draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-00.txt   draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01.txt 
Host Identity Protocol Heer Host Identity Protocol Heer
Internet-Draft Hirschmann Automation and Control Internet-Draft Hirschmann Automation and
Updates: 5201 (if approved) Varjonen Intended status: Standards Track Control
Intended status: Standards Track University of Helsinki Expires: April 7, 2014 Varjonen
Expires: September 23, 2013 March 22, 2013 University of Helsinki
October 4, 2013
Host Identity Protocol Certificates Host Identity Protocol Certificates
draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-00 draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01
Abstract Abstract
The CERT parameter is a container for digital certificates. It is The Certificate (CERT) parameter is a container for digital
used for carrying these certificates in Host Identity Protocol (HIP) certificates. It is used for carrying these certificates in Host
control packets. This document specifies the certificate parameter Identity Protocol (HIP) control packets. This document specifies the
and the error signaling in case of a failed verification. certificate parameter and the error signaling in case of a failed
Additionally, this document specifies the representations of Host verification. Additionally, this document specifies the
Identity Tags in X.509 version 3 (v3) and SPKI certificates. representations of Host Identity Tags in X.509 version 3 (v3) and
Simple Public Key Infrastructure (SPKI) certificates.
The concrete use of certificates including how certificates are The concrete use cases of certificates, including how certificates
obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful or are obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful
failed verification are specific to the scenario in which the or failed verification, are specific to the scenario in which the
certificates are used. Hence, the definition of these scenario- certificates are used. Hence, the definition of these scenario-
specific aspects are left to the documents that use the CERT specific aspects is left to the documents that use the CERT
parameter. parameter.
This document updates RFC 5201. This document extends I-D.draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 September 23, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
skipping to change at page 2, line 34 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Digital certificates bind pieces of information to a public key by Digital certificates bind pieces of information to a public key by
means of a digital signature, and thus, enable the holder of a means of a digital signature, and thus, enable the holder of a
private key to generate cryptographically verifiable statements. The private key to generate cryptographically verifiable statements. The
Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [RFC5201] defines a new cryptographic Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [I-D.draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis] defines
namespace based on asymmetric cryptography. The identity of each a new cryptographic namespace based on asymmetric cryptography. The
host is derived from a public key, allowing hosts to digitally sign identity of each host is derived from a public key, allowing hosts to
data and issue certificates with their private key. This document digitally sign data and issue certificates with their private key.
specifies the CERT parameter, which is used to transmit digital This document specifies the CERT parameter, which is used to transmit
certificates in HIP. It fills the placeholder specified in digital certificates in HIP. It fills the placeholder specified in
Section 5.2 of [RFC5201], and thus, updates [RFC5201]. Section 5.2 of [I-D.draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis], and thus, extends
[I-D.draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis].
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [RFC2119]. 2119 [RFC2119].
2. CERT Parameter 2. CERT Parameter
The CERT parameter is a container for certain types of digital The CERT parameter is a container for certain types of digital
certificates. It does not specify any certificate semantics. certificates. It does not specify any certificate semantics.
However, it defines supplementary parameters that help HIP hosts to However, it defines supplementary parameters that help HIP hosts to
transmit semantically grouped CERT parameters in a more systematic transmit semantically grouped CERT parameters in a more systematic
way. The specific use of the CERT parameter for different use cases way. The specific use of the CERT parameter for different use cases
is intentionally not discussed in this document because it is is intentionally not discussed in this document. Hence, the use of
specific to a concrete use case. Hence, the use of the CERT the CERT parameter will be defined in the documents that use the CERT
parameter will be defined in the documents that use the CERT
parameter. parameter.
The CERT parameter is covered and protected, when present, by the HIP The CERT parameter is covered and protected, when present, by the HIP
SIGNATURE field and is a non-critical parameter. SIGNATURE field and is a non-critical parameter.
The CERT parameter can be used in all HIP packets. However, using it The CERT parameter can be used in all HIP packets. However, using it
in the first Initiator (I1) packet is NOT RECOMMENDED because it can in the first Initiator (I1) packet is NOT RECOMMENDED because it can
increase the processing times of I1s, which can be problematic when increase the processing times of I1s, which can be problematic when
processing storms of I1s. Each HIP control packet MAY contain processing storms of I1s. Each HIP control packet MAY contain
multiple CERT parameters. These parameters MAY be related or multiple CERT parameters. These parameters MAY be related or
skipping to change at page 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 27
Type 768 Type 768
Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding
Cert group Group ID grouping multiple related CERT parameters Cert group Group ID grouping multiple related CERT parameters
Cert count Total count of certificates that are sent, possibly Cert count Total count of certificates that are sent, possibly
in several consecutive HIP control packets. in several consecutive HIP control packets.
Cert ID The sequence number for this certificate Cert ID The sequence number for this certificate
Cert Type Indicates the type of the certificate Cert Type Indicates the type of the certificate
Padding Any Padding, if necessary, to make the TLV a multiple Padding Any Padding, if necessary, to make the TLV a multiple
of 8 bytes. of 8 bytes.
The certificates MUST use the algorithms defined in [RFC5201] as the The certificates MUST use the algorithms defined in
signature and hash algorithms. [I-D.draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis] as the signature and hash
algorithms.
The following certificate types are defined: The following certificate types are defined:
+--------------------------------+-------------+ +--------------------------------+-------------+
| Cert format | Type number | | Cert format | Type number |
+--------------------------------+-------------+ +--------------------------------+-------------+
| Reserved | 0 | | Reserved | 0 |
| X.509 v3 | 1 | | X.509 v3 | 1 |
| SPKI | 2 | | SPKI | 2 |
| Hash and URL of X.509 v3 | 3 | | Hash and URL of X.509 v3 | 3 |
| Hash and URL of SPKI | 4 | | Hash and URL of SPKI | 4 |
| LDAP URL of X.509 v3 | 5 | | LDAP URL of X.509 v3 | 5 |
| LDAP URL of SPKI | 6 | | LDAP URL of SPKI | 6 |
| Distinguished Name of X.509 v3 | 7 | | Distinguished Name of X.509 v3 | 7 |
| Distinguished Name of SPKI | 8 | | Distinguished Name of SPKI | 8 |
+--------------------------------+-------------+ +--------------------------------+-------------+
The next sections outline the use of Host Identity Tags (HITs) in The next sections outline the use of Host Identity Tags (HITs) in
X.509 v3 and in Simple Public Key Infrastructure (SPKI) certificates. X.509 v3 and in Simple Public Key Infrastructure (SPKI) certificates.
X.509 v3 certificates and the handling procedures are defined in X.509 v3 certificates and the handling procedures are defined in
[RFC5280]. The wire format for X.509 v3 is Distinguished Encoding [RFC5280]. The wire format for X.509 v3 is the Distinguished
Rules format as defined in [X.690]. The SPKI, the handling Encoding Rules format as defined in [X.690]. The SPKI, the handling
procedures, and the formats are defined in [RFC2693]. procedures, and the formats are defined in [RFC2693].
Hash and Uniform Resource Locator (URL) encodings (3 and 4) are used Hash and Uniform Resource Locator (URL) encodings (3 and 4) are used
as defined in [RFC5996] Section 3.6. Using hash and URL encodings as defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC5996]. Using hash and URL encodings
results in smaller HIP control packets than by including the results in smaller HIP control packets than by including the
certificate(s), but requires the receiver to resolve the URL or check certificate(s), but requires the receiver to resolve the URL or check
a local cache against the hash. a local cache against the hash.
LDAP URL encodings (5 and 6) are used as defined in [RFC4516]. Using Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) URL encodings (5 and 6)
LDAP URL encoding results in smaller HIP control packets but requires are used as defined in [RFC4516]. Using LDAP URL encoding results in
the receiver to retrieve the certificate or check a local cache smaller HIP control packets but requires the receiver to retrieve the
against the URL. certificate or check a local cache against the URL.
Distinguished name (DN) encodings (7 and 8) are represented by the Distinguished Name (DN) encodings (7 and 8) are represented by the
string representation of the certificate's subject DN as defined in string representation of the certificate's subject DN as defined in
[RFC4514]. Using the DN encoding results in smaller HIP control [RFC4514]. Using the DN encoding results in smaller HIP control
packets, but requires the receiver to retrieve the certificate or packets, but requires the receiver to retrieve the certificate or
check a local cache against the DN. check a local cache against the DN.
3. X.509 v3 Certificate Object and Host Identities 3. X.509 v3 Certificate Object and Host Identities
If needed, HITs can represent an issuer, a subject, or both in x.509 If needed, HITs can represent an issuer, a subject, or both in X.509
v3. HITs are represented as IPv6 addresses as defined in [RFC4843]. v3. HITs are represented as IPv6 addresses as defined in [RFC4843].
When Host Identifier ( HI ) is used to sign the certificate the When the Host Identifier (HI) is used to sign the certificate, the
respective HIT MUST be placed in to the Issuer Alternative Name (IAN) respective HIT SHOULD be placed into the Issuer Alternative Name
extension using the GeneralName form iPAddress as defined in (IAN) extension using the GeneralName form iPAddress as defined in
[RFC5280]. When the certificate is issued for a HIP host, identified [RFC5280]. When the certificate is issued for a HIP host, identified
by a HIT and HI, the respective HIT MUST be placed in to the Subject by a HIT and HI, the respective HIT SHOULD be placed into the Subject
Alternative Name (SAN) extension using the GeneralName form iPAddress Alternative Name (SAN) extension using the GeneralName form
and the full HI is presented as the subjects public key info as iPAddress, and the full HI is presented as the subject's public key
defined in [RFC5280]. info as defined in [RFC5280].
The following examples illustrate how HITs are presented as issuer The following examples illustrate how HITs are presented as issuer
and subject in the X.509 v3 extension alternative names. and subject in the X.509 v3 extension alternative names.
Format of X509v3 extensions: Format of X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Issuer Alternative Name: X509v3 Issuer Alternative Name:
IP Address:hit-of-issuer IP Address:hit-of-issuer
X509v3 Subject Alternative Name: X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
IP Address:hit-of-subject IP Address:hit-of-subject
Example X509v3 extensions: Example X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Issuer Alternative Name: X509v3 Issuer Alternative Name:
IP Address:2001:14:6cf:fae7:bb79:bf78:7d64:c056 IP Address:2001:14:6cf:fae7:bb79:bf78:7d64:c056
X509v3 Subject Alternative Name: X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
IP Address:2001:1C:5a14:26de:a07C:385b:de35:60e3 IP Address:2001:1C:5a14:26de:a07c:385b:de35:60e3
Appendix B shows a full example X.509 v3 certificate with HIP Appendix B shows a full example X.509 v3 certificate with HIP
content. content.
As another example, consider a managed Public Key Infrastructure As another example, consider a managed Public Key Infrastructure
(PKI) environment in which the peers have certificates that are (PKI) environment in which the peers have certificates that are
anchored in (potentially different) managed trust chains. In this anchored in (potentially different) managed trust chains. In this
scenario, the certificates issued to HIP hosts are signed by scenario, the certificates issued to HIP hosts are signed by
intermediate Certification Authorities (CAs) up to a root CA. In intermediate Certification Authorities (CAs) up to a root CA. In
this example, the managed PKI environment is neither HIP aware, nor this example, the managed PKI environment is neither HIP aware, nor
can it be configured to compute HITs and include them in the can it be configured to compute HITs and include them in the
certificates. certificates.
When HIP communications are established, the HIP hosts not only need When HIP communications are established, the HIP hosts not only need
to send their identity certificates (or pointers to their to send their identity certificates (or pointers to their
certificates), but also the chain of intermediate CAs (or pointers to certificates), but also the chain of intermediate CAs (or pointers to
the CAs) up to the root CA, or to a CA that is trusted by the remote the CAs) up to the root CA, or to a CA that is trusted by the remote
peer. This chain of certificates MUST be sent in a Cert group as peer. This chain of certificates SHOULD be sent in a Cert group as
specified in Section 2. The HIP peers validate each other's specified in Section 2. The HIP peers validate each other's
certificates and compute peer HITs based on the certificate public certificates and compute peer HITs based on the certificate public
keys. keys.
4. SPKI Cert Object and Host Identities 4. SPKI Cert Object and Host Identities
When using SPKI certificates to transmit information related to HIP When using SPKI certificates to transmit information related to HIP
hosts, HITs need to be enclosed within the certificates. HITs can hosts, HITs need to be enclosed within the certificates. HITs can
represent an issuer, a subject, or both. In the following we define represent an issuer, a subject, or both. In the following, we define
the representation of those identifiers for SPKI given as the representation of those identifiers for SPKI given as
S-expressions. Note that the S-expressions are only the human- S-expressions. Note that the S-expressions are only the human-
readable representation of SPKI certificates. Full HIs are presented readable representation of SPKI certificates. Full HIs are presented
in the public key sequences of SPKI certificates. in the public key sequences of SPKI certificates.
As an example the Host Identity Tag of a host is expressed as As an example, the Host Identity Tag of a host is expressed as
follows: follows:
Format: (hash hit hit-of-host) Format: (hash hit hit-of-host)
Example: (hash hit 2001:13:724d:f3c0:6ff0:33c2:15d8:5f50) Example: (hash hit 2001:13:724d:f3c0:6ff0:33c2:15d8:5f50)
Appendix A shows a full example SPKI certificate with HIP content. Appendix A shows a full example of a SPKI certificate with HIP
content.
5. Revocation of Certificates 5. Revocation of Certificates
Revocation of X.509 v3 certificates is handled as defined in Revocation of X.509 v3 certificates is handled as defined in Section
Section 5 of [RFC5280]. Revocation of SPKI certificates is handled 5 of [RFC5280]. Revocation of SPKI certificates is handled as
as defined in Section 5 of [RFC2693]. defined in Section 5 of [RFC2693].
6. Error signaling 6. Error Signaling
If the Initiator does not send the certificate that the Responder If the Initiator does not send the certificate that the Responder
requires the Responder may take actions (e.g. reject the requires, the Responder may take actions (e.g. reject the
connection). The Responder MAY signal this to the Initiator by connection). The Responder MAY signal this to the Initiator by
sending a HIP NOTIFY message with NOTIFICATION parameter error type sending a HIP NOTIFY message with NOTIFICATION parameter error type
CREDENTIALS_REQUIRED. CREDENTIALS_REQUIRED.
If the verification of a certificate fails, a verifier MAY signal If the verification of a certificate fails, a verifier MAY signal
this to the provider of the certificate by sending a HIP NOTIFY this to the provider of the certificate by sending a HIP NOTIFY
message with NOTIFICATION parameter error type INVALID_CERTIFICATE. message with NOTIFICATION parameter error type INVALID_CERTIFICATE.
NOTIFICATION PARAMETER - ERROR TYPES Value NOTIFICATION PARAMETER - ERROR TYPES Value
------------------------------------ ----- ------------------------------------ -----
CREDENTIALS_REQUIRED 48 CREDENTIALS_REQUIRED 48
The Responder is unwilling to set up an association The Responder is unwilling to set up an association,
as the Initiator did not send the needed credentials. as the Initiator did not send the needed credentials.
INVALID_CERTIFICATE 50 INVALID_CERTIFICATE 50
Sent in response to a failed verification of a certificate. Sent in response to a failed verification of a certificate.
Notification Data MAY contain n groups of 2 octets (n calculated Notification Data MAY contain n groups of 2 octets (n calculated
from the NOTIFICATION parameter length), in order Cert group and from the NOTIFICATION parameter length), in order Cert group and
Cert ID of the certificate parameter that caused the failure. Cert ID of the CERT parameter that caused the failure.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document defines the CERT parameter for the Host Identity This document defines the CERT parameter for the Host Identity
Protocol [RFC5201]. This parameter is defined in Section 2 with type Protocol [I-D.draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis]. This parameter is defined
768. The parameter type number is also defined in [RFC5201]. in Section 2 with type 768. The parameter type number is also
defined in [I-D.draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis].
The CERT parameter has 8-bit unsigned integer field for different The CERT parameter has an 8-bit unsigned integer field for different
certificate types, for which IANA is to create and maintain a new certificate types, for which IANA is to create and maintain a new
sub-registry entitled "HIP certificate types" under the "Host sub-registry entitled "HIP certificate types" under the "Host
Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters". Initial values for the Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters". Initial values for the
Certificate type registry are given in Section 2. New values for the Certificate type registry are given in Section 2. New values for the
Certificate types from the unassigned space are assigned through IETF Certificate types from the unassigned space are assigned through IETF
Review. Review.
In Section 6 this document defines two new types for "NOTIFY message In Section 6, this document defines two new types for the "NOTIFY
types" sub-registry under "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters". message types" sub-registry under "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
Parameters".
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
Certificate grouping allows the certificates to be sent in multiple Certificate grouping allows the certificates to be sent in multiple
consecutive packets. This might allow similar attacks as IP-layer consecutive packets. This might allow similar attacks, as IP-layer
fragmentation allows, for example sending of fragments in wrong order fragmentation allows, for example, the sending of fragments in the
and skipping some fragments to delay or stall packet processing by wrong order and skipping some fragments to delay or stall packet
the victim in order to use resources (e.g. CPU or memory). Hence, processing by the victim in order to use resources (e.g., CPU or
hosts SHOULD implement mechanisms to discard certificate groups with memory). Hence, hosts SHOULD implement mechanisms to discard
outstanding certificates if state space is scarce. certificate groups with outstanding certificates if state space is
scarce.
Checking of the URL and LDAP entries might allow DoS attacks, where Checking of the URL and LDAP entries might allow denial-of-service
the target host may be subjected to bogus work. (DoS) attacks, where the target host may be subjected to bogus work.
Security considerations for SPKI certificates are discussed in Security considerations for SPKI certificates are discussed in
[RFC2693] and for X.509 v3 in [RFC5280] [RFC2693] and for X.509 v3 in [RFC5280].
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank A. Keranen, D. Mattes, M. Komu and The authors would like to thank A. Keranen, D. Mattes, M. Komu and T.
T. Henderson for the fruitful conversations on the subject. D. Henderson for the fruitful conversations on the subject. D. Mattes
Mattes most notably contributed the non-HIP aware use case in most notably contributed the non-HIP aware use case in Section 3.
Section 3.
10. Normative References 10. Normative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis]
Moskowitz, R., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson,
"Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)",
<draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-13>.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2693] Ellison, C., Frantz, B., Lampson, B., Rivest, R., Thomas, [RFC2693] Ellison, C., Frantz, B., Lampson, B., Rivest, R., Thomas,
B., and T. Ylonen, "SPKI Certificate Theory", RFC 2693, B., and T. Ylonen, "SPKI Certificate Theory", RFC 2693,
September 1999. September 1999.
[RFC4514] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol [RFC4514] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): String Representation of Distinguished Names", RFC (LDAP): String Representation of Distinguished Names",
4514, June 2006. RFC 4514, June 2006.
[RFC4516] Smith, M. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access [RFC4516] Smith, M. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP): Uniform Resource Locator", RFC 4516, June Protocol (LDAP): Uniform Resource Locator", RFC 4516,
2006. June 2006.
[RFC4843] Nikander, P., Laganier, J., and F. Dupont, "An IPv6 Prefix [RFC4843] Nikander, P., Laganier, J., and F. Dupont, "An IPv6 Prefix
for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers
(ORCHID)", RFC 4843, April 2007. (ORCHID)", RFC 4843, April 2007.
[RFC5201] Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson,
"Host Identity Protocol", RFC 5201, April 2008.
[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, May 2008. (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.
[RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
5996, September 2010. RFC 5996, September 2010.
[X.690] ITU-T, , "Recommendation X.690 (2002) | ISO/IEC [X.690] ITU-T, "Recommendation X.690 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8825-1:2002,
8825-1:2002, Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
Rules (DER)", July 2002. (DER)", July 2002.
Appendix A. SPKI certificate example Appendix A. SPKI certificate example
This section shows a SPKI certificate with encoded HITs. The example This section shows an SPKI certificate with encoded HITs. The
has been indented for readability. example has been indented for readability.
(sequence (sequence
(public_key (public_key
(rsa-pkcs1-sha1 (rsa-pkcs1-sha1
(e #010001#) (e #010001#)
(n |yDwznOwX0w+zvQbpWoTnfWrUPLKW2NFrpXbsIcH/QBSLb (n |yDwznOwX0w+zvQbpWoTnfWrUPLKW2NFrpXbsIcH/QBSLb
k1RKTZhLasFwvtSHAjqh220W8gRiQAGIqKplyrDEqSrJp k1RKTZhLasFwvtSHAjqh220W8gRiQAGIqKplyrDEqSrJp
OdIsHIQ8BQhJAyILWA1Sa6f5wAnWozDfgdXoKLNdT8ZNB OdIsHIQ8BQhJAyILWA1Sa6f5wAnWozDfgdXoKLNdT8ZNB
mzluPiw4ozc78p6MHElH75Hm3yHaWxT+s83M=| mzluPiw4ozc78p6MHElH75Hm3yHaWxT+s83M=|
) )
skipping to change at page 10, line 4 skipping to change at page 10, line 33
(not-before "2011-01-12_13:43:09") (not-before "2011-01-12_13:43:09")
(not-after "2011-01-22_13:43:09") (not-after "2011-01-22_13:43:09")
) )
(signature (signature
(hash sha1 |h5fC8HUMATTtK0cjYqIgeN3HCIMA|) (hash sha1 |h5fC8HUMATTtK0cjYqIgeN3HCIMA|)
|u8NTRutINI/AeeZgN6bngjvjYPtVahvY7MhGfenTpT7MCgBy |u8NTRutINI/AeeZgN6bngjvjYPtVahvY7MhGfenTpT7MCgBy
NoZglqH5Cy2vH6LrQFYWx0MjWoYwHKimEuBKCNd4TK6hrCyAI NoZglqH5Cy2vH6LrQFYWx0MjWoYwHKimEuBKCNd4TK6hrCyAI
CIDJAZ70TyKXgONwDNWPOmcc3lFmsih8ezkoBseFWHqRGISIm CIDJAZ70TyKXgONwDNWPOmcc3lFmsih8ezkoBseFWHqRGISIm
MLdeaMciP4lVfxPY2AQKdMrBc=| MLdeaMciP4lVfxPY2AQKdMrBc=|
) )
) )
Appendix B. X.509.v3 certificate example Appendix B. X.509 v3 certificate example
This section shows a X.509 v3 certificate with encoded HITs. This section shows a X.509 v3 certificate with encoded HITs.
Certificate: Certificate:
Data: Data:
Version: 3 (0x2) Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number: 0 (0x0) Serial Number: 0 (0x0)
Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption
Issuer: CN=Example issuing host, DC=example, DC=com Issuer: CN=Example issuing host, DC=example, DC=com
Validity Validity
skipping to change at page 10, line 37 skipping to change at page 11, line 31
fa:98:87:0d:22:ab:d8:6a:61:74:a9:ee:0b:ae:cd: fa:98:87:0d:22:ab:d8:6a:61:74:a9:ee:0b:ae:cd:
18:6f:05:ab:69:66:42:46:00:a2:c0:0c:3a:28:67: 18:6f:05:ab:69:66:42:46:00:a2:c0:0c:3a:28:67:
09:cc:52:27:da:79:3e:67:d7:d8:d0:7c:f1:a1:26: 09:cc:52:27:da:79:3e:67:d7:d8:d0:7c:f1:a1:26:
fa:38:8f:73:f5:b0:20:c6:f2:0b:7d:77:43:aa:c7: fa:38:8f:73:f5:b0:20:c6:f2:0b:7d:77:43:aa:c7:
98:91:7e:1e:04:31:0d:ca:94:55:20:c4:4f:ba:b1: 98:91:7e:1e:04:31:0d:ca:94:55:20:c4:4f:ba:b1:
df:d4:61:9d:dd:b9:b5:47:94:6c:06:91:69:30:42: df:d4:61:9d:dd:b9:b5:47:94:6c:06:91:69:30:42:
9c:0a:8b:e3:00:ce:49:ab:e3 9c:0a:8b:e3:00:ce:49:ab:e3
Exponent: 65537 (0x10001) Exponent: 65537 (0x10001)
X509v3 extensions: X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Issuer Alternative Name: X509v3 Issuer Alternative Name:
IP Address:2001:13:8D83:41C5:DC9F:38ED:E742:7281 IP Address:2001:13:8d83:41c5:dc9f:38ed:e742:7281
X509v3 Subject Alternative Name: X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
IP Address:2001:1C:6E02:D3E0:9B90:8417:673E:99DB IP Address:2001:1c:6e02:d3e0:9b90:8417:673e:99db
Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption
83:68:b4:38:63:a6:ae:57:68:e2:4d:73:5d:8f:11:e4:ba:30: 83:68:b4:38:63:a6:ae:57:68:e2:4d:73:5d:8f:11:e4:ba:30:
a0:19:ca:86:22:e9:6b:e9:36:96:af:95:bd:e8:02:b9:72:2f: a0:19:ca:86:22:e9:6b:e9:36:96:af:95:bd:e8:02:b9:72:2f:
30:a2:62:ac:b2:fa:3d:25:c5:24:fd:8d:32:aa:01:4f:a5:8a: 30:a2:62:ac:b2:fa:3d:25:c5:24:fd:8d:32:aa:01:4f:a5:8a:
f5:06:52:56:0a:86:55:39:2b:ee:7a:7b:46:14:d7:5d:15:82: f5:06:52:56:0a:86:55:39:2b:ee:7a:7b:46:14:d7:5d:15:82:
4d:74:06:ca:b7:8c:54:c1:6b:33:7f:77:82:d8:95:e1:05:ca: 4d:74:06:ca:b7:8c:54:c1:6b:33:7f:77:82:d8:95:e1:05:ca:
e2:0d:22:1d:86:fc:1c:c4:a4:cf:c6:bc:ab:ec:b8:2a:1e:4b: e2:0d:22:1d:86:fc:1c:c4:a4:cf:c6:bc:ab:ec:b8:2a:1e:4b:
04:7e:49:9c:8f:9d:98:58:9c:63:c5:97:b5:41:94:f7:ef:93: 04:7e:49:9c:8f:9d:98:58:9c:63:c5:97:b5:41:94:f7:ef:93:
57:29 57:29
 End of changes. 50 change blocks. 
99 lines changed or deleted 108 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/