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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Network Working Group                                            S. Raza
Internet-Draft                                               J. Hoeglund
Intended status: Standards Track                                 RISE AB
Expires: June 4, 2021                                        G. Selander
                                                             J. Mattsson
                                                             Ericsson AB
                                                              M. Furuhed
                                                             Nexus Group
                                                       December 01, 2020


        CBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR Certificates)
               draft-mattsson-cose-cbor-cert-compress-05

Abstract

   This document specifies a CBOR encoding of X.509 certificates.  The
   resulting certificates are called CBOR Certificates.  The CBOR
   encoding supports a large subset of RFC 5280, while at the same time
   significantly reduces the size of certificates compatible with RFC
   7925 and IEEE 802.1AR (DevIDs).  When used to re-encode DER encoded
   X.509 certificates, the CBOR encoding can in many cases reduce the
   size of RFC 7925 profiled certificates with over 50%.  The CBOR
   encoding can also be used encode "natively signed" CBOR certificates,
   which does not require re-encoding for the signature to be verified.
   The document also specifies COSE headers as well as a TLS certificate
   type for CBOR certificates.

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 https://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 June 4, 2021.







Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                  [Page 1]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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://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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  CBOR Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Message Fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Encoding of Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Compliance Requirements for Constrained IoT . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Legacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Expected Certificate Sizes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Natively Signed CBOR Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.1.  CBOR Certificate Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.2.  CBOR Attribute Type Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.3.  CBOR Extension Type Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.4.  CBOR Extended Key Usage Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.5.  CBOR General Name Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     9.6.  CBOR Certificate Signature Algorithms Registry  . . . . .  16
     9.7.  CBOR Certificate Public Key Algorithms Registry . . . . .  17
     9.8.  COSE Header Parameters Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.9.  TLS Certificate Types Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Appendix A.  Example CBOR Certificates  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.1.  Example RFC 7925 profiled X.509 Certificate . . . . . . .  21
     A.2.  Example HTPPS X.509 Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix B.  X.509 Certificate Profile, ASN.1 . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29





Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                  [Page 2]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


1.  Introduction

   One of the challenges with deploying a Public Key Infrastructure
   (PKI) for the Internet of Things (IoT) is the size and parsing of
   X.509 public key certificates [RFC5280], since those are not
   optimized for constrained environments [RFC7228].  More compact
   certificate representations are desirable.  Due to the current PKI
   usage of DER encoded X.509 certificates, keeping compatibility with
   DER encoded X.509 is necessary at least for a transition period.
   However, the use of a more compact encoding with the Concise Binary
   Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049] reduces the certificate size
   significantly which has known performance benefits in terms of
   decreased communication overhead, power consumption, latency,
   storage, etc.

   CBOR is a data format designed for small code size and small message
   size.  CBOR builds on the JSON data model but extends it by e.g.
   encoding binary data directly without base64 conversion.  In addition
   to the binary CBOR encoding, CBOR also has a diagnostic notation that
   is readable and editable by humans.  The Concise Data Definition
   Language (CDDL) [RFC8610] provides a way to express structures for
   protocol messages and APIs that use CBOR.  [RFC8610] also extends the
   diagnostic notation.

   CBOR data items are encoded to or decoded from byte strings using a
   type-length-value encoding scheme, where the three highest order bits
   of the initial byte contain information about the major type.  CBOR
   supports several different types of data items, in addition to
   integers (int, uint), simple values (e.g. null), byte strings (bstr),
   and text strings (tstr), CBOR also supports arrays [] of data items,
   maps {} of pairs of data items, and sequences of data items.  For a
   complete specification and examples, see [RFC7049], [RFC8610], and
   [RFC8742].

   RFC 7925 [RFC7925] and IEEE 802.1AR [IEEE-802.1AR] specify
   certificate profiles for Internet of Things deployments which can be
   applied to lightweight certificate based authentication with, e.g.,
   TLS [RFC8446], DTLS [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13], COSE [RFC8152], EDHOC
   [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] or Compact TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-ctls].  This
   document specifies a CBOR encoding based on [X.509-IoT], which can
   support large parts of [RFC5280].  The encoding support all [RFC7925]
   and IEEE 802.1AR [IEEE-802.1AR] profiled X.509 certificates.  Two
   variants are defined using the same CBOR encoding and differing only
   in what is being signed:

   o  An invertible CBOR re-encoding of DER encoded X.509 certificates
      [RFC5280], which can be reversed to obtain the original DER
      encoded X.509 certificate.



Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                  [Page 3]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   o  Natively signed CBOR certificates, which further optimizes the
      performance in constrained environments but is not backwards
      compatible with [RFC5280], see Section 7.

   This document specifies COSE headers for use of the CBOR certificates
   with COSE, see Section 9.8.  The document also specifies a TLS
   certificate type for use of the CBOR certificates with TLS (with or
   without additional TLS certificate compression), see Section 9.9.

2.  Notational Conventions

   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.

   This specification makes use of the terminology in [RFC5280],
   [RFC7049], [RFC7228], and [RFC8610].

3.  CBOR Encoding

   This section specifies the content and encoding for CBOR
   certificates, with the overall objective to produce a very compact
   representation supporting large parts of [RFC5280], and everything in
   [RFC7925] and [IEEE-802.1AR].  In the CBOR encoding, static fields
   are elided, elliptic curve points and time values are compressed, OID
   are replaced with short integers, and redundant encoding is removed.
   Combining these different components reduces the certificate size
   significantly, which is not possible with general purpose
   compressions algorithms, see Figure 2.

   The CBOR certificate can be either a CBOR re-encoding of a DER
   encoded X.509 certificate, in which case the signature is calculated
   on the DER encoded ASN.1 data in the X.509 certificate, or a natively
   signed CBOR certificate, in which case the signature is calculated
   directly on the CBOR encoded data (see Section 7).  In both cases the
   certificate content is adhering to the restrictions given by
   [RFC5280].  The re-encoding is known to work with DER encoded
   certificates but might work with other canonical encodings.  The re-
   encoding does not work for BER encoded certificates.

   In the encoding described below, the order of elements in arrays are
   always encoded in the same order as the elements or the corresponding
   SEQUENCE or SET in the DER encoding.






Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                  [Page 4]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


3.1.  Message Fields

   The X.509 fields and their CBOR encodings are listed below, and used
   in the definition of CBOR Certificates, see Figure 1.

   CBOR certificates are defined in terms of DER encoded [RFC5280] X.509
   certificates:

   o  version.  The 'version' field is encoded in the
      'cborCertificateType' CBOR int.  The field 'cborCertificateType'
      also indicates the type of the CBOR certificate.  Currently, the
      type can be a natively signed CBOR certificate following X.509 v3
      (cborCertificateType = 0) or a CBOR re-encoded X.509 v3 DER
      certificate (cborCertificateType = 1), see Section 9.1.

   o  serialNumber.  The 'serialNumber' INTEGER value field is encoded
      as the unwrapped CBOR positive bignum (~biguint)
      'certificateSerialNumber'.  Any leading 0x00 byte (to indicate
      that the number is not negative) is therefore omitted.

   o  signature.  The 'signature' field is always the same as the
      'signatureAlgorithm' field and therefore omitted from the CBOR
      encoding.

