idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lamps-5480-ku-clarifications-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC5480, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2007-12-06) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (February 28, 2020) is 1512 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 LAMPS T. Ito 3 Internet-Draft SECOM CO., LTD. 4 Updates: 5480 (if approved) S. Turner 5 Intended status: Standards Track sn3rd 6 Expires: August 28, 2020 February 28, 2020 8 Clarifications for Elliptic Curve Cryptogtaphy Subject Public Key 9 Information 10 draft-ietf-lamps-5480-ku-clarifications-02 12 Abstract 14 This document updates RFC 5480 to specify semantics for the 15 keyEncipherment and dataEncipherment key usage bits when used in 16 certificates that support Elliptic Curve Cryptography. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2020. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 3. Updates to Section 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 1. Introduction 62 [RFC5480] specifies the syntax and semantics for the Subject Public 63 Key Information field in certificates that support Elliptic Curve 64 Cryptography. As part of these semantics, it defines what 65 combinations are permissible for the values of the key usage 66 extensions [RFC5280]. [RFC5480] specifies 7 of the 9 values; it 67 makes no mention of keyEncipherment and dataEncipherment key usage 68 bits. This document corrects this omission, by updating Section 3 of 69 [RFC5480] to make it clear that neither keyEncipherment nor the 70 dataEncipherment key usage bits are set for key agreement algorithms 71 defined therein. The additions are to be made to the end of 72 Section 3. 74 2. Terminology 76 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 77 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 78 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 79 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 80 capitals, as shown here. 82 3. Updates to Section 3 84 If the keyUsage extension is present in a certificate that indicates 85 id-ecPublicKey in SubjectPublicKeyInfo, then following values MUST 86 NOT be present: 88 keyEncipherment; and 89 dataEncipherment. 91 If the keyUsage extension is present in a certificate that indicates 92 id-ecDH or id-ecMQV in SubjectPublicKeyInfo, then the following 93 values also MUST NOT be present: 95 keyEncipherment; and 96 dataEncipherment. 98 4. Security Considerations 100 This document introduces no new security considerations beyond those 101 found in [RFC5480]. 103 5. IANA Considerations 105 This document makes no request of IANA. 107 6. Normative References 109 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 110 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 111 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . 114 [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., 115 Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key 116 Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List 117 (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, 118 . 120 [RFC5480] Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk, 121 "Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key 122 Information", RFC 5480, DOI 10.17487/RFC5480, March 2009, 123 . 125 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 126 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 127 May 2017, . 129 Authors' Addresses 131 Tadahiko Ito 132 SECOM CO., LTD. 134 Email: tadahiko.ito.public@gmail.com 136 Sean Turner 137 sn3rd 139 Email: sean@sn3rd.com