| Internet-Draft | Constrained Voucher | July 2021 |
| Richardson, et al. | Expires 12 January 2022 | [Page] |
This document defines a protocol to securely assign a Pledge to an owner and to enroll it into the owner's network. The protocol uses an artifact that is signed by the Pledge's manufacturer. This artifact is known as a "voucher".¶
This document builds upon the work in [RFC8366] and [BRSKI], but defines an encoding of the voucher in CBOR rather than JSON, and enables the Pledge to perform its transactions using CoAP rather than HTTPS.¶
The use of Raw Public Keys instead of X.509 certificates for security operations is also explained.¶
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 12 January 2022.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 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.¶
Secure enrollment of new nodes into constrained networks with constrained nodes presents unique challenges. There are network bandwidth and code size issues to contend with. A solution for autonomous enrollment such as BRSKI [RFC8995] may be too large in terms of code size or bandwidth required.¶
Therefore, this document defines a constrained version of the voucher artifact [RFC8366], along with a constrained version of BRSKI [RFC8995] that makes use of the constrained CoAP-based version of EST, EST-coaps [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] rather than EST over HTTPS [RFC7030].¶
While the [RFC8366] voucher is by default serialized to JSON with a signature in CMS, this document defines a new voucher serialization to CBOR ([RFC7049]) with a signature in COSE [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. This COSE-signed CBOR-encoded voucher can be transported using secured CoAP or HTTP. The CoAP connection (between Pledge and Registrar) is to be protected by either OSCORE+EDHOC or DTLS (CoAPS). The HTTP connection (between Registrar and MASA) is to be protected using TLS (HTTPS).¶
This document specifies a constrained voucher-request artifact based on Section 3 of [RFC8995], and voucher(-request) transport over CoAP based on Section 3 of [RFC8995] and on [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est].¶
The CBOR definitions for the constrained voucher format are defined using the mechanism described in [I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor] using the SID mechanism explained in [I-D.ietf-core-sid]. As the tooling to convert YANG documents into a list of SID keys is still in its infancy, the table of SID values presented here MUST be considered normative rather than the output of the pyang tool.¶
There is additional work when the voucher is integrated into the key-exchange, described in [I-D.selander-ace-ake-authz]. This work is not in scope for this document.¶
The following terms are defined in [RFC8366], and are used identically as in that document: artifact, domain, imprint, Join Registrar/Coordinator (JRC), Manufacturer Authorized Signing Authority (MASA), Pledge, Registrar, Trust of First Use (TOFU), and Voucher.¶
The following terms from [RFC8995] are used identically as in that document: Domain CA, enrollment, IDevID, Join Proxy, LDevID, manufacturer, nonced, nonceless, PKIX.¶
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.¶
[RFC8366] provides for vouchers that assert proximity, that authenticate the Registrar and that can offer varying levels of anti-replay protection.¶
This document does not make any extensions to the semantic meaning of vouchers, only the encoding has been changed to optimize for constrained devices and networks. The two main parts of the BRSKI protocol are named separately in this document: BRSKI-EST for the protocol between Pledge and Registrar, and BRSKI-MASA for the protocol between the Registrar and the MASA.¶
Time-based vouchers are supported in this definition, but given that constrained devices are extremely unlikely to have accurate time, their use will be uncommon. Most Pledges using these constrained vouchers will be online during enrollment and will use live nonces to provide anti-replay protection rather than expiry times.¶
[RFC8366] defines the voucher artifact, while the Voucher Request artifact was defined in [RFC8995]. This document defines both a constrained voucher and a constrained voucher-request. They are presented in the order "voucher-request", followed by a "voucher" response as this is the order that they occur in the protocol.¶
The constrained voucher request MUST be signed by the Pledge. It signs using the private key associated with its IDevID X.509 certificate, or if an IDevID is not available, then the private key associated with its manufacturer-installed raw public key (RPK). Section 10 provides additional details on PKIX-less operations.¶
The constrained voucher MUST be signed by the MASA.¶
For the constrained voucher request this document defines two distinct methods for the Pledge to identify the Registrar: using either the Registrar's X.509 certificate, or using a raw public key (RPK) of the Registrar.¶
For the constrained voucher also these two methods are supported to indicate (pin) a trusted domain identity: using either a pinned domain X.509 certificate, or a pinned raw public key (RPK).¶
The BRSKI architectures mandates that the MASA be aware of the capabilities of the pledge. This is not a hardship as the pledges are constructed by a manufacturer who also arranges for the MASA to be aware of the inventory of devices.¶
The MASA therefore knows if the pledge supports PKIX operations, PKIX format certificates, or if the pledge is limited to Raw Public Keys (RPK). Based upon this, the MASA can select which attributes to use in the voucher for certain operations, like the pinning of the Registrar identity. This is described in more detail in Section 8.2.3, Section 7 and Section 7.3 (for RPK specifically).¶
This section describes the constrained BRSKI extensions to EST-coaps [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] to transport the voucher between Registrar and Pledge (optionally via a Join Proxy) over CoAP. The extensions are targeting low-resource networks with small packets.¶
The constrained BRSKI-EST protocol described in this section is between the Pledge and the Registrar only.¶
To keep the protocol messages small the EST-coaps and constrained-BRSKI URIs are shorter than the respective EST and BRSKI URIs.¶
The EST-coaps server URIs differ from the EST URIs by replacing the scheme https by coaps and by specifying shorter resource path names. Below are some examples; the first two using a discovered short path name and the last one using the well-known URI of EST which requires no discovery.¶
coaps://server.example.com/est/<short-name> coaps://server.example.com/e/<short-name> coaps://server.example.com/.well-known/est/<short-name>¶
Similarly the constrained BRSKI server URIs differ from the BRSKI URIs by replacing the scheme https by coaps and by specifying shorter resource path names. Below are some examples; the first two using a discovered short path name and the last one using the well-known URI prefix which requires no discovery. This is the same "/.well-known/brski" prefix as defined in [RFC8995] Section 5.¶
coaps://server.example.com/brski/<short-name> coaps://server.example.com/b/<short-name> coaps://server.example.com/.well-known/brski/<short-name>¶
Figure 5 in section 3.2.2 of [RFC7030] enumerates the operations supported by EST, for which Table 1 in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] enumerates the corresponding EST-coaps short path names. Similarly, Table 1 provides the mapping from the supported BRSKI extension URI paths to the constrained-BRSKI URI paths.¶
| BRSKI resource | constrained-BRSKI resource |
|---|---|
| /requestvoucher | /rv |
| /voucher_status | /vs |
| /enrollstatus | /es |
Note that /requestvoucher indicated above occurs between the Pledge and Registrar (in scope of the BRSKI-EST protocol), but it also occurs between Registrar and MASA. However, as described in Section 5, this section and above table addresses only the BRSKI-EST protocol.¶
Pledges that wish to discover the available BRSKI bootstrap options/formats, or reduce the size of the CoAP headers by eliminating the "/.well-known/brski" path, can do a discovery operation using [RFC6690] Section 4 by sending a discovery query to the Registrar.¶
For example, if the Registrar supports a short BRSKI URL (/b) and supports the voucher format "application/voucher-cose+cbor" (TBD3), and status reporting in both CBOR and JSON formats:¶
REQ: GET /.well-known/core?rt=brski* RES: 2.05 Content Content-Format: 40 Payload: </b>;rt=brski, </b/rv>;rt=brski.rv;ct=TBD3, </b/vs>;rt=brski.vs;ct="50 60", </b/es>;rt=brski.es;ct="50 60"¶
The Registrar is under no obligation to provide shorter URLs, and MAY respond to this query with only the "/.well-known/brski/<short-name>" end points for the short names as defined in Table 1.¶
Registrars that have implemented shorter URLs MUST also respond in equivalent ways to the corresponding "/.well-known/brski/<short-name>" URLs, and MUST NOT distinguish between them. In particular, a Pledge MAY use the longer and shorter URLs in combination.¶
When responding to a discovery request for BRSKI resources, the server MAY in addition return the full resource paths and the content types which are supported at those end-points as shown in above example. This is useful when multiple content types are specified for a particular resource on the server. The server responds with only the root path for the BRSKI resource (rt=brski, resource /b in above example) and no others in case the client queries for only rt=brski type resources. (So, a query for rt=brski, without the wildcard character.)¶
The return of multiple content-types in the "ct" attribute allows the Pledge to choose the most appropriate one. Note that Content-Format TBD3 ("application/voucher-cose+cbor") is defined in this document.¶
