constrained-voucher-13.txt

anima Working Group                                        M. Richardson
Internet-Draft                                  Sandelman Software Works
Intended status: Standards Track                         P. van der Stok
Expires: 26 January 2022                          vanderstok consultancy
                                                           P. Kampanakis
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                                 E. Dijk
                                                       IoTconsultancy.nl
                                                            25 July 2021


       Constrained Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols
                draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-13

Abstract

   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.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 January 2022.






Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


Copyright Notice

   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Overview of Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  BRSKI-EST Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Discovery, URIs and Content Formats . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Extensions to BRSKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  Extensions to EST-coaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.3.1.  Pledge Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.3.2.  Registrar Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  BRSKI-MASA Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Pinning in Voucher Artifacts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Registrar Identity Selection and Encoding . . . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  MASA Pinning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.3.  Pinning of Raw Public Keys  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.1.  Voucher Request artifact  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       8.1.1.  Tree Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       8.1.2.  SID values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       8.1.3.  YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       8.1.4.  Example voucher request artifact  . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.2.  Voucher artifact  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       8.2.1.  Tree Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       8.2.2.  SID values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       8.2.3.  YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       8.2.4.  Example voucher artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     8.3.  Signing voucher and voucher-request artifacts with
           COSE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   9.  Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   10. Raw Public Key Use Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     10.1.  The Registrar Trust Anchor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     10.2.  The Pledge Voucher Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


     10.3.  The Voucher Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     11.1.  Clock Sensitivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     11.2.  Protect Voucher PKI in HSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     11.3.  Test Domain Certificate Validity when Signing  . . . . .  28
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     12.1.  Resource Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     12.2.  The IETF XML Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     12.3.  The YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     12.4.  The RFC SID range assignment sub-registry  . . . . . . .  29
     12.5.  Media Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       12.5.1.  application/voucher-cose+cbor  . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     12.6.  CoAP Content-Format Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   14. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   Appendix A.  Library support for BRSKI  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     A.1.  OpensSSL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     A.2.  mbedTLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     A.3.  wolfSSL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Appendix B.  Constrained BRSKI-EST messages . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     B.1.  enrollstatus  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     B.2.  voucher_status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   Appendix C.  COSE examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     C.1.  Pledge, Registrar and MASA keys . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       C.1.1.  Pledge private key  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       C.1.2.  Registrar private key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       C.1.3.  MASA private key  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
     C.2.  Pledge, Registrar and MASA certificates . . . . . . . . .  43
       C.2.1.  Pledge IDevID certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       C.2.2.  Registrar Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
       C.2.3.  MASA Certificate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
     C.3.  COSE signed voucher request from Pledge to Registrar  . .  49
     C.4.  COSE signed voucher request from Registrar to MASA  . . .  51
     C.5.  COSE signed voucher from MASA to Pledge via Registrar . .  53
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54

1.  Introduction

   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 [BRSKI] may be too large in terms
   of code size or bandwidth required.




Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   Therefore, this document defines a constrained version of the voucher
   artifact [RFC8366], along with a constrained version of [BRSKI] 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 [BRSKI], and voucher(-request) transport over CoAP
   based on Section 3 of [BRSKI] 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.

2.  Terminology

   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 [BRSKI] are used identically as in that
   document: Domain CA, enrollment, IDevID, Join Proxy, LDevID,
   manufacturer, nonced, nonceless, PKIX.

3.  Requirements Language

   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.



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


4.  Overview of Protocol

   [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 [BRSKI].  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.





Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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).

5.  BRSKI-EST Protocol

   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.

5.1.  Discovery, URIs and Content Formats

   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 [BRSKI] 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>









Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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                        |
             +-----------------+----------------------------+

                   Table 1: BRSKI URI paths mapping to
                       constrained BRSKI URI paths

   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.



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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.

5.2.  Extensions to BRSKI

   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).





Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


5.3.  Extensions to EST-coaps

   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?]

5.3.1.  Pledge Extensions

   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:

   1.  if the voucher, that validates the current Registrar, contains a
       single pinned domain CA certificate, the Pledge provisionally
       considers this certificate as the EST trust anchor, in other
       words, it provisionally accepts this CA certificate as if it were
       the result of "CA certificates request" (/crts) to the Registrar.

   2.  Using this CA certificate as trust anchor it proceeds with EST
       simple enrollment (/sen) to obtain its provisionally trusted
       LDevID.







Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   3.  If the Pledge validates that the trust anchor CA was used to sign
       its LDevID, the Pledge accepts the pinned domain CA certificate
       as the legitimate trust anchor CA for the Registrar's domain and
       accepts the associated LDevID.

