idnits 2.17.1 draft-turner-5480-ku-clarifications-01.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 (August 13, 2019) is 1680 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) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2986 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 TBD T. Ito 3 Internet-Draft SECOM CO., LTD. 4 Updates: 5480 (if approved) S. Turner 5 Intended status: Standards Track sn3rd 6 Expires: February 14, 2020 August 13, 2019 8 Clarifications for Elliptic Curve Cryptogtaphy Subject Public Key 9 Information 10 draft-turner-5480-ku-clarifications-01 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 February 14, 2020. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2019 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. 72 2. Terminology 74 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 75 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 76 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 77 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 78 capitals, as shown here. 80 3. Updates to Section 3 82 If the keyUsage extension is present in a certificate that indicates 83 id-ecPublicKey as algorithm of AlgorithmIdentifier [RFC2986] in 84 SubjectPublicKeyInfo, then following values MUST NOT be present: 86 keyEncipherment; and 87 dataEncipherment. 89 If the keyUsage extension is present in a certificate that indicates 90 id-ecDH or id-ecMQV in SubjectPublicKeyInfo, then the following 91 values also MUST NOT be present: 93 keyEncipherment; and 94 dataEncipherment. 96 4. Security Considerations 98 This document introduces no new security considerations beyond those 99 found in [RFC5480]. 101 5. IANA Considerations 103 This document makes no request of IANA. 105 6. Normative References 107 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 108 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 109 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . 112 [RFC2986] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #10: Certification 113 Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7", RFC 2986, 114 DOI 10.17487/RFC2986, November 2000, . 117 [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., 118 Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key 119 Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List 120 (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, 121 . 123 [RFC5480] Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk, 124 "Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key 125 Information", RFC 5480, DOI 10.17487/RFC5480, March 2009, 126 . 128 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 129 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 130 May 2017, . 132 Authors' Addresses 134 Tadahiko Ito 135 SECOM CO., LTD. 137 Email: tadahiko.ito.public@gmail.com 139 Sean Turner 140 sn3rd 142 Email: sean@sn3rd.com