RFC 9908: Clarification and Enhancement of the CSR Attributes Definition in RFC 7030
- M. Richardson, Ed.,
- O. Friel,
- D. von Oheimb,
- D. Harkins
Abstract
This document updates RFC 7030, "Enrollment over Secure Transport" (EST), clarifying how the Certificate Signing Request (CSR) Attributes Response can be used by an EST server to specify both CSR attribute Object Identifiers (OIDs) and CSR attribute values, particularly X.509 extension values, that the server expects the client to include in a subsequent CSR request. RFC 9148 is derived from RFC 7030 and is also updated.¶
RFC 7030 is ambiguous in its specification of the CSR Attributes Response. This has resulted in implementation challenges and implementor confusion because there was no universal understanding of what was specified. This document clarifies the encoding rules.¶
This document also provides a new straightforward approach: using a template for CSR contents that may be partially filled in by the server. This also allows an EST server to specify a subject Distinguished Name (DN).¶
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) 2026 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 updates RFC 7030 and clarifies how the Certificate Signing Request (CSR) Attributes Response can be used by an EST server to specify both CSR attribute OIDs and CSR attribute values. In particular, the server needs to be able to specify X.509 extension values that it expects the client to include in the subsequent CSR.¶
"Enrollment over Secure Transport" [RFC7030] has been used in a wide variety of applications. In particular, [RFC8994] and [RFC8995] describe a way to use it in order to build out an Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) [RFC8368].¶
When bootstrapping the ACP, there is a requirement that each node be given a very specific subjectAltName. In [RFC8994], the ACP specification, the EST server is specified to make use of the CSR Attributes ("/csrattrs") Request (specified in [RFC7030], Section 2.6) to convey the actual subjectAltName to the EST client that needs to go into its CSR and thus ultimately into its End Entity (EE) certificate.¶
As a result of some implementation challenges, it came to light that this particular way of using the CSR Attributes was not universally agreed upon, and it was suggested that it went contrary to [RFC7030], Section 2.6.¶
[RFC7030], Section 2.6 says that the CSR Attributes "can provide additional descriptive information that the EST server cannot access itself". This is extended to describe how the EST server can provide values that it demands be used.¶
After significant discussion, it has been determined that Section 4.5 of [RFC7030] is sufficiently difficult to read and ambiguous to interpret, so clarification is needed.¶
Also, [RFC7030], Section 4.5.2 is extended to clarify the use of the existing ASN.1 syntax [X.680] [X.690].¶
This covers all uses and is fully backward compatible with existing use, including addressing the needs of [RFC8994] and [RFC8995].¶
2. 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.¶
3. CSR Attributes Handling
3.1. Extensions to RFC 7030, Section 2.6
This document replaces the second paragraph in Section 2.6 of [RFC7030] with the following text:¶
These attributes can provide additional information that the EST server cannot access itself, such as the Media Access Control (MAC) address of an interface of the EST client. The EST server can also provide concrete values that it tells the client to include in the CSR, such as a specific X.509 Subject Alternative Name extension. Moreover, these attributes can indicate the type of the included public key or which crypto algorithms to use for the self-signature, such as a specific elliptic curve or a specific hash function that the client is expected to use when generating the CSR.¶
3.2. Extensions to RFC 7030, Section 4.5.2
The ASN.1 syntax for CSR Attributes as defined in EST ([RFC7030], Section 4.5.2) is as follows:¶
This remains unchanged, such that bits
Key parts that were unclear were which OID to use in the 'type' field and
that the 'values' field can contain an entire sequence of X.509 extensions.¶
The OID to use for such attributes in the 'type' field MUST be id-ExtensionReq,
which has the value 1pkcs defined in PKCS#9 [RFC2985].
There MUST be only one such attribute.¶
The 'values' field of this attribute MUST contain a set with exactly one element,
and this element MUST be of type Extensions, as per Section 4.1 of [RFC5280]:¶
An Extension comprises the OID of the specific X.509 extension (extnID), optionally the 'critical' bit, and the extension value (extnValue).¶
An Extensions structure, which is a sequence of elements of type Extension, MUST NOT include more than one element with a particular extnID.¶
When not using the template-based approach of Section 3.4,
specifying the requirement for a public key of a specific type
and optionally its size and other parameters MUST be done as follows:
Include exactly one Attribute with the type field being the OID specifying
the type of the key, such as ecPublicKey or rsaEncryption.
The 'values' field MAY be empty to indicate no further requirements on the key. Otherwise, it MUST contain suitable parameters for the given key type, such as a singleton set containing the OID of an elliptic curve (EC) (e.g., secp384r1) or containing an integer value for the RSA key size (e.g., 4096). Many examples for this are given in Section 5.¶
3.3. Update to RFC 9148
The updates to EST in this document equally apply when using the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) as a transport mechanism as described in [RFC9148]. This document therefore adds the following paragraph after the second paragraph of [RFC9148], Section 1:¶
EST over CoAP as specified in [RFC9148] applies unchanged to [RFC7030], which is updated by RFC 9908. Hence, all references to [RFC7030] in [RFC9148] are assumed to indicate that [RFC7030] is updated by RFC 9908.¶
3.4. Use of CSR Templates
As an alternative to the unstructured inclusion of CSR Attributes specified in Section 4.5.2 of [RFC7030] with its limitations and ambiguities, Appendix B of [RFC8295] describes an approach using a CSR template. An entire CSR object is returned with various fields filled out and other fields waiting to be filled in. In that approach, a pKCS7PDU attribute includes a PKIData content type [RFC5272] and that, in turn, includes a CSR [RFC2986] or a Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF) formatted request (for details, see 5 or 9 of [RFC6268], respectively).¶
One drawback to that approach, particularly for the CSR, is that some unused
fields have to be included; specifically, the 'signature' field on
the CSR is faked with an empty bit string.¶
A similar method has been defined in "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure -- Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)" [RFC9810]
and "Lightweight Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) Profile"
([RFC9483], Section 4.3.3) using a CSR template as defined for CRMF [RFC4211]. Like the approach mentioned before,
this method does not properly deal with absent Relative Distinguished Name (RDN) values, as it would encode them as invalid empty strings.
Also, encoding an absent 'subjectPublicKey' value as an empty BIT STRING
and an absent X.509 extension value as an empty OCTET STRING
can cause issues with strict ASN.1 parsing and decoding.¶
These drawbacks are avoided as follows:¶
This specification defines a new Certificate Request Information Template attribute
for CsrAttrs (as given in Section 3.2) that is essentially
a partially filled-in PKCS#10 CSR minus the signature wrapper:¶
Appendix A contains all details.¶
The Certification
with the following differences:¶
For each extension of type Extension or Extension provided by the server,
the client is expected to include an extension of the type given by the extnID.
If the 'critical' field is present, the client SHOULD use it in the extension as well.
If the 'extnValue' is present (which is always the case when type Extension is used),
the client SHOULD use the given extension value in its CSR.
When the type Extension is used, the 'extnValue' can be absent, and then the client SHOULD provide an extension value in an Extension with the given extnID.
For instance, if the server includes an Extension
with the extnID 'subjectAltName' but without an extnValue,
the client SHOULD include a SAN extension with a suitable value.¶
In case the server includes an Extension with the extnID 'subjectAltName'
and a partially filled-in extnValue, such as a 'directoryName' choice containing the NULL-DN
(i.e., an empty sequence of RDNs) or the 'iPAddress' choice with an empty OCTET STRING,
it means that the client SHOULD fill in the respective GeneralName value.¶
The 'version' field of the Certification MUST contain v1 (0).¶
The 'attributes' field MUST NOT contain multiple id attributes
and MUST NOT contain both id-ExtensionReq and id attributes.¶
The 'values' field of an id attribute
MUST contain a set with exactly one element,
and this element MUST be of type Extension.¶
Suppose the server requires that the CSR will contain:¶
Then, the Certification structure constructed by the server
will be as follows:¶
4. Coexistence with Existing Implementations
EST servers with legacy clients MAY continue to use the unstructured list of attribute/value pairs as described in [RFC7030] and MAY also include the template style described in Section 3.4 for newer clients.
Clients that understand both MUST use the template only, and
ignore all other CsrAttrs elements.
Older clients will ignore the new Certification
5. Examples Using the Original Approach in RFC 7030
Each example has a high-level (English) explanation of what is expected. Some mapping back to the Attribute and Extension definitions above are included. The base64 DER encoding is then shown. The output of "dumpasn1" [dumpasn1] is then provided to detail what the contents are.¶
5.1. Require an RFC 8994 / ACP subjectAltName with Specific otherName
A single subjectAltName extension is specified in a single CsrAttrs
attribute [RFC7030] with an OID 'id-ExtensionReq' indicating type Extensions.
This is what might be created by a Registrar [RFC8995] that is asking for AcpNodeName [RFC8994] with format 'otherNames'.¶
5.1.1. Base64-Encoded Example
The Base64:¶
5.1.2. ASN.1 DUMP Output
There is a single subjectAltName Extension with an Attribute with Extension type.¶
5.2. Original Example in RFC 7030
In this example, taken from Section 4.5.2 of [RFC7030], a few different attributes are included.
The original encoding of the 'macAddress' part in the example is NOT CORRECT.
It was not aligned with the definition of the Extension Request attribute as specified in Section 5.4.2 of [RFC2985].
The revised encoding given here does not use an 'id-ExtensionReq' attribute
because the MAC Address is not an X.509 certificate extension by itself
and because the server provides its OID without a value,
which is not allowed syntactically within a structure of type 'Extension'.¶
5.2.1. Base64-Encoded Example
The Base64:¶
5.2.2. ASN.1 DUMP Output
The CsrAttrs structure contains:¶
5.3. Require a Specific subjectAltName Extension
This example is the same as the previous one except that instead of the OID for a macAddress, a subjectAltName is specified as the only Extension element.¶
5.3.1. Base64-Encoded Example
The Base64:¶
5.3.2. ASN.1 DUMP Output
The CsrAttrs structure contains:¶
5.4. Require a Public Key of a Specific Size
The CSR requires an RSA public key of a specific size.¶
5.4.1. Base64-Encoded Example
The Base64:¶
5.4.2. ASN.1 DUMP Output
Provide a CSR with an RSA key that's 4096 bits and use SHA256 as the hash algorithm within the signature.¶
5.5. Require a Public Key of a Specific Curve
The CSR requires an ECC public key with a specific curve.¶
5.5.1. Base64-Encoded Example
The Base64:¶
5.5.2. ASN.1 DUMP Output
Provide a CSR with an ECC public key from p384, include your serial number, and use SHA384 as the hash algorithm within the signature.¶
5.6. Require Specific Extensions and Attributes
The CSR is required to have an ECC public key, include a serial number, include a friendly name, include a favorite drink [favoritedrink] [OID 0
5.6.1. Base64-Encoded Example
The Base64:¶
5.6.2. ASN.1 DUMP Output
Provide a CSR with an ECC public key from sha521 and include your serial number, friendly name, and favorite drink, and hash it with SHA512.¶
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations from [RFC7030], Section 6 are unchanged.¶
6.1. Identity and Privacy Considerations
An EST server may use this mechanism to instruct the EST client about the identities it should include in the CSR it sends as part of enrollment. The client may only be aware of its Initial Device Identifier (IDevID) Subject, which includes a manufacturer serial number. The EST server can use this mechanism to tell the client to include a specific fully qualified domain name in the CSR in order to complete domain ownership proofs required by the CA. Additionally, the EST server may deem the manufacturer serial number in an IDevID as personally identifiable information and may want to specify a new random opaque identifier that the pledge should use in its CSR. This may be desirable if the CA and EST server have different operators.¶
7. IANA Considerations
For the ASN.1 module in Appendix A, IANA has assigned the following OID in the "SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier
For the Certification Request Information Template and Extension Request Template attributes in Appendix A, IANA has assigned the following OIDs in the "SMI Security for S/MIME Attributes
8. References
8.1. 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 - [RFC5911]
-
Hoffman, P. and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and S/MIME", RFC 5911, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5911 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5911 - [RFC5912]
-
Hoffman, P. and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)", RFC 5912, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5912 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5912 - [RFC6268]
-
Schaad, J. and S. Turner, "Additional New ASN.1 Modules for the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)", RFC 6268, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6268 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6268 - [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 - [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 - [RFC9148]
-
van der Stok, P., Kampanakis, P., Richardson, M., and S. Raza, "EST-coaps: Enrollment over Secure Transport with the Secure Constrained Application Protocol", RFC 9148, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9148 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9148 - [X.680]
-
ITU-T, "Information technology -- Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation", ITU-T Recommendation X.680, ISO/IEC 8824-1:2021, , <https://
www >..itu .int /rec /T -REC -X .680 - [X.690]
-
ITU-T, "Information technology -- ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1:2021, , <https://
www >..itu .int /rec /T -REC -X .690
8.2. Informative References
- [dumpasn1]
-
Gutmann, P., "Dump ASN", , <https://
www >..cs .auckland .ac .nz /~pgut001 /dumpasn1 .c - [favoritedrink]
-
OID Repository, "drink(5) [other identifier: favourite
Drink]" , OID 0.9 , , <https://.2342 .19200300 .100 .1 .5 oid >.-base .com /get /0 .9 .2342 .19200300 .100 .1 .5 - [RFC2985]
-
Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #9: Selected Object Classes and Attribute Types Version 2.0", RFC 2985, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2985 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2985 - [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 - [RFC5272]
-
Schaad, J. and M. Myers, "Certificate Management over CMS (CMC)", RFC 5272, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5272 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5272 - [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 - [RFC8295]
-
Turner, S., "EST (Enrollment over Secure Transport) Extensions", RFC 8295, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8295 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8295 - [RFC8368]
-
Eckert, T., Ed. and M. Behringer, "Using an Autonomic Control Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)", RFC 8368, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8368 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8368 - [RFC8994]
-
Eckert, T., Ed., Behringer, M., Ed., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)", RFC 8994, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8994 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8994 - [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 - [RFC9483]
-
Brockhaus, H., von Oheimb, D., and S. Fries, "Lightweight Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) Profile", RFC 9483, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9483 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9483 - [RFC9810]
-
Brockhaus, H., von Oheimb, D., Ounsworth, M., and J. Gray, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure -- Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)", RFC 9810, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9810 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9810
Appendix A. ASN.1 Module
This appendix provides an ASN.1 module [X.680] for the Certification Request Information Template attribute and its sub-template structures. It follows the conventions established in [RFC5911], [RFC5912], and [RFC6268].¶
Acknowledgments
Corey Bonnell crafted Example 2 using a different tool, and this helped debug other running code.¶
Carl Wallace provided major parts of the
Certification
Russ Housley conducted many reviews of the ASN.1 module and suggested many fixes.¶
Deb Cooley conducted the usual Area Director Review.¶