   4.  If the trust anchor CA was NOT used to sign its LDevID, the
       Pledge MUST perform an actual "CA certificates request" (/crts)
       to the EST server to obtain the EST CA trust anchor(s) since
       these differ from the (temporary) pinned domain CA.

   5.  When doing this /crts request, the Pledge MAY use a CoAP Accept
       Option with value TBD287 ("application/pkix-cert") to limit the
       number of returned EST CA trust anchors to only one.

   6.  If the Pledge cannot obtain the single CA certificate or the
       finally validated CA certificate cannot be chained to the LDevID,
       then the Pledge MUST abort the enrollment process and report the
       error using the enrollment status telemetry (/es).

5.3.2.  Registrar Extensions

   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.

6.  BRSKI-MASA Protocol

   [BRSKI] 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
   [BRSKI].  The MASA MUST support both formats.  The Registrar
   indicates the voucher format it wants to receive from MASA using the
   HTTP Accept header.



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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 Registrar is not expected to be so constrained that it cannot
      support HTTPS client connections.

   *  the technology and experience to build Internet-scale HTTPS
      responders (which the MASA is) is common, while the experience
      doing the same for CoAP is much less common.

   *  in many Enterprise networks, outgoing UDP connections are often
      treated as suspicious, and there seems to be no advantage to using
      CoAP in that environment.

   *  a Registrar is likely to provide onboarding services to both
      constrained and non-constrained devices.  Such a Registrar would
      need to speak HTTPS anyway.

   *  similarly, a manufacturer is likely to offer both constrained and
      non-constrained devices, so there may in practice be no situation
      in which the MASA could be CoAP-only.  Additionally, as the MASA
      is intended to be a function that can easily be oursourced to a
      third-party service provider, reducing the complexity would also
      seem to reduce the cost of that function.

7.  Pinning in Voucher Artifacts

   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.

7.1.  Registrar Identity Selection and Encoding

   Section 5.5 of [BRSKI] 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 that participate in the certificate chain that is
   to be pinned.









Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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 |
     '----------------'

                         Figure 1: Two-Level CA PKI

   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].

7.2.  MASA Pinning Policy

   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 [BRSKI] leaves much
   flexibility to the manufacturer.  The present document adds the
   following rules to the MASA pinning policy to reduce the network
   load:





Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   1.  for a voucher containing a nonce, it SHOULD select the most
       specific (lowest-level) CA certificate in the chain.

   2.  for a nonceless voucher, it SHOULD select the least-specific
       (highest-level) CA certificate in the chain that is allowed under
       the MASA's policy for this specific domain.

   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
   [BRSKI]).

   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).

7.3.  Pinning of Raw Public Keys

   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



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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      |
   '--------------'

                      Figure 2: Raw Public Key pinning

8.  Artifacts

   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].

8.1.  Voucher Request artifact




Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


8.1.1.  Tree Diagram

   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

8.1.2.  SID values




















Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


         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

8.1.3.  YANG Module

   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";
     }




Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


     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;



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


     }

     // 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



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


                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



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


                remove all prior-signed-voucher-request information when
                signing a voucher for imprinting so as to minimize the
                final voucher size.";
           }
         }
       }
     }
   }
   <CODE ENDS>

8.1.4.  Example voucher request artifact

   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>

8.2.  Voucher artifact

   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.

8.2.1.  Tree Diagram

   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.






Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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>

8.2.2.  SID values


         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>

8.2.3.  YANG Module

   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.






Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   <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.




Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


      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.



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


                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>

8.2.4.  Example voucher artifacts

   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.



















Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   {
     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>

8.3.  Signing voucher and voucher-request artifacts with COSE

   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": ES256K }
       {
         "kid" : h'7890....1234'  # hash256(public key)
       },
       h'1234....5678', #voucher-request binary content
       h'4567....1234', #voucher-request binary public signature
     ]
   )

          Figure 3: cose-sign1 example in CBOR diagnostic notation

   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



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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.

9.  Design Considerations

   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.

10.  Raw Public Key Use Considerations

   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.

10.1.  The Registrar Trust Anchor

   When the Pledge first connects to the Registrar, the connection to
   the Registrar is provisional, as explained in section 5.6.2 of
   [BRSKI].  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.







Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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.

10.2.  The Pledge Voucher Request

   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.

10.3.  The Voucher Response

   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 [BRSKI] 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.

11.  Security Considerations

11.1.  Clock Sensitivity

   TBD.





Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


11.2.  Protect Voucher PKI in HSM

   TBD.

11.3.  Test Domain Certificate Validity when Signing

   TBD.