   o  issuer.  In the general case, the sequence of
      'RelativeDistinguishedName' is encoded as a CBOR array of CBOR
      arrays of Attributes, where each Attribute type and value is
      encoded as a (CBOR int, CBOR text string) pair.  Each
      AttributeType is encoded as a CBOR int (see Figure 4).  The
      AttributeType id-emailAddress is always an IA5String.  For the
      other AttributeTypes, the sign is used to represent the character
      string type; positive for utf8String, negative for
      printableString.  In natively signed CBOR certificates all strings
      are utf8String and the sign has no meaning.  The string types
      teletexString, universalString, and bmpString are not supported.
      If Name contains a single Attribute containing an utf8String
      encoded 'common name' it is encoded as a CBOR text string.  If the
      text string contains an EUI-64 of the form "HH-HH-HH-HH-HH-HH-HH-
      HH" where 'H' is one of the symbol '0'-'9' or 'A'-'F' it is
      encoded as a CBOR byte string of length 8 instead.  EUI-64 mapped
      from a 48-bit MAC address (i.e. of the form "HH-HH-HH-FF-FE-HH-HH-
      HH) is encoded as a CBOR byte string of length 6.

   o  validity.  The 'notBefore' and 'notAfter' fields are encoded as
      unwrapped CBOR epoch-based date/time (~time) where the tag content
      is an unsigned integer.  In POSIX time, leap seconds are ignored,
      with a leap second having the same POSIX time as the second before
      it.  Compression of X.509 certificates with the time 23:59:60 UTC



Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                  [Page 5]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


      is therefore not supported.  Note that RFC 5280 mandates encoding
      of dates through the year 2049 as UTCTime, and later dates as
      GeneralizedTime.  The value "99991231235959Z" (no expiration date)
      is encoded as CBOR null.

   o  subject.  The 'subject' is encoded exactly like issuer.

   o  subjectPublicKeyInfo.  The 'algorithm' field is encoded as the
      CBOR int 'subjectPublicKeyAlgorithm' (see Section 9.7) or a CBOR
      OID tag [I-D.ietf-cbor-tags-oid] . Algorithms with parameters are
      not supported except id-ecPublicKey with named curves and the RSA
      algorithms that use parameters = NULL.  For id-ecPublicKey the
      namedCurve parameter is encoded in the CBOR int.  The
      'subjectPublicKey' BIT STRING value field is encoded as a CBOR
      byte string.  This specification assumes the BIT STRING has zero
      unused bits and the unused bits byte is omitted.  Uncompressed
      public keys of type id-ecPublicKey are point compressed as defined
      in Section 2.3.3 of [SECG].  If a DER encoded certificate with a
      point compressed public key of type id-ecPublicKey is CBOR
      encoded, the octets 0xfe and 0xfd are used instead of 0x02 and
      0x03 in the CBOR encoding to represent even and odd y-coordinate,
      respectively.

   o  issuerUniqueID.  Not supported.

   o  subjectUniqueID.  Not supported.

   o  extensions.  The 'extensions' field is encoded as a CBOR array
      where each extension is encoded as either a CBOR int (see
      Section 9.3) followed by an optional CBOR item of any type or a
      CBOR OID tag [I-D.ietf-cbor-tags-oid] followed by a CBOR bool
      encoding 'critical' and the DER encoded value of the 'extnValue'
      encoded as a CBOR byte string.  If the array contains exactly two
      ints and the absolute value of the first int is 2, the array is
      omitted and the extensions is encoded as a single CBOR int with
      the absolute value of the second int and the sign of the first
      int.  Extensions are encoded as specified in Section 3.2.  The
      extensions mandated to be supported by [RFC7925] and
      [IEEE-802.1AR] are given special treatment.  An omitted
      'extensions' field is encoded as an empty CBOR array.

   o  signatureAlgorithm.  The 'signatureAlgorithm' field is encoded as
      a CBOR int (see Section 9.6) or a CBOR OID tag
      [I-D.ietf-cbor-tags-oid].  Algorithms with parameters are not
      supported except RSA algorithms that use parameters = NULL.

   o  signatureValue.  The 'signatureValue' BIT STRING value field is
      encoded as the CBOR byte string issuerSignatureValue.  This



Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                  [Page 6]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


      specification assumes the BIT STRING has zero unused bits and the
      unused bits byte is omitted.  ECDSA signatures are given special
      treatment.  For ECDSA signatures the SEQUENCE and INTEGER type and
      length fields are omitted and the two INTEGER value fields are
      padded to the fixed length L = ceil( log2(n) / 8 ), where n is the
      size of the largest prime-order subgroup.  For secp256r1,
      secp384r1, and secp521r1, L is 32, 48, and 66 respectively.  For
      natively signed CBOR certificates the signatureValue is calculated
      over the CBOR sequence TBSCertificate.

   The following Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) defines
   CBORCertificate and TBSCertificate, which are encoded as CBOR
   Sequences [RFC8742].  The member names therefore only have
   documentary value.





































Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                  [Page 7]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


; The elements of the following array are to be used in a CBOR Sequence:
CBORCertificate = [
   TBSCertificate,
   issuerSignatureValue : bytes,
]

TBSCertificate = (
   cborCertificateType : int,
   certificateSerialNumber : CertificateSerialNumber,
   issuer : Name,
   validityNotBefore : Time,
   validityNotAfter : Time / null,
   subject : Name,
   subjectPublicKeyAlgorithm : Algorithm,
   subjectPublicKey : bytes,
   extensions : Extensions,
   issuerSignatureAlgorithm : Algorithm,
)

CertificateSerialNumber = ~biguint

Name = [ * [ + Attribute ] ] / text / bytes

Attribute = ( attributeType : int, attributeValue : text )

Time = ~time

Algorithm = int / oid

Extensions = [ * Extension ] / int

Extension = (
   extensionID : int / oid,
   ? critical : bool,        ; present if and only if extensionID is an oid
   extensionValue : any,     ; type known from extensionID
)

                    Figure 1: CDDL for CBORCertificate.

3.2.  Encoding of Extensions

   EDITOR'S NOTE: The current specification encodes many common
   extensions with a DER encoded byte string.  It should be discussed if
   more or all commonly active extensions should be natively encoded
   with CBOR.  Would a specific CBOR encoding have to be specified for
   each extension or can a general CBOR encoding that apply to all
   remaining extensions be specified?




Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                  [Page 8]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   This section details the encoding of the 'extensions' field.  The
   'extensions' field is encoded as a CBOR array where each extensionID
   is encoded as either a CBOR int or a CBOR OID tag.  If 'extensionID'
   is encoded an int (see Section 9.3),the sign is used to encode if the
   extension is critical and the 'critical' field is omitted.  Critical
   extensions are encoded with a positive sign and non-critical
   extensions are encoded with a negative sign.

   The 'extnValue' OCTET STREAM value field is encoded as the CBOR byte
   string 'extensionValue' except for the extensions specified below.
   The 'extensionValue' for the extensions mandated to be supported by
   [RFC7925] and [IEEE-802.1AR] are encoded as follows:

   o  basicConstraints.  If 'cA' = false then extensionValue = -2, if
      'cA' = true and 'pathLenConstraint' is not present then
      extensionValue = -1, and if 'cA' = true and 'pathLenConstraint' is
      present then extensionValue = pathLenConstraint.

   o  keyUsage.  The 'KeyUsage' BIT STRING is interpreted as an unsigned
      integer n in network byte order and encoded as a CBOR int.

   o  extKeyUsage. extensionValue is encoded as an array of CBOR ints
      (see Section 9.4) or CBOR OID tags [I-D.ietf-cbor-tags-oid] where
      each int or OID tag encodes a key usage purpose.  If the array
      contains a single int, the array is omitted.