The Content-Format 50 ("application/json") MAY be supported and Content-Format 60 ("application/cbor") MUST be supported by the Registrar for the /vs and /es resources. Content-Format TBD3 MUST be supported by the Registrar for the /rv resource. If the "ct" attribute is not indicated for the /rv resource in the link format description, this implies that at least TBD3 is supported.¶
The Pledge and MASA need to support one or more formats (at least TBD3) for the voucher and for the voucher request. The MASA needs to support all formats that the Pledge, produced by that manufacturer, supports.¶
A Pledge that only supports the BRSKI bootstrap method and already knows the IP address and port of a Registrar or Join Proxy to use SHOULD NOT use discovery. In such case it is more efficient to just try its supported bootstrap method (e.g. /rv) via the well-known BRSKI resource on the known address and port. This avoids the Pledge having to unnecessarily implement CoRE Link Format parsing. The method via which the Pledge learns the address/port of a Registrar or Join Proxy to use is out of scope of this document.¶
A Registrar SHOULD host any discoverable BRSKI resources on the same (UDP) server port that the Pledge's initial DTLS connection is using. This avoids the overhead of the Pledge having to reconnect using DTLS, in order to access discovered resource(s).¶
A Pledge that already is DTLS-connected to either a Join Proxy or Registrar, and which only supports the EST-coaps enrollment method, SHOULD NOT use discovery for EST-coaps resources. This is because it is more efficient to just try its supported enrollment method (e.g. /sen) via the well-known EST resource on the current DTLS connection. This avoids an additional round-trip of packets and avoids the Pledge having to unnecessarily implement CoRE Link Format parsing.¶
A Registrar SHOULD host any discoverable EST-coaps resources on the same (UDP) server port that the Pledge's DTLS initial connection is using. This avoids the Pledge having to reconnect using DTLS, in order to proceed with EST enrollment after the BRSKI bootstrap. [TBD EDNOTE: a Registrar that does host EST resources on another port won't be able to onboard Pledges that skip the discovery, so not interoperable. Should we fix this?]¶
A constrained Pledge SHOULD NOT support the optional EST "CSR attributes request" (/att) to minimize network traffic and reduce code size.¶
When creating the CSR, the Pledge selects which attributes to include. One or more Subject Distinguished Name fields MUST be included. If the Pledge has no specific information on what attributes/fields are desired in the CSR, it MUST use the Subject Distinguished Name fields from its IDevID unmodified. The Pledge can receive such information via the voucher (encoded in a vendor-specific way) or some other, out-of-band means.¶
A constrained Pledge MAY use the following optimized EST-coaps procedure to minimize both network traffic and code size:¶
The Content-Format 50 MAY be supported and 60 MUST be supported by the Registrar for the /vs and /es resources. Content-Format TBD3 MUST be supported by the Registrar for the /rv resource.¶
When a Registrar receives a "CA certificates request" (/crts) request with a CoAP Accept Option with value TBD287 ("application/pkix-cert") it SHOULD return only the single CA certificate that is the envisioned or actual authority for the current, authenticated Pledge making the request. The only exception case is when the Registrar is configured to not support a request for a single CA certificate for operational or security reasons, e.g. because every device enrolled into the domain needs to use multiple CAs. In such exception case the Registrar returns the CoAP response 4.06 Not Acceptable to indicate that only the default Content-Format of 281 "application/pkcs7-mime;smime-type=certs-only" which supports multiple certificates is available.¶
[RFC8995] section 5.4 describes a connection between the Registrar and the MASA as being a normal TLS connection using HTTPS. This document does not change that. The Registrar MAY use the new format "application/voucher-cose+cbor" in its voucher request to MASA, or the existing BRSKI format "application/voucher-cms+json" defined by [RFC8995]. The MASA MUST support both formats. The Registrar indicates the voucher format it wants to receive from MASA using the HTTP Accept header.¶
At the moment of writing the creation of coaps based MASAs is deemed unrealistic. The use of CoAP for the BRSKI-MASA connection can be the subject of another document. Some consideration was made to specify CoAP support for consistency, but:¶
The voucher is a statement by the MASA for use by the Pledge that provide the identity of the Pledge's owner. This section describes how the owner's identity is determined and how it is encoded within the voucher.¶
Section 5.5 of [RFC8995] describes BRSKI policies for selection of the owner identity. It indicates some of the flexibility that is possible for the Registrar. The recommendation made there is for the Registrar to include only certificates in the voucher request (CMS) signing structure which participate in the certificate chain that is to be pinned.¶
The MASA is expected to evaluate the certificates included by the Registrar in its voucher request, forming them into a chain with the Registrar's (signing) identity on one end. Then, it pins a certificate selected from the chain. For instance, for a domain with a two-level certification authority (see Figure 1), where the voucher-request has been signed by "Registrar", its signing structure includes two additional CA certificates:¶
.------------------.
| domain CA (1) |
| trust anchor |
'------------------'
|
v
.------------.
| domain (2) |
| Sub-CA |
'------------'
|
|
v
.----------------.
| domain |
| Registrar (3) |
| EE certificate |
'----------------'
When the Registrar is using a COSE-signed constrained voucher request towards MASA, instead of a regular CMS-signed voucher request, the COSE_Sign1 object contains a protected and an unprotected header. The Registrar MUST place all the certificates for the chain in an "x5bag" attribute in the unprotected header [I-D.ietf-cose-x509].¶
The MASA, having assembled and verified the chain in the signing structure of the voucher request, will now need to select a certificate to pin. (For the case that only the Registrar's End-Entity certificate is included, only this certificate can be selected and this section does not apply.) The BRSKI policy for pinning by the MASA as described in Section 5.5.2 of [RFC8995] leaves much flexibility to the manufacturer. The present document adds the following rules to the MASA pinning policy to reduce the network load:¶
The rationale for 1. is that in case of a voucher with nonce, the voucher is valid only in scope of the present DTLS connection between Pledge and Registrar anyway, so it would have no benefit to pin a higher-level CA. By pinning the most specific CA the constrained Pledge can validate its DTLS connection using less crypto operations. The rationale for pinning a CA instead of the Registrar's End-Entity certificate directly is the following benefit on constrained networks: the pinned certificate in the voucher can in common cases be re-used as a Domain CA trust anchor during the EST enrollment and during the operational phase that follows after EST enrollment, as explained in Section 5.3.1.¶
The rationale for 2. follows from the flexible BRSKI trust model for, and purpose of, nonceless vouchers (Sections 5.5.* and 7.4.1 of [RFC8995]).¶
Using the previous example of a domain with a two-level certification authority, the most specific CA ("Sub-CA") is the identity that is pinned by MASA in a nonced voucher. A Registrar that wished to have only the Registrar's End-Entity certificate pinned would omit the "domain CA" and "Sub-CA" certificates from the voucher-request.¶
In case of a nonceless voucher, the MASA would depending on trust level pin only "Registrar" certificate (low trust in customer), or the "Sub-CA" certificate (in case of medium trust, implying that any Registrar of that sub-domain is acceptable), or even the "domain CA" certificate (in case of high trust in the customer, and possibly a pre-agreed need of the customer to obtain flexible long-lived vouchers).¶
Specifically for constrained use cases, the pinning of the raw public key (RPK) of the Registrar is also supported in the constrained voucher, instead of an X.509 certificate. If an RPK is pinned it MUST be the RPK of the Registrar.¶
When the Pledge is known by MASA to support RPK but not X.509 certificates, the voucher produced by the MASA pins the RPK of the Registrar in either the "pinned-domain-pubk" or "pinned-domain-pubk-sha256" field of a voucher. This is described in more detail in Section 8.2.3. A Pledge that does not support X.509 certificates cannot use EST to enroll; it has to use another method for enrollment without certificates and the Registrar has to support this method also. It is possible that the Pledge will not enroll, but instead only a network join operation will occur, such as described in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]. How the Pledge discovers this method and details of the enrollment method are out of scope of this document.¶
When the Pledge is known by MASA to support PKIX format certificates, the "pinned-domain-cert" field present in a voucher typically pins a domain certificate. That can be either the End-Entity certificate of the Registrar, or the certificate of a domain CA of the Registrar's domain as specified in Section 7.2. However, if the Pledge is known to also support RPK pinning and the MASA intends to pin the Registrar's identity (not a CA), then MASA SHOULD pin the RPK (RPK3 in Figure 2) of the Registrar instead of the Registrar's End-Entity certificate to save space in the voucher.¶
.------------.
| pub-CA (1) |
'------------'
|
v
.------------.
| sub-CA (2) |
'------------'
|
v
.--------------.
