RFC 9483: Lightweight Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) Profile
- H. Brockhaus,
- D. von Oheimb,
- S. Fries
Abstract
This document aims at simple, interoperable, and automated PKI management operations covering typical use cases of industrial and Internet of Things (IoT) scenarios. This is achieved by profiling the Certificate Management Protocol (CMP), the related Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF), and transfer based on HTTP or Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) in a succinct but sufficiently detailed and self-contained way. To make secure certificate management for simple scenarios and constrained devices as lightweight as possible, only the most crucial types of operations and options are specified as mandatory. More specialized or complex use cases are supported with optional features.¶
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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://
1. Introduction
This document specifies PKI management operations supporting machine
While this document was being developed, documents intended to obsolete RFC 4210 [PKIX-CMP] and RFC 6712 [HTTP-CMP] were posted, and they include the full set of changes described in CMP Updates [RFC9480].¶
1.1. How to Read This Document
This document has become longer than the authors would have liked it to be. Yet apart from studying Section 3, which contains general requirements, the reader does not have to work through the whole document. The guidance in Sections 1.9 and 7 should be used to figure out which parts of Sections 4 to 6 are relevant for the target certificate management solution, depending on the PKI management operations, their variants, and types of message transfer needed.¶
Since conformity to this document can be achieved by implementing only the functionality declared mandatory in Section 7, the profile can still be called lightweight because, in particular for end entities, the mandatory
1.2. Conventions and Terminology
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.¶
The term "PROHIBITED" is to be interpreted to mean that the respective ASN.1 field SHALL NOT be present or used.¶
Technical terminology is used in conformance with [RFC4210], [RFC4211], [RFC5280], and IEEE 802.1AR [IEEE
- CA:
- Certification authority, which issues certificates.¶
- RA:
- Registration authority, an optional PKI component to which a CA delegates certificate management functions, such as end entity authentication and authorization checks for incoming requests. An RA can also provide conversion between various certificate management protocols and other protocols providing some operations related to certificate management.¶
- LRA:
-
Local registration authority, a specific form of RA with proximity to the end entities.¶
Note: For ease of reading, this document also uses the term "RA" for LRAs in all cases where the difference is not relevant.¶
- KGA:
- Key generation authority, an optional system component, typically colocated with an RA or CA, that offers key generation services to end entities.¶
- EE:
- End entity, typically a device or service that holds a public-private key pair for which it manages a public key certificate. An identifier for the EE is given as the subject of its certificate.¶
The following terminology is reused from [RFC4210] as follows:¶
- PKI management operation:
- All CMP messages belonging to a single transaction. The transaction is identified by the transactionID field of the message headers.¶
- PKI management entity:
- A non-EE PKI entity, i.e., an RA or a CA.¶
- PKI entity:
- An EE or PKI management entity.¶
CMP messages are referred to by the names of PKIBody choices defined in Section 5.1.2 of [RFC4210] and are further described in Section 4 of this document.¶
The following terms are introduced in this document:¶
1.3. Motivation for a Lightweight Profile of CMP
CMP was standardized in 1999 and is implemented in several PKI products. In 2005, a completely reworked and enhanced version 2 of CMP [RFC4210] and CRMF [RFC4211] has been published, followed by a document specifying a transfer mechanism for CMP messages using HTTP [RFC6712] in 2012.¶
CMP is a capable protocol and could be used more widely. CMP [RFC4210] and CMP Updates [RFC9480] offer a very large set of features and options. On one hand, this makes CMP applicable to a very wide range of scenarios; on the other hand, a full implementation supporting all options is not realistic because this would take undue effort.¶
In order to reduce complexity, the set of mandatory PKI management operations and variants required by this specification has been kept lean. This limits development efforts and minimizes resource needs, which is particularly important for memory
Moreover, many details of the Certificate Management Protocol have been left open or have not been specified in full preciseness. The profiles specified in Appendices D and E of [RFC4210] define some more detailed PKI management operations. Yet the specific needs of highly automated scenarios for machine
Profiling is a way to reduce feature richness and complexity of standards to what is needed for specific use cases. 3GPP and UNISIG already use profiling of CMP as a way to cope with these challenges. To profile means to take advantage of the strengths of the given protocol while explicitly narrowing down the options it provides to those needed for the purpose(s) at hand and eliminating all identified ambiguities. In this way, the general aspects of the protocol are utilized and only the special requirements of the target scenarios need to be dealt with using distinct features the protocol offers.¶
Defining a profile for a new target environment takes high effort because the range of available options needs to be well understood and the selected options need to be consistent with each other and suitably cover the intended application scenario. Since most industrial PKI management use cases typically have much in common, it is worth sharing this effort, which is the aim of this document. Other standardization bodies can reference this document and further tailor the PKI management operations to their needs to avoid coming up with individual profiles from scratch.¶
1.4. Special Requirements of Industrial and IoT Scenarios
The profiles specified in Appendices D and E of [RFC4210] have been developed particularly for managing certificates of human end entities. With the evolution of distributed systems and client-server architectures, certificates for machines and applications on them have become widely used. This trend has strengthened even more in emerging industrial and IoT scenarios. CMP is sufficiently flexible to support them well.¶
Today's IT security architectures for industrial solutions typically use certificates for endpoint authentication within protocols like IPsec, TLS, or Secure Shell (SSH). Therefore, the security of these architectures highly relies upon the security and availability of the implemented certificate management operations.¶
Due to increasing security and availability needs in operational technology, especially when used for critical infrastructures and systems with a high number of certificates, a state
Further challenges in many industrial systems are network segmentation and asynchronous communication. Also, PKI management entities like certification authorities (CAs) are not typically deployed on-site but in a highly protected data center environment, e.g., operated according to ETSI Policy and security requirements for Trust Service Providers issuing certificates [ETSI-EN.319411-1]. Certificate management must be able to cope with such network architectures. CMP offers the required flexibility and functionality, namely authenticated self-contained messages, efficient polling, and support for asynchronous message transfer while retaining end-to-end authentication.¶
1.5. Existing CMP Profiles
As already stated, [RFC4210] contains profiles with mandatory and optional PKI management operations in Appendices D and E of [RFC4210]. Those profiles focus on management of human user certificates and only partly address the specific needs of certificate management automation for unattended devices or machine
Both Appendices D and E of [RFC4210] focus on PKI management operations between an EE and an RA or CA. They do not address further profiling of RA-to-CA communication, which is typically needed for full backend automation. All requirements regarding algorithm support for Appendices D and E of [RFC4210] have been updated by Section 7.1 of CMP Algorithms [RFC9481].¶
3GPP makes use of CMP [RFC4210] in its Technical Specification 33.310 [ETSI-3GPP.33.310] for automatic management of IPsec certificates in 3G, LTE, and 5G backbone networks. Since 2010, a dedicated CMP profile for initial certificate enrollment and certificate update operations between EEs and RAs/CAs is specified in that document.¶
In 2015, UNISIG included a CMP profile for enrollment of TLS certificates in the Subset-137 specifying the ETRAM/ETCS online key management for train control systems [UNISIG
Both standardization bodies tailor CMP [RFC4210], CRMF [RFC4211], and HTTP transfer for CMP [RFC6712] for highly automated and reliable PKI management operations for unattended devices and services.¶
1.6. Compatibility with Existing CMP Profiles
The profile specified in this document is compatible with Appendices D and E of [RFC4210], with the following exceptions:¶
The profile specified in this document is compatible with the CMP profile for 3G, LTE, and 5G network domain security and authentication framework [ETSI-3GPP.33.310], except that:¶
The profile specified in this document is compatible with the CMP profile for online key management in rail networks as specified in [UNISIG
1.7. Use of CMP in SZTP and BRSKI Environments
In Secure Zero Touch Provisioning (SZTP) [RFC8572] and other environments using Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) / YANG modules, [SZTP-CSR] offers a YANG module that includes several types of certificate requests to obtain a public key certificate for a locally generated key pair. Such messages are of the form ietf
In Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) [RFC8995] environments, "BRSKI-AE: Alternative Enrollment Protocols in BRSKI" [BRSKI-AE] describes a generalization regarding the employed enrollment protocols to allow alternatives to Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) [RFC7030]. For the use of CMP, it requires adherence to this profile.¶
