< draft-ietf-cose-x509-02.txt   draft-ietf-cose-x509-03.txt >
Network Working Group J. Schaad Network Working Group J. Schaad
Internet-Draft August Cellars Internet-Draft August Cellars
Intended status: Informational June 20, 2019 Intended status: Informational August 18, 2019
Expires: December 22, 2019 Expires: February 19, 2020
CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Headers for carrying and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Headers for carrying and
referencing X.509 certificates referencing X.509 certificates
draft-ietf-cose-x509-02 draft-ietf-cose-x509-03
Abstract Abstract
The CBOR Signing And Encrypted Message (COSE) structure uses The CBOR Signing And Encrypted Message (COSE) structure uses
references to keys in general. For some algorithms, additional references to keys in general. For some algorithms, additional
properties are defined which carry parts of keys as needed. The COSE properties are defined which carry parts of keys as needed. The COSE
Key structure is used for transporting keys outside of COSE messages. Key structure is used for transporting keys outside of COSE messages.
This document extends the way that keys can be identified and This document extends the way that keys can be identified and
transported by providing attributes that refer to or contain X.509 transported by providing attributes that refer to or contain X.509
certificates. certificates.
Contributing to this document Contributing to this document
The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub. Suggested The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub. Suggested
changes should be submitted as pull requests at <https://github.com/ changes should be submitted as pull requests at https://github.com/
cose-wg/X509>. Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial cose-wg/X509. Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial
changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial issues need to changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial issues need to
be discussed on the COSE mailing list. be discussed on the COSE mailing list.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 19, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. X.509 COSE Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. X.509 COSE Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. X.509 certificates and static-static ECDH . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. X.509 certificates and static-static ECDH . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. COSE Header Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. COSE Header Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. COSE Header Algorithm Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. COSE Header Algorithm Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In the process of writing [RFC8152] discussions where held on the In the process of writing [RFC8152] discussions where held on the
question of X.509 certificates [RFC5280] and if there was a needed to question of X.509 certificates [RFC5280] and if there was a needed to
provide for them. At the time there were no use cases presented that provide for them. At the time there were no use cases presented that
appeared to have a sufficient need for these attributes. Since that appeared to have a sufficient need for these attributes. Since that
time a number of cases where X.509 certificate support is necessary time a number of cases where X.509 certificate support is necessary
have been defined. This document provides a set of attributes that have been defined. This document provides a set of attributes that
will allow applications to transport and refer to X.509 certificates will allow applications to transport and refer to X.509 certificates
skipping to change at page 4, line 9 skipping to change at page 4, line 7
validated. This validation can be done via the PKIX rules in validated. This validation can be done via the PKIX rules in
[RFC5280] or by using a different trust structure, such as a trusted [RFC5280] or by using a different trust structure, such as a trusted
certificate distributer for self-signed certificates. The PKIX certificate distributer for self-signed certificates. The PKIX
validation includes matching against the trust anchors configured for validation includes matching against the trust anchors configured for
the application. These rules apply to certificates of a chain length the application. These rules apply to certificates of a chain length
of one as well as longer chains. If the application cannot establish of one as well as longer chains. If the application cannot establish
a trust in the certificate, then it cannot be used. a trust in the certificate, then it cannot be used.
The header attributes defined in this document are: The header attributes defined in this document are:
x5bag: This header attributes contains a bag of X.509 certificates. x5bag: This header attributes contains a bag of X.509
The set of certificates in this header are unordered and may certificates. The set of certificates in this header are
contain self-signed certificates. The certificate bag can contain unordered and may contain self-signed certificates. The
certificates which are completely extraneous to the message. (An certificate bag can contain certificates which are
example of this would be to carry a certificate with a key completely extraneous to the message. (An example of this
agreement key usage in a signed message.) As the certificates are would be to carry a certificate with a key agreement key
unordered, the party evaluating the signature will need to do the usage in a signed message.) As the certificates are
necessary path building. Certificates needed for any particular unordered, the party evaluating the signature will need to
chain to be built may be absent from the bag. do the necessary path building. Certificates needed for
any particular chain to be built may be absent from the
bag.
As this header element does not provide any trust, the header As this header element does not provide any trust, the
attribute can be in either a protected or unprotected header header attribute can be in either a protected or
attribute. unprotected header attribute.
This header attribute allows for a single or a bag of X.509 This header attribute allows for a single or a bag of X.509
certificates to be carried in the message. certificates to be carried in the message.
* If a single certificate is conveyed, it is placed in a CBOR * If a single certificate is conveyed, it is placed in a
bstr. CBOR bstr.
* If multiple certificates are conveyed, a CBOR array of bstrs is * If multiple certificates are conveyed, a CBOR array of
used. Each certificate being in it's own slot. bstrs is used. Each certificate being in its own bstr.
x5chain: This header attribute contains an ordered array of X.509 x5chain: This header attribute contains an ordered array of X.509
certificates. The certificates are to be ordered starting with certificates. The certificates are to be ordered starting
the certificate containing the end-entity key followed by the with the certificate containing the end-entity key followed
certificate which signed it and so on. There is no requirement by the certificate which signed it and so on. There is no
for the entire chain to be present in the element if there is requirement for the entire chain to be present in the
reason to believe that the relying party will already have it. element if there is reason to believe that the relying
This means that the relying party is still required to do path party will already have it. This means that the relying
building, but that a candidate path is proposed in this attribute. party is still required to do path building, but that a
candidate path is proposed in this attribute.
As this header element does not provide any trust, the header As this header element does not provide any trust, the
attribute can be in either a protected or unprotected header header attribute can be in either a protected or
attribute. unprotected header attribute.
This header attribute allows for a single or a chain of X.509 This header attribute allows for a single or a chain of
certificates to be carried in the message. X.509 certificates to be carried in the message.
* If a single certificate is conveyed, it is placed in a CBOR * If a single certificate is conveyed, it is placed in a
bstr. CBOR bstr.
* If multiple certificates are conveyed, a CBOR array of bstrs is * If multiple certificates are conveyed, a CBOR array of
used. Each certificate being in it's own slot. bstrs is used. Each certificate being in it's own slot.
x5t: This header attribute provides the ability to identify an X.509 x5t: This header attribute provides the ability to identify an
certificate by a hash value. The attribute is an array of two X.509 certificate by a hash value. The attribute is an
elements. The first element is an algorithm identifier which is array of two elements. The first element is an algorithm
an integer or a string containing the hash algorithm identifier. identifier which is an integer or a string containing the
The second element is a binary string containing the hash value. hash algorithm identifier. The second element is a binary
string containing the hash value.
As this header element does not provide any trust, the header As this header element does not provide any trust, the
attribute can be in either a protected or unprotected header header attribute can be in either a protected or
attribute. unprotected header attribute.
For interoperability, applications which use this header attribute
MUST support the hash algorithm 'sha256', but can use other hash
algorithms.
x5u: This header attribute provides the ability to identify an X.509 For interoperability, applications which use this header
certificate by a URL. The referenced resource can be any of the attribute MUST support the hash algorithm 'sha256', but can
following media types: use other hash algorithms.
* application/pkix-cert [RFC2585] x5u: This header attribute provides the ability to identify an
X.509 certificate by a URI. The referenced resource can be
any of the following media types:
* application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type="certs-only" * application/pkix-cert [RFC2585]
[I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis]
* application/pem-certificate-chain [I-D.ietf-acme-acme] * application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type="certs-only"
[RFC8551]
As this header attribute implies a trust relationship, the As this header attribute implies a trust relationship, the
attribute MUST be in the protected attributes. attribute MUST be in the protected attributes.
The URL provided MUST provide integrity protection and server
authentication. For example, an HTTP or CoAP GET request to The URI provided MUST provide integrity protection and
retrieve a certificate MUST use TLS [RFC8446] or DTLS server authentication. For example, an HTTP or CoAP GET
[I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]. If the certificate does not chain to an request to retrieve a certificate MUST use TLS [RFC8446] or
existing trust anchor, the certificate MUST NOT be trusted unless DTLS [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]. If the certificate does not
the server is configured as trusted to provide new trust anchors. chain to an existing trust anchor, the certificate MUST NOT
This will normally be the situation when self-signed certificates be trusted unless the server is configured as trusted to
are used. provide new trust anchors. This will normally be the
situation when self-signed certificates are used.
The header attributes are used in the following locations: The header attributes are used in the following locations:
o COSE_Signature and COSE_Sign0 objects, in these objects they * COSE_Signature and COSE_Sign0 objects, in these objects they
identify the key that was used for generating signature. identify the key that was used for generating signature.
o COSE_recipient objects, in this location they may be used to * COSE_recipient objects, in this location they may be used to
identify the certificate for the recipient of the message. identify the certificate for the recipient of the message.
+---------+-------+---------------+---------------------------------+ +---------+-------+---------------+---------------------+
| Name | Value | value type | description | | Name | Value | value type | description |
+---------+-------+---------------+---------------------------------+ +=========+=======+===============+=====================+
| x5bag | TBD4 | COSE_X509 | An unordered bag of X.509 | | x5bag | TBD4 | COSE_X509 | An unordered bag of |
| | | | certificates | | | | | X.509 certificates |
| | | | | +---------+-------+---------------+---------------------+
| x5chain | TBD3 | COSE_X509 | An ordered chain of X.509 | | x5chain | TBD3 | COSE_X509 | An ordered chain of |
| | | | certificates | | | | | X.509 certificates |
| | | | | +---------+-------+---------------+---------------------+
| x5t | TBD1 | COSE_CertHash | Hash of an X.509 certificate | | x5t | TBD1 | COSE_CertHash | Hash of an X.509 |
| | | | | | | | | certificate |
| x5u | TBD2 | uri | URL pointing to an X.509 | +---------+-------+---------------+---------------------+
| | | | certificate | | x5u | TBD2 | uri | URI pointing to an |
+---------+-------+---------------+---------------------------------+ | | | | X.509 certificate |
+---------+-------+---------------+---------------------+
Table 1: X.509 COSE Headers Table 1: X.509 COSE Headers
Below is an equivalent CDDL [I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl] description of the Below is an equivalent CDDL [RFC8610] description of the text above.
text above.
COSE_X509 = bstr / [ 2*certs: bstr ] COSE_X509 = bstr / [ 2*certs: bstr ]
COSE_CertHash = [ hashAlg: (int / tstr), hashValue: bstr ] COSE_CertHash = [ hashAlg: (int / tstr), hashValue: bstr ]
3. X.509 certificates and static-static ECDH 3. X.509 certificates and static-static ECDH
The header attributes defined in the previous section are used to The header attributes defined in the previous section are used to
identify the recipient certificates for the ECDH key agreement identify the recipient certificates for the ECDH key agreement
algorithms. In this section we define the algorithm specific algorithms. In this section we define the algorithm specific
parameters that are used for identifying or transporting the senders parameters that are used for identifying or transporting the senders
key for static-static key agreement algorithms. key for static-static key agreement algorithms.
These attributes are defined analogously to those in the previous These attributes are defined analogously to those in the previous
section. There is no definition for the certificate bag as the same section. There is no definition for the certificate bag as the same
attribute would be used for both the sender and recipient attribute would be used for both the sender and recipient
certificates. certificates.
x5chain-sender: This header attribute contains the chain of x5chain-sender: This header attribute contains the chain of
certificates starting with the sender's key exchange certificate. certificates starting with the sender's key exchange
The structure is the same as 'x5bag'. certificate. The structure is the same as 'x5bag'.
x5t-sender: This header attribute contains the hash value for the x5t-sender: This header attribute contains the hash value for
sender's key exchange certificate. The structure is the same as the sender's key exchange certificate. The
'x5t'. structure is the same as 'x5t'.
x5u-sender: This header attribute contains a URL for the sender's x5u-sender: This header attribute contains a URI for the
key exchange certificate. The structure and processing are the sender's key exchange certificate. The structure
same as 'x5u'. and processing are the same as 'x5u'.
+--------------+------+--------------+-----------------+------------+ +---------------+-----+-------------+-------------------+-----------+
| Name | Valu | Type | Algorithm | Descriptio | | Name |Value|Type | Algorithm |Description|
| | e | | | n | +===============+=====+=============+===================+===========+
+--------------+------+--------------+-----------------+------------+ | x5t-sender |TBD |COSE_CertHash| ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, |Thumbprint |
| x5t-sender | TBD | COSE_CertHas | ECDH- | Thumbprint | | | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, |for the |
| | | h | SS+HKDF-256, | for the | | | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, |senders |
| | | | ECDH- | senders | | | | | ECDH- SS+AES192KW, |X.509 |
| | | | SS+HKDF-512, | X.509 cert | | | | | ECDH-SS+AES256KW |certificate|
| | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, | ificate | +---------------+-----+-------------+-------------------+-----------+
| | | | ECDH- | | | x5u-sender |TBD |uri | ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, |URI for the|
| | | | SS+AES192KW, | | | | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, |senders |
| | | | ECDH- | | | | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, |X.509 |
| | | | SS+AES256KW | | | | | | ECDH- SS+AES192KW, |certificate|
| | | | | | | | | | ECDH-SS+AES256KW | |
| x5u-sender | TBD | uri | ECDH- | URL for | +---------------+-----+-------------+-------------------+-----------+
| | | | SS+HKDF-256, | the | | x5chain-sender|TBD |COSE_X509 | ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, |static key |
| | | | ECDH- | senders | | | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, |X.509 |
| | | | SS+HKDF-512, | X.509 cert | | | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, |certificate|
| | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, | ificate | | | | | ECDH- SS+AES192KW, |chain |
| | | | ECDH- | | | | | | ECDH-SS+AES256KW | |
| | | | SS+AES192KW, | | +---------------+-----+-------------+-------------------+-----------+
| | | | ECDH- | |
| | | | SS+AES256KW | |
| | | | | |
| x5chain- | TBD | COSE_X509 | ECDH- | static key |
| sender | | | SS+HKDF-256, | X.509 cert |
| | | | ECDH- | ificate |
| | | | SS+HKDF-512, | chain |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH- | |
| | | | SS+AES192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH- | |
| | | | SS+AES256KW | |
+--------------+------+--------------+-----------------+------------+
Table 2: Static ECDH Algorithm Values Table 2: Static ECDH Algorithm Values
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
4.1. COSE Header Parameter Registry 4.1. COSE Header Parameter Registry
IANA is requested to register the new COSE Header items in Table 1 in IANA is requested to register the new COSE Header items in Table 1 in
the "COSE Header Parameters" registry. the "COSE Header Parameters" registry.
skipping to change at page 8, line 41 skipping to change at page 8, line 23
certificate needs to be performed prior to using them. These can certificate needs to be performed prior to using them. These can
include validating that points are on curves for elliptical curve include validating that points are on curves for elliptical curve
algorithms and that sizes of keys are acceptable for RSA. The use of algorithms and that sizes of keys are acceptable for RSA. The use of
unvalidated keys can lead either to loss of security or excessive unvalidated keys can lead either to loss of security or excessive
consumption of resources. consumption of resources.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]
Schaad, J., "CBOR CBOR Object Signing and Encryption
(COSE): Structures and Process", draft-ietf-cose-
rfc8152bis-struct-02 (work in progress), March 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-acme-acme]
Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., McCarney, D., and J.
Kasten, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment
(ACME)", draft-ietf-acme-acme-18 (work in progress),
December 2018.
[I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl]
Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise data
definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to
express CBOR and JSON data structures", draft-ietf-cbor-
cddl-08 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs] [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs]
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Initial Algorithms", draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-02 Initial Algorithms", draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-03
(work in progress), March 2019. (work in progress), June 10, 2019,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-
[I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis] rfc8152bis-algs-03>.
Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure/
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0
Message Specification", draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-12
(work in progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]
Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
1.3", draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-31 (work in progress), March 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-32 (work in progress), July 8,
2019. 2019, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-32>.
[I-D.selander-ace-cose-ecdhe] [I-D.selander-ace-cose-ecdhe]
Selander, G., Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral Selander, G., Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral
Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", draft-selander-ace- Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", draft-selander-ace-
cose-ecdhe-13 (work in progress), March 2019. cose-ecdhe-13 (work in progress), March 11, 2019,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-selander-ace-cose-
ecdhe-13>.
[RFC2585] Housley, R. and P. Hoffman, "Internet X.509 Public Key [RFC2585] Housley, R. and P. Hoffman, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP", Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP",
RFC 2585, DOI 10.17487/RFC2585, May 1999, RFC 2585, DOI 10.17487/RFC2585, May 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2585>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2585>.
[RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)", [RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017, RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.
[RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig, [RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
"CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392, "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>. May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8551] Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure/
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0
Message Specification", RFC 8551, DOI 10.17487/RFC8551,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8551>.
[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>.
Author's Address Author's Address
Jim Schaad Jim Schaad
August Cellars August Cellars
Email: ietf@augustcellars.com Email: ietf@augustcellars.com
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
168 lines changed or deleted 151 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/