| Registrar(3) |
| RPK3 |
'--------------'
This section describes for both the voucher request and the voucher first the abstract (tree) definition as explained in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]. This provides a high-level view of the contents of each artifact.¶
Then the assigned SID values are presented. These have been assigned using the rules in [I-D.ietf-core-sid], with an allocation that was made via the http://comi.space service.¶
The following diagram is largely a duplicate of the contents of [RFC8366], with the addition of the fields proximity-registrar-pubk, proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256, proximity-registrar-cert, and prior-signed-voucher-request.¶
prior-signed-voucher-request is only used between the Registrar and the MASA. proximity-registrar-pubk or proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256 optionally replaces proximity-registrar-cert for the most constrained cases where RPK is used by the Pledge.¶
module: ietf-constrained-voucher-request
grouping voucher-request-constrained-grouping
+-- voucher
+-- created-on? yang:date-and-time
+-- expires-on? yang:date-and-time
+-- assertion enumeration
+-- serial-number string
+-- idevid-issuer? binary
+-- pinned-domain-cert? binary
+-- domain-cert-revocation-checks? boolean
+-- nonce? binary
+-- last-renewal-date? yang:date-and-time
+-- proximity-registrar-pubk? binary
+-- proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256? binary
+-- proximity-registrar-cert? binary
+-- prior-signed-voucher-request? binary
¶
SID Assigned to
--------- --------------------------------------------------
2501 data /ietf-constrained-voucher-request:voucher
2502 data .../assertion
2503 data .../created-on
2504 data .../domain-cert-revocation-checks
2505 data .../expires-on
2506 data .../idevid-issuer
2507 data .../last-renewal-date
2508 data /ietf-constrained-voucher-request:voucher/nonce
2509 data .../pinned-domain-cert
2510 data .../prior-signed-voucher-request
2511 data .../proximity-registrar-cert
2513 data .../proximity-registrar-pubk
2512 data .../proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256
2514 data .../serial-number
WARNING, obsolete definitions
¶
In the constrained-voucher-request YANG module, the voucher is "augmented" within the "used" grouping statement such that one continuous set of SID values is generated for the constrained-voucher-request module name, all voucher attributes, and the constrained-voucher-request attributes. Two attributes of the voucher are "refined" to be optional.¶
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-constrained-voucher-request@2021-04-15.yang"
module ietf-constrained-voucher-request {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher-request";
prefix "constrained";
import ietf-restconf {
prefix rc;
description
"This import statement is only present to access
the yang-data extension defined in RFC 8040.";
reference "RFC 8040: RESTCONF Protocol";
}
import ietf-voucher {
prefix "v";
}
organization
"IETF ANIMA Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/anima/>
WG List: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
Author: Michael Richardson
<mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Author: Peter van der Stok
<mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org>
Author: Panos Kampanakis
<mailto: pkampana@cisco.com>";
description
"This module defines the format for a voucher request,
which is produced by a pledge to request a voucher.
The voucher-request is sent to the potential owner's
Registrar, which in turn sends the voucher request to
the manufacturer or its delegate (MASA).
A voucher is then returned to the pledge, binding the
pledge to the owner. This is a constrained version of the
voucher-request present in
{{I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrap-keyinfra}}
This version provides a very restricted subset appropriate
for very constrained devices.
In particular, it assumes that nonce-ful operation is
always required, that expiration dates are rather weak, as no
clocks can be assumed, and that the Registrar is identified
by either a pinned Raw Public Key of the Registrar, or by a
pinned X.509 certificate of the Registrar or domain CA.
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL',
'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY',
and 'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as
described in RFC 2119.";
revision "2021-04-15" {
description
"Initial version";
reference
"RFC XXXX: Voucher Profile for Constrained Devices";
}
rc:yang-data voucher-request-constrained-artifact {
// YANG data template for a voucher.
uses voucher-request-constrained-grouping;
}
// Grouping defined for future usage
grouping voucher-request-constrained-grouping {
description
"Grouping to allow reuse/extensions in future work.";
uses v:voucher-artifact-grouping {
refine voucher/created-on {
mandatory false;
}
refine voucher/pinned-domain-cert {
mandatory false;
}
augment "voucher" {
description "Base the constrained voucher-request upon the
regular one";
leaf proximity-registrar-pubk {
type binary;
description
"The proximity-registrar-pubk replaces
the proximity-registrar-cert in constrained uses of
the voucher-request.
The proximity-registrar-pubk is the
Raw Public Key of the Registrar. This field is encoded
as specified in RFC7250, section 3.
The ECDSA algorithm MUST be supported.
The EdDSA algorithm as specified in
draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis-17 SHOULD be supported.
Support for the DSA algorithm is not recommended.
Support for the RSA algorithm is a MAY, but due to
size is discouraged.";
}
leaf proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256 {
type binary;
description
"The proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256
is an alternative to both
proximity-registrar-pubk and pinned-domain-cert.
In many cases the public key of the domain has already
been transmitted during the key agreement protocol,
and it is wasteful to transmit the public key another
two times.
The use of a hash of public key info, at 32-bytes for
sha256 is a significant savings compared to an RSA
public key, but is only a minor savings compared to
a 256-bit ECDSA public-key.
Algorithm agility is provided by extensions to this
specification which may define a new leaf for another
hash type.";
}
leaf proximity-registrar-cert {
type binary;
description
"An X.509 v3 certificate structure as specified by
RFC 5280,
Section 4 encoded using the ASN.1 distinguished encoding
rules (DER), as specified in ITU-T X.690.
The first certificate in the Registrar TLS server
certificate_list sequence (see [RFC5246]) presented by
the Registrar to the Pledge. This field or one of its
alternatives MUST be populated in a
Pledge's voucher request if the proximity assertion is
populated.";
}
leaf prior-signed-voucher-request {
type binary;
description
"If it is necessary to change a voucher, or re-sign and
forward a voucher that was previously provided along a
protocol path, then the previously signed voucher
SHOULD be included in this field.
For example, a pledge might sign a proximity voucher,
which an intermediate registrar then re-signs to
make its own proximity assertion. This is a simple
mechanism for a chain of trusted parties to change a
voucher, while maintaining the prior signature
information.
The pledge MUST ignore all prior voucher information
when accepting a voucher for imprinting. Other
parties MAY examine the prior signed voucher
information for the purposes of policy decisions.
For example, this information could be useful to a
MASA to determine that both pledge and registrar
agree on proximity assertions. The MASA SHOULD
remove all prior-signed-voucher-request information when
signing a voucher for imprinting so as to minimize the
final voucher size.";
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>¶
Below is a CBOR serialization of an example constrained voucher request from a Pledge to a Registrar, shown in CBOR diagnostic notation. The enum value of the assertion field is calculated to be 2 by following the algorithm described in section 9.6.4.2 of [RFC7950]. Four dots ("....") in a CBOR byte string denotes a sequence of bytes that are not shown for brevity.¶
{
2501: {
+2 : "2016-10-07T19:31:42Z", / SID=2503, created-on /
+4 : "2016-10-21T19:31:42Z", / SID=2505, expires-on /
+1 : 2, / SID=2502, assertion "proximity" /
+13: "JADA123456789", / SID=2514, serial-number /
+5 : h'08C2BF36....B3D2B3', / SID=2506, idevid-issuer /
+10: h'30820275....82c35f', / SID=2511, proximity-registrar-cert/
+3 : true, / SID=2504, domain-cert
-revocation-checks/
+6 : "2017-10-07T19:31:42Z" / SID=2507, last-renewal-date /
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
¶
The voucher's primary purpose is to securely assign a Pledge to an owner. The voucher informs the Pledge which entity it should consider to be its owner.¶
The following diagram is largely a duplicate of the contents of [RFC8366], with only the addition of the fields pinned-domain-pubk and pinned-domain-pubk-sha256.¶
module: ietf-constrained-voucher
grouping voucher-constrained-grouping
+-- voucher
+-- created-on? yang:date-and-time
+-- expires-on? yang:date-and-time
+-- assertion enumeration
+-- serial-number string
+-- idevid-issuer? binary
+-- pinned-domain-cert? binary
+-- domain-cert-revocation-checks? boolean
+-- nonce? binary
+-- last-renewal-date? yang:date-and-time
+-- pinned-domain-pubk? binary
+-- pinned-domain-pubk-sha256? binary
<CODE ENDS>
¶
SID Assigned to
--------- --------------------------------------------------
2451 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher
2452 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/assertion
2453 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/created-on
2454 data .../domain-cert-revocation-checks
2455 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/expires-on
2456 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/idevid-issuer
2457 data .../last-renewal-date
2458 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/nonce
2459 data .../pinned-domain-cert
2460 data .../pinned-domain-pubk
2461 data .../pinned-domain-pubk-sha256
2462 data /ietf-constrained-voucher:voucher/serial-number
WARNING, obsolete definitions
<CODE ENDS>
¶
In the constrained-voucher YANG module, the voucher is "augmented" within the "used" grouping statement such that one continuous set of SID values is generated for the constrained-voucher module name, all voucher attributes, and the constrained-voucher attributes. Two attributes of the voucher are "refined" to be optional.¶
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-constrained-voucher@2021-04-15.yang"
module ietf-constrained-voucher {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher";
prefix "constrained";
import ietf-restconf {
prefix rc;
description
"This import statement is only present to access
the yang-data extension defined in RFC 8040.";
reference "RFC 8040: RESTCONF Protocol";
}
import ietf-voucher {
prefix "v";
}
organization
"IETF ANIMA Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/anima/>
WG List: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
Author: Michael Richardson
<mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Author: Peter van der Stok
<mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org>
Author: Panos Kampanakis
<mailto: pkampana@cisco.com>";
description
"This module defines the format for a voucher, which
is produced by a pledge's manufacturer or its delegate
(MASA) to securely assign one or more pledges to an 'owner',
so that a pledge may establish a secure connection to the
owner's network infrastructure.
This version provides a very restricted subset appropriate
for very constrained devices.
In particular, it assumes that nonce-ful operation is
always required, that expiration dates are rather weak, as no
clocks can be assumed, and that the Registrar is identified
by either a pinned Raw Public Key of the Registrar, or by a
pinned X.509 certificate of the Registrar or domain CA.
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL',
'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY',
and 'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as
described in RFC 2119.";
revision "2021-04-15" {
description
"Initial version";
reference
"RFC XXXX: Voucher Profile for Constrained Devices";
}
rc:yang-data voucher-constrained-artifact {
// YANG data template for a voucher.
uses voucher-constrained-grouping;
}
// Grouping defined for future usage
grouping voucher-constrained-grouping {
description
"Grouping to allow reuse/extensions in future work.";
uses v:voucher-artifact-grouping {
refine voucher/created-on {
mandatory false;
}
refine voucher/pinned-domain-cert {
mandatory false;
}
augment "voucher" {
description "Base the constrained voucher
upon the regular one";
leaf pinned-domain-pubk {
type binary;
description
"The pinned-domain-pubk may replace the
pinned-domain-cert in constrained uses of
the voucher. The pinned-domain-pubk
is the Raw Public Key of the Registrar.
This field is encoded as a Subject Public Key Info block
as specified in RFC7250, in section 3.
The ECDSA algorithm MUST be supported.
The EdDSA algorithm as specified in
draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis-17 SHOULD be supported.
Support for the DSA algorithm is not recommended.
Support for the RSA algorithm is a MAY.";
}
leaf pinned-domain-pubk-sha256 {
type binary;
description
"The pinned-domain-pubk-sha256 is a second
alternative to pinned-domain-cert. In many cases the
public key of the domain has already been transmitted
during the key agreement process, and it is wasteful
to transmit the public key another two times.
The use of a hash of public key info, at 32-bytes for
sha256 is a significant savings compared to an RSA
public key, but is only a minor savings compared to
a 256-bit ECDSA public-key.
Algorithm agility is provided by extensions to this
specification which can define a new leaf for another
hash type.";
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>¶
Below the CBOR serialization of an example constrained voucher is shown in CBOR diagnostic notation. The enum value of the assertion field is calculated to be zero by following the algorithm described in section 9.6.4.2 of [RFC7950]. Four dots ("....") in a CBOR byte string denotes a sequence of bytes that are not shown for brevity.¶
{
2451: {
+2 : "2016-10-07T19:31:42Z", / SID = 2453, created-on /
+4 : "2016-10-21T19:31:42Z", / SID = 2455, expires-on /
+1 : 0, / SID = 2452, assertion "verified" /
+11: "JADA123456789", / SID = 2462, serial-number /
+5 : h'E40393B4....68A3', / SID = 2456, idevid-issuer /
+8 : h'30820275....C35F', / SID = 2459, pinned-domain-cert/
+3 : true, / SID = 2454, domain-cert /
/ -revocation-checks /
+6 : "2017-10-07T19:31:42Z" / SID = 2457, last-renewal-date /
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
¶
The COSE-Sign1 structure is discussed in section 4.2 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. The CBOR object that carries the body, the signature, and the information about the body and signature is called the COSE_Sign1 structure. It is used when only one signature is used on the body. Support for ECDSA with sha256 (secp256k1 and prime256v1 curves) is REQUIRED. Support for EdDSA is encouraged. [TBD EDNOTE: Expand and add a reference why. ]¶
An example of the supported COSE-sign1 object structure is shown in Figure 3.¶
COSE_Sign1(
[
h'A101382E', # { "alg": EC256K1 }
{
"kid" : h'7890....1234' # hash256(public key)
},
h'1234....5678', #voucher-request binary content
h'4567....1234', #voucher-request binary public signature
]
)
The [COSE-registry] specifies the integers that replace the strings and the mnemonics in Figure 3. The value of the key identifier "kid" parameter is an example value. Usually a hash of the public key is used to identify the public key. The choice of key identifier method is vendor-specific. The public key and its hash are derived from the relevant certificate (Pledge, Registrar or MASA certificate). [TBD EDNOTE: how can MASA know which kid method the Registrar has used/supports? Does it matter?]¶
In Appendix C a binary cose-sign1 object is shown based on the voucher-request example of Section 8.1.4.¶
The design considerations for the CBOR encoding of vouchers are much the same as for JSON vouchers in [RFC8366]. One key difference is that the names of the leaves in the YANG definition do not affect the size of the resulting CBOR, as the SID translation process assigns integers to the names.¶
Any POST request to the Registrar with resource /vs or /es returns a 2.04 Changed response with empty payload. The client should be aware that the server may use a piggybacked CoAP response (ACK, 2.04) but may also respond with a separate CoAP response, i.e. first an (ACK, 0.0) that is an acknowledgement of the request reception followed by a (CON, 2.04) response in a separate CoAP message.¶
This section explains techniques to reduce the number of bytes that are sent over the wire during the BRSKI bootstrap. The use of a raw public key (RPK) in the pinning process can significantly reduce the number of bytes and round trips, but it comes with a few significant operational limitations.¶
When the Pledge first connects to the Registrar, the connection to the Registrar is provisional, as explained in section 5.6.2 of [RFC8995]. The Registrar provides its public key in a TLSServerCertificate, and the Pledge uses that to validate that integrity of the (D)TLS connection, but it does not validate the identity of the provided certificate.¶
As the TLSServerCertificate object is never verified directly by the pledge, sending it can be considered superfluous. Instead of using a (TLSServer)Certificate of type X509 (see section 4.4.2 of [RFC8446]), a RawPublicKey object is used.¶
A Registrar operating in a mixed environment can determine whether to send a Certificate or a Raw Public key: this is determined by the pledge including the server_certificate_type of RawPublicKey. This is shown in section 5 of [RFC7250].¶
The Pledge continues to send a client_certificate_type of X509, so that the Registrar can properly identify the pledge and distill the MASA URI information from its certificate.¶
The Pledge puts the Registrar's public key into the proximity-registrar-pubk field of the voucher-request. (The proximity-registrar-pubk-sha256 can also be used if the 32-bytes of a SHA256 hash turns out to be smaller than a typical ECDSA key.)¶
As the format of the pubk field is identical to the TLS Certificate RawPublicKey, no manipulation at all is needed to insert this into a voucher-request.¶
A returned voucher will have a pinned-domain-subk field with the identical key as was found in the proximity-registrar-pubk field above, as well as in the TLS connection. Validation of this key by the pledge is what takes the DTLS connection out of the provisional state (see [RFC8995] section 5.6.2).¶
The voucher needs to be validated first. The Pledge needs to have a public key to validate the signature from the MASA on the voucher.¶
In certain cases, the MASA's public key counterpart of the (private) signing key is already installed in the Pledge at manufacturing time. In other cases, if the MASA signing key is based upon a PKI (see [I-D.richardson-anima-masa-considerations] Section 2.3), then a certificate chain may need to be included with the voucher in order for the pledge to validate the signature. In CMS signed artifacts, the CMS structure has a place for such certificates. In the COSE-signed Constrained Vouchers described in this document, the x5bag attribute from [I-D.ietf-cose-x509] is to be used for this.¶
Additions to the sub-registry "Resource Type Link Target Attribute Values", within the "CoRE parameters" IANA registry are specified below.¶
brski needs registration with IANA brski.rv needs registration with IANA brski.vs needs registration with IANA brski.es needs registration with IANA¶
This document registers two URIs in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688]. Following the format in [RFC3688], the following registration is requested:¶
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher Registrant Contact: The ANIMA WG of the IETF. XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher-request Registrant Contact: The ANIMA WG of the IETF. XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.¶
This document registers two YANG modules in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]. Following the format defined in [RFC6020], the the following registration is requested:¶
name: ietf-constrained-voucher
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-voucher
prefix: vch
reference: RFC XXXX
name: ietf-constrained-voucher-request
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained
-voucher-request
prefix: vch
reference: RFC XXXX
¶
------------ ------ --------------------------- ------------
Entry-point | Size | Module name | RFC Number
------------ ------ --------------------------- ------------
2450 50 ietf-constrained-voucher [ThisRFC]
2500 50 ietf-constrained-voucher [ThisRFC}
-request
----------- ------ --------------------------- ------------
¶
Warning: These SID values are defined in [I-D.ietf-core-sid], not as an Early Allocation.¶
This section registers the 'application/voucher-cose+cbor' in the IANA "Media Types" registry. This media type is used to indicate that the content is a CBOR voucher or voucher request signed with a COSE_Sign1 structure [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct].¶
Type name: application
Subtype name: voucher-cose+cbor
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: cose-type
Encoding considerations: COSE_Sign1 CBOR vouchers are COSE objects
signed with one signer.