1.8. Scope of This Document
On one hand, this profile intends to reduce the flexibility of CMP to the generic needs of automated certificate management of machine end entities. On the other hand, it offers a variety of PKI management operations and options relevant for industrial use cases. Therefore, it is still a framework that supports further profiling by those addressing a specific use case or scenario, e.g., 3GPP/ETSI or UNISIG. There is room to further tailor this profile. This enables stricter profiling to meet the concrete needs in application areas.¶
To minimize ambiguity and complexity through needless variety, this document specifies exhaustive requirements for generating PKI management messages on the sender side. However, it gives only minimal requirements on checks by the receiving side and how to handle error cases.¶
Especially on the EE side, this profile aims at a lightweight implementation. This means that the number of PKI management operation implementations are reduced to a reasonable minimum to support typical certificate management use cases in industrial machine
For the sake of interoperabilit
Fields used in ASN.1 syntax in Sections 3, 4, or 5 are specified in CMP [RFC4210] [RFC9480], CRMF [RFC4211], and CMS [RFC5652] [RFC8933]. When these sections do not explicitly discuss a field, then the field SHOULD NOT be used by the sending entity. The receiving entity MUST NOT require the absence of such a field and, if the field is present, MUST handle it gracefully.¶
1.9. Structure of This Document
Section 2 introduces the general PKI architecture and approach to certificate management that is assumed in this document.¶
Section 3 profiles the generic aspects of the PKI management operations specified in detail in Sections 4 and 5 to minimize redundancy in the description and to ease implementation. This covers the general structure and protection of messages, as well as generic prerequisites, validation, and error handling.¶
Section 4 profiles the exchange of CMP messages between an EE and the PKI management entity. There are various flavors of certificate enrollment requests, optionally with polling, central key generation, revocation, and general support PKI management operations.¶
Section 5 profiles responding to requests, exchanges between PKI management entities, and operations on behalf of other PKI entities. This may include delayed delivery of messages, which involves polling for responses, and nesting of messages.¶
Section 6 outlines several mechanisms for CMP message transfer, including HTTP-based transfer [RFC6712] optionally using TLS, CoAP-based transfer [RFC9482] optionally using DTLS, and offline file-based transport.¶
Section 7 defines which parts of the profile are mandatory, recommended, optional, or not relevant to implement for which type of entity.¶
2. Solution Architecture
To facilitate secure automatic certificate enrollment, the device hosting an EE is typically equipped with a manufacturer
Note: The owner or operator using the manufacturer
Note: According to IEEE 802.1AR [IEEE
All certificate management operations specified in this document follow the pull model, i.e., they are initiated by an EE (or by an RA acting as an EE). The EE creates a CMP request message, protects it using some asymmetric credential or shared secret information, and sends it to a PKI management entity. This PKI management entity may be a CA or more typically an RA, which checks the request and responds to it itself or forwards the request upstream to the next PKI management entity. In case an RA changes the CMP request message header or body or wants to demonstrate successful verification or authorization, it can apply a protection of its own. The communication between an LRA and RA can be performed synchronously or asynchronously. Asynchronous communication typically leads to delayed message delivery as described in Section 4.4.¶
In operational environments, the certificate management architecture can have multiple LRAs bundling requests from multiple EEs at dedicated locations and one (or more than one) central RA aggregating the requests from the LRAs. Every LRA in this scenario has shared secret information (one per EE) for MAC-based protection or a CMP protection key and certificate, allowing it to protect CMP messages it processes using its own credentials. The figure above shows an architectural example with one LRA, RA, and CA. It is also possible not to have an RA or LRA or that there is no CA with a CMP interface. Depending on the network infrastructure, the message transfer between PKI management entities may be based on synchronous online connections, asynchronous connections, or even offline (e.g., file-based) transfer.¶
Note: In contrast to the pull model used in this document, other specifications could use the messages specified in this document to implement the push model. In this case, the EE is pushed (triggered) by the PKI management entity to provide the CMP request; therefore, the EE acts as the receiver, not initiating the interaction with the PKI. For example, when the device itself only acts (as a server as described in BRSKI with Pledge in Responder Mode [BRSKI-PRM]), support of certificate enrollment in a push model is needed. While BRSKI-PRM currently utilizes its own format for the exchanges, CMP in general and the messages specified in this profile offer all required capabilities. Nevertheless, the message flow and state machine as described in Section 4 must be adapted to implement a push model.¶
Note: Third-party CAs not conforming to this document may implement other variants of CMP, different standardized protocols, or even proprietary interfaces for certificate management. In such cases, an RA needs to adapt the exchanged CMP messages to the flavor of certificate management interaction required by such a nonconformant CA.¶
3. Generic Aspects of PKI Messages and PKI Management Operations
This section covers the generic aspects of the PKI management operations specified in Sections 4 and 5 as upfront general requirements to minimize redundancy in the description and to ease implementation.¶
As described in Section 5.1 of [RFC4210], all CMP messages have the following general structure:¶
The general contents of the message header, protection, and extraCerts fields are specified in the following three subsections.¶
In case a specific PKI management operation needs different contents in the header, protection, or extraCerts fields, the differences are described in the respective subsections of Sections 4 and 5.¶
The CMP message body contains the PKI management operation
Note: In the description of CMP messages, the presence of some fields is stated as OPTIONAL or RECOMMENDED. The following text that states requirements on such a field applies only if the field is present.¶
The generic prerequisites needed by the PKI entities in order to perform PKI management operations are described in Section 3.4.¶
The generic validation steps to be performed by PKI entities upon receiving a CMP message are described in Section 3.5.¶
The generic aspects of handling and reporting errors are described in Section 3.6.¶
3.1. General Description of the CMP Message Header
This section describes the generic header fields of all CMP messages.¶
Any fields or variations specific to PKI management operation are described in Sections 4 and 5.¶
3.2. General Description of the CMP Message Protection
This section describes the generic protection field contents of all CMP messages. For signature-based protection, which is the default protection mechanism for all CMP messages described in this profile, the CMP protection key and CMP protection certificate are used. For MAC-based protection, shared secret information is used as described in Section 4.1.5.¶
The CMP message protection provides, if available, message origin authentication and integrity protection for the header and body. The CMP message extraCerts field is not covered by this protection.¶
Note: The extended key usages described in Section 2.2 of CMP Updates [RFC9480] can be used for authorization of a sending PKI management entity.¶
3.3. General Description of CMP Message ExtraCerts
This section describes the generic extraCerts field of all CMP messages. Any specific requirements on the extraCerts are specified in the respective PKI management operation.¶
Note: One reason for adding a self-signed certificate to extraCerts is if it is the CMP protection certificate or a successor root CA self-signed certificate as indicated in the HashOfRootKey extension of the current root CA certificate; see [RFC8649]. Another reason for including self-signed certificates in the extraCerts is, for instance, due to storage limitations. A receiving PKI entity may not have the complete trust anchor information available but just a unique identification of it and thus needs the full trust anchor information carried in a self-signed certificate for further processing (see Section 9).¶
For maximum interoperabilit
3.4. Generic PKI Management Operation Prerequisites
This subsection describes what is generally needed by the PKI entities to be able to perform PKI management operations.¶
Identification of PKI entities:¶
Routing of CMP messages:¶
Authentication of PKI entities:¶
Authorization of PKI management operations:¶
3.5. Generic Validation of a PKI Message
This section describes generic validation steps of each PKI entity receiving a PKI request or response message before any further processing or forwarding. If a PKI management entity decides to terminate a PKI management operation because a check failed, it MUST send a negative response or an error message as described in Section 3.6. The PKIFailureInfo bits given below in parentheses MAY be used in the failInfo field of the PKIStatusInfo as described in Section 3.6.4; also see Appendix F of [RFC4210].¶
All PKI message header fields not mentioned in this section, like the recipient and generalInfo fields, SHOULD be handled gracefully upon receipt.¶
The following list describes the basic set of message input validation steps. Without these checks, the protocol becomes dysfunctional.¶
The following list describes the set of message input validation steps required to ensure secure protocol operation:¶