12.  IANA Considerations

12.1.  Resource Type Registry

   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

12.2.  The IETF XML Registry

   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.

12.3.  The YANG Module Names Registry

   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:











Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


     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

12.4.  The RFC SID range assignment sub-registry

   ------------ ------ --------------------------- ------------
   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.

12.5.  Media Types Registry

   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].

12.5.1.  application/voucher-cose+cbor



















Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   Type name:  application
   Subtype name:  voucher-cose+cbor
   Required parameters:  none
   Optional parameters:  none
   Encoding considerations:  binary
   Security considerations:  Security Considerations of THIS RFC.
   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 onboarding 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

12.6.  CoAP Content-Format Registry

   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                    Encoding   ID  References
   ----------------------------  --------- ---- ----------
   application/voucher-cose+cbor           TBD3 [This RFC]

13.  Acknowledgements

   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 users.

14.  Changelog

   -10 Design considerations extended Examples made consistent




Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   -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

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [BRSKI]    Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Eckert, T., Behringer, M.,
              and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
              Infrastructure (BRSKI)", RFC 8995, DOI 10.17487/RFC8995,
              May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8995>.

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]
              Vucinic, M., Simon, J., Pister, K., and M. Richardson,
              "Constrained Join Protocol (CoJP) for 6TiSCH", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-
              security-15, 10 December 2019,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6tisch-
              minimal-security-15.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est]
              Stok, P. V. D., Kampanakis, P., Richardson, M. C., and S.
              Raza, "EST over secure CoAP (EST-coaps)", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-18, 6
              January 2020, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
              ace-coap-est-18.txt>.



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   [I-D.ietf-core-sid]
              Veillette, M., Pelov, A., Petrov, I., and C. Bormann,
              "YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID)", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-sid-16, 24 June
              2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-
              sid-16.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor]
              Veillette, M., Petrov, I., Pelov, A., and C. Bormann,
              "CBOR Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-16, 24
              June 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
              core-yang-cbor-16.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]
              Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
              Structures and Process", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-15, 1 February 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-
              rfc8152bis-struct-15.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-cose-x509]
              Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
              Header parameters for carrying and referencing X.509
              certificates", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-cose-x509-08, 14 December 2020,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-
              x509-08.txt>.

   [I-D.selander-ace-ake-authz]
              Selander, G., Mattsson, J. P., Vucinic, M., Richardson,
              M., and A. Schellenbaum, "Lightweight Authorization for
              Authenticated Key Exchange.", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-selander-ace-ake-authz-03, 4 May 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-selander-ace-ake-
              authz-03.txt>.

   [ieee802-1AR]
              IEEE Standard, ., "IEEE 802.1AR Secure Device Identifier",
              2009, <http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
              standard/802.1AR-2009.html>.

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





Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.

   [RFC5652]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
              RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

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

   [RFC7250]  Wouters, P., Ed., Tschofenig, H., Ed., Gilmore, J.,
              Weiler, S., and T. Kivinen, "Using Raw Public Keys in
              Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport
              Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 7250, DOI 10.17487/RFC7250,
              June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7250>.

   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.

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

   [RFC8366]  Watsen, K., Richardson, M., Pritikin, M., and T. Eckert,
              "A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols",
              RFC 8366, DOI 10.17487/RFC8366, May 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8366>.

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

15.2.  Informative References

   [COSE-registry]
              IANA, ., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
              registry", 2017,
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml>.





Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]
              Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, "YANG Tree Diagrams", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-
              diagrams-06, 8 February 2018,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-
              tree-diagrams-06.txt>.

   [I-D.richardson-anima-masa-considerations]
              Richardson, M. and J. Yang, "Operatonal Considerations for
              Voucher infrastructure for BRSKI MASA", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-richardson-anima-masa-
              considerations-05, 12 March 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-anima-
              masa-considerations-05.txt>.

   [RFC6690]  Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
              Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6690>.

   [RFC7030]  Pritikin, M., Ed., Yee, P., Ed., and D. Harkins, Ed.,
              "Enrollment over Secure Transport", RFC 7030,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7030, October 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7030>.

Appendix A.  Library support for BRSKI

   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.













Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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.

A.1.  OpensSSL

   from openssl's apps/verify.c

























Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


       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>

A.2.  mbedTLS

       mbedtls_x509_crt cert;
       mbedtls_x509_crt caCert;
       uint32_t         certVerifyResultFlags;
       ...
       int result = mbedtls_x509_crt_verify(&cert, &caCert, NULL, NULL,
                                    &certVerifyResultFlags, NULL, NULL);







Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


A.3.  wolfSSL

   To be added (TBD).

