[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 6494

Network Working Group                                        R. Gagliano
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Updates: 3971 (if approved)                                  S. Krishnan
Intended status: Standards Track                                Ericsson
Expires: March 2, 2011                                          A. Kukec
                                                    University of Zagreb
                                                         August 29, 2010


        Certificate profile and certificate management for SEND
                      draft-ietf-csi-send-cert-06

Abstract

   SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) Utilizes X.509v3 certificates for
   performing router authorization.  This document specifies a
   certificate profile for SEND based on Resource Certificates along
   with extended key usage values required for SEND.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 2, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  SEND Certificate profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Unconstrained Certified subnet prefixes  . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Deployment Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Trust Anchor Material  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Extended Key Usage Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  CRL profile and revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP)
           Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  Certificate validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Appendix A.  Router Authorization Certificate example  . . . . . . 18
   Appendix B.  ASN.1 Module  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
























Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


1.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].














































Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


2.  Introduction

   SEcure Neighbor Discovery [RFC3971] (SEND) utilizes X.509v3
   certificates that include the [RFC3779] extension for IPv6 addresses
   to certify a router's authorization to advertise IPv6 prefix for the
   Neighbor Discovery (ND) Protocol.  The SEND specification defines a
   basic certificate profile for SEND.  The certificate profile defined
   in this document supersedes the profile for router certificates
   specified in [RFC3971].  That is, certificates used in SEND (by
   routers, proxies, or address owners) MUST conform to this certificate
   profile and MAY conform to the original profile in [RFC3971].

   The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is the global PKI that
   attests to allocation of IP address space.  The RPKI represents the
   centralized model referred in Section 6.2 of [RFC3971].
   Consequently, SEND will use the RPKI certificate profile and
   certificate validation detailed in [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs].  A
   consequence of the use of RPKI certificate profile, the certificate
   validation method described in RFC3971 is updated with the
   certificate validation method in [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs].

   Since the RFC 3779 IPv6 addresses extension does not mention what
   functions the node can perform for the certified IPv6 space, it
   becomes impossible to know the reason for which the certificate was
   issued.  In order to facilitate issuance of certificates for specific
   functions, it is necessary to utilize the ExtKeyUsageSyntax field
   (optional in RPKI Certificates) of the X.509 certificate to mention
   the purpose why the certificate was issued.  This document specifies
   three extended key usage values, one for routers, one for proxies,
   and one for address owners, for use with SEND.

   In RFC 3971 two deployment models were described: centralized and
   decentralized.  This document describes the different deployment
   models that can be used with the SEND certificates defined here.

















Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


3.  Terminology

   Certified IPv6 address space  IPv6 address space included in an
                             X.509v3 certificate using RFC 3779
                             extension for IPv6 addresses.

   End Entity (EE)           An entity in the PKI that is not a CA.

   ETA                       External Trust Anchor as defined in
                             [I-D.ietf-sidr-ta].

   ISP                       Internet Service Provider.

   NIR                       National Internet Registry.

   RIR                       Regional Internet Registry.

   RPKI                      Resource PKI established in accordance with
                             [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch].

   RPKI certificates         Certificates defined in
                             [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs].

   RTA                       RPKI Trust Anchor as defined in
                             [I-D.ietf-sidr-ta].

   SEND certificates         Certificates described in [RFC3971] and
                             extended in this document.  They are end-
                             entity certificates that belong either to
                             SEND routers, SEND Proxies or SEND hosts:

                             *  Router Authorization Certificates.

                             *  Owner Authorization Certificates.

                             *  Secure Proxy ND Certificates for ND
                                Proxy, Mobile IPv6 Home Agent or Proxy
                                Mobile Access Gateway
                                [I-D.ietf-csi-proxy-send].












Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


4.  SEND Certificate profile

   SEND certificates MUST comply with the RPKI resource profile
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs].  A Router Authorization Certificate
   example is included in the Appendix A.