Note: The requirements for checking certificates given in [RFC5280] MUST be followed for signature-based CMP message protection. Unless the message is a positive ip/cp/kup, where the issuing CA certificate of the newly enrolled certificate is the same as the CMP protection certificate of that message, certificate status checking SHOULD be performed on the CMP protection certificates. If the response message contains the caPubs field to transfer new trust anchor information, the CMP protection is crucial and certificate status checking is REQUIRED. For other cases, it MAY be acceptable to omit certificate status checking when respective information is not available.¶
Depending on local policies, one or more of the input validation checks described below need to be implemented:¶
3.6. Error Handling
This section describes how a PKI entity handles error conditions on messages it receives. Each error condition should be logged appropriately to allow root-cause analysis of failure cases.¶
3.6.1. Reporting Error Conditions Upstream
An EE SHALL NOT send error messages. PKI management entities SHALL NOT send error messages in the upstream direction either.¶
In case an EE rejects a newly issued certificate contained in an ip, cp, or kup message and implicit confirmation has not been granted, the EE MUST report this using a certConf message with "rejection" status and await the pkiConf response as described in Section 4.1.1.¶
On all other error conditions regarding response messages, the EE or PKI management entity MUST regard the current PKI management operation as terminated with failure. The error conditions include:¶
Upstream PKI management entities will not receive any CMP message to learn that the PKI management operation has been terminated. In case they expect a further message from the EE, a connection interruption or timeout will occur. The value set for such timeouts will vary by use case. Then they MUST also regard the current PKI management operation as terminated with failure and MUST NOT attempt to send an error message downstream.¶
3.6.2. Reporting Error Conditions Downstream
In case the PKI management entity detects an error condition, e.g., rejecting the request due to policy decision, in the body of an ir, cr, p10cr, kur, or rr message received from downstream, it MUST report the error in the specific response message, i.e., an ip, cp, kup, or rp with "rejection" status, as described in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2. This can also happen in case of polling.¶
In case the PKI management entity detects any other error condition on requests (including pollReq, certConf, genm, and nested messages) received from downstream and on responses received from upstream (such as invalid message header, body type, protection, or extraCerts, according to the checks described in Section 3.5), it MUST report them downstream in the form of an error message as described in Section 3.6.4.¶
3.6.3. Handling Error Conditions on Nested Messages Used for Batching
Batching of messages using nested messages as described in Section 5.2.2.2 requires special error handling.¶
If the error condition is on an upstream nested message containing batched requests, it MUST NOT attempt to respond to the individual requests included in it but to the nested message itself.¶
In case a PKI management entity receives an error message in response to a nested message, it must propagate the error by responding with an error message to each of the request messages contained in the nested message.¶
In case a PKI management entity detects an error condition on the downstream nested message received in response to a nested message sent before and the body of the received nested message still parses, it MAY ignore this error condition and handle the included responses as described in Section 5.2.2.2. Otherwise, it MUST propagate the error by responding with an error message to each of the requests contained in the nested message it sent originally.¶
3.6.4. PKIStatusInfo and Error Messages
When sending any kind of negative response, including error messages, a PKI entity MUST indicate the error condition in the PKIStatusInfo structure of the respective message as described below. Then it MUST regard the current PKI management operation as terminated with failure.¶
The PKIStatusInfo structure is used to report errors. It may be part of various message types, in particular, ip, cp, kup, certConf, and error. The PKIStatusInfo structure consists of the following fields:¶
- status:
- Here, the PKIStatus value "rejection" MUST be used in case an error was detected. When a PKI management entity indicates delayed delivery of a CMP response message to the EE with an error message as described in Section 4.4, the status "waiting" MUST be used there.¶
- statusString:
- Here, any human-readable valid value for logging or to display via a user interface should be added.¶
- failInfo:
-
Here, the PKIFailureInfo bits MAY be used in the way explained in Appendix F of [RFC4210]. PKIFailureInfo bits regarding the validation described in Section 3.5 are referenced there. The PKIFailureInfo bits referenced in Sections 5.1 and 6 are described here:¶
- badCertId:
- A kur, certConf, or rr message references an unknown certificate.¶
- badPOP:
- An ir/cr/kur/p10cr contains an invalid proof
-of -possession . ¶ - certRevoked:
- Revocation is requested for a certificate that is already revoked.¶
- badCertTemplate:
- The contents of a certificate request are not accepted, e.g., a field is missing or has an unacceptable value or the given public key is already in use in some other certificate (depending on policy).¶
- transaction
Id In Use : - This is sent by a PKI management entity in case the received request contains a transactionID that is currently in use for another transaction. An EE receiving such an error message should resend the request in a new transaction using a different transactionID.¶
- notAuthorized:
- The sender of a request message is not authorized for requesting the operation.¶
- systemUnavail:
- This is sent by a PKI management entity in case a back-end system is not available.¶
- systemFailure:
- This is sent by a PKI management entity in case a back-end system is currently not functioning correctly.¶
An EE receiving a systemUnavail or systemFailure failInfo should resend the request in a new transaction after some time.¶
Detailed Message Description:¶
Protecting the error message may not be technically feasible if it is not clear which credential the recipient will be able to use when validating this protection, e.g., in case the request message was fundamentally broken. In these exceptional cases, the protection of the error message MAY be omitted.¶
4. PKI Management Operations
This section focuses on the communication of an EE with the PKI management entity it directly talks to. Depending on the network and PKI solution, this can be an RA or directly a CA. Handling of a message by a PKI management entity is described in Section 5.¶
The PKI management operations specified in this section cover the following:¶
These operations mainly specify the message body of the CMP messages and utilize the specification of the message header, protection, and extraCerts, as specified in Section 3. The messages are named by the respective field names in PKIBody, like ir, ip, cr, cp, etc.; see Section 5.1.2 of [RFC4210].¶
The following diagram shows the EE state machine covering all PKI management operations described in this section, including negative responses, error messages described in Section 3.6.4, ip/cp/kup/error messages with status "waiting", and pollReq and pollRep messages as described in Section 4.4.¶
On receiving messages from upstream, the EE MUST perform the general validation checks described in Section 3.5. In case an error occurs, the behavior is described in Section 3.6.¶
End Entity State Machine:¶
- *)
- In case of a delayed delivery of pkiConf responses, the same polling mechanism is initiated as for rp or genp messages by sending an error message with status "waiting".¶
Note: All CMP messages belonging to the same PKI management operation MUST have the same transactionID because the message receiver identifies the elements of the operation in this way.¶
This section is aligned with CMP [RFC4210], CMP Updates [RFC9480], and CMP Algorithms [RFC9481].¶
Guidelines as well as an algorithm use profile for this document are available in CMP Algorithms [RFC9481].¶
4.1. Enrolling End Entities
There are various approaches for requesting a certificate from a PKI.¶
These approaches differ in the way the EE authenticates itself to the PKI, in the form of the request being used, and how the key pair to be certified is generated. The authentication mechanisms may be as follows:¶
An EE requests a certificate indirectly or directly from a CA. When the PKI management entity handles the request as described in Section 5.1.1 and responds with a message containing the requested certificate, the EE MUST reply with a confirmation message unless implicitConfirm was granted. The PKI management entity MUST then handle it as described in Section 5.1.2 and respond with a confirmation, closing the PKI management operation.¶
The message sequences described in this section allow the EE to request certification of a locally or centrally generated public-private key pair. The public key and the subject name identifying the EE MUST be present in the certTemplate of the certificate request message.¶
Note: If the EE does not know for which subject name to request the certificate, it can use the subject name from the CMP protection certificate in case of signature-based protection or the identifier of the shared secret in case of MAC-based protection.¶
Typically, the EE provides a signature-based proof
Note: Section 4 of [RFC4211] allows for providing proof
The requesting EE provides the binding of the proof
The proof
Note: This binding may be lost if a PKI management entity reprotects this request message.¶
The EE MAY indicate the certificate profile to use in the certProfile extension of the generalInfo field in the PKIHeader of the certificate request message as described in Section 3.1.¶
In case the EE receives a CA certificate in the caPubs field for installation as a new trust anchor, it MUST properly authenticate the message and authorize the sender as a trusted source of the new trust anchor.
