Network Working Group S. Santesson
Request for Comments: 3039 AddTrust
Category: Standards Track W. Polk
NIST
P. Barzin
SECUDE
M. Nystrom
RSA Security
January 2001
Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
Qualified Certificates Profile
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document forms a certificate profile for Qualified Certificates,
based on RFC 2459, for use in the Internet. The term Qualified
Certificate is used to describe a certificate with a certain
qualified status within applicable governing law. Further, Qualified
Certificates are issued exclusively to physical persons.
The goal of this document is to define a general syntax independent
of local legal requirements. The profile is however designed to
allow further profiling in order to meet specific local needs.
It is important to note that the profile does not define any legal
requirements for Qualified Certificates.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................ 2
2 Requirements and Assumptions ................................ 32.1 Properties ................................................ 42.2 Statement of Purpose ...................................... 52.3 Policy Issues ............................................. 52.4 Uniqueness of names ....................................... 5
3 Certificate and Certificate Extensions Profile .............. 63.1 Basic Certificate Fields .................................. 63.1.1 Issuer .................................................. 63.1.2 Subject ................................................. 63.2 Certificate Extensions .................................... 93.2.1 Subject Directory Attributes ............................ 93.2.2 Certificate Policies .................................... 103.2.3 Key Usage ............................................... 103.2.4 Biometric Information ................................... 113.2.5 Qualified Certificate Statements ........................ 12
4 Security Considerations ..................................... 14
5 References .................................................. 15
6 Intellectual Property Rights ................................ 16
A ASN.1 definitions ........................................... 17A.1 1988 ASN.1 Module ......................................... 17A.2 1993 ASN.1 Module ......................................... 19
B A Note on Attributes ........................................ 24C. Example Certificate ........................................ 24C.1 ASN.1 Structure ........................................... 25C.1.1 Extensions ............................................... 25C.1.2 The certificate .......................................... 27C.2 ASN.1 Dump ................................................ 29C.3 DER-encoding .............................................. 32C.4 CA's public key ........................................... 33
Authors' Addresses ............................................. 34
Full Copyright Statement ....................................... 35
1 Introduction
This specification is one part of a family of standards for the X.509
Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for the Internet. It is based on RFC
2459, which defines underlying certificate formats and semantics
needed for a full implementation of this standard.
The standard profiles the format for a specific type of certificates
named Qualified Certificates. The term Qualified Certificates and
the assumptions that affects the scope of this document are discussed
in Section 2.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
Section 3 defines requirements on information content in Qualified
Certificates. This profile addresses two fields in the basic
certificate as well as five certificate extensions. The certificate
fields are the subject and issuer fields. The certificate extensions
are subject directory attributes, certificate policies, key usage, a
private extension for storage of biometric data and a private
extension for storage of statements related to Qualified
Certificates. The private extensions are presented in the 1993
Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1), but in conformance with RFC
2459 the 1988 ASN.1 module in Appendix A contains all normative
definitions (the 1993 module in Appendix A is informative).
In Section 4, some security considerations are discussed in order to
clarify the security context in which Qualified Certificates are
assumed to be utilized. Section 5 contains the references.
Appendix A contains all relevant ASN.1 [X.680] structures that are
not already defined in RFC 2459. Appendix B contains a note on
attributes. Appendix C contains an example certificate. Appendix D
contains authors' addresses and Appendix E contains the IETF
Copyright Statement.
It should be noted that this specification does not define the
specific semantics of Qualified Certificates, and does not define the
policies that should be used with them. That is, this document
defines what information should go into Qualified Certificates, but
not what that information means. A system that uses Qualified
Certificates must define its own semantics for the information in
Qualified Certificates. It is expected that laws and corporate
policies will make these definitions.
2 Requirements and Assumptions
The term "Qualified Certificate" has been used by the European
Commission to describe a certain type of certificates with specific
relevance for European legislation. This specification is intended
to support this class of certificates, but its scope is not limited
to this application.