   In sections 2, 4.9.10 and 4.9.11 [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs] it is
   stated that RFC 3779 resource extensions MUST be critical and MUST be
   present in all Resource Certificates.  SEND certificates MUST include
   the IP Resources extension [RFC3779].  This extension MUST include at
   least one address block for the IPv6 Address Family (AFI=0002), as
   described in Section 4.9.10 of [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs].  SEND
   certificates MUST NOT have more than one IP Resources extension.

4.1.  Unconstrained Certified subnet prefixes

   Section 7.3 of [RFC3971] defines the Unconstrained Certified subnet
   prefixes category by using certificates containing either the null
   prefix or no prefix extension at all.

   When using RPKI certificate profile, prefix extensions are mandatory
   and the null prefix MUST be validated.  However, a certificate may
   inherit its parent's prefix or range by using the "inherit" element
   for IPv6 AFI as defined in RFC3779.  The use of the "inherit" element
   is permited in [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs].

   Consequently, this document updates section 7.3 of RFC 3971 adding
   the following text under Unconstrained:

   Network operators that do not want to constrain routers to route
   particular subnet prefixes but rather inherit them from its parent
   certificate, should configure routers with certificates containing
   the "inherit" element for IPv6 AFI.


















Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


5.  Deployment Models

   RFC 3971 describes two deployment models:centralized and
   decentralized.  These models were differentiated by having one or
   many trust anchor.  In this document we introduce two new deployment
   models, not based on the number of trust anchors but on the
   localization of the SEND deployment.

   The local SEND deployment model represent those cases where SEND
   deployment is confined to an administrative domain.  In this
   scenario, the deployment of SEND MAY be done independently of the
   existence of deployment in the upper RPKI hierarchy (i.e. an end user
   could perform local SEND deployment without the need of RPKI
   deployment in its ISP).  This model requires the use of local trust
   anchors and configuring islands of trust.  This model MAY include
   Unique Local Addresses(ULAs) [RFC4193].

   The public SEND deployment models represent those cases where SEND
   deployment is linked to RPKI deployment as described in
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch].  Trust anchor material MAY be part of a
   different administrative domain (i.e.  RIR, NIR or ISPs).  It is a
   global model suitable for mobile users.

   These two models are not mutually exclusive.  It is entirely possible
   to have a hybrid model that incorporates features from both these
   models.  In one such hybrid deployment model most IP address
   resources (e.g. global unicast addresses) would be certified under
   the global RPKI, while some others (e.g., ULAs) are certified under
   local TAs.






















Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


6.  Trust Anchor Material

   Relying parties (e.g., end hosts that implement SEND and process
   these router certificates) MUST be configured with one or more trust
   anchors to enable validation of the routers' certificates.  Section
   6.5 of RFC 3971 lists the trust anchor configurations for end hosts
   using SEND.

   In the local SEND deployment model, it is possible to use as trust
   anchor a certificate that includes in its RFC 3779 address extension
   the prefix ::/0.  In this case no new trust anchor material would be
   needed when renumbering.  However, if trying to move from the local
   deployment model to the public deployment model, new trust anchor
   material will have to be distributed to relying parties.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-ta] describes a scenario where relying parties use as
   trust anchor material ETA (External Trust Anchor) certificates, which
   do not list any address space.  This configuration allows network
   renumbering without the need for distributing new trust anchor
   material in both the local and the public model.

   This document updates Section 6.5 of RFC3971, where the following
   paragraph should be added:

   An end host MAY use as trust anchor material ETA certificates as
   described in [I-D.ietf-sidr-ta].  In this case, the end host MUST
   obtain the correspondent RTA (RPKI Trust Anchor) certificates from
   the ETA repository in order to complete the Name Type Field of the
   ICMP Trust Anchor Option, which MUST always refer to a trust anchor
   certificate that validates Section 9.





















Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


7.  Extended Key Usage Values

   The Internet PKI document [RFC5280] specifies the extended key usage
   X.509 certificate extension.  The extension indicates one or more
   purposes for which the certified public key may be used.  The
   extended key usage extension can be used in conjunction with key
   usage extension, which indicates the intended purpose of the
   certified public key.  The Extended Key Usage extension is defined as
   optional in [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs] for end entity certificates but
   MUST be present when issuing end entity certificates for SEND.

   The extended key usage extension syntax is repeated here for
   convenience:

     ExtKeyUsageSyntax  ::=  SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF KeyPurposeId

     KeyPurposeId  ::=  OBJECT IDENTIFIER

   This specification defines three KeyPurposeId values: one for
   authorizing routers (Router Authorization Certificates), one for
   authorizing proxies (Secure Proxy ND Certificates), and one for
   address owners (Owner Authorization Certificates).

   The inclusion of the router authorization value (id-kp-sendRouter)
   indicates that the certificate has been issued for allowing the
   router to generate RA and Redirect messages for the prefix(es)  that
   are mentioned in the X.509 extensions for IP addresses.

   The inclusion of the proxy authorization value (id-kp-sendProxy)
   indicates that the certificate has been issued for allowing the proxy
   to perform proxying of RA and Redirect messages for the prefix(es)
   that are mentioned in the X.509 extensions for IP addresses.

   The inclusion of the owner authorization value (id-kp-sendOwner)
   indicates that the certificate has been issued for allowing the node
   to use the address(es) or prefix(es) that are included in the
   certificate extension for IP addresses.  For an address in such
   certificate the node can assign the address to an interface, send/
   receive traffic from this address, and can send or respond NS, NA and
   RS messages about that address.  For a prefix in such certificate the
   node can perform all the above mentioned operations for any address
   in that prefix.  Also, when a node's only certificate includes a
   prefix and only the owner authorization KeyPurposeId value, the node
   cannot advertise that prefix in an RA.

   Inclusion of multiple values is permited and indicates that the
   certified public key is appropriate for use by a node performing more
   than one of these functions.



Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


     send-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
       { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
         security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) }

     id-kp-sendRouter OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 23 }

     id-kp-sendProxy OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 24 }

     id-kp-sendOwner OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 25 }

   As described in [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs], the extended key usage
   extension, if present, MUST be non-critical.

   Relying Parties MUST require the extended key usage extension to be
   present in a certificate, and they MAY require a particular
   KeyPurposeId value to be present (such as id-kp-sendRouter or id-kp-
   sendProxy) within the extended key usage extension.  If multiple
   KeyPurposeId values are included, the relying parties need not
   recognize all of them, as long as the required KeyPurposeId value is
   present.Relying parties MUST reject certificates that do not contain
   one of the three KeyPurposeIds defined above even if they include the
   anyExtendedKeyUsage OID defined in [RFC5280].





























Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


8.  CRL profile and revocation

   RPKI requires the use of CRLs [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs].The host will
   obtain the necessary CRLs and perform the certificate validation
   method described in [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs].

8.1.  Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) Considerations

   A host MAY use the OCSP [RFC2560] to verify the revocation status of
   a certificate.

   By adopting the [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs] as the certificate profile
   for SEND, the host SHOULD NOT assume that certificates will include
   the URI of an OCSP server as part of its Authority Information Access
   (AIA) extension.  This is particularly evident in the SEND public
   deployment model as OCSP services are not required by
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-cp].


































Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


9.  Certificate validation

   This section updates section 6.3.1 of [RFC3971] by introducing new
   validations without introducing any conflict.

   The host MUST perform the certificate validation method described in
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs].  The validation of certificates that uses
   the "inherit" element is describe in RFC 3779 where the existence of
   a parent prefix or range is required.

   The host MUST verify that the correspondent Key PurposedId value(s)
   is(are) present as described in Section 7.







































Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


10.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes use of object identifiers to identify Extended
   Key Usages (EKUs) and the ASN.1 module found in Appendix B.  The EKUs
   and ASN.1 module OID are registered in an arc delegated by IANA to
   the PKIX Working Group.  No further action by IANA is necessary for
   this document.












































Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


11.  Security Considerations

   The certification authority needs to ensure that the correct values
   for the extended key usage are inserted in each certificate that is
   issued.  Relying parties may accept or reject a particular
   certificate for an intended use based on the information provided in
   these extensions.  Incorrect representation of the information in the
   extended key usage field can cause the relying party to reject an
   otherwise appropriate certificate or accept a certificate that ought
   to be rejected.  In particular, since a SEND certificate attests that
   its subject is authorized to play a given role in the SEND protocol,
   certificates that contain incorrect EKU values can enable some of the
   same attacks that SEND was meant to prevent.  For example, if a
   malicious host can obtain a certificate that authorizes it to act as
   a router for a given prefix, then it can masquerade as a router for
   that prefix, e.g., in order to attract traffic from local nodes.



































Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


12.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Alberto Garcia, Stephen Kent, Sean
   Turner, Roni Even, Richard Barnes, Alexey Melnikov, Jari Arkko, David
   Harrington and Tim Polk for their reviews and suggestions on the
   earlier versions of this document.













































Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-csi-proxy-send]
              Krishnan, S., Laganier, J., and M. Bonola, "Secure Proxy
              ND Support for SEND", draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send-01 (work
              in progress), July 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-cp]
              Kent, S., Kong, D., Seo, K., and R. Watro, "Certificate
              Policy (CP) for the Resource PKI (RPKI)",
              draft-ietf-sidr-cp-08 (work in progress), January 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs]
              Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for
              X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates",
              draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs-18 (work in progress), May 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-ta]
              Michaelson, G., Kent, S., and G. Huston, "A Profile for
              Trust Anchor Material for the Resource Certificate PKI",
              draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04 (work in progress), May 2010.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2560]  Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and C.
              Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
              Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999.

   [RFC3779]  Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
              Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004.

   [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
              Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.

   [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, May 2008.







Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch]
              Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
              Secure Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-09 (work in
              progress), October 2009.

   [RFC5781]  Weiler, S., Ward, D., and R. Housley, "The rsync URI
              Scheme", RFC 5781, February 2010.










































Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


Appendix A.  Router Authorization Certificate example

   Certificate:
       Data:
           Version: 3 (0x2)
           Serial Number: 249 (0xf9)
           Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
           Issuer: CN=EXAMPLE-CA-2342342652346
           Validity
               Not Before: Jul  2 10:06:32 2010 GMT
               Not After : Jul  2 10:06:32 2011 GMT
           Subject: CN=SEND-EXAMPLE-123432
           Subject Public Key Info:
               Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption
                   Public-Key: (2048 bit)
                   Modulus:
                       00:b7:06:0d:8e:f7:39:0a:41:52:93:59:a8:f5:63:
                       3f:2e:3d:24:17:9d:19:aa:09:ff:c0:2a:f3:c6:99:
                       d7:34:0d:bf:f1:e9:73:b5:8f:dc:d4:91:d6:5d:cb:
                       9c:b8:2b:41:63:c1:8f:f7:48:54:02:89:07:24:c3:
                       b0:6e:11:5a:7d:c0:38:88:4b:d9:3b:93:c7:ca:4d:
                       a4:00:a2:d3:6d:14:15:8f:15:08:4d:4e:b3:8a:cc:
                       de:2d:e0:7a:9b:c0:6e:14:f6:a7:ae:b9:e0:c5:18:
                       60:75:3d:d3:50:00:47:0d:86:5b:1c:a0:85:81:af:
                       2b:84:98:49:7d:60:a2:e8:4f:6d:40:ba:d5:fe:de:
                       de:41:53:c7:c4:f4:d3:1a:41:cd:dc:9f:08:43:33:
                       48:00:57:e4:56:93:7d:dd:19:12:e8:bf:26:b3:4b:
                       30:ac:b8:9c:b1:37:05:18:3c:7b:6b:26:d7:c9:15:
                       c9:4a:eb:1b:fa:92:38:46:27:44:96:8a:a1:12:c1:
                       09:77:4a:7b:a5:07:88:a6:36:30:98:70:79:b6:44:
                       7e:b1:c9:4c:5b:11:56:e8:14:50:f7:f8:e5:ed:f1:
                       ac:a4:31:46:36:77:05:c9:63:fe:c3:ab:54:e2:bd:
                       79:1d:14:d1:c2:80:36:d3:be:e6:c7:a2:47:59:1b:
                       75:9f
                   Exponent: 65537 (0x10001)
           X509v3 extensions:
               X509v3 Authority Key Identifier:
                   keyid:4C:5D:56:82:15:8A:67:A6:8C:69:67:68:88
                   :6F:15:E5:C9:96:58:EB

               X509v3 CRL Distribution Points:

                   Full Name:
                     URI:rsync://rsync.example.exampledomain/
                     EXAMPLE-CA-2342342652346/EXAMPLE-CA.crl

               X509v3 Subject Key Identifier:
                   B8:69:EB:36:23:F1:C4:21:65:DD:13:76:EE:90:AF



Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


                   :F7:CD:E3:61:CD
               X509v3 Key Usage: critical
                   Digital Signature
               sbgp-ipAddrBlock: critical
                   IPv6:
                     2001:db8:cafe:bebe::/64

               X509v3 Extended Key Usage:
                   1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.23
       Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
           92:14:38:6e:45:83:1b:cb:7c:45:0d:bc:7f:6e:36:bf:82:cc:
           7e:00:91:ea:f4:24:43:cc:00:3c:3f:c2:99:0c:c6:b9:20:2e:
           ca:dc:df:94:0d:c9:a1:75:c4:5c:39:a1:cf:9f:e1:40:9c:aa:
           a9:80:76:d1:3a:91:d9:db:2f:cd:3c:05:50:52:eb:28:47:d0:
           ab:d3:fd:6f:30:17:16:7f:c6:0f:2b:25:bb:db:29:d7:bb:4e:
           f3:7c:2d:e1:04:b7:f0:bc:d5:8a:ba:8c:0d:39:22:48:02:d1:
           67:fb:35:5c:b6:83:03:63:7c:73:03:70:20:de:fb:d7:12:ed:
           6f:a1:ff:b2:a6:39:fb:55:9a:07:bd:68:40:0f:6f:d5:24:34:
           cf:e8:dd:76:33:2a:d0:b9:1b:ae:a8:68:86:17:f8:13:35:0e:
           f6:04:ec:2a:39:88:06:70:c6:e8:56:87:f7:35:54:2a:28:2c:
           92:47:a9:89:39:d7:72:24:21:9d:02:52:f9:7c:76:7f:e9:cd:
           09:6e:82:f4:da:6c:f9:72:b2:64:98:b5:0c:6a:38:8d:81:e5:
           fc:50:46:6f:38:40:56:06:92:5a:e0:86:5d:55:f5:7b:85:b2:
           68:4f:49:72:e0:fa:2c:bf:9e:7d:aa:28:17:ca:04:b8:ae:69:
           c9:04:28:12


























Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


Appendix B.  ASN.1 Module

   SENDCertExtns { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
    security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
    id-mod-send-cert-extns(TBD) }

   DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=

   BEGIN

   -- OID Arc

   id-kp  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=
    { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
      security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) }

   -- Extended Key Usage Values

   id-kp-sendRouter OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 23 }
   id-kp-sendProxy OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 24 }
   id-kp-sendOwner OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 25 }

   END




























Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft   SEND certificate profile and management     August 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Roque Gagliano
   Cisco Systems
   Avenue des Uttins 5
   Rolle,   1180
   Switzerland

   Email: rogaglia@cisco.com


   Suresh Krishnan
   Ericsson
   8400 Decarie Blvd.
   Town of Mount Royal, QC
   Canada

   Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871
   Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com


   Ana Kukec
   University of Zagreb
   Unska 3
   Zagreb
   Croatia

   Email: ana.kukec@fer.hr























Gagliano, et al.          Expires March 2, 2011                [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/