      ExtValueEKU = [ + int / oid ] / int

   o  subjectAltName. extensionValue is encoded as an array of (int,
      any) pairs where each pair encodes a general name (see
      Section 9.5).  If subjectAltName contains exactly one dNSName, the
      array and the int are omitted and extensionValue is the dNSName
      encoded as a CBOR text string.  In addition to the general names
      defined in [RFC5280], the hardwareModuleName type of otherName has
      been given its own int due to its mandatory use in IEEE 802.1AR.
      When 'otherName + hardwareModuleName' is used, then [ oid, bytes ]
      is used to identify the pair ( hwType, hwSerialEntries ) directly
      as specified in [RFC4108].

      GeneralNames = [ + GeneralName ] / text
      GeneralName = ( GeneralNameType : int, GeneralNameValue : any )

   o  authorityKeyIdentifier. extensionValue is encoded as an array
      where the value of the 'keyIdentifier' is encoded as a CBOR byte
      string, 'GeneralNames' is encoded like in subjectAltName, and
      'AuthorityCertSerialNumber' is encoded as ~biguint exactly like
      certificateSerialNumber.




Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                  [Page 9]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


      KeyIdentifier = bytes

   o  subjectKeyIdentifier. extensionValue is the value of the
      'keyIdentifier' field encoded as a CBOR byte string.

   o  cRLDistributionPoints.  If the cRLDistributionPoints is a sequence
      of DistributionPointName, it is encoded like subjectAltName, with
      the difference that if cRLDistributionPoints contains exactly one
      uniformResourceIdentifier, the the array and the int are omitted
      and extensionValue is the uniformResourceIdentifier encoded as a
      CBOR text string.

   o  authorityInfoAccess.  If authorityInfoAccess consist of only
      uniformResourceIdentifiers it is encoded as an array of uris.

      ExtValueAIA = [ + ( ocsp : 1 // caIssuers : 2 , uri : text ) ]

3.2.1.  Example Encoding of Extensions

   The examples below use values from Section 9.3, Section 9.4, and
   Section 9.5:

   o  A critical basicConstraints ('cA' = true) without
      pathLenConstraint is encoded as the two CBOR ints -1, -1.

   o  A non-critical keyUsage with digitalSignature and keyAgreement
      asserted is encoded as the two CBOR ints 2, 17 (2^0 + 2^4 = 17).

   o  A non-critical extKeyUsage containing id-kp-codeSigning and id-kp-
      OCSPSigning is encoded as the CBOR int 3 followed by the CBOR
      array [ 3, 6 ].

   o  A non-critical subjectAltName containing only the dNSName
      example.com is encoded as the CBOR int 4 followed by the CBOR text
      string "example.com".

   Thus, the extension field of a certificate containing all of the
   above extensions in the given order would be encoded as the CBOR
   array [ -1, -1, 2, 17, 3, [ 3, 6 ], 4, "example.com" ].

4.  Compliance Requirements for Constrained IoT

   For general purpose applications, the normative requirements of
   [RFC5280] applies.  This section describes the mandatory to implement
   algorithms and OIDs for constrained IoT application; the values of
   the OIDs including certificate fields and extensions, time format,
   attributes in distinguished names, etc.




Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 10]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   TODO: Write this section

5.  Legacy Considerations

   CBOR certificates can be deployed with legacy X.509 certificates and
   CA infrastructure.  In order to verify the signature, the CBOR
   certificate is used to recreate the original X.509 data structure to
   be able to verify the signature.

   For protocols like TLS/DTLS 1.2, where the handshake is sent
   unencrypted, the actual encoding and compression can be done at
   different locations depending on the deployment setting.  For
   example, the mapping between CBOR certificate and standard X.509
   certificate can take place in a 6LoWPAN border gateway which allows
   the server side to stay unmodified.  This case gives the advantage of
   the low overhead of a CBOR certificate over a constrained wireless
   links.  The conversion to X.509 within an IoT device will incur a
   computational overhead, however, measured in energy this is likely to
   be negligible compared to the reduced communication overhead.

   For the setting with constrained server and server-only
   authentication, the server only needs to be provisioned with the CBOR
   certificate and does not perform the conversion to X.509.  This
   option is viable when client authentication can be asserted by other
   means.

   For protocols like IKEv2, TLS/DTLS 1.3, and EDHOC, where certificates
   are encrypted, the proposed encoding needs to be done fully end-to-
   end, through adding the encoding/decoding functionality to the
   server.

6.  Expected Certificate Sizes

   The CBOR encoding of the sample certificate given in Appendix A
   results in the numbers shown in Figure 2.  After [RFC7925] profiling,
   most duplicated information has been removed, and the remaining text
   strings are minimal in size.  Therefore, the further size reduction
   reached with general compression mechanisms will be small, mainly
   corresponding to making the ASN.1 encoding more compact.  The zlib
   number was calculated with zlib-flate.

   zlib-flate -compress < cert.der > cert.compressed









Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 11]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   +------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------+
   |                  |   RFC 7925   |    zlib    |  CBOR Certificate  |
   +------------------+---------------------------+--------------------+
   | Certificate Size |     314      |     295    |         138        |
   +------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------+

             Figure 2: Comparing Sizes of Certificates (bytes)

7.  Natively Signed CBOR Certificates

   The difference between CBOR encoded X.509 certificate and natively
   signed CBOR certificate is that the signature is calculated over the
   CBOR encoding of the CBOR sequence TBSCertficate rather than the DER
   encoded ASN.1 data.  This removes entirely the need for ASN.1 DER and
   base64 encodings which reduces the processing in the authenticating
   devices, and avoids known complexities and security issues with these
   encodings.

   Natively signed CBOR certificates can be applied in devices that are
   only required to authenticate to natively signed CBOR certificate
   compatible servers.  This is not a major restriction for many IoT
   deployments, where the parties issuing and verifying certificates can
   be a restricted ecosystem which not necessarily involves public CAs.

   CBOR encoded X.509 certificates provides an intermediate step between
   [RFC7925] or [IEEE-802.1AR] profiled X.509 certificates and natively
   signed CBOR certificates: An implementation of CBOR encoded X.509
   certificates contains both the CBOR encoding of the X.509 certificate
   and the signature operations sufficient for natively signed CBOR
   certificates.

   The natively signed approach based on DER encoded X.509 certificates
   described in this document has also other benefits.  For example, a
   CA can use existing ASN.1 machinery to create a DER encoded
   certificate, the DER encoded certificate can then be transformed to
   CBOR before signing.

8.  Security Considerations

   The CBOR profiling of X.509 certificates does not change the security
   assumptions needed when deploying standard X.509 certificates but
   decreases the number of fields transmitted, which reduces the risk
   for implementation errors.

   The use of natively signed CBOR certificates removes the need for
   ASN.1 encoding, which is a rich source of security vulnerabilities.





Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 12]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   Conversion between the certificate formats can be made in constant
   time to reduce risk of information leakage through side channels.

   The mechanism in this draft does not reveal any additional
   information compared to X.509.  Because of difference in size, it
   will be possible to detect that this profile is used.  The gateway
   solution described in Section 5 requires unencrypted certificates and
   is not recommended.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document creates several new registries under the new heading
   "CBOR Certificate".  For all items, the 'Reference' field points to
   this document.

   The expert reviewers for the registries defined in this document are
   expected to ensure that the usage solves a valid use case that could
   not be solved better in a different way, that it is not going to
   duplicate one that is already registered, and that the registered
   point is likely to be used in deployments.  They are furthermore
   expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the requested
   code points.  Experts should take into account the expected usage of
   entries when approving point assignment, and the length of the
   encoded value should be weighed against the number of code points
   left that encode to that size and the size of device it will be used
   on.  Values in the interval [-24, 23] have a 1 byte encodings, other
   values in the interval [-256, 255] have a 2 byte encodings, and the
   remaning values in the interval [-65536, 65535] have 3 byte
   encodings.