Security considerations: See Security Considerations, Section
Interoperability considerations: The format is designed to be
broadly interoperable.
Published specification: THIS RFC.
Applications that use this media type: ANIMA, 6tisch, and other
zero-touch imprinting systems
Additional information:
Magic number(s): None
File extension(s): .vch
Macintosh file type code(s): none
Person & email address to contact for further information: IETF
ANIMA WG
Intended usage: LIMITED
Restrictions on usage: NONE
Author: ANIMA WG
Change controller: IETF
Provisional registration? (standards tree only): NO
¶
Additions to the sub-registry "CoAP Content-Formats", within the "CoRE Parameters" registry are needed for two media types. These can be registered either in the Expert Review range (0-255) or IETF Review range (256-9999).¶
Media type mime type Encoding ID References ---------------------------- ----------- --------- ---- ---------- application/voucher-cose+cbor "COSE-Sign1" CBOR TBD3 [This RFC]¶
We are very grateful to Jim Schaad for explaining COSE and CMS choices. Also thanks to Jim Schaad for correcting earlier version of the COSE Sign1 objects.¶
Michel Veillette did extensive work on pyang to extend it to support the SID allocation process, and this document was among its first uses.¶
-10 Design considerations extended Examples made consistent¶
-08 Examples for cose_sign1 are completed and improved.¶
-06 New SID values assigned; regenerated examples¶
-04 voucher and request-voucher MUST be signed examples for signed request are added in appendix IANA SID registration is updated SID values in examples are aligned signed cms examples aligned with new SIDs¶
-03¶
Examples are inverted.¶
-02¶
Example of requestvoucher with unsigned appllication/cbor is added attributes of voucher "refined" to optional CBOR serialization of vouchers improved Discovery port numbers are specified¶
-01¶
application/json is optional, application/cbor is compulsory Cms and cose mediatypes are introduced¶
For the implementation of BRSKI, the use of a software library to manipulate certificates and use crypto algorithms is often beneficial. Two C-based examples are OPENSSL and mbedtls. Others more targeted to specific platforms or languages exist. It is important to realize that the library interfaces differ significantly between libraries.¶
Libraries do not support all known crypto algorithms. Before deciding on a library, it is important to look at their supported crypto algorithms and the roadmap for future support. Apart from availability, the library footprint, and the required execution cycles should be investigated beforehand.¶
The handling of certificates usually includes the checking of a certificate chain. In some libraries, chains are constructed and verified on the basis of a set of certificates, the trust anchor (usually self signed root CA), and the target certificate. In other libraries, the chain must be constructed beforehand and obey order criteria. Verification always includes the checking of the signatures. Less frequent is the checking the validity of the dates or checking the existence of a revoked certificate in the chain against a set of revoked certificates. Checking the chain on the consistency of the certificate extensions which specify the use of the certificate usually needs to be programmed explicitly.¶
A libary can be used to construct a (D)TLS connection. It is useful to realize that differences beetween (D)TLS implementations will occur due to the differences in the certicate checks supported by the library. On top of that, checks between client and server certificates enforced by (D)TLS are not always helpful for a BRSKI implementation. For example, the certificates of Pledge and Registrar are usually not related when the BRSKI protocol is started. It must be verified that checks on the relation between client and server certificates do not hamper a succeful DTLS connection establishment.¶
from openssl's apps/verify.c¶
X509 *x = NULL;
int i = 0, ret = 0;
X509_STORE_CTX *csc;
STACK_OF(X509) *chain = NULL;
int num_untrusted;
x = load_cert(file, "certificate file");
if (x == NULL)
goto end;
csc = X509_STORE_CTX_new();
if (csc == NULL) {
BIO_printf(bio_err, "error %s: X.509 store context"
"allocation failed\n",
(file == NULL) ? "stdin" : file);
goto end;
}
X509_STORE_set_flags(ctx, vflags);
if (!X509_STORE_CTX_init(csc, ctx, x, uchain)) {
X509_STORE_CTX_free(csc);
BIO_printf(bio_err,
"error %s: X.509 store context"
"initialization failed\n",
(file == NULL) ? "stdin" : file);
goto end;
}
if (tchain != NULL)
X509_STORE_CTX_set0_trusted_stack(csc, tchain);
if (crls != NULL)
X509_STORE_CTX_set0_crls(csc, crls);
i = X509_verify_cert(csc);
X509_STORE_CTX_free(csc);
<CODE ENDS>
¶
This section extends the examples from Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est] with the constrained BRSKI requests. The CoAP headers are only worked out for the enrollstatus example.¶
A coaps enrollstatus message can be :¶
POST coaps://192.0.2.1:8085/b/es
¶
The corresponding CoAP header fields are shown below.¶
Ver = 1
T = 0 (CON)
Code = 0x02 (0.02 is POST)
Options
Option (Uri-Path)
Option Delta = 0xb (option nr = 11)
Option Length = 0x1
Option Value = "b"
Option (Uri-Path)
Option Delta = 0x0 (option nr = 11)
Option Length = 0x2
Option Value = "es"
Option (Content-Format)
Option Delta = 0x1 (option nr = 12)
Option Length = 0x1
Option Value = 60 (application/cbor)
Payload Marker = 0xFF
Payload = <binary CBOR enrollstatus document>
¶
The Uri-Host and Uri-Port Options are omitted because they coincide with the transport protocol destination address and port respectively. TBD - Show the binary CBOR payload of this example.¶
A 2.04 Changed response from the Registrar will then be:¶
2.04 Changed¶
With CoAP fields:¶
Ver=1 T=2 (ACK) Code = 0x44 (2.04 Changed)¶
A coaps voucher_status message can be:¶
POST coaps://[2001:db8::2:1]:61616/b/vs
Content-Format: 60 (application/cbor)
Payload =
a46776657273696f6e0166737461747573f466726561736f6e7828496e66
6f726d61746976652068756d616e2d7265616461626c65206572726f7220
6d6573736167656e726561736f6e2d636f6e74657874a100764164646974
696f6e616c20696e666f726d6174696f6e
<CODE ENDS>
¶
The request payload above is binary CBOR but represented here in hexadecimal for readability. Below is the equivalent CBOR diagnostic format.¶
{"version": 1, "status": false,
"reason": "Informative human-readable error message",
"reason-context": { 0: "Additional information" } }
<CODE ENDS>
¶
A 2.04 Changed response without payload will then be sent by the Registrar back to the Pledge.¶
2.04 Changed¶
These examples are generated on a Pi 4 and a PC running BASH. Keys and Certificates have been generated with openssl with the following shell script:¶
#!/bin/bash #try-cert.sh export dir=./brski/intermediate export cadir=./brski export cnfdir=./conf export format=pem export default_crl_days=30 sn=8 DevID=pledge.1.2.3.4 serialNumber="serialNumber=$DevID" export hwType=1.3.6.1.4.1.6715.10.1 export hwSerialNum=01020304 # Some hex export subjectAltName="otherName:1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.4;SEQ:hmodname" echo $hwType - $hwSerialNum echo $serialNumber OPENSSL_BIN="openssl" # remove all files rm -r ./brski/* # # initialize file structure # root level cd $cadir mkdir certs crl csr newcerts private chmod 700 private touch index.txt touch serial echo 11223344556600 >serial echo 1000 > crlnumber # intermediate level mkdir intermediate cd intermediate mkdir certs crl csr newcerts private chmod 700 private touch index.txt echo 11223344556600 >serial echo 1000 > crlnumber cd ../.. # file structure is cleaned start filling echo "#############################" echo "create registrar keys and certificates " echo "#############################" echo "create root registrar certificate using ecdsa with sha 256 key" $OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1 -genkey \ -noout -out $cadir/private/ca-regis.key $OPENSSL_BIN req -new -x509 \ -config $cnfdir/openssl-regis.cnf \ -key $cadir/private/ca-regis.key \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-regis.crt \ -extensions v3_ca\ -days 365 \ -subj "/C=NL/ST=NB/L=Helmond/O=vanderstok/OU=consultancy \ /CN=registrar.stok.nl" # Combine authority certificate and key echo "Combine authority certificate and key" $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -inkey $cadir/private/ca-regis.key \ -in $cadir/certs/ca-regis.crt -export \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.pfx # converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem echo "converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem" $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -in $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.pfx \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.crt -nodes #show certificate in registrar combined certificate $OPENSSL_BIN x509 -in $cadir/certs/ca-regis-comb.crt -text # # Certificate Authority for MASA # echo "#############################" echo "create MASA keys and certificates " echo "#############################" echo "create root MASA certificate using ecdsa with sha 256 key" $OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1 -genkey -noout \ -out $cadir/private/ca-masa.key $OPENSSL_BIN req -new -x509 \ -config $cnfdir/openssl-masa.cnf \ -days 1000 -key $cadir/private/ca-masa.key \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-masa.crt \ -extensions v3_ca\ -subj "/C=NL/ST=NB/L=Helmond/O=vanderstok/OU=manufacturer\ /CN=masa.stok.nl" # Combine authority certificate and key echo "Combine authority certificate and key for masa" $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -inkey $cadir/private/ca-masa.key \ -in $cadir/certs/ca-masa.crt -export \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.pfx # converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem for masa echo "converteer authority pkcs12 file to pem for masa" $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -in $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.pfx \ -out $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.crt -nodes #show certificate in pledge combined certificate $OPENSSL_BIN x509 -in $cadir/certs/ca-masa-comb.crt -text # # Certificate for Pledge derived from MASA certificate # echo "#############################" echo "create pledge keys and certificates " echo "#############################" # Pledge derived Certificate echo "create pledge derived certificate using ecdsa with sha 256 key" $OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1 -genkey -noout \ -out $dir/private/pledge.key echo "create pledge certificate request" $OPENSSL_BIN req -nodes -new -sha256 \ -key $dir/private/pledge.key -out $dir/csr/pledge.csr \ -subj "/C=NL/ST=NB/L=Helmond/O=vanderstok/OU=manufacturing\ /CN=uuid:$DevID/$serialNumber" # Sign pledge derived Certificate echo "sign pledge derived certificate " $OPENSSL_BIN ca -config $cnfdir/openssl-pledge.cnf \ -extensions 8021ar_idevid\ -days 365 -in $dir/csr/pledge.csr \ -out $dir/certs/pledge.crt # Add pledge key and pledge certificate to pkcs12 file echo "Add derived pledge key and derived pledge \ certificate to pkcs12 file" $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -inkey $dir/private/pledge.key \ -in $dir/certs/pledge.crt -export \ -out $dir/certs/pledge-comb.pfx # converteer pledge pkcs12 file to pem echo "converteer pledge pkcs12 file to pem" $OPENSSL_BIN pkcs12 -passin pass:watnietweet -passout pass:watnietweet\ -in $dir/certs/pledge-comb.pfx \ -out $dir/certs/pledge-comb.crt -nodes #show certificate in pledge-comb.crt $OPENSSL_BIN x509 -in $dir/certs/pledge-comb.crt -text #show private key in pledge-comb.crt $OPENSSL_BIN ecparam -name prime256v1\ -in $dir/certs/pledge-comb.crt -text <CODE ENDS>¶
The xxxx-comb certificates have been generated as required by libcoap for the DTLS connection generation.¶
This first section documents the public and private keys used in the subsequent test vectors below. These keys come from test code and are not used in any production system, and should only be used only to validate implementations.¶
Private-Key: (256 bit)
priv:
9b:4d:43:b6:a9:e1:7c:04:93:45:c3:13:d9:b5:f0:
41:a9:6a:9c:45:79:73:b8:62:f1:77:03:3a:fc:c2:
9c:9a
pub:
04:d6:b7:6f:74:88:bd:80:ae:5f:28:41:2c:72:02:
ef:5f:98:b4:81:e1:d9:10:4c:f8:1b:66:d4:3e:5c:
ea:da:73:e6:a8:38:a9:f1:35:11:85:b6:cd:e2:04:
10:be:fe:d5:0b:3b:14:69:2e:e1:b0:6a:bc:55:40:
60:eb:95:5c:54
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
<CODE ENDS>
¶
Private-Key: (256 bit)
priv:
81:df:bb:50:a3:45:58:06:b5:56:3b:46:de:f3:e9:
e9:00:ae:98:13:9e:2f:36:68:81:fc:d9:65:24:fb:
21:7e
pub:
04:50:7a:c8:49:1a:8c:69:c7:b5:c3:1d:03:09:ed:
35:ba:13:f5:88:4c:e6:2b:88:cf:30:18:15:4f:a0:
59:b0:20:ec:6b:eb:b9:4e:02:b8:93:40:21:89:8d:
a7:89:c7:11:ce:a7:13:39:f5:0e:34:8e:df:0d:92:
3e:d0:2d:c7:b7
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
<CODE ENDS>
¶
Private-Key: (256 bit)
priv:
c6:bb:a5:8f:b6:d3:c4:75:28:d8:d3:d9:46:c3:31:
83:6d:00:0a:9a:38:ce:22:5c:e9:d9:ea:3b:98:32:
ec:31
pub:
04:59:80:94:66:14:94:20:30:3c:66:08:85:55:86:
db:e7:d4:d1:d7:7a:d2:a3:1a:0c:73:6b:01:0d:02:
12:15:d6:1f:f3:6e:c8:d4:84:60:43:3b:21:c5:83:
80:1e:fc:e2:37:85:77:97:94:d4:aa:34:b5:b6:c6:
ed:f3:17:5c:f1
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
<CODE ENDS>
¶
Below the certificates that accompany the keys. The certificate description is followed by the hexadecimal DER of the certificate¶
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number: 4822678189204992 (0x11223344556600)
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
Issuer: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=manufacturer,
CN=masa.stok.nl
Validity
Not Before: Dec 9 10:02:36 2020 GMT
Not After : Dec 31 23:59:59 9999 GMT
Subject: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=manufacturing,
CN=uuid:pledge.1.2.3.4/serialNumber=pledge.1.2.3.4
Subject Public Key Info:
Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey
Public-Key: (256 bit)
pub:
04:d6:b7:6f:74:88:bd:80:ae:5f:28:41:2c:72:02:
ef:5f:98:b4:81:e1:d9:10:4c:f8:1b:66:d4:3e:5c:
ea:da:73:e6:a8:38:a9:f1:35:11:85:b6:cd:e2:04:
10:be:fe:d5:0b:3b:14:69:2e:e1:b0:6a:bc:55:40:
60:eb:95:5c:54
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Basic Constraints:
CA:FALSE
X509v3 Authority Key Identifier:
keyid:
E4:03:93:B4:C3:D3:F4:2A:80:A4:77:18:F6:96:49:03:01:17:68:A3
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
30:46:02:21:00:d2:e6:45:3b:b0:c3:00:b3:25:8d:f1:83:fe:
d9:37:c1:a2:49:65:69:7f:6b:b9:ef:2c:05:07:06:31:ac:17:
bd:02:21:00:e2:ce:9e:7b:7f:74:50:33:ad:9e:ff:12:4e:e9:
a6:f3:b8:36:65:ab:7d:80:bb:56:88:bc:03:1d:e5:1e:31:6f
<CODE ENDS>
¶
This is the hexadecimal representation in (request-)voucher examples referred to as pledge-cert-hex.¶
30820226308201cba003020102020711223344556600300a06082a8648ce3d04 0302306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110 300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e6465 7273746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e75666163747572657231153013 06035504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c3020170d323031323039313030 3233365a180f39393939313233313233353935395a308190310b300906035504 0613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c 6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31163014060355 040b0c0d6d616e75666163747572696e67311c301a06035504030c1375756964 3a706c656467652e312e322e332e34311730150603550405130e706c65646765 2e312e322e332e343059301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703 420004d6b76f7488bd80ae5f28412c7202ef5f98b481e1d9104cf81b66d43e5c eada73e6a838a9f1351185b6cde20410befed50b3b14692ee1b06abc554060eb 955c54a32e302c30090603551d1304023000301f0603551d23041830168014e4 0393b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3300a06082a8648ce3d04030203 49003046022100d2e6453bb0c300b3258df183fed937c1a24965697f6bb9ef2c 05070631ac17bd022100e2ce9e7b7f745033ad9eff124ee9a6f3b83665ab7d80 bb5688bc031de51e316f<CODE ENDS>¶
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number:
70:56:ea:aa:30:66:d8:82:6a:55:5b:90:88:d4:62:bf:9c:f2:8c:fd
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
Issuer: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=consultancy,
CN=registrar.stok.nl
Validity
Not Before: Dec 9 10:02:36 2020 GMT
Not After : Dec 9 10:02:36 2021 GMT
Subject: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok, OU=consultancy,
CN=registrar.stok.nl
Subject Public Key Info:
Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey
Public-Key: (256 bit)
pub:
04:50:7a:c8:49:1a:8c:69:c7:b5:c3:1d:03:09:ed:
35:ba:13:f5:88:4c:e6:2b:88:cf:30:18:15:4f:a0:
59:b0:20:ec:6b:eb:b9:4e:02:b8:93:40:21:89:8d:
a7:89:c7:11:ce:a7:13:39:f5:0e:34:8e:df:0d:92:
3e:d0:2d:c7:b7
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Subject Key Identifier:
08:C2:BF:36:88:7F:79:41:21:85:87:2F:16:A7:AC:A6:EF:B3:D2:B3
X509v3 Authority Key Identifier:
keyid:
08:C2:BF:36:88:7F:79:41:21:85:87:2F:16:A7:AC:A6:EF:B3:D2:B3
X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical
CA:TRUE
X509v3 Extended Key Usage:
CMC Registration Authority, TLS Web Server
Authentication, TLS Web Client Authentication
X509v3 Key Usage: critical
Digital Signature, Non Repudiation, Key Encipherment,
Data Encipherment, Certificate Sign, CRL Sign
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
30:44:02:20:74:4c:99:00:85:13:b2:f1:bc:fd:f9:02:1a:46:
fb:17:4c:f8:83:a2:7c:a1:d9:3f:ae:ac:f3:1e:4e:dd:12:c6:
02:20:11:47:14:db:f5:1a:5e:78:f5:81:b9:42:1c:6e:47:02:
ab:53:72:70:c5:ba:fb:2d:16:c3:de:9a:a1:82:c3:5f
<CODE ENDS>
¶
This the hexadecimal representation, in (request-)voucher examples referred to as regis-cert-hex¶
308202753082021ca00302010202147056eaaa3066d8826a555b9088d462bf9c f28cfd300a06082a8648ce3d0403023073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b 300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e64311330 11060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e 73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f 6b2e6e6c301e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d323131323039313030 3233365a3073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e42 3110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e 64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e73756c74616e6379311a30 1806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f6b2e6e6c3059301306072a 8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703420004507ac8491a8c69c7b5c31d03 09ed35ba13f5884ce62b88cf3018154fa059b020ec6bebb94e02b8934021898d a789c711cea71339f50e348edf0d923ed02dc7b7a3818d30818a301d0603551d 0e0416041408c2bf36887f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3301f0603551d23 04183016801408c2bf36887f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3300f0603551d 130101ff040530030101ff30270603551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c 06082b0601050507030106082b06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff0404 030201f6300a06082a8648ce3d04030203470030440220744c99008513b2f1bc fdf9021a46fb174cf883a27ca1d93faeacf31e4edd12c60220114714dbf51a5e 78f581b9421c6e4702ab537270c5bafb2d16c3de9aa182c35f<CODE ENDS>¶
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number:
14:26:b8:1c:ce:d8:c3:e8:14:05:cb:87:67:0d:be:ef:d5:81:25:b4
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
Issuer: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok,
OU=manufacturer, CN=masa.stok.nl
Validity
Not Before: Dec 9 10:02:36 2020 GMT
Not After : Sep 5 10:02:36 2023 GMT
Subject: C=NL, ST=NB, L=Helmond, O=vanderstok,
OU=manufacturer, CN=masa.stok.nl
Subject Public Key Info:
Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey
Public-Key: (256 bit)
pub:
04:59:80:94:66:14:94:20:30:3c:66:08:85:55:86:
db:e7:d4:d1:d7:7a:d2:a3:1a:0c:73:6b:01:0d:02:
12:15:d6:1f:f3:6e:c8:d4:84:60:43:3b:21:c5:83:
80:1e:fc:e2:37:85:77:97:94:d4:aa:34:b5:b6:c6:
ed:f3:17:5c:f1
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Subject Key Identifier:
E4:03:93:B4:C3:D3:F4:2A:80:A4:77:18:F6:96:49:03:01:17:68:A3
X509v3 Authority Key Identifier:
keyid:
E4:03:93:B4:C3:D3:F4:2A:80:A4:77:18:F6:96:49:03:01:17:68:A3
X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical
CA:TRUE
X509v3 Extended Key Usage:
CMC Registration Authority,
TLS Web Server Authentication,
TLS Web Client Authentication
X509v3 Key Usage: critical
Digital Signature, Non Repudiation, Key Encipherment,
Data Encipherment, Certificate Sign, CRL Sign
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
30:44:02:20:2e:c5:f2:24:72:70:20:ea:6e:74:8b:13:93:67:
8a:e6:fe:fb:8d:56:7f:f5:34:18:a9:ef:a5:0f:c3:99:ca:53:
02:20:3d:dc:91:d0:e9:6a:69:20:01:fb:e4:20:40:de:7c:7d:
98:ed:d8:84:53:61:84:a7:f9:13:06:4c:a9:b2:8f:5c
<CODE ENDS>
¶
This is the hexadecimal representation, in (request-)voucher examples referred to as masa-cert-hex.¶
3082026d30820214a00302010202141426b81cced8c3e81405cb87670dbeefd5 8125b4300a06082a8648ce3d040302306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b 300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e64311330 11060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e 7566616374757265723115301306035504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c 301e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d3233303930353130303233365a 306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110300e 06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e64657273 746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e756661637475726572311530130603 5504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c3059301306072a8648ce3d02010608 2a8648ce3d0301070342000459809466149420303c6608855586dbe7d4d1d77a d2a31a0c736b010d021215d61ff36ec8d48460433b21c583801efce237857797 94d4aa34b5b6c6edf3175cf1a3818d30818a301d0603551d0e04160414e40393 b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3301f0603551d23041830168014e403 93b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3300f0603551d130101ff04053003 0101ff30270603551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c06082b0601050507 030106082b06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff0404030201f6300a0608 2a8648ce3d040302034700304402202ec5f224727020ea6e748b1393678ae6fe fb8d567ff53418a9efa50fc399ca5302203ddc91d0e96a692001fbe42040de7c 7d98edd884536184a7f913064ca9b28f5c<CODE ENDS>¶
In this example the voucher request has been signed by the Pledge, and has been sent to the JRC over CoAPS. The Pledge uses the proximity assertion together with an included proximity-registrar-cert field to inform MASA about its proximity to the specific Registrar.¶
POST coaps://registrar.example.com/b/rv
(Content-Format: application/voucher-cose+cbor)
signed_request_voucher
¶
The payload signed_request_voucher is shown as hexadecimal dump (with lf added):¶
d28444a101382ea104582097113db094eee8eae48683e7337875c0372164 be89d023a5f3df52699c0fbfb55902d2a11909c5a60274323032302d3132 2d32335431323a30353a32325a0474323032322d31322d32335431323a30 353a32325a01020750684ca83e27230aff97630cf2c1ec409a0d6e706c65 6467652e312e322e332e340a590279308202753082021ca0030201020214 7056eaaa3066d8826a555b9088d462bf9cf28cfd300a06082a8648ce3d04 03023073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e42 3110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76 616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e73756c74616e63 79311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f6b2e6e6c30 1e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d323131323039313030323336 5a3073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e4231 10300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a7661 6e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f6e73756c74616e6379 311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e73746f6b2e6e6c3059 301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703420004507ac8491a 8c69c7b5c31d0309ed35ba13f5884ce62b88cf3018154fa059b020ec6beb b94e02b8934021898da789c711cea71339f50e348edf0d923ed02dc7b7a3 818d30818a301d0603551d0e0416041408c2bf36887f79412185872f16a7 aca6efb3d2b3301f0603551d2304183016801408c2bf36887f7941218587 2f16a7aca6efb3d2b3300f0603551d130101ff040530030101ff30270603 551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c06082b0601050507030106082b 06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff0404030201f6300a06082a8648 ce3d04030203470030440220744c99008513b2f1bcfdf9021a46fb174cf8 83a27ca1d93faeacf31e4edd12c60220114714dbf51a5e78f581b9421c6e 4702ab537270c5bafb2d16c3de9aa182c35f58473045022063766c7bbd1b 339dbc398e764af3563e93b25a69104befe9aac2b3336b8f56e1022100cd 0419559ad960ccaed4dee3f436eca40b7570b25a52eb60332bc1f2991484 e9 <CODE ENDS>¶
The representiation of signed_voucher_request in CBOR diagnostic format is:¶
Diagnose(signed_request_voucher) =
18([
h'A101382E', // {"alg": -47}
{4: h'97113DB094EEE8EAE48683E7337875C0372164B
E89D023A5F3DF52699C0FBFB5'},
h'1234', // request_voucher
h'3045022063766C7BBD1B339DBC398E764AF3563E93B
25A69104BEFE9AAC2B3336B8F56E1022100CD0419559A
D960CCAED4DEE3F436ECA40B7570B25A52EB60332BC1F
2991484E9'
])
Diagnose(request_voucher) =
{2501: {2: "2020-12-23T12:05:22Z",
4: "2022-12-23T12:05:22Z",
1: 2,
7: h'684CA83E27230AFF97630CF2C1EC409A',
13: "pledge.1.2.3.4",
10: h'1234' // regis-cert-hex
}}
<CODE ENDS>
¶
TBD - modify example to use full paths to MASA, not short-names. Also not use CoAP but HTTP protocol.¶
In this example the voucher request has been signed by the JRC using the private key from Appendix C.1.2. Contained within this voucher request is the voucher request from the Pledge to JRC.¶
POST coaps://masa.example.com/b/rv
(Content-Format: application/voucher-cose+cbor)
signed_masa_request_voucher
¶
The payload signed_masa_voucher_request is shown as hexadecimal dump (with lf added):¶
d28444a101382ea1045820e8735bc4b470c3aa6a7aa9aa8ee584c09c1113 1b205efec5d0313bad84c5cd05590414a11909c5a60274323032302d3132 2d32385431303a30333a33355a0474323032322d31322d32385431303a30 333a33355a07501551631f6e0416bd162ba53ea00c2a050d6e706c656467 652e312e322e332e3405587131322d32385431303a30333a33355a075015 51631f6e0416bd162ba53ea00c2a050d6e706c656467652e312e322e332e 3405587131322d32385431303a300000000000000000000000000416bd16 2ba53ea00c2a050d6e706c656467652e312e322e332e3405587131322d32 385431303a09590349d28444a101382ea104582097113db094eee8eae486 83e7337875c0372164be89d023a5f3df52699c0fbfb55902d2a11909c5a6 0274323032302d31322d32385431303a30333a33355a0474323032322d31 322d32385431303a30333a33355a010207501551631f6e0416bd162ba53e a00c2a050d6e706c656467652e312e322e332e340a590279308202753082 021ca00302010202147056eaaa3066d8826a555b9088d462bf9cf28cfd30 0a06082a8648ce3d0403023073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b3009 06035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e64311330 11060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b63 6f6e73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c11726567697374726172 2e73746f6b2e6e6c301e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d323131 3230393130303233365a3073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906 035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011 060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c0b636f 6e73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c117265676973747261722e 73746f6b2e6e6c3059301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d030107 03420004507ac8491a8c69c7b5c31d0309ed35ba13f5884ce62b88cf3018 154fa059b020ec6bebb94e02b8934021898da789c711cea71339f50e348e df0d923ed02dc7b7a3818d30818a301d0603551d0e0416041408c2bf3688 7f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3301f0603551d2304183016801408c2 bf36887f79412185872f16a7aca6efb3d2b3300f0603551d130101ff0405 30030101ff30270603551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c06082b06 01050507030106082b06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff04040302 01f6300a06082a8648ce3d04030203470030440220744c99008513b2f1bc fdf9021a46fb174cf883a27ca1d93faeacf31e4edd12c60220114714dbf5 1a5e78f581b9421c6e4702ab537270c5bafb2d16c3de9aa182c35f584730 45022063766c7bbd1b339dbc398e764af3563e93b25a69104befe9aac2b3 336b8f56e1022100cd0419559ad960ccaed4dee3f436eca40b7570b25a52 eb60332bc1f2991484e958473045022100e6b45558c1b806bba23f4ac626 c9bdb6fd354ef4330d8dfb7c529f29cca934c802203c1f2ccbbac89733d1 7ee7775bc2654c5f1cc96afba2741cc31532444aa8fed8 <CODE ENDS>¶
The representiation of signed_masa_voucher_request in CBOR diagnostic format is:¶
Diagnose(signed_registrar_request-voucher)
18([
h'A101382E', // {"alg": -47}
h'E8735BC4B470C3AA6A7AA9AA8EE584C09C11131B205EFEC5D0313BAD84
C5CD05'},
h'1234', // registrar_request_voucher',
h'3045022100E6B45558C1B806BBA23F4AC626C9BDB6FD354EF4330D8DFB
7C529F29CCA934C802203C1F2CCBBAC89733D17EE7775BC2654C5F1CC96A
FBA2741CC31532444AA8FED8'
])
Diagnose(registrar_request_voucher)
{2501:
{2: "2020-12-28T10:03:35Z",
4: "2022-12-28T10:03:35Z",
7: h'1551631F6E0416BD162BA53EA00C2A05',
13: "pledge.1.2.3.4",
5: h'31322D32385431303A30333A33355A07501551631F6E0416BD
162BA53EA00C2A050D6E706C656467652E312E322E332E3405
587131322D32385431303A3000000000000000000000000004
16BD162BA53EA00C2A050D6E706C656467652E312E322E332E
3405587131322D32385431303A',
9: h'1234' // signature
}}
<CODE ENDS>
¶
The resulting voucher is created by the MASA and returned via the JRC to the Pledge. It is signed by the MASA's private key Appendix C.1.3 and can be verified by the Pledge using the MASA's public key contained within the MASA certificate.¶
This is the raw binary signed_voucher, encoded in hexadecimal (with lf added):¶
d28444a101382ea104582039920a34ee92d3148ab3a729f58611193270c9 029f7784daf112614b19445d5158cfa1190993a70274323032302d31322d 32335431353a30333a31325a0474323032302d31322d32335431353a3233 3a31325a010007506508e06b2959d5089d7a3169ea889a490b6e706c6564 67652e312e322e332e340858753073310b3009060355040613024e4c310b 300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431 133011060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31143012060355040b0c 0b636f6e73756c74616e6379311a301806035504030c1172656769737472 61722e73746f6b2e6e6c03f458473045022022515d96cd12224ee5d3ac67 3237163bba24ad84815699285d9618f463ee73fa022100a6bff9d8585c1c 9256371ece94da3d26264a5dfec0a354fe7b3aef58344c512f <CODE ENDS>¶
The representiation of signed_voucher in CBOR diagnostic format is:¶
Diagnose(signed_voucher) =
18([
h'A101382E', # {"alg": -47}
{4: h'39920A34EE92D3148AB3A729F58611193270C9029F7784DAF112614B194
45D51'},
h'voucher',
h'3045022022515D96CD12224EE5D3AC673237163BBA24AD84815699285D9618F
463EE73FA022100A6BFF9D8585C1C9256371ECE94DA3D26264A5DFEC0A354FE7B
3AEF58344C512F'
])
Diagnose(voucher) =
{2451:
{2: "2020-12-23T15:03:12Z",
4: "2020-12-23T15:23:12Z",
1: 0,
7: h'6508E06B2959D5089D7A3169EA889A49',
11: "pledge.1.2.3.4",
8: h'regis-cert-hex',
3: false}}
<CODE ENDS>
¶