 with SHA-256" or more simply "RSA with SHA-256". The PKCS#1 v1.5 with SHA-256" or more simply "RSA with SHA-256". The
Object Identifier (OID) sha256WithRSAEncryption from [RFC4055] MUST Object Identifier (OID) sha256WithRSAEncryption from [RFC4055] MUST
be used in these products. be used in these products.
For CMS SignedData, the object identifier and parameters for SHA-256
in [RFC5754] MUST be used for the SignedData digestAlgorithms field
and the SignerInfo digestAlgorithm field when generating and
verifying CMS SignedData objects. The object identifier and
parameters for rsaEncryption MUST be used for the SignerInfo
signatureAlgorithm field when generating CMS SignedData objects.
RPKI implementations MUST accept CMS SignedData objects that use the
object identifier and parameters for either rsaEncryption or
sha256WithRSAEncryption for the SignerInfo signatureAlgorithm field
when verifying CMS SignedData objects.
The OID is in the following locations: The OID is in the following locations:
In the certificate, the OID appears in the signature and In the certificate, the OID appears in the signature and
signatureAlgorithm fields [RFC4055]; signatureAlgorithm fields [RFC4055];
In the CRL, the OID appears in the signatureAlgorithm field In the CRL, the OID appears in the signatureAlgorithm field
[RFC4055]; and [RFC4055]; and
In a certification request, the OID appears in the PKCS #10 In a certification request, the OID appears in the PKCS #10
signatureAlgorithm field [RFC2986], or in the Certificate Request signatureAlgorithm field [RFC2986], or in the Certificate Request
skipping to change at page 4, line 45 skipping to change at page 4, line 34
In CMS SignedData, the hashing (message digest) and digital signature In CMS SignedData, the hashing (message digest) and digital signature
algorithms are identified separately. The object identifier and algorithms are identified separately. The object identifier and
parameters for SHA-256 (as defined in [RFC5754]) MUST be used for the parameters for SHA-256 (as defined in [RFC5754]) MUST be used for the
SignedData digestAlgorithms field and the SignerInfo digestAlgorithm SignedData digestAlgorithms field and the SignerInfo digestAlgorithm
field. The object identifier and parameters for rsaEncryption field. The object identifier and parameters for rsaEncryption
[RFC3370] MUST be used for the SignerInfo signatureAlgorithm field [RFC3370] MUST be used for the SignerInfo signatureAlgorithm field
when generating CMS SignedData objects. RPKI implementations MUST when generating CMS SignedData objects. RPKI implementations MUST
accept either rsaEncryption or sha256WithRSAEncryption for the accept either rsaEncryption or sha256WithRSAEncryption for the
SignerInfo signatureAlgorithm field when verifying CMS SignedData SignerInfo signatureAlgorithm field when verifying CMS SignedData
objects (for compatibility with objects produced by implementations objects (for compatibility with objects produced by implementations
conforming to [RFC6485]. conforming to [RFC6485]).
3. Asymmetric Key Pair Formats 3. Asymmetric Key Pair Formats
The RSA key pairs used to compute the signatures MUST have a 2048-bit The RSA key pairs used to compute the signatures MUST have a 2048-bit
modulus and a public exponent (e) of 65,537. modulus and a public exponent (e) of 65,537.
3.1. Public Key Format 3.1. Public Key Format
The subject's public key is included in subjectPublicKeyInfo The subject's public key is included in subjectPublicKeyInfo
[RFC5280]. It has two sub-fields: algorithm and subjectPublicKey. [RFC5280]. It has two sub-fields: algorithm and subjectPublicKey.
skipping to change at page 5, line 48 skipping to change at page 5, line 36
as and when appropriate. as and when appropriate.
Certification Authorities (CAs) and RPs SHOULD be capable of Certification Authorities (CAs) and RPs SHOULD be capable of
supporting a transition to allow for the phased introduction of supporting a transition to allow for the phased introduction of
additional encryption algorithms and key specifications, and also additional encryption algorithms and key specifications, and also
accommodate the orderly deprecation of previously specified accommodate the orderly deprecation of previously specified
algorithms and keys. Accordingly, CAs and RPs SHOULD be capable of algorithms and keys. Accordingly, CAs and RPs SHOULD be capable of
supporting multiple RPKI algorithm and key profiles simultaneously supporting multiple RPKI algorithm and key profiles simultaneously
within the scope of such anticipated transitions. The recommended within the scope of such anticipated transitions. The recommended
procedures to implement such a transition of key sizes and algorithms procedures to implement such a transition of key sizes and algorithms
is not specified in [RFC6916] is specified in [RFC6916]
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The Security Considerations of [RFC4055], [RFC5280], and [RFC6487] The Security Considerations of [RFC4055], [RFC5280], and [RFC6487]
apply to certificate and CRLs. The Security Considerations of apply to certificate and CRLs. The Security Considerations of
[RFC2986], [RFC4211], and [RFC6487] apply to certification /> [RFC2986], [RFC4211], and [RFC6487] apply to certification />
requests. The Security Considerations of [RFC5754] apply to CMS requests. The Security Considerations of [RFC5754] apply to CMS
signed objects. No new security threats are introduced as a result signed objects. No new security threats are introduced as a result
of this specification. of this specification.
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
20 lines changed or deleted 9 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/