9.1.  CBOR Certificate Types Registry

   IANA has created a new registry titled "CBOR Certificate Types" under
   the new heading "CBOR Certificate".  For values in the interval [-24,
   23] the registration procedure is "IETF Review" and "Expert Review".
   For all other values the registration procedure is "Expert Review".
   The columns of the registry are Value, Description, and Reference,
   where Value is an integer, and the other columns are text strings.
   The initial contents of the registry are:

      +-------+-----------------------------------------------------+
      | Value | Description                                         |
      +=======+=====================================================+
      |     0 | Natively Signed CBOR Certificate following X.509 v3 |
      |     1 | CBOR re-encoding of X.509 v3 Certificate            |
      +-------+-----------------------------------------------------+

                     Figure 3: CBOR Certificate Types



Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 13]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


9.2.  CBOR Attribute Type Registry

   IANA has created a new registry titled "CBOR Attribute Type Registry"
   under the new heading "CBOR Certificate".  The columns of the
   registry are Value, X.509 Attribute Type, and Reference, where Value
   is an integer, and the other columns are text strings.  Only non-
   negative values can be registered.  For values in the interval [0,
   23] the registration procedure is "IETF Review" and "Expert Review".
   For all other values the registration procedure is "Expert Review".
   The initial contents of the registry are:

             +-------+---------------------------------------+
             | Value | X.509 Attribute Type                  |
             +=======+=======================================+
             |     0 | id-emailAddress                       |
             |     1 | id-at-commonName                      |
             |     2 | id-at-surname                         |
             |     3 | id-at-serialNumber                    |
             |     4 | id-at-countryName                     |
             |     5 | id-at-localityName                    |
             |     6 | id-at-stateOrProvinceName             |
             |     7 | id-at-organizationName                |
             |     8 | id-at-organizationalUnitName          |
             |     9 | id-at-title                           |
             |    10 | id-at-givenName                       |
             |    11 | id-at-initials                        |
             |    12 | id-at-generationQualifier             |
             |    13 | id-at-dnQualifier                     |
             |    14 | id-at-pseudonym                       |
             |    15 | id-at-organizationIdentifier          |
             +-------+---------------------------------------+

                  Figure 4: CBOR Attribute Type Registry

9.3.  CBOR Extension Type Registry

   IANA has created a new registry titled "CBOR Extension Type Registry"
   under the new heading "CBOR Certificate".  The columns of the
   registry are Value, X.509 Extension Type, and Reference, where Value
   is an integer, and the other columns are text strings.  Only positive
   values can be registered.  For values in the interval [1, 23] the
   registration procedure is "IETF Review" and "Expert Review".  For all
   other values the registration procedure is "Expert Review".  The
   initial contents of the registry are:







Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 14]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


    +-------+-------------------------------------+------------------+
    | Value | X.509 Extension Type                | extensionValue   |
    +=======+=====================================+==================+
    |     1 | id-ce-basicConstraints              | int              |
    |     2 | id-ce-keyUsage                      | int              |
    |     3 | id-ce-extKeyUsage                   | ExtValueEKU      |
    |     4 | id-ce-subjectAltName                | GeneralNames     |
    |     5 | id-ce-authorityKeyIdentifier        | ExtValueAKI      |
    |     6 | id-ce-subjectKeyIdentifier          | KeyIdentifier    |
    |     7 | id-ce-certificatePolicies           | bytes            |
    |     8 | id-ce-cRLDistributionPoints         | GeneralNames     |
    |     9 | id-pe-authorityInfoAccess           | ExtValueAIA      |
    |    10 | SCT List (1.3.6.1.4.1.11129.2.4.2)  | bytes            |
    |   248 | id-ce-nameConstraints               | bytes            |
    |   249 | id-ce-policyConstraints             | bytes            |
    |   250 | id-ce-inhibitAnyPolicy              | bytes            |
    |   251 | id-ce-policyMappings                | bytes            |
    |   252 | id-ce-issuerAltName                 | GeneralNames     |
    |   253 | id-ce-subjectDirectoryAttributes    | bytes            |
    |   254 | id-ce-freshestCRL                   | bytes            |
    |   255 | id-pe-subjectInfoAccess             | bytes            |
    +-------+-------------------------------------+------------------+

                  Figure 5: CBOR Extension Type Registry

9.4.  CBOR Extended Key Usage Registry

   IANA has created a new registry titled "CBOR Extended Key Usage
   Registry" under the new heading "CBOR Certificate".  The columns of
   the registry are Value, Extended Key Usage Purpose, and Reference,
   where Value is an integer, and the other columns are text strings.
   For values in the interval [-24, 23] the registration procedure is
   "IETF Review" and "Expert Review".  For all other values the
   registration procedure is "Expert Review".  The initial contents of
   the registry are:
















Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 15]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


             +-------+---------------------------------------+
             | Value | Extended Key Usage                    |
             +=======+=======================================+
             |     0 | anyExtendedKeyUsage                   |
             |     1 | id-kp-serverAuth                      |
             |     2 | id-kp-clientAuth                      |
             |     3 | id-kp-codeSigning                     |
             |     4 | id-kp-emailProtection                 |
             |     5 | id-kp-timeStamping                    |
             |     6 | id-kp-OCSPSigning                     |
             +-------+---------------------------------------+

                Figure 6: CBOR Extended Key Usage Registry

9.5.  CBOR General Name Registry

   IANA has created a new registry titled "CBOR General Name Registry"
   under the new heading "CBOR Certificate".  The columns of the
   registry are Value, General Name, and Reference, where Value is an
   integer, and the other columns are text strings.  For values in the
   interval [-24, 23] the registration procedure is "IETF Review" and
   "Expert Review".  For all other values the registration procedure is
   "Expert Review".  The initial contents of the registry are:

     +-------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
     | Value | General Name Type                 | Value            |
     +=======+===================================+==================+
     |    -1 | otherName + hardwareModuleName    | [ oid, bytes ]   |
     |     0 | otherName                         | [ oid, bytes ]   |
     |     1 | rfc822Name                        | text             |
     |     2 | dNSName                           | text             |
     |     4 | directoryName                     | Name             |
     |     6 | uniformResourceIdentifier         | text             |
     |     7 | iPAddress                         | bytes            |
     |     8 | registeredID                      | oid              |
     +-------+-----------------------------------+------------------+

                   Figure 7: CBOR General Name Registry

9.6.  CBOR Certificate Signature Algorithms Registry

   IANA has created a new registry titled "CBOR Certificate Signature
   Algorithms" under the new heading "CBOR Certificate".  For values in
   the interval [-24, 23] the registration procedure is "IETF Review"
   and "Expert Review".  For all other values the registration procedure
   is "Expert Review".  The columns of the registry are Value, X.509
   Algorithm, and Reference, where Value is an integer, and the other
   columns are text strings.  The initial contents of the registry are:



Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 16]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