Appendix B.  Constrained BRSKI-EST messages

   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.

B.1.  enrollstatus

   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:





Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


      Ver=1
      T=2 (ACK)
      Code = 0x44 (2.04 Changed)

B.2.  voucher_status

   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

Appendix C.  COSE examples

   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



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


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\



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


 -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"



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


$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



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


#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.

C.1.  Pledge, Registrar and MASA keys

   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.

C.1.1.  Pledge private key

   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>

C.1.2.  Registrar private key















Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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>

C.1.3.  MASA private key

   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>

C.2.  Pledge, Registrar and MASA certificates

   Below the certificates that accompany the keys.  The certificate
   description is followed by the hexadecimal DER of the certificate

C.2.1.  Pledge IDevID certificate













Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 43]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


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.











Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 44]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   30820226308201cba003020102020711223344556600300a06082a8648ce3d04
   0302306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110
   300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e6465
   7273746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e75666163747572657231153013
   06035504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c3020170d323031323039313030
   3233365a180f39393939313233313233353935395a308190310b300906035504
   0613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c
   6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31163014060355
   040b0c0d6d616e75666163747572696e67311c301a06035504030c1375756964
   3a706c656467652e312e322e332e34311730150603550405130e706c65646765
   2e312e322e332e343059301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703
   420004d6b76f7488bd80ae5f28412c7202ef5f98b481e1d9104cf81b66d43e5c
   eada73e6a838a9f1351185b6cde20410befed50b3b14692ee1b06abc554060eb
   955c54a32e302c30090603551d1304023000301f0603551d23041830168014e4
   0393b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3300a06082a8648ce3d04030203
   49003046022100d2e6453bb0c300b3258df183fed937c1a24965697f6bb9ef2c
   05070631ac17bd022100e2ce9e7b7f745033ad9eff124ee9a6f3b83665ab7d80
   bb5688bc031de51e316f<CODE ENDS>

C.2.2.  Registrar Certificate































Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 45]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


 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>





Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 46]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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>

C.2.3.  MASA Certificate

 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:



Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 47]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


                     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.





















Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 48]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   3082026d30820214a00302010202141426b81cced8c3e81405cb87670dbeefd5
   8125b4300a06082a8648ce3d040302306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b
   300906035504080c024e423110300e06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e64311330
   11060355040a0c0a76616e64657273746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e
   7566616374757265723115301306035504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c
   301e170d3230313230393130303233365a170d3233303930353130303233365a
   306f310b3009060355040613024e4c310b300906035504080c024e423110300e
   06035504070c0748656c6d6f6e6431133011060355040a0c0a76616e64657273
   746f6b31153013060355040b0c0c6d616e756661637475726572311530130603
   5504030c0c6d6173612e73746f6b2e6e6c3059301306072a8648ce3d02010608
   2a8648ce3d0301070342000459809466149420303c6608855586dbe7d4d1d77a
   d2a31a0c736b010d021215d61ff36ec8d48460433b21c583801efce237857797
   94d4aa34b5b6c6edf3175cf1a3818d30818a301d0603551d0e04160414e40393
   b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3301f0603551d23041830168014e403
   93b4c3d3f42a80a47718f6964903011768a3300f0603551d130101ff04053003
   0101ff30270603551d250420301e06082b0601050507031c06082b0601050507
   030106082b06010505070302300e0603551d0f0101ff0404030201f6300a0608
   2a8648ce3d040302034700304402202ec5f224727020ea6e748b1393678ae6fe
   fb8d567ff53418a9efa50fc399ca5302203ddc91d0e96a692001fbe42040de7c
   7d98edd884536184a7f913064ca9b28f5c<CODE ENDS>

C.3.  COSE signed voucher request from Pledge to Registrar

   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):
















Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 49]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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:


















Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 50]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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>

C.4.  COSE signed voucher request from Registrar to MASA

   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):














Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 51]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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:







Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 52]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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>

C.5.  COSE signed voucher from MASA to Pledge via Registrar

   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):















Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 53]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   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>

Contributors

   Russ Housley

   Email: housley@vigilsec.com


Authors' Addresses




Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 54]

Internet-Draft             Constrained Voucher                 July 2021


   Michael Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works

   Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca


   Peter van der Stok
   vanderstok consultancy

   Email: stokcons@bbhmail.nl


   Panos Kampanakis
   Cisco Systems

   Email: pkampana@cisco.com


   Esko Dijk
   IoTconsultancy.nl

   Email: esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl





























Richardson, et al.       Expires 26 January 2022               [Page 55]