Within this standard the term "Qualified Certificate" is used more
generally, describing the format for a certificate whose primary
purpose is identifying a person with high level of assurance in
public non-repudiation services. The actual mechanisms that will
decide whether a certificate should or should not be considered to be
a "Qualified Certificate" in regard to any legislation are outside
the scope of this standard.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
Harmonization in the field of Qualified Certificates is essential
within several aspects that fall outside the scope of RFC 2459. The
most important aspects that affect the scope of this specification
are:
- Definition of names and identity information in order to identify
the associated subject in a uniform way.
- Definition of information which identifies the CA and the
jurisdiction under which the CA operates when issuing a particular
certificate.
- Definition of key usage extension usage for Qualified
Certificates.
- Definition of information structure for storage of biometric
information.
- Definition of a standardized way to store predefined statements
with relevance for Qualified Certificates.
- Requirements for critical extensions.
A Qualified Certificate as defined in this standard is assumed to
have the following properties:
- The certificate is issued by a CA that makes a public statement
that the certificate serves the purpose of a Qualified
Certificate, as discussed in Section 2.2
- The certificate indicates a certificate policy consistent with
liabilities, practices and procedures undertaken by the CA, as
discussed in 2.3
- The certificate is issued to a natural person (living human
being).
- The certificate contains an identity based on a pseudonym or a
real name of the subject.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
For a certificate to serve the purpose of being a Qualified
Certificate, this profile assumes that the CA will have to include in
the certificate information that explicitly defines this intent.
The function of this information is thus to assist any concerned
entity in evaluating the risk associated with creating or accepting
signatures that are based on a Qualified Certificate.
This profile defines two complementary ways to include this
information:
- As information defined by a certificate policy included in the
certificate policies extension, and
- As a statement included in the Qualified Certificates Statements
extension.
Certain policy aspects define the context in which this profile is to
be understood and used. It is however outside the scope of this
profile to specify any policies or legal aspects that will govern
services that issue or utilize certificates according to this
profile.
It is however assumed that the issuing CA will undertake to follow a
publicly available certificate policy that is consistent with its
liabilities, practices and procedures.
Distinguished name is originally defined in X.501 [X.501] as a
representation of a directory name, defined as a construct that
identifies a particular object from among the set of all objects. An
object can be assigned a distinguished name without being represented
by an entry in the Directory, but this name is then the name its
object entry could have had if it were represented in the Directory.
In the context of qualified certificates, a distinguished name
denotes a set of attribute values [X.501] which forms a name that is
unambiguous within a certain domain that forms either a real or a
virtual DIT (Directory Information Tree)[X.501]. In the case of
subject names the domain is assumed to be at least the issuing domain
of the CA. The distinguished name MUST be unique for each subject
entity certified by the one CA as defined by the issuer name field,
during the whole life time of the CA.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
3 Certificate and Certificate Extensions Profile
This section defines a profile for Qualified Certificates. The
profile is based on the Internet certificate profile RFC 2459 which
in turn is based on the X.509 version 3 format. For full
implementation of this section implementers are REQUIRED to consult
the underlying formats and semantics defined in RFC 2459.
ASN.1 definitions relevant for this section that are not supplied by
RFC 2459 are supplied in Appendix A.
This specification provides additional details regarding the contents
of two fields in the basic certificate. These fields are the issuer
and subject fields.
The issuer field SHALL identify the organization responsible for
issuing the certificate. The name SHOULD be an officially registered
name of the organization.
The identity of the issuer SHALL be specified using an appropriate
subset of the following attributes:
domainComponent;
countryName;
stateOrProvinceName;
organizationName;
localityName; and
serialNumber.
Additional attributes MAY be present but they SHOULD NOT be necessary
to identify the issuing organization.
Attributes present in the issuer field SHOULD be consistent with the
laws under which the issuer operates.
A relying party MAY have to consult associated certificate policies
and/or the issuer's CPS, in order to determine the semantics of name
fields and the laws under which the issuer operates.