This authorization is typically indicated using shared secret information for protecting an Initialization Response (ip) message. Authorization can also be signature
4.1.1. Enrolling an End Entity to a New PKI
This PKI management operation should be used by an EE to request a certificate from a new PKI using an existing certificate from an external PKI, e.g., a manufacturer
Note: In Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) [RFC8995] environments, "BRSKI-AE: Alternative Enrollment Protocols in BRSKI" [BRSKI-AE] describes a generalization regarding enrollment protocols alternative to EST [RFC7030]. As replacement of EST simpleenroll, BRSKI-AE uses this PKI management operation for bootstrapping LDevID certificates.¶
Specific prerequisites augmenting the prerequisites in Section 3.4 are as follows:¶
Message Flow:¶
For this PKI management operation, the EE MUST include a sequence of one CertReqMsg in the ir. If more certificates are required, further requests MUST be sent using separate PKI management operations.¶
The EE MUST include the generalInfo field implicitConfirm in the header of the ir message as described in Section 3.1, unless it requires certificate confirmation. This leaves the PKI management entities the choice of whether or not the EE must send a certConf message upon receiving a new certificate. Depending on the PKI policy and requirements for managing EE certificates, it can be important for PKI management entities to learn if the EE accepted the new certificate. In such cases, when responding with an ip message, the PKI management entity MUST NOT include the implicitConfirm extension. In case the EE included the generalInfo field implicitConfirm in the request message and the PKI management entity does not need any explicit confirmation from the EE, the PKI management entity MUST include the generalInfo field implicitConfirm in the response message. This prevents explicit certificate confirmation and saves the overhead of a further message round trip. Otherwise, the PKI management entity SHOULD include confirmWaitTime as described in Section 3.1.¶
If the EE did not request implicit confirmation or implicit confirmation was not granted by the PKI management entity, certificate confirmation MUST be performed as follows. If the EE successfully received the certificate, it MUST send a certConf message in due time. On receiving a valid certConf message, the PKI management entity MUST respond with a pkiConf message. If the PKI management entity does not receive the expected certConf message in time, it MUST handle this like a rejection by the EE. In case of rejection, depending on its policy, the PKI management entity MAY revoke the newly issued certificate, notify a monitoring system, or log the event internally.¶
Note: Depending on PKI policy, a new certificate may be published by a PKI management entity, and explicit confirmation may be required. In this case, it is advisable not to do the publication until a positive certificate confirmation has been received. This way, the need to revoke the certificate on negative confirmation can be avoided.¶
If the certificate request was rejected by the CA, the PKI management entity MUST return an ip message containing the status code "rejection" as described in Section 3.6, and the certified
Detailed Message Description:¶
4.1.2. Enrolling an End Entity to a Known PKI
This PKI management operation should be used by an EE to request an additional certificate of the same PKI it already has certificates from. The EE uses one of these existing certificates to authenticate itself by signing its request messages using the respective private key.¶
Specific prerequisites augmenting the prerequisites in Section 3.4 are as follows:¶
The message sequence for this PKI management operation is identical to that given in Section 4.1.1, with the following changes:¶
4.1.3. Updating a Valid Certificate
This PKI management operation should be used by an EE to request an update for one of its certificates that is still valid. The EE uses the certificate it wishes to update as the CMP protection certificate. Both for authenticating itself and for proving ownership of the certificate to be updated, it signs the request messages with the corresponding private key.¶
Specific prerequisites augmenting the prerequisites in Section 3.4 are as follows:¶
The message sequence for this PKI management operation is identical to that given in Section 4.1.1, with the following changes:¶
As part of the certReq structure of the kur, the oldCertId control is added after the certTemplate field.¶
4.1.4. Enrolling an End Entity Using a PKCS #10 Request
This PKI management operation can be used by an EE to request a certificate using the PKCS #10 [RFC2986] format to interoperate with CAs not supporting CRMF [RFC4211]. This offers a variation of the PKI management operations specified in Sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.3.¶
In this PKI management operation, the public key and all further certificate template data MUST be contained in the subjectPKInfo and other certification
The prerequisites are the same as given in Section 4.1.2.¶
The message sequence for this PKI management operation is identical to that given in Sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.3, with the following changes:¶
Detailed Message Description:¶
4.1.5. Using MAC-Based Protection for Enrollment
This is a variant of the PKI management operations described in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.4. It should be used by an EE to request a certificate of a new PKI in case it does not have a certificate to prove its identity to the target PKI but has some secret information shared with the PKI management entity. Therefore, the request and response messages are MAC-protected using this shared secret information. The distribution of this shared secret is out of scope for this document. The PKI management entity checking the MAC-based protection MUST replace this protection according to Section 5.2.3, as the next hop may not know the shared secret information.¶
Note: The entropy of the shared secret information is crucial for the level of protection when using MAC-based protection. Further guidance is available in the security considerations updated by CMP Updates [RFC9480].¶
Specific prerequisites augmenting the prerequisites in Section 3.4 are as follows:¶
The message sequence for this PKI management operation is identical to that given in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.4, with the following changes:¶
See Section 6 of CMP Algorithms [RFC9481] for details on message authentication code algorithms (MSG_MAC_ALG) to use. Typically, parameters are part of the protectionAlg field, e.g., used for key derivation, like a salt and an iteration count. Such parameters should remain constant for message protection throughout this PKI management operation to reduce the computational overhead.¶
4.1.6. Adding Central Key Pair Generation to Enrollment
This is a variant of the PKI management operations described in Sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.4 and the variant described in Section 4.1.5. It needs to be used in case an EE is not able to generate its new public-private key pair itself or central generation of the EE key material is preferred. Which PKI management entity will act as Key Generation Authority (KGA) and perform the key generation is a matter of the local implementation. This PKI management entity MUST use a certificate containing the additional extended key usage extension id-kp-cmKGA in order to be accepted by the EE as a legitimate key generation authority.¶
Note: As described in Section 5.3.1, the KGA can use the PKI management operation described in Section 4.1.2 to request the certificate for this key pair on behalf of the EE.¶
When an EE requests central key generation for a certificate update using a kur message, the KGA cannot use a kur message to request the certificate on behalf of the EE, as the old EE credential is not available to the KGA for protecting this message. Therefore, if the EE uses the PKI management operation described in Section 4.1.3, the KGA MUST act as described in Section 4.1.2 to request the certificate for the newly generated key pair on behalf of the EE from the CA.¶
Generally speaking, it is strongly preferable to generate public-private key pairs locally at the EE. This is advisable to make sure that the entity identified in the newly issued certificate is the only entity that knows the private key.¶
Reasons for central key generation may include the following:¶
Note: As mentioned in Section 2, central key generation may be required in a push model, where the certificate response message is transferred by the PKI management entity to the EE without a previous request message.¶
The EE requesting central key generation MUST omit the publicKey field from the certTemplate or, in case it has a preference on the key type to be generated, provide this preference in the algorithm sub-field and fill the subject
Note: As the protection of centrally generated keys in the response message has been extended to EncryptedKey by Section 2.7 of CMP Updates [RFC9480], EnvelopedData is the preferred alternative to EncryptedValue. In CRMF [RFC4211], Section 2.1, point 9, the use of EncryptedValue has been deprecated in favor of the EnvelopedData structure. Therefore, this profile requires using EnvelopedData, as specified in Section 6 of CMS [RFC5652]. When EnvelopedData is to be used in a PKI management operation, CMP v3 MUST be indicated in the message header already for the initial request message; see Section 2.20 of CMP Updates [RFC9480].¶
The PKI management entity delivers the private key in the privateKey field in the certified
The private key MUST be provided as an Asymmetric
This Asymmetric
The SignedData structure MUST be wrapped in an EnvelopedData structure, as specified in Section 6 of CMS [RFC5652], encrypting it using a newly generated symmetric content
This content
Specific prerequisites augmenting those of the respective certificate enrollment PKI management operations are as follows:¶
Detailed Description of the privateKey Field:¶
As stated in Section 1.8, all fields of the ASN.1 syntax that are defined in [RFC5652] but are not explicitly specified here SHOULD NOT be used.¶
4.1.6.1. Using the Key Transport Key Management Technique
This variant can be applied in combination with the PKI management operations specified in Sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.3 using signature-based protection of CMP messages. The EE certificate used for the signature-based protection of the request message MUST contain a public key supporting key transport and allow for the key usage "key
The Key
Detailed Description of the Key
4.1.6.2. Using the Key Agreement Key Management Technique
This variant can be applied in combination with the PKI management operations specified in Sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.3, using signature-based protection of CMP messages. The EE certificate used for the signature-based protection of the request message MUST contain a public key supporting key agreement and allow for the key usage "keyAgreement". The related key pair MUST be used for establishment of the content
The Key
Detailed Description of the Key
4.1.6.3. Using the Password-Based Key Management Technique
This variant can be applied in combination with the PKI management operation specified in Section 4.1.5, using MAC-based protection of CMP messages. The shared secret information used for the MAC-based protection MUST also be used for the encryption of the content
Note: The entropy of the shared secret information is crucial for the level of protection when using a password-based key management technique. For centrally generated key pairs, the entropy of the shared secret information SHALL NOT be less than the security strength of the centrally generated key pair. Further guidance is available in Section 9.¶
The Password
Detailed Description of the Password
4.2. Revoking a Certificate
This PKI management operation should be used by an entity to request revocation of a certificate. Here, the revocation request is used by an EE to revoke one of its own certificates.¶