             +-------+---------------------------------------+
             | Value | X.509 Signature Algorithm             |
             +=======+=======================================+
             |  -256 | sha1WithRSAEncryption                 |
             |  -255 | ecdsa-with-SHA1                       |
             |     1 | sha256WithRSAEncryption               |
             |     2 | sha384WithRSAEncryption               |
             |     3 | sha512WithRSAEncryption               |
             |     4 | id-RSASSA-PSS-SHAKE128                |
             |     5 | id-RSASSA-PSS-SHAKE256                |
             |     6 | ecdsa-with-SHA256                     |
             |     7 | ecdsa-with-SHA384                     |
             |     8 | ecdsa-with-SHA512                     |
             |     9 | id-ecdsa-with-shake128                |
             |    10 | id-ecdsa-with-shake256                |
             |    11 | id-Ed25519                            |
             |    12 | id-Ed448                              |
             |    13 | id-alg-hss-lms-hashsig                |
             |    14 | id-alg-xmss                           |
             |    15 | id-alg-xmssmt                         |
             |   245 | sha224WithRSAEncryption               |
             |   246 | id-rsassa-pkcs1-v1_5-with-sha3-224    |
             |   247 | id-rsassa-pkcs1-v1_5-with-sha3-256    |
             |   248 | id-rsassa-pkcs1-v1_5-with-sha3-384    |
             |   249 | id-rsassa-pkcs1-v1_5-with-sha3-512    |
             |   251 | ecdsa-with-SHA224                     |
             |   252 | id-ecdsa-with-sha3-224                |
             |   253 | id-ecdsa-with-sha3-256                |
             |   254 | id-ecdsa-with-sha3-384                |
             |   255 | id-ecdsa-with-sha3-512                |
             +-------+---------------------------------------+

              Figure 8: CBOR Certificate Signature Algorithms

9.7.  CBOR Certificate Public Key Algorithms Registry

   IANA has created a new registry titled "CBOR Certificate Public Key
   Algorithms" under the new heading "CBOR Certificate".  For values in
   the interval [-24, 23] the registration procedure is "IETF Review"
   and "Expert Review".  For all other values the registration procedure
   is "Expert Review".  The columns of the registry are Value, X.509
   Algorithm, and Reference, where Value is an integer, and the other
   columns are text strings.  The initial contents of the registry are:








Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 17]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


             +-------+---------------------------------------+
             | Value | X.509 Public Key Algorithm            |
             +=======+=======================================+
             |     0 | rsaEncryption                         |
             |     1 | id-ecPublicKey + secp256r1            |
             |     2 | id-ecPublicKey + secp384r1            |
             |     3 | id-ecPublicKey + secp521r1            |
             |     4 | id-X25519                             |
             |     5 | id-X448                               |
             |     6 | id-Ed25519                            |
             |     7 | id-Ed448                              |
             |     8 | id-alg-hss-lms-hashsig                |
             |     9 | id-alg-xmss                           |
             |    10 | id-alg-xmssmt                         |
             +-------+---------------------------------------+

             Figure 9: CBOR Certificate Public Key Algorithms

9.8.  COSE Header Parameters Registry

   This document registers the following entries in the "COSE Header
   Parameters" registry under the "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption
   (COSE)" heading.  The formatting and processing are the same as the
   corresponding x5bag, x5chain, x5t, and x5u defined in
   [I-D.ietf-cose-x509] except that the certificates are CBOR encoded
   instead of DER encoded.  Note that certificates can also be
   identified with a 'kid' header parameter by storing 'kid' and the
   associated bag or chain in a dictionary.

   +-----------+-------+----------------+---------------------+
   | Name      | Label | Value Type     | Description         |
   +===========+=======+================+=====================+
   | c5bag     |  TBD1 | COSE_X509      | An unordered bag of |
   |           |       |                | CBOR certificates   |
   +-----------+-------+----------------+---------------------+
   | c5chain   |  TBD2 | COSE_X509      | An ordered chain of |
   |           |       |                | CBOR certificates   |
   +-----------+-------+----------------+---------------------+
   | c5t       |  TBD3 | COSE_CertHash  | Hash of an          |
   |           |       |                | CBOR certificate    |
   +-----------+-------+----------------+---------------------+
   | c5u       |  TBD4 | uri            | URI pointing to a   |
   |           |       |                | CBOR certificate    |
   +-----------+-------+----------------+---------------------+







Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 18]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


9.9.  TLS Certificate Types Registry

   This document registers the following entry in the "TLS Certificate
   Types" registry under the "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions"
   heading.  The new certificate type can be used with addtional TLS
   certificate compression [I-D.ietf-tls-certificate-compression].

   EDITOR'S NOTE: The TLS registrations should be discussed and approved
   by the TLS WG at a later stage.  When COSE WG has adopted work on
   CBOR certificates, it could perhaps be presented in the TLS WG.  The
   TLS WG might e.g. want a separate draft in the TLS WG.

   +-------+------------------+-------------+---------+
   | Value | Name             | Recommended | Comment |
   +=======+==================+=============+=========+
   |  TBD5 | CBOR Certificate |           Y |         |
   +-------+------------------+-------------+---------+

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-cbor-tags-oid]
              Bormann, C. and S. Leonard, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR) Tags for Object Identifiers", draft-
              ietf-cbor-tags-oid-03 (work in progress), November 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-cose-x509]
              Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
              Header parameters for carrying and referencing X.509
              certificates", draft-ietf-cose-x509-07 (work in progress),
              September 2020.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4108]  Housley, R., "Using Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) to
              Protect Firmware Packages", RFC 4108,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4108, August 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4108>.

   [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/RFC5280, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.



Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 19]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   [RFC7049]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
              October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.

   [RFC8152]  Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
              RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8610]  Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
              Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
              Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
              JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.

   [RFC8742]  Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
              Sequences", RFC 8742, DOI 10.17487/RFC8742, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8742>.

   [SECG]     "Elliptic Curve Cryptography, Standards for Efficient
              Cryptography Group, ver. 2", 2009,
              <https://secg.org/sec1-v2.pdf>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc]
              Selander, G., Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral
              Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", draft-ietf-lake-
              edhoc-02 (work in progress), November 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-certificate-compression]
              Ghedini, A. and V. Vasiliev, "TLS Certificate
              Compression", draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression-10
              (work in progress), January 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-ctls]
              Rescorla, E., Barnes, R., and H. Tschofenig, "Compact TLS
              1.3", draft-ietf-tls-ctls-01 (work in progress), November
              2020.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]
              Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
              Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
              1.3", draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-39 (work in progress),
              November 2020.



Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 20]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   [I-D.ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile]
              Tschofenig, H. and T. Fossati, "TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for
              the Internet of Things", draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-
              profile-00 (work in progress), June 2020.

   [IEEE-802.1AR]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, .,
              "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks-
              Secure Device Identity", IEEE Standard 802.1AR-2018 ,
              August 2018,
              <https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1AR-2018.html>.

   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.

   [RFC7925]  Tschofenig, H., Ed. and T. Fossati, "Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) / Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
              Profiles for the Internet of Things", RFC 7925,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7925, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7925>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [X.509-IoT]
              Forsby, F., Furuhed, M., Papadimitratos, P., and S. Raza,
              "Lightweight X.509 Digital Certificates for the Internet
              of Things.", Springer, Cham. Lecture Notes of the
              Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and
              Telecommunications Engineering, vol 242., July 2018,
              <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93797-7_14>.

Appendix A.  Example CBOR Certificates

A.1.  Example RFC 7925 profiled X.509 Certificate

   Example of [RFC7925] profiled X.509 certificate parsed with OpenSSL.











Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 21]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   Certificate:
       Data:
           Version: 3 (0x2)
           Serial Number: 128269 (0x1f50d)
           Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
           Issuer: CN=RFC test CA
           Validity
               Not Before: Jan  1 00:00:00 2020 GMT
               Not After : Feb  2 00:00:00 2021 GMT
           Subject: CN=01-23-45-FF-FE-67-89-AB
           Subject Public Key Info:
               Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey
                   Public-Key: (256 bit)
                   pub:
                       04:b1:21:6a:b9:6e:5b:3b:33:40:f5:bd:f0:2e:69:
                       3f:16:21:3a:04:52:5e:d4:44:50:b1:01:9c:2d:fd:
                       38:38:ab:ac:4e:14:d8:6c:09:83:ed:5e:9e:ef:24:
                       48:c6:86:1c:c4:06:54:71:77:e6:02:60:30:d0:51:
                       f7:79:2a:c2:06
                   ASN1 OID: prime256v1
                   NIST CURVE: P-256
           X509v3 extensions:
               X509v3 Key Usage:
                   Digital Signature
       Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
            30:44:02:20:44:5d:79:8c:90:e7:f5:00:dc:74:7a:65:4c:ec:
            6c:fa:6f:03:72:76:e1:4e:52:ed:07:fc:16:29:4c:84:66:0d:
            02:20:5a:33:98:5d:fb:d4:bf:dd:6d:4a:cf:38:04:c3:d4:6e:
            bf:3b:7f:a6:26:40:67:4f:c0:35:4f:a0:56:db:ae:a6


   The DER encoding of the above certificate is 314 bytes.

   30 82 01 36 30 81 DE A0 03 02 01 02 02 03 01 F5 0D 30 0A 06 08 2A 86
   48 CE 3D 04 03 02 30 16 31 14 30 12 06 03 55 04 03 0C 0B 52 46 43 20
   74 65 73 74 20 43 41 30 1E 17 0D 32 30 30 31 30 31 30 30 30 30 30 30
   5A 17 0D 32 31 30 32 30 32 30 30 30 30 30 30 5A 30 22 31 20 30 1E 06
   03 55 04 03 0C 17 30 31 2D 32 33 2D 34 35 2D 46 46 2D 46 45 2D 36 37
   2D 38 39 2D 41 42 30 59 30 13 06 07 2A 86 48 CE 3D 02 01 06 08 2A 86
   48 CE 3D 03 01 07 03 42 00 04 B1 21 6A B9 6E 5B 3B 33 40 F5 BD F0 2E
   69 3F 16 21 3A 04 52 5E D4 44 50 B1 01 9C 2D FD 38 38 AB AC 4E 14 D8
   6C 09 83 ED 5E 9E EF 24 48 C6 86 1C C4 06 54 71 77 E6 02 60 30 D0 51
   F7 79 2A C2 06 A3 0F 30 0D 30 0B 06 03 55 1D 0F 04 04 03 02 07 80 30
   0A 06 08 2A 86 48 CE 3D 04 03 02 03 47 00 30 44 02 20 44 5D 79 8C 90
   E7 F5 00 DC 74 7A 65 4C EC 6C FA 6F 03 72 76 E1 4E 52 ED 07 FC 16 29
   4C 84 66 0D 02 20 5A 33 98 5D FB D4 BF DD 6D 4A CF 38 04 C3 D4 6E BF
   3B 7F A6 26 40 67 4F C0 35 4F A0 56 DB AE A6




Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 22]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


A.1.1.  Example CBOR Certificate Encoding

   The CBOR encoding of the same X.509 certificate is shown below in
   CBOR diagnostic format.

   /This defines a CBOR Sequence (RFC 8742):/

     1,
     h'01f50d',
     "RFC test CA",
     1577836800,
     1612224000,
     h'0123456789AB',
     1,
     h'02B1216AB96E5B3B3340F5BDF02E693F16213A04525ED44450
       B1019C2DFD3838AB',
     1,
     6,
     h'445D798C90E7F500DC747A654CEC6CFA6F037276E14E52ED07
       FC16294C84660D5A33985DFBD4BFDD6D4ACF3804C3D46EBF3B
       7FA62640674FC0354FA056DBAEA6


   The size of the CBOR encoding (CBOR sequence) is 138 bytes.

   01
   43 01 F5 0D
   6B 52 46 43 20 74 65 73 74 20 43 41
   1A 5E 0B E1 00
   1A 60 18 96 00
   46 01 23 45 67 89 AB
   01
   58 21 02 B1 21 6A B9 6E 5B 3B 33 40 F5 BD F0 2E 69 3F 16 21 3A 04 52
   5E D4 44 50 B1 01 9C 2D FD 38 38 AB
   01
   06
   58 40 44 5D 79 8C 90 E7 F5 00 DC 74 7A 65 4C EC 6C FA 6F 03 72 76 E1
   4E 52 ED 07 FC 16 29 4C 84 66 0D 5A 33 98 5D FB D4 BF DD 6D 4A CF 38
   04 C3 D4 6E BF 3B 7F A6 26 40 67 4F C0 35 4F A0 56 DB AE A6

A.1.2.  Example: Natively Signed CBOR Certificate

   The corresponding natively signed CBOR certificate in CBOR diagnostic
   format is identical, except for cborCertificateType and
   signatureValue.






Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 23]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   /This defines a CBOR Sequence (RFC 8742):/

     0,
     h'01f50d',
     "RFC test CA",
     1577836800,
     1612224000,
     h'0123456789AB',
     1,
     h'02B1216AB96E5B3B3340F5BDF02E693F16213A04525ED44450
       B1019C2DFD3838AB',
     1,
     6,
     h'B27A0B781455F71B68290F6C2EC9A897F18FDE9B6C59575953
       BC67268AB0E4DDE99D273E04E4715383AB2257C6AAA35284E5
       ED18BDB91247E9F2C433136480B9'


   The size of the CBOR encoding (CBOR sequence) is 138 bytes.

   00
   43 01 F5 0D
   6B 52 46 43 20 74 65 73 74 20 43 41
   1A 5E 0B E1 00
   1A 60 18 96 00
   46 01 23 45 67 89 AB
   01
   58 21 02 B1 21 6A B9 6E 5B 3B 33 40 F5 BD F0 2E 69 3F 16 21 3A 04 52
   5E D4 44 50 B1 01 9C 2D FD 38 38 AB
   01
   06
   58 40 B2 7A 0B 78 14 55 F7 1B 68 29 0F 6C 2E C9 A8 97 F1 8F DE 9B 6C
   59 57 59 53 BC 67 26 8A B0 E4 DD E9 9D 27 3E 04 E4 71 53 83 AB 22 57
   C6 AA A3 52 84 E5 ED 18 BD B9 12 47 E9 F2 C4 33 13 64 80 B9

A.1.3.  Example: Key Pair

   All of the the above example certificate were signed and can be
   verified with the following key pair where the private key is encoded
   as in COSE [RFC8152].











Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 24]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   issuerPublicKeyAlgorithm :
   1 (id-ecPublicKey + secp256r1)

   issuerPublicKey :
   h'02AE4CDB01F614DEFC7121285FDC7F5C6D1D42C95647F061BA0080DF678867845E'

   issuerPrivateKey :
   h'DC66B3415456D649429B53223DF7532B942D6B0E0842C30BCA4C0ACF91547BB2'

A.2.  Example HTPPS X.509 Certificate

   The DER encoding of the tools.ietf.org certificate is 1647 bytes.