The subject field of a certificate compliant with this profile SHALL
contain a distinguished name of the subject (see 2.4 for definition
of distinguished name).
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
The subject field SHALL contain an appropriate subset of the
following attributes:
countryName;
commonName;
surname;
givenName;
pseudonym;
serialNumber;
organizationName;
organizationalUnitName;
stateOrProvinceName
localityName and
postalAddress.
Other attributes may be present but MUST NOT be necessary to
distinguish the subject name from other subject names within the
issuer domain.
Of these attributes, the subject field SHALL include at least one of
the following:
Choice I: commonName
Choice II: givenName
Choice III: pseudonym
The countryName attribute value specifies a general context in which
other attributes are to be understood. The country attribute does
not necessarily indicate the subject's country of citizenship or
country of residence, nor does it have to indicate the country of
issuance.
Note: Many X.500 implementations require the presence of countryName
in the DIT. In cases where the subject name, as specified in the
subject field, specifies a public X.500 directory entry, the
countryName attribute SHOULD always be present.
The commonName attribute value SHALL, when present, contain a name of
the subject. This MAY be in the subject's preferred presentation
format, or a format preferred by the CA, or some other format.
Pseudonyms, nicknames and names with spelling other than defined by
the registered name MAY be used. To understand the nature of the
name presented in commonName, complying applications MAY have to
examine present values of the givenName and surname attributes, or
the pseudonym attribute.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
Note: Many client implementations presuppose the presence of the
commonName attribute value in the subject field and use this value to
display the subject's name regardless of present givenName, surname
or pseudonym attribute values.
The surname and givenName attribute types SHALL, if present, contain
the registered name of the subject, in accordance with the laws under
which the CA prepares the certificate. These attributes SHALL be
used in the subject field if the commonName attribute is not present.
In cases where the subject only has a single name registered, the
givenName attribute SHALL be used and the surname attribute SHALL be
omitted.
The pseudonym attribute type SHALL, if present, contain a pseudonym
of the subject. Use of the pseudonym attribute MUST NOT be combined
with use of any of the attributes surname and/or givenName.
The serialNumber attribute type SHALL, when present, be used to
differentiate between names where the subject field would otherwise
be identical. This attribute has no defined semantics beyond
ensuring uniqueness of subject names. It MAY contain a number or
code assigned by the CA or an identifier assigned by a government or
civil authority. It is the CA's responsibility to ensure that the
serialNumber is sufficient to resolve any subject name collisions.
The organizationName and the organizationalUnitName attribute types
SHALL, when present, be used to store the name and relevant
information of an organization with which the subject is associated.
The type of association between the organization and the subject is
beyond the scope of this document.
The postalAddress, the stateOrProvinceName and the localityName
attribute types SHALL, when present, be used to store address and
geographical information with which the subject is associated. If an
organizationName value also is present then the postalAddress,
stateOrProvinceName and localityName attribute values SHALL be
associated with the specified organization. The type of association
between the postalAddress, stateOrProvinceName and the localityName
and either the subject or the organizationName is beyond the scope of
this document.
Compliant implementations SHALL be able to interpret the attributes
named in this section.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
This specification provides additional details regarding the contents
of five certificate extensions. These extensions are the subject
directory attributes, certificate policies, key usage, private
extension for biometric information and private extension for
Qualified Certificate statements.
The subjectDirectoryAttributes extension MAY contain additional
attributes, associated with the subject, as complement to present
information in the subject field and the subject alternative name
extension.
Attributes suitable for storage in this extension are attributes,
which are not part of the subject's distinguished name, but which MAY
still be useful for other purposes (e.g., authorization).
This extension MUST NOT be marked critical.
Compliant implementations SHALL be able to interpret the following
attributes:
title;
dateOfBirth;
placeOfBirth;
gender;
countryOfCitizenship; and
countryOfResidence.