The revocation request message MUST be signed using the certificate that is to be revoked to prove the authorization to revoke. The revocation request message is signature
An EE requests revoking a certificate of its own at the CA that issued this certificate. The PKI management entity handles the request as described in Section 5.1.3, and responds with a message that contains the status of the revocation from the CA.¶
The specific prerequisite augmenting the prerequisites in Section 3.4 is as follows:¶
Message Flow:¶
For this PKI management operation, the EE MUST include a sequence of one RevDetails structure in the rr message body. In the case no generic error occurred, the response to the rr MUST be an rp message containing a single status field.¶
Detailed Message Description:¶
4.3. Support Messages
The following support messages offer on-demand, in-band delivery of content relevant to the EE provided by a PKI management entity. CMP general messages and general response are used for this purpose. Depending on the environment, these requests may be answered by an RA or CA (see also Section 5.1.4).¶
The general messages and general response messages contain Info
The following contents are specified in this document:¶
The following message flow and contents are common to all general message (genm) and general response (genp) messages.¶
Message Flow:¶
Detailed Message Description:¶
4.3.1. Get CA Certificates
This PKI management operation can be used by an EE to request CA certificates from the PKI management entity.¶
An EE requests CA certificates, e.g., for chain construction, from a PKI management entity by sending a general message with OID id-it-caCerts, as specified in Section 2.14 of CMP Updates [RFC9480]. The PKI management entity responds with a general response with the same OID that either contains a SEQUENCE of certificates populated with the available intermediate and issuing CA certificates or no content in case no CA certificate is available.¶
No specific prerequisites apply in addition to those specified in Section 3.4.¶
The message sequence for this PKI management operation is as given above, with the following specific content:¶
Detailed Description of the infoValue Field of genp:¶
4.3.2. Get Root CA Certificate Update
This PKI management operation can be used by an EE to request an updated root CA certificate as described in Section 4.4 of [RFC4210].¶
An EE requests an update of a root CA certificate from the PKI management entity by sending a general message with OID id
Note: This mechanism may also be used to update trusted non-root certificates, e.g., directly trusted intermediate or issuing CA certificates.¶
The newWithNew certificate is the new root CA certificate and is REQUIRED to be present if available. The newWithOld certificate is REQUIRED to be present in the response message because it is needed for the receiving entity trusting the old root CA certificate to gain trust in the new root CA certificate. The oldWithNew certificate is OPTIONAL because it is only needed in rare scenarios where other entities may not already trust the old root CA.¶
No specific prerequisites apply in addition to those specified in Section 3.4.¶
The message sequence for this PKI management operation is as given above, with the following specific content:¶
Detailed Description of the infoValue Field of genm:¶
Detailed Description of the infoValue Field of genp:¶
4.3.3. Get Certificate Request Template
This PKI management operation can be used by an EE to request a template with parameters for future certificate requests.¶
An EE requests certificate request parameters from the PKI management entity by sending a general message with OID id
The EE SHOULD follow the requirements from the received CertTemplate by including in the certificate requests all the fields requested, taking over all the field values provided and filling in any remaining fields values. The EE SHOULD NOT add further fields, name components, and extensions or their
Note: We deliberately do not use "MUST" or "MUST NOT" here in order to allow more flexibility in case the rules given here are not sufficient for specific scenarios. The EE can populate the certificate request as wanted and ignore any of the requirements contained in the Cert
In case a field of type Name, e.g., subject, is present in the CertTemplate but has the value NULL-DN (i.e., has an empty list of relative distinguished name (RDN) components), the field SHOULD be included in the certificate request and filled with content provided by the EE. Similarly, in case an X.509v3 extension is present but its extnValue is empty, this means that the extension SHOULD be included and filled with content provided by the EE. In case a Name component, for instance, a common name or serial number, is given but has an empty string value, the EE SHOULD fill in a value. Similarly, in case an extension has subcomponents (e.g., an IP address in a SubjectAltName field) with empty values, the EE SHOULD fill in a value.¶
The EE MUST ignore (i.e., not include) empty fields, extensions, and subcomponents that it does not understand or does not know suitable values to fill in.¶
The publicKey field of type Subject
The keySpec field, if present, specifies the public key types optionally with parameters and/or RSA key lengths for which a certificate may be requested.¶
The value of a keySpec element with the OID id
The value of a keySpec element with the OID id
In the CertTemplate of the Cert
The specific prerequisites augmenting the prerequisites in Section 3.4 is as follows:¶
The message sequence for this PKI management operation is as given above, with the following specific content:¶
Detailed Description of the infoValue Field of genp:¶
4.3.4. CRL Update Retrieval
This PKI management operation can be used by an EE to request a new CRL. If a CA offers methods to access a CRL, it may include CRL distribution points or authority information access extensions into the issued certificates as specified in [RFC5280]. In addition, CMP offers CRL provisioning functionality as part of the PKI management operation.¶
An EE requests a CRL update from the PKI management entity by sending a general message with OID id
The EE MUST identify the requested CRL either by a CRL distribution point name or issuer name.¶
Note: CRL distribution point names can be obtained from a c
If a thisUpdate value was given, the PKI management entity MUST return the latest CRL available from the referenced source if this CRL is more recent than the given thisUpdate time. If no thisUpdate value was given, it MUST return the latest CRL available from the referenced source. In all other cases, the infoValue in the response message MUST be absent.¶
The PKI management entity should treat a CRL distribution point name as an internal pointer to identify a CRL that is directly available at the PKI management entity. It is not intended as a way to fetch an arbitrary CRL from an external location, as this location may be unavailable to that PKI management entity.¶
In addition to the prerequisites specified in Section 3.4, the EE MUST know which CRL to request.¶
Note: If the EE does not want to request a specific CRL, it MAY instead use a general message with OID id
The message sequence for this PKI management operation is as given above, with the following specific content:¶
Detailed Description of the infoValue Field of genm:¶
Detailed Description of the infoValue Field of genp:¶
4.4. Handling Delayed Delivery
This is a variant of all PKI management operations described in this document. It is initiated in case a PKI management entity cannot respond to a request message in a timely manner, typically due to offline or asynchronous upstream communication or due to delays in handling the request. The polling mechanism has been specified in Section 5.3.22 of [RFC4210] and updated by [RFC9480].¶
Depending on the PKI architecture, the entity initiating delayed delivery is not necessarily the PKI management entity directly addressed by the EE.¶
When initiating delayed delivery of a message received from an EE, the PKI management entity MUST respond with a message including the status "waiting". In response to an ir/cr/kur/p10cr message, it must place the status "waiting" in an ip/cp/kup message and for responses to other request message types in an error message. On receiving this response, the EE MUST store in its transaction context the senderNonce of the preceding request message because this value will be needed for checking the recipNonce of the final response to be received after polling. It sends a poll request with certReqId 0 if referring to the CertResponse element contained in the ip/cp/kup message, else -1 to refer to the whole message. In case the final response is not yet available, the PKI management entity that initiated the delayed delivery MUST answer with a poll response with the same certReqId. The included checkAfter time value indicates the minimum number of seconds that should elapse before the EE sends a new pollReq message to the PKI management entity. Polling earlier than indicated by the checkAfter value may increase the number of message round trips. This is repeated until a final response is available or any party involved gives up on the current PKI management operation, i.e., a timeout occurs.¶
When the PKI management entity that initiated delayed delivery can provide the final response for the original request message of the EE, it MUST send this response to the EE. Using this response, the EE can continue the current PKI management operation as usual.¶
No specific prerequisites apply in addition to those of the respective PKI management operation.¶
Message Flow:¶
Detailed Message Description:¶
5. PKI Management Entity Operations
This section focuses on request processing by a PKI management entity. Depending on the network and PKI solution design, this can be an RA or CA, any of which may include protocol conversion or central key generation (i.e., acting as a KGA).¶
A PKI management entity may directly respond to request messages from downstream and report errors. In case the PKI management entity is an RA, it typically forwards the received request messages upstream after checking them and forwards respective response messages downstream. Besides responding to messages or forwarding them, a PKI management entity may request or revoke certificates on behalf of EEs. A PKI management entity may also need to manage its own certificates and thus act as an EE using the PKI management operations specified in Section 4.¶
5.1. Responding to Requests
The PKI management entity terminating the PKI management operation at CMP level MUST respond to all received requests by returning a related CMP response message or an error. Any intermediate PKI management entity MAY respond, depending on the PKI configuration and policy.¶
In addition to the checks described in Section 3.5, the responding PKI management entity MUST check that a request that initiates a new PKI management operation does not use a transactionID that is currently in use. The failInfo bit value to use is transaction
The responding PKI management entity MUST copy the sender field of the request to the recipient field of the response, MUST copy the senderNonce of the request to the recipNonce of the response, and MUST use the same transactionID for the response.¶
5.1.1. Responding to a Certificate Request
An ir/cr/kur/p10cr message is used to request a certificate as described in Section 4.1. The responding PKI management entity MUST proceed as follows unless it initiates delayed delivery as described in Section 5.1.5.¶
The PKI management entity MUST check the message body according to the applicable requirements from Section 4.1. Possible failInfo bit values used for error reporting in case a check failed include badCertId and bad
If the requested certificate is available, the PKI management entity MUST respond with a positive ip/cp/kup message as described in Section 4.1.¶
Note: If central key generation is performed by the responding PKI management entity, the responding PKI management entity MUST include the private key in encrypted form in the response as specified in Section 4.1.6.¶
The prerequisites of the respective PKI management operation specified in Section 4.1 apply.¶
If the EE requested omission of the certConf message, the PKI management entity MUST handle it as described in Section 4.1.1. Therefore, it MAY grant this by including the implicitConfirm generalInfo field or including the confirmWaitTime field in the response header.¶
5.1.2. Responding to a Confirmation Message
A PKI management entity MUST handle a certConf message if it has responded before with a positive ip/cp/kup message not granting implicit confirmation. It should check the message body according to the requirements given in Section 4.1.1 (failInfo bit: badCertId) and MUST react as described there.¶
The prerequisites of the respective PKI management operation specified in Section 4.1 apply.¶
5.1.3. Responding to a Revocation Request
An rr message is used to request revocation of a certificate. The responding PKI management entity should check the message body according to the requirements in Section 4.2. It MUST make sure that the referenced certificate exists (failInfo bit: badCertId), has been issued by the addressed CA, and is not already expired or revoked (failInfo bit: certRevoked). On success, it MUST respond with a positive rp message, as described in Section 4.2.¶
No specific prerequisites apply in addition to those specified in Section 3.4.¶
5.1.4. Responding to a Support Message
A genm message is used to retrieve extra content. The responding PKI management entity should check the message body according to the applicable requirements in Section 4.3 and perform any further checks depending on the PKI policy. On success, it MUST respond with a genp message as described there.¶
Note: The responding PKI management entity may generate the response from scratch or reuse the contents of previous responses. Therefore, it may be worth caching the body of the response message as long as the contained information is valid and current, such that further requests for the same contents can be answered immediately.¶
No specific prerequisites apply in addition to those specified in Section 3.4.¶
5.1.5. Initiating Delayed Delivery
This functional extension can be used by a PKI management entity in case the response to a request takes longer than usual. In this case, the PKI management entity should completely validate the request as usual and then start processing the request itself or forward it further upstream as soon as possible. In the meantime, it MUST respond with an ip/cp/kup/error message including the status "waiting" and handle subsequent polling as described in Section 4.4.¶
Typically, as stated in Section 5.2.3, an intermediate PKI management entity should not change the sender and recipient nonces even in case it modifies a request or a response message. In the special case of delayed delivery initiated by an intermediate PKI management entity, there is an exception. Between the EE and this PKI management entity, pollReq and pollRep messages are exchanged handling the nonces as usual. Yet when the final response from upstream has arrived at the PKI management entity, this response contains the recipNonce copied (as usual) from the senderNonce in the original request message. The PKI management entity that initiated the delayed delivery MAY replace the recipNonce in the response message with the senderNonce of the last received pollReq because the downstream entities, including the EE, might expect it in this way. Yet the check specified in Section 3.5 allows alternate use of the senderNonce of the original request.¶
No specific prerequisites apply in addition to those of the respective PKI management operation.¶
5.2. Forwarding Messages
In case the PKI solution consists of intermediate PKI management entities (i.e., LRA or RA), each CMP request message coming from an EE or any other downstream PKI management entity MUST either be forwarded to the next (upstream) PKI management entity as described in this section, or answered as described in Section 5.1. Any received response message or a locally generated error message MUST be forwarded to the next (downstream) PKI entity.¶
In addition to the checks described in Section 3.5, the forwarding PKI management entity MAY verify the proof
A PKI management entity SHOULD NOT change the received message unless its role in the PKI system requires it. This is because changes to the message header or body imply reprotection. Changes to the protection breaks end-to-end authentication of the message source. Changes to the certificate template in a certificate request breaks proof
This is particularly relevant in the upstream communication of a request message.¶
Each forwarding PKI management entity has one or more functionalities
Note: PKI management entities forwarding messages may also store data from a message in a database for later usage or audit purposes. They may also support traversal of a network boundary.¶
The decision if a message should be forwarded is:¶
depending on the PKI solution design and the associated security policy, e.g., as defined in the certificate policy (CP) / certification practice statement (CPS) documents [RFC3647].¶
A PKI management entity SHOULD add or MAY replace a protection of a message if it¶
If retaining end-to-end message authentication is required, an additional protection SHALL be added instead of replacing the original protection.¶
A PKI management entity MUST replace a protection of a message if it¶
This is particularly relevant in the upstream communication of certificate request messages.¶
Note that the message protection covers only the header and the body and not the extraCerts. The PKI management entity MAY change the extraCerts in any of the following message adaptations, e.g., to sort, add, or delete certificates to support subsequent PKI entities. This may be particularly helpful to augment upstream messages with additional certificates or to reduce the number of certificates in downstream messages when forwarding to constrained devices.¶
5.2.1. Not Changing Protection
This variant means that a PKI management entity forwards a CMP message without changing the header, body, or protection. In this case, the PKI management entity acts more like a proxy, e.g., on a network boundary, implementing no specific RA-like security functionality that requires an authentic indication to the PKI. Still, the PKI management entity might implement checks that result in refusing to forward the request message and instead responding as specified in Section 3.6.¶
This variant of forwarding a message or the one described in Section 5.2.2.1 MUST be used for kur messages and for central key generation.¶
No specific prerequisites apply in addition to those specified in Section 3.4.¶
5.2.2. Adding Protection and Batching of Messages
This variant of forwarding a message means that a PKI management entity adds another protection to PKI management messages before forwarding them.¶
The nested message is a PKI management message containing a PKIMessages sequence as its body, containing one or more CMP messages.¶
As specified in the updated Section 5.1.3.4 of [RFC4210] (also see Section 2.6 of CMP Updates [RFC9480]), there are various use cases for adding another protection by a PKI management entity. Specific procedures are described in more detail in the following sections.¶
Detailed Message Description:¶
5.2.2.1. Adding Protection to a Request Message
This variant means that a PKI management entity forwards a CMP message while authentically indicating successful validation and approval of a request message without changing the original message authentication.¶
By adding a protection using its own CMP protection key, the PKI management entity provides a proof of verifying and approving the message, as described above. Thus, the PKI management entity acts as an actual registration authority (RA), which implements important security functionality of the PKI. Applying an additional protection is specifically relevant when forwarding a message that requests a certificate update or central key generation. This is because the original protection of the EE needs to be preserved while adding an indication of approval by the PKI management entity.¶
The PKI management entity wrapping the original request message in a nested message structure MUST copy the values of the senderNonce and transactionID header fields of the original message to the respective header fields of the nested message and apply signature-based protection. The additional signature serves as proof of verification and authorization by this PKI management entity.¶
The PKI management entity receiving such a nested message that contains a single request message MUST validate the additional protection signature on the nested message and check the authorization for the approval it implies. Other fields in the header of the nested message can be ignored.¶
The PKI management entity responding to the request contained in the nested message sends the response message as described in Section 5.1, without wrapping it in a nested message.¶
Note: When responding to the inner request message, it must be considered that the verification and approval activity described in this section has already been performed by the PKI management entity that protected the nested message.¶
Note: This form of nesting messages is characterized by the fact that the transactionID in the header of the nested message is the same as the one used in the included message.¶
The specific prerequisite augmenting the prerequisites in Section 3.4 is as follows:¶
Message Flow:¶
5.2.2.2. Batching Messages
A PKI management entity MAY bundle any number of PKI management messages for batch processing or to transfer a bulk of PKI management messages using the nested message structure. In this use case, nested messages are used both on the upstream interface for transferring request messages towards the next PKI management entity and on its downstream interface for response messages.¶
This PKI management operation is typically used on the interface between an LRA and an RA to bundle several messages for offline or asynchronous delivery. In this case, the LRA needs to initiate delayed delivery, as described in Section 5.1.5. If the RA needs different routing information per the nested PKI management message provided upstream, a suitable mechanism may need to be implemented to ensure that the downstream delivery of the response is done to the right requester. Since this mechanism strongly depends on the requirements of the target architecture, it is out of scope of this document.¶
A nested message containing requests is generated locally at the PKI management entity. For the upstream nested message, the PKI management entity acts as a protocol endpoint; therefore, a fresh transactionID and a fresh senderNonce MUST be used in the header of the nested message. An upstream nested message may contain request messages, e.g., ir, cr, p10cr, kur, pollReq, certConf, rr, or genm. While building the upstream nested message, the PKI management entity must store the sender, transactionID, and senderNonce fields of all bundled messages together with the transactionID of the upstream nested message.¶
Such an upstream nested message is sent to the next PKI management entity. The upstream PKI management entity that unbundles it MUST handle each of the included request messages as usual. It MUST answer with a downstream nested message. This downstream nested message MUST use the transactionID of the upstream nested message and return the senderNonce of the upstream nested message as the recipNonce of the downstream nested message. The downstream nested message MUST bundle all available individual response messages (e.g., ip, cp, kup, pollRep, pkiConf, rp, genp, or error) for all original request messages of the upstream nested message. While unbundling the downstream nested message, the former PKI management entity must determine lost and unexpected responses based on the previously stored transactionIDs. When it forwards the unbundled responses, any extra messages MUST be dropped, and any missing response message MUST be answered with an error message (failInfo bit: systemUnavail) to inform the respective requester about the failed certificate management operation.¶
Note: This form of nesting messages is characterized by the fact that the transactionID in the header of the nested message is different to those used in the included messages.¶
The protection of the nested messages MUST NOT be regarded as an indication of verification or approval of the bundled PKI request messages.¶
No specific prerequisites apply in addition to those specified in Section 3.4.¶
Message Flow:¶
5.2.3. Replacing Protection
The following two alternatives can be used by any PKI management entity forwarding a CMP message with or without changes while providing its own protection and, in this way, asserting approval of the message.¶
If retaining end-to-end message authentication is required, an additional protection SHALL be added instead of replacing the original protection.¶
By replacing the existing protection using its own CMP protection key, the PKI management entity provides a proof of verifying and approving the message as described above. Thus, the PKI management entity acts as an actual registration authority (RA), which implements important security functionality of the PKI such as verifying the proof of requester identity and authorization.¶
Note: By replacing the message protection, the binding of a signature-based proof
Before replacing the existing protection with a new protection, the PKI management entity:¶
These message adaptations MUST NOT be applied to kur messages described in Section 4.1.3 since their original protection using the key and certificate to be updated needs to be preserved.¶
These message adaptations MUST NOT be applied to certificate request messages described in Section 4.1.6 for central key generation since their original protection needs to be preserved up to the KGA, which needs to use it for encrypting the new private key for the EE.¶
In both the kur and central key generation cases, if a PKI management entity needs to state its approval of the original request message, it MUST provide this using a nested message as specified in Section 5.2.2.1.¶
When an intermediate PKI management entity modifies a message, it MUST NOT change the transactionID, the senderNonce, or the recipNonce, apart from the exception for the recipNonce given in Section 5.1.5.¶
5.2.3.1. Not Changing Proof-of-Possession
This variant of forwarding a message means that a PKI management entity forwards a CMP message with or without modifying the message header or body while preserving any included proof
This variant is typically used when an RA replaces an existing MAC-based protection with its own signature-based protection; because the upstream PKI management entity does not know the respective shared secret information, replacing the protection is useful.¶
Note: A signature-based proof
In case the PKI management entity breaks an existing proof
The specific prerequisite augmenting the prerequisites in Section 3.4 is as follows:¶
5.2.3.2. Using raVerified
This variant of forwarding a message needs to be used if a PKI management entity breaks any included proof
The PKI management entity MUST verify the proof
Specific prerequisites augmenting the prerequisites in Section 3.4 are as follows:¶
Detailed Description of the popo Field of the certReq Structure:¶
5.3. Acting on Behalf of Other PKI Entities
A PKI management entity may need to request a PKI management operation on behalf of another PKI entity. In this case, the PKI management entity initiates the respective PKI management operation as described in Section 4, acting in the role of the EE.¶
Note: The request message protection will not authenticate the EE, but it will authenticate the RA acting on behalf of the EE.¶
5.3.1. Requesting a Certificate
A PKI management entity may use one of the PKI management operations described in Section 4.1 to request a certificate on behalf of another PKI entity. It either generates the key pair itself and inserts the new public key in the subject
No specific prerequisites apply in addition to those specified in Section 4.1.¶
Note: An upstream PKI management entity will not be able to differentiate this PKI management operation from the one described in Section 5.2.3 because, in both cases, the message is protected by the PKI management entity.¶
The message sequence for this PKI management operation is identical to the respective PKI management operation given in Section 4.1, with the following changes:¶
5.3.2. Revoking a Certificate
A PKI management entity may use the PKI management operation described in Section 4.2 to revoke a certificate of another PKI entity. This revocation request message MUST be signed by the PKI management entity using its own CMP protection key to prove to the PKI authorization to revoke the certificate on behalf of that PKI entity.¶
No specific prerequisites apply in addition to those specified in Section 4.2.¶
Note: An upstream PKI management entity will not be able to differentiate this PKI management operation from the ones described in Section 5.2.3.¶
The message sequence for this PKI management operation is identical to that given in Section 4.2, with the following changes:¶
6. CMP Message Transfer Mechanisms
CMP messages are designed to be self-contained, such that, in principle, any reliable transfer mechanism can be used. EEs will typically support only one transfer mechanism. PKI management entities SHOULD offer HTTP and MAY offer CoAP where required. Piggybacking of CMP messages on any other reliable transfer protocol MAY be used, and file-based transfer MAY be used in case offline transfer is required.¶
Independently of the means of transfer, it can happen that messages are lost or that a communication partner does not respond. To prevent waiting indefinitely, each PKI entity that sends CMP requests should use a configurable per-request timeout, and each PKI management entity that handles CMP requests should use a configurable timeout in case a further request message is to be expected from the client side within the same transaction. In this way, a hanging transaction can be closed cleanly with an error as described in Section 3.6 (failInfo bit: systemUnavail), and related resources (for instance, any cached extraCerts) can be freed.¶
Moreover, there are various situations where the delivery of messages gets delayed. For instance, a serving PKI management entity might take longer than expected to form a response due to administrative processes, resource constraints, or upstream message delivery delays. The transport layer itself may cause delays, for instance, due to offline transport, network segmentation, or intermittent network connectivity. Part of these issues can be detected and handled at CMP level using pollReq and pollRep messages as described in Section 4.4, while others are better handled at transfer level. Depending on the transfer protocol and system architecture, solutions for handling delays at transfer level may be present and can be used for CMP connections, for instance, connection reestablishment and message retransmission.¶
Note: Long timeout periods are helpful to maximize chances to handle minor delays at lower layers without the need for polling.¶
Note: When using TCP and similar reliable connection
When conveying CMP messages in HTTP, CoAP, or MIME-based transfer protocols, the Internet media type "application
6.1. HTTP Transfer
This transfer mechanism can be used by a PKI entity to transfer CMP messages over HTTP. If HTTP transfer is used, the specifications described in [RFC6712] and updated by CMP Updates [RFC9480] MUST be followed.¶
PKI management operations MUST use a URI path consisting of '
If operation labels are used:¶
By sending a request to its preferred endpoint, the PKI entity will recognize, via the HTTP response status code, whether a configured URI is supported by the PKI management entity.¶
In case a PKI management entity receives an unexpected HTTP status code from upstream, it MUST respond downstream with an error message as described in Section 3.6, using a failInfo bit corresponding to the status code, e.g., systemFailure.¶
For certificate management, the major security goal is integrity and data origin authentication. For delivery of centrally generated keys, confidentiality is also a must. These goals are sufficiently achieved by CMP itself, also in an end-to-end fashion.¶
If a second line of defense is required or general privacy concerns exist, TLS can be used to provide confidentiality on a hop-by-hop basis. TLS should be used with certificate
Note: The requirements for checking certificates given in [RFC5280] and either [RFC5246] or [RFC8446] must be followed for the TLS layer. Certificate status checking should be used for the TLS certificates of all communication partners.¶
TLS with mutual authentication based on shared secret information may be used in case no suitable certificates for certificate
Note: The entropy of the shared secret information is crucial for the level of protection available using shard secret information
Note: The provisioning of client certificates and PSKs is out of scope of this document.¶
6.2. CoAP Transfer
This transfer mechanism can be used by a PKI entity to transfer CMP messages over CoAP [RFC7252], e.g., in constrained environments. If CoAP transfer is used, the specifications described in CMP over CoAP [RFC9482] MUST be followed.¶
PKI management operations MUST use a URI path consisting of '
If operation labels are used:¶
By sending a request to its preferred endpoint, the PKI entity will recognize, via the CoAP response status code, whether a configured URI is supported by the PKI management entity. The CoAP-inherent discovery mechanisms MAY also be used.¶
In case a PKI management entity receives an unexpected CoAP status code from upstream, it MUST respond downstream with an error message, as described in Section 3.6, using a failInfo bit corresponding to the status code, e.g., systemFailure.¶
Like for HTTP transfer, to offer a second line of defense or to provide hop-by-hop privacy protection, DTLS may be utilized as described in CMP over CoAP [RFC9482]. If DTLS is utilized, the same boundary conditions (peer authentication, etc.) as those stated for TLS to protect HTTP transfer in Section 6.1 apply to DTLS likewise.¶
Note: The provisioning of client certificates and PSKs is out of scope of this document.¶
6.3. Piggybacking on Other Reliable Transfer
CMP messages MAY also be transferred on some other reliable protocol, e.g., Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) or Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT). Connection, delay, and error handling mechanisms similar to those specified for HTTP in [RFC6712] need to be implemented.¶
A more detailed specification is out of scope of this document and would need to be given, for instance, in the scope of the transfer protocol used.¶
6.4. Offline Transfer
For transferring CMP messages between PKI entities, any mechanism that is able to store and forward binary objects of sufficient length and with sufficient reliability while preserving the order of messages for each transaction can be used.¶
The transfer mechanism should be able to indicate message loss, excessive delay, and possibly other transmission errors. In such cases, the PKI entities MUST report an error as specified in Section 3.6, as far as possible.¶
6.4.1. File-Based Transfer
CMP messages MAY be transferred between PKI entities using file-based mechanisms, for instance, when an EE is offline or a PKI management entity performs delayed delivery. Each file MUST contain the ASN.1 DER encoding of one CMP message only, where the message may be nested. There MUST be no extraneous header or trailer information in the file. The filename extension ".pki" MUST be used.¶
6.4.2. Other Asynchronous Transfer Protocols
Other asynchronous transfer protocols, e.g., email or website upload
The ASN.1 DER encoding of the CMP messages MUST be transferred using the "application
7. Conformance Requirements
This section defines which level of support for the various features specified in this profile is required for each type of PKI entity.¶
7.1. PKI Management Operations
The following table provides an overview of the PKI management operations specified in Sections 4 and 5 and states whether support by conforming EE, RA, and CA implementations is mandatory, recommended, optional, or not applicable. Variants amend or change behavior of base PKI management operations and are therefore also included.¶
The PKI management operation specifications in Section 4 assume that either the RA or CA is the PKI management entity that terminates the Certificate Management Protocol. If the RA terminates CMP, it either responds directly as described in Section 5.1, or it forwards the certificate management operation towards the CA not using CMP. Section 5.2 describes different options of how an RA can forward a CMP message using CMP. Section 5.3 offers the option that an RA operates on behalf on an EE and therefore takes the role of the EE in Section 4.¶
- 1)
- The RA should be able to change the CMP message protection from MAC-based to signature-based protection; see Section 5.2.3.1.¶
- 2)
- The RA should be able to request certificate revocation on behalf of an EE (see Section 5.3.2), e.g., in order to handle incidents.¶
- 3)
- An alternative would be to perform revocation at the CA without using CMP, for instance, using a local administration interface.¶
7.2. Message Transfer
CMP does not have specific needs regarding message transfer, except that, for each request message sent, eventually a sequence of one response message should be received. Therefore, virtually any reliable transfer mechanism can be used, such as HTTP, CoAP, and file-based offline transfer. Thus, this document does not require any specific transfer protocol to be supported by conforming implementations
On different links between PKI entities (e.g., EE-RA and RA-CA), different transfer mechanisms, as specified in Section 6, may be used.¶
HTTP SHOULD be supported and CoAP MAY be supported at all PKI entities for maximizing general interoperabilit
The following table lists the name and level of support specified for each transfer mechanism.¶
8. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the following content in the "CMP Well-Known URI Path Segments" registry (see <https://
9. Security Considerations
The security considerations laid out in CMP [RFC4210] and updated by CMP Updates [RFC9480], CMP Algorithms [RFC9481], CRMF [RFC4211], Algorithm Requirements Update [RFC9045], CMP over HTTP [RFC6712], and CMP over CoAP [RFC9482] apply.¶
Trust anchors for chain validations are often provided in the form of self-signed certificates. All trust anchors MUST be stored on the device with integrity protection. In some cases, a PKI entity may not have sufficient storage for the complete certificates. In such cases, it may only store, e.g., a hash of each self-signed certificate and require receiving the certificate in the extraCerts field, as described in Section 3.3. If such self-signed certificates are provided in-band in the messages, they MUST be verified using information from the trust store of the PKI entity.¶
For TLS using shared secret information
10. References
10.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC2986]
-
Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7", RFC 2986, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2986 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2986 - [RFC4210]
-
Adams, C., Farrell, S., Kause, T., and T. Mononen, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)", RFC 4210, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4210 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4210 - [RFC4211]
-
Schaad, J., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)", RFC 4211, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4211 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4211 - [RFC5280]
-
Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5280 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5280 - [RFC5652]
-
Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70, RFC 5652, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5652 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5652 - [RFC5958]
-
Turner, S., "Asymmetric Key Packages", RFC 5958, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5958 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5958 - [RFC6712]
-
Kause, T. and M. Peylo, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure -- HTTP Transfer for the Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)", RFC 6712, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6712 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6712 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC8615]
-
Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 8615, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8615 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8615 - [RFC8933]
-
Housley, R., "Update to the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) for Algorithm Identifier Protection", RFC 8933, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8933 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8933 - [RFC9045]
-
Housley, R., "Algorithm Requirements Update to the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)", RFC 9045, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9045 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9045 - [RFC9110]
-
Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9110 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9110 - [RFC9325]
-
Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9325 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9325 - [RFC9480]
-
Brockhaus, H., von Oheimb, D., and J. Gray, "Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) Updates", RFC 9480, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9480 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9480 - [RFC9481]
-
Brockhaus, H., Aschauer, H., Ounsworth, M., and J. Gray, "Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) Algorithms", RFC 9481, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9481 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9481 - [RFC9482]
-
Sahni, M., Ed. and S. Tripathi, Ed., "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Transfer for the Certificate Management Protocol", RFC 9482, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9482 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9482
10.2. Informative References
- [BRSKI-AE]
-
von Oheimb, D., Fries, S., and H. Brockhaus, "BRSKI-AE: Alternative Enrollment Protocols in BRSKI", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-anima -brski -ae -05 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -anima -brski -ae -05 - [BRSKI-PRM]
-
Fries, S., Werner, T., Lear, E., and M. Richardson, "BRSKI with Pledge in Responder Mode (BRSKI-PRM)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-anima -brski -prm -10 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -anima -brski -prm -10 - [ETSI
-3GPP .33 .310] -
3GPP, "Network Domain Security (NDS); Authentication Framework (AF)", 3GPP TS 33.310 16.6.0, , <http://
www >..3gpp .org /ftp /Specs /html -info /33310 .htm - [ETSI
-EN .319411 -1] -
ETSI, "Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Policy and security requirements for Trust Service Providers issuing certificates; Part 1: General requirements", V1.3.1, ETSI EN 319 411-1, , <https://
www >..etsi .org /deliver /etsi _en /319400 _319499 /31941101 /01 .03 .01 _60 /en _31941101v010301 p .pdf - [HTTP-CMP]
-
Brockhaus, H., von Oheimb, D., Ounsworth, M., and J. Gray, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure -- HTTP Transfer for the Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-lamps -rfc6712bis -03 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -lamps -rfc6712bis -03 - [IEC.62443-3-3]
-
IEC, "Industrial communication networks - Network and system security - Part 3-3: System security requirements and security levels", IEC 62443-3-3:2013, , <https://
webstore >..iec .ch /publication /7033 - [IEEE
.802 .1AR _2018] -
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Secure Device Identity", IEEE Std 802.1AR-2018, DOI 10
.1109 , , <https:///IEEESTD .2018 .8423794 ieeexplore >..ieee .org /document /8423794 - [NIST
.CSWP .04162018] -
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), "Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity", Version 1.1, DOI 10
.6028 , , <http:///NIST .CSWP .04162018 nvlpubs >..nist .gov /nistpubs /CSWP /NIST .CSWP .04162018 .pdf - [NIST
.SP .800 -57p1r5] -
Barker, E., "Recommendation for Key Management: Part 1 - General", DOI 10
.6028 , , <https:///NIST .SP .800 -57pt1r5 doi >..org /10 .6028 /NIST .SP .800 -57pt1r5 - [PKIX-CMP]
-
Brockhaus, H., von Oheimb, D., Ounsworth, M., and J. Gray, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure -- Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-lamps -rfc4210bis -07 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -lamps -rfc4210bis -07 - [RFC3647]
-
Chokhani, S., Ford, W., Sabett, R., Merrill, C., and S. Wu, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Policy and Certification Practices Framework", RFC 3647, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3647 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3647 - [RFC5246]
-
Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5246 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5246 - [RFC5753]
-
Turner, S. and D. Brown, "Use of Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Algorithms in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 5753, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5753 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5753 - [RFC7030]
-
Pritikin, M., Ed., Yee, P., Ed., and D. Harkins, Ed., "Enrollment over Secure Transport", RFC 7030, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7030 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7030 - [RFC7252]
-
Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7252 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7252 - [RFC8366]
-
Watsen, K., Richardson, M., Pritikin, M., and T. Eckert, "A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols", RFC 8366, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8366 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8366 - [RFC8446]
-
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8446 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8446 - [RFC8551]
-
Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure
/Multipurpose , RFC 8551, DOI 10Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0 Message Specification" .17487 , , <https:///RFC8551 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8551 - [RFC8572]
-
Watsen, K., Farrer, I., and M. Abrahamsson, "Secure Zero Touch Provisioning (SZTP)", RFC 8572, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8572 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8572 - [RFC8649]
-
Housley, R., "Hash Of Root Key Certificate Extension", RFC 8649, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8649 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8649 - [RFC8995]
-
Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Eckert, T., Behringer, M., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI)", RFC 8995, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8995 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8995 - [SZTP-CSR]
-
Watsen, K., Housley, R., and S. Turner, "Conveying a Certificate Signing Request (CSR) in a Secure Zero Touch Provisioning (SZTP) Bootstrapping Request", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-netconf -sztp -csr -14 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -netconf -sztp -csr -14 - [UNISIG
.Subset -137] -
UNISIG, "ERTMS/ETCS On-line Key Management FFFIS", Subset-137, V1.0.0, , <https://
www >..era .europa .eu /system /files /2023 -01 /sos3 _index083 _-_subset -137 _v100 .pdf
Appendix A. Example CertReqTemplate
Suppose the server requires that the certTemplate contains:¶
Then the infoValue with certTemplate and keySpec fields returned to the EE will be encoded as follows:¶
Acknowledgements
We thank the various reviewers of this document.¶