   30 82 06 6b 30 82 05 53 a0 03 02 01 02 02 09 00 a6 a5 5c 87 0e 39 b4
   0e 30 0d 06 09 2a 86 48 86 f7 0d 01 01 0b 05 00 30 81 c6 31 0b 30 09
   06 03 55 04 06 13 02 55 53 31 10 30 0e 06 03 55 04 08 13 07 41 72 69
   7a 6f 6e 61 31 13 30 11 06 03 55 04 07 13 0a 53 63 6f 74 74 73 64 61
   6c 65 31 25 30 23 06 03 55 04 0a 13 1c 53 74 61 72 66 69 65 6c 64 20
   54 65 63 68 6e 6f 6c 6f 67 69 65 73 2c 20 49 6e 63 2e 31 33 30 31 06
   03 55 04 0b 13 2a 68 74 74 70 3a 2f 2f 63 65 72 74 73 2e 73 74 61 72
   66 69 65 6c 64 74 65 63 68 2e 63 6f 6d 2f 72 65 70 6f 73 69 74 6f 72
   79 2f 31 34 30 32 06 03 55 04 03 13 2b 53 74 61 72 66 69 65 6c 64 20
   53 65 63 75 72 65 20 43 65 72 74 69 66 69 63 61 74 65 20 41 75 74 68
   6f 72 69 74 79 20 2d 20 47 32 30 1e 17 0d 32 30 31 30 30 31 31 39 33
   38 33 36 5a 17 0d 32 31 31 31 30 32 31 39 33 38 33 36 5a 30 3e 31 21
   30 1f 06 03 55 04 0b 13 18 44 6f 6d 61 69 6e 20 43 6f 6e 74 72 6f 6c
   20 56 61 6c 69 64 61 74 65 64 31 19 30 17 06 03 55 04 03 0c 10 2a 2e
   74 6f 6f 6c 73 2e 69 65 74 66 2e 6f 72 67 30 82 01 22 30 0d 06 09 2a
   86 48 86 f7 0d 01 01 01 05 00 03 82 01 0f 00 30 82 01 0a 02 82 01 01
   00 b1 e1 37 e8 eb 82 d6 89 fa db f5 c2 4b 77 f0 2c 4a de 72 6e 3e 13
   60 d1 a8 66 1e c4 ad 3d 32 60 e5 f0 99 b5 f4 7a 7a 48 55 21 ee 0e 39
   12 f9 ce 0d ca f5 69 61 c7 04 ed 6e 0f 1d 3b 1e 50 88 79 3a 0e 31 41
   16 f1 b1 02 64 68 a5 cd f5 4a 0a ca 99 96 35 08 c3 7e 27 5d d0 a9 cf
   f3 e7 28 af 37 d8 b6 7b dd f3 7e ae 6e 97 7f f7 ca 69 4e cc d0 06 df
   5d 27 9b 3b 12 e7 e6 fe 08 6b 52 7b 82 11 7c 72 b3 46 eb c1 e8 78 b8
   0f cb e1 eb bd 06 44 58 dc 83 50 b2 a0 62 5b dc 81 b8 36 e3 9e 7c 79
   b2 a9 53 8a e0 0b c9 4a 2a 13 39 31 13 bd 2c cf a8 70 cf 8c 8d 3d 01
   a3 88 ae 12 00 36 1d 1e 24 2b dd 79 d8 53 01 26 ed 28 4f c9 86 94 83
   4e c8 e1 14 2e 85 b3 af d4 6e dd 69 46 af 41 25 0e 7a ad 8b f2 92 ca
   79 d9 7b 32 4f f7 77 e8 f9 b4 4f 23 5c d4 5c 03 ae d8 ab 3a ca 13 5f
   5d 5d 5d a1 02 03 01 00 01 a3 82 02 e1 30 82 02 dd 30 0c 06 03 55 1d
   13 01 01 ff 04 02 30 00 30 1d 06 03 55 1d 25 04 16 30 14 06 08 2b 06
   01 05 05 07 03 01 06 08 2b 06 01 05 05 07 03 02 30 0e 06 03 55 1d 0f
   01 01 ff 04 04 03 02 05 a0 30 3d 06 03 55 1d 1f 04 36 30 34 30 32 a0
   30 a0 2e 86 2c 68 74 74 70 3a 2f 2f 63 72 6c 2e 73 74 61 72 66 69 65
   6c 64 74 65 63 68 2e 63 6f 6d 2f 73 66 69 67 32 73 31 2d 32 34 32 2e
   63 72 6c 30 63 06 03 55 1d 20 04 5c 30 5a 30 4e 06 0b 60 86 48 01 86
   fd 6e 01 07 17 01 30 3f 30 3d 06 08 2b 06 01 05 05 07 02 01 16 31 68



Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 25]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   74 74 70 3a 2f 2f 63 65 72 74 69 66 69 63 61 74 65 73 2e 73 74 61 72
   66 69 65 6c 64 74 65 63 68 2e 63 6f 6d 2f 72 65 70 6f 73 69 74 6f 72
   79 2f 30 08 06 06 67 81 0c 01 02 01 30 81 82 06 08 2b 06 01 05 05 07
   01 01 04 76 30 74 30 2a 06 08 2b 06 01 05 05 07 30 01 86 1e 68 74 74
   70 3a 2f 2f 6f 63 73 70 2e 73 74 61 72 66 69 65 6c 64 74 65 63 68 2e
   63 6f 6d 2f 30 46 06 08 2b 06 01 05 05 07 30 02 86 3a 68 74 74 70 3a
   2f 2f 63 65 72 74 69 66 69 63 61 74 65 73 2e 73 74 61 72 66 69 65 6c
   64 74 65 63 68 2e 63 6f 6d 2f 72 65 70 6f 73 69 74 6f 72 79 2f 73 66
   69 67 32 2e 63 72 74 30 1f 06 03 55 1d 23 04 18 30 16 80 14 25 45 81
   68 50 26 38 3d 3b 2d 2c be cd 6a d9 b6 3d b3 66 63 30 2b 06 03 55 1d
   11 04 24 30 22 82 10 2a 2e 74 6f 6f 6c 73 2e 69 65 74 66 2e 6f 72 67
   82 0e 74 6f 6f 6c 73 2e 69 65 74 66 2e 6f 72 67 30 1d 06 03 55 1d 0e
   04 16 04 14 ad 8a b4 1c 07 51 d7 92 89 07 b0 b7 84 62 2f 36 55 7a 5f
   4d 30 82 01 06 06 0a 2b 06 01 04 01 d6 79 02 04 02 04 81 f7 04 81 f4
   00 f2 00 77 00 f6 5c 94 2f d1 77 30 22 14 54 18 08 30 94 56 8e e3 4d
   13 19 33 bf df 0c 2f 20 0b cc 4e f1 64 e3 00 00 01 74 e5 ac 71 13 00
   00 04 03 00 48 30 46 02 21 00 8c f5 48 52 ce 56 35 43 39 11 cf 10 cd
   b9 1f 52 b3 36 39 22 3a d1 38 a4 1d ec a6 fe de 1f e9 0f 02 21 00 bc
   a2 25 43 66 c1 9a 26 91 c4 7a 00 b5 b6 53 ab bd 44 c2 f8 ba ae f4 d2
   da f2 52 7c e6 45 49 95 00 77 00 5c dc 43 92 fe e6 ab 45 44 b1 5e 9a
   d4 56 e6 10 37 fb d5 fa 47 dc a1 73 94 b2 5e e6 f6 c7 0e ca 00 00 01
   74 e5 ac 72 3c 00 00 04 03 00 48 30 46 02 21 00 a5 e0 90 6e 63 e9 1d
   4f dd ef ff 03 52 b9 1e 50 89 60 07 56 4b 44 8a 38 28 f5 96 dc 6b 28
   72 6d 02 21 00 fc 91 ea ed 02 16 88 66 05 4e e1 8a 2e 53 46 c4 cc 51
   fe b3 fa 10 a9 1d 2e db f9 91 25 f8 6c e6 30 0d 06 09 2a 86 48 86 f7
   0d 01 01 0b 05 00 03 82 01 01 00 14 04 3f a0 be d2 ee 3f a8 6e 3a 1f
   78 8e a0 4c 35 53 0f 11 06 1f ff 60 a1 6d 0b 83 e9 d9 2a db b3 3f 9d
   b3 d7 e0 59 4c 19 a8 e4 19 a5 0c a7 70 72 77 63 d5 fe 64 51 0a d2 7a
   d6 50 a5 8a 92 38 ec cb 2f 0f 5a c0 64 58 4d 5c 06 b9 73 63 68 27 8b
   89 34 dc 79 c7 1d 3a fd 34 5f 83 14 41 58 49 80 68 29 80 39 8a 86 72
   69 cc 79 37 ce e3 97 f7 dc f3 95 88 ed 81 03 29 00 d2 a2 c7 ba ab d6
   3a 8e ca 09 0b d9 fb 39 26 4b ff 03 d8 8e 2d 3f 6b 21 ca 8a 7d d8 5f
   fb 94 ba 83 de 9c fc 15 8d 61 fa 67 2d b0 c7 db 3d 25 0a 41 4a 85 d3
   7f 49 46 37 3c f4 b1 75 d0 52 f3 dd c7 66 f1 4b fd aa 00 ed bf e4 7e
   ed 01 ec 7b e4 f6 46 fc 31 fd 72 fe 03 d2 f2 65 af 4d 7e e2 81 9b 7a
   fd 30 3c f5 52 f4 05 34 a0 8a 3e 19 41 58 c8 a8 e0 51 71 84 09 15 ae
   ec a5 77 75 fa 18 f7 d5 77 d5 31 cc c7 2d

A.2.1.  Example CBOR Certificate Encoding

   The CBOR encoding of the X.509 certificate is shown below in CBOR
   diagnostic format.









Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 26]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


/This defines a CBOR Sequence (RFC 8742):/

  1,
  h'A6A55C870E39B40E',
  [
    [-4, "US"],
    [-6, "Arizona"],
    [-5, "Scottsdale"],
    [-7, "Starfield Technologies, Inc."],
    [-8, "http://certs.starfieldtech.com/repository/"],
    [-1, "Starfield Secure Certificate Authority - G2"]
  ],
  1601581116,
  1635881916,
  [
    [-8, "Domain Control Validated"],
    [1, "*.tools.ietf.org"]
  ],
  0,
  h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
  [
    -1, -2,
     3, [ 1, 2 ],
    -2, 5,
     8, "http://crl.starfieldtech.com/sfig2s1-242.crl",
     7, h'305A304E060B6086480186FD6E01071701303F303D06082B060105050702011631687474703A2F2F6365727469666963617465732E737461726669656C64746563682E636F6D2F7265706F7369746F72792F3008060667810C010201',
     9, [ 1, "http://ocsp.starfieldtech.com/", 2, "http://certificates.starfieldtech.com/repository/sfig2.crt" ],
     5, h'254581685026383D3B2D2CBECD6AD9B63DB36663',
     4, [ 2, "*.tools.ietf.org", 2, "tools.ietf.org" ],
     6, h'AD8AB41C0751D7928907B0B784622F36557A5F4D',
    10, h'0481F400F2007700F65C942FD1773022145418083094568EE34D131933BFDF0C2F200BCC4EF164E300000174E5AC711300000403004830460221008CF54852CE5635433911CF10CDB91F52B33639223AD138A41DECA6FEDE1FE90F022100BCA2254366C19A2691C47A00B5B653ABBD44C2F8BAAEF4D2DAF2527CE64549950077005CDC4392FEE6AB4544B15E9AD456E61037FBD5FA47DCA17394B25EE6F6C70ECA00000174E5AC723C0000040300483046022100A5E0906E63E91D4FDDEFFF0352B91E50896007564B448A3828F596DC6B28726D022100FC91EAED02168866054EE18A2E5346C4CC51FEB3FA10A91D2EDBF99125F86CE6'
  ],
  1,
  h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


   The size of the CBOR encoding (CBOR sequence) is 1332 bytes.

Appendix B.  X.509 Certificate Profile, ASN.1

   EDITOR'S NOTE: The ASN.1 below is not up to date with the rest of the
   specification.  The below ASN.1 for RFC 7925 profile should be in
   draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile instead.  If CBOR Certificates
   support a large subset of RFC 5280, we should probably not duplicate
   all the ASN.1 in that document.  Should be discussed what kind and
   how much (if any) ASN.1 this document needs.  If possible, one option
   would be to have ASN.1 for the restrictions compared to RFC 5280.




Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 27]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


   IOTCertificate DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN

   Certificate  ::= SEQUENCE {
     tbsCertificate        TBSCertificate,
     signatureAlgorithm    AlgorithmIdentifier,
     signatureValue        BIT STRING
   }

   TBSCertificate  ::= SEQUENCE {
     version           [0] INTEGER {v3(2)},
     serialNumber          INTEGER (1..MAX),
     signature             AlgorithmIdentifier,
     issuer                Name,
     validity              Validity,
     subject               Name,
     subjectPublicKeyInfo  SubjectPublicKeyInfo,
     extensions        [3] Extensions OPTIONAL
   }

   Name  ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1) OF DistinguishedName

   DistinguishedName  ::= SET SIZE (1) OF CommonName

   CommonName  ::= SEQUENCE {
     type              OBJECT IDENTIFIER (id-at-commonName),
     value             UTF8String
   }

   Validity  ::= SEQUENCE {
     notBefore         UTCTime,
     notAfter          UTCTime
   }

   SubjectPublicKeyInfo  ::= SEQUENCE {
     algorithm         AlgorithmIdentifier,
     subjectPublicKey  BIT STRING
   }

   AlgorithmIdentifier  ::=  SEQUENCE  {
     algorithm         OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
     parameters        ANY DEFINED BY algorithm OPTIONAL  }
   }

   Extensions  ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF Extension

   Extension  ::= SEQUENCE {
     extnId            OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
     critical          BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,



Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 28]


Internet-DraftCBOR Encoding of X.509 Certificates (CBOR CerDecember 2020


     extnValue         OCTET STRING
    }

   id-at-commonName    OBJECT IDENTIFIER   ::=
            {joint-iso-itu-t(2) ds(5) attributeType(4) 3}

   END

Acknowledgments

   The authors want to thank Henk Birkholz, Carsten Bormann, Russ
   Housley, Olle Johansson, Benjamin Kaduk, Ilari Liusvaara, Laurence
   Lundblade, Thomas Peterson, Michael Richardson, Stefan Santesson, Jim
   Schaad, Fraser Tweedale, and Rene Struik for reviewing and commenting
   on intermediate versions of the draft.

Authors' Addresses

   Shahid Raza
   RISE AB

   Email: shahid.raza@ri.se


   Joel Hoeglund
   RISE AB

   Email: joel.hoglund@ri.se


   Goeran Selander
   Ericsson AB

   Email: goran.selander@ericsson.com


   John Preuss Mattsson
   Ericsson AB

   Email: john.mattsson@ericsson.com


   Martin Furuhed
   Nexus Group

   Email: martin.furuhed@nexusgroup.com





Raza, et al.              Expires June 4, 2021                 [Page 29]


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