Other attributes MAY be included according to local definitions.
The title attribute type SHALL, when present, be used to store a
designated position or function of the subject within the
organization specified by present organizational attributes in the
subject field. The association between the title, the subject and
the organization is beyond the scope of this document.
The dateOfBirth attribute SHALL, when present, contain the value of
the date of birth of the subject. The manner in which the date of
birth is associated with the subject is outside the scope of this
document.
The placeOfBirth attribute SHALL, when present, contain the value of
the place of birth of the subject. The manner in which the place of
birth is associated with the subject is outside the scope of this
document.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
The gender attribute SHALL, when present, contain the value of the
gender of the subject. For females the value "F" (or "f") and for
males the value "M" (or "m") have to be used. The manner in which
the gender is associated with the subject is outside the scope of
this document.
The countryOfCitizenship attribute SHALL, when present, contain the
identifier of at least one of the subject's claimed countries of
citizenship at the time that the certificate was issued. If the
subject is a citizen of more than one country, more than one country
MAY be present. Determination of citizenship is a matter of law and
is outside the scope of this document.
The countryOfResidence attribute SHALL, when present, contain the
value of at least one country in which the subject is resident. If
the subject is a resident of more than one country, more than one
country MAY be present. Determination of residence is a matter of
law and is outside the scope of this document.
The certificate policies extension SHALL contain the identifier of at
least one certificate policy which reflects the practices and
procedures undertaken by the CA. The certificate policy extension
MAY be marked critical.
Information provided by the issuer stating the purpose of the
certificate as discussed in Section 2.2 SHOULD be evident through
indicated policies.
The certificate policies extension SHOULD include all policy
information needed for validation of the certificate. If policy
information is included in the QCStatements extension (see 3.2.5),
then this information SHOULD also be defined by indicated policies.
Certificate policies MAY be combined with any qualifier defined in
RFC 2459.
The key usage extension SHALL be present. If the key usage
nonRepudiation bit is asserted then it SHOULD NOT be combined with
any other key usage , i.e., if set, the key usage non-repudiation
SHOULD be set exclusively.
The key usage extension MAY be marked critical.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
This section defines an extension for storage of biometric
information. Biometric information is stored in the form of a hash
of a biometric template.
The purpose of this extension is to provide means for authentication
of biometric information. The biometric information that corresponds
to the stored hash is not stored in this extension, but the extension
MAY include an URI pointing to a location where this information can
be obtained. If included, this URI does not imply that this is the
only way to access this information.
It is RECOMMENDED that biometric information in this extension is
limited to information types suitable for human verification, i.e.,
where the decision of whether the information is an accurate
representation of the subject is naturally performed by a person.
This implies a usage where the biometric information is represented
by, for example, a graphical image displayed to the relying party,
which MAY be used by the relying party to enhance identification of
the subject.
This extension MUST NOT be marked critical.
biometricInfo EXTENSION ::= {
SYNTAX BiometricSyntax
IDENTIFIED BY id-pe-biometricInfo }
id-pe-biometricInfo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-pe 2}
BiometricSyntax ::= SEQUENCE OF BiometricData
BiometricData ::= SEQUENCE {
typeOfBiometricData TypeOfBiometricData,
hashAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
biometricDataHash OCTET STRING,
sourceDataUri IA5String OPTIONAL }
TypeOfBiometricData ::= CHOICE {
predefinedBiometricType PredefinedBiometricType,
biometricDataID OBJECT IDENTIFIER }
PredefinedBiometricType ::= INTEGER { picture(0),
handwritten-signature(1)} (picture|handwritten-signature,...)
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
The predefined biometric type picture, when present, SHALL identify
that the source picture is in the form of a displayable graphical
image of the subject. The hash of the graphical image SHALL only be
calculated over the image data excluding any labels defining the
image type.
The predefined biometric type handwritten-signature, when present,
SHALL identify that the source data is in the form of a displayable
graphical image of the subject's handwritten signature. The hash of
the graphical image SHALL only be calculated over the image data
excluding any labels defining the image type.
This section defines an extension for inclusion of defined statements
related to Qualified Certificates.
A typical statement suitable for inclusion in this extension MAY be a
statement by the issuer that the certificate is issued as a Qualified
Certificate in accordance with a particular legal system (as
discussed in Section 2.2).
Other statements suitable for inclusion in this extension MAY be
statements related to the applicable legal jurisdiction within which
the certificate is issued. As an example this MAY include a maximum
reliance limit for the certificate indicating restrictions on CA's
liability.
Each statement SHALL include an object identifier for the statement
and MAY also include optional qualifying data contained in the
statementInfo parameter.
If the statementInfo parameter is included then the object identifier
of the statement SHALL define the syntax and SHOULD define the
semantics of this parameter. If the object identifier does not
define the semantics, a relying party may have to consult a relevant
certificate policy or CPS to determine the exact semantics.
This extension may be critical or non-critical. If the extension is
critical, this means that all statements included in the extension
are regarded as critical.
qcStatements EXTENSION ::= {
SYNTAX QCStatements
IDENTIFIED BY id-pe-qcStatements }
id-pe-qcStatements OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 3 }
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
QCStatements ::= SEQUENCE OF QCStatement
QCStatement ::= SEQUENCE {
statementId QC-STATEMENT.&Id({SupportedStatements}),
statementInfo QC-STATEMENT.&Type
({SupportedStatements}{@statementId}) OPTIONAL }
SupportedStatements QC-STATEMENT ::= { qcStatement-1,...}
This profile includes one predefined object identifier (id-qcs-
pkixQCSyntax-v1), identifying conformance with syntax and semantics
defined in this profile. This Qualified Certificate profile is
referred to as version 1.
qcStatement-1 QC-STATEMENT ::= { SYNTAX SemanticsInformation
IDENTIFIED BY id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v1 }
-- This statement identifies conformance with syntax and
-- semantics defined in this Qualified Certificate profile
-- (Version 1). The SemanticsInformation may optionally contain
-- additional semantics information as specified.
SemanticsInformation ::= SEQUENCE {
semanticsIdentifier OBJECT IDENTIFIER OPTIONAL,
nameRegistrationAuthorities NameRegistrationAuthorities
OPTIONAL }
(WITH COMPONENTS {..., semanticsIdentifier PRESENT}|
WITH COMPONENTS {..., nameRegistrationAuthorities PRESENT})
NameRegistrationAuthorities ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
GeneralName
The SementicsInformation component identified by id-qcs-
pkixQCSyntax-v1 MAY contain a semantics identifier and MAY identify
one or more name registration authorities.
The semanticsIdentifier component, if present, SHALL contain an OID,
defining semantics for attributes and names in basic certificate
fields and certificate extensions. The OID may define semantics for
all, or for a subgroup of all present attributes and/or names.
The NameRegistrationAuthorities component, if present, SHALL contain
a name of one or more name registration authorities, responsible for
registration of attributes or names associated with the subject. The
association between an identified name registration authority and
present attributes MAY be defined by a semantics identifier OID, by a
certificate policy (or CPS) or some other implicit factors.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
If a value of type SemanticsInformation is present in a QCStatement
then at least one of the fields semanticsIdentifier and
nameRegistrationAuthorities must be present, as indicated.
4 Security Considerations
The legal value of a digital signature that is validated with a
Qualified Certificate will be highly dependent upon the policy
governing the use of the associated private key. Both the private
key holder as well as the relying party should make sure that the
private key is used only with the consent of the legitimate key
holder.
Since the public keys are for public use with legal implications for
involved parties, certain conditions should exist before CAs issue
certificates as Qualified Certificates. The associated private keys
must be unique for the subject, and must be maintained under the
subject's sole control. That is, a CA should not issue a qualified
certificate if the means to use the private key is not protected
against unintended usage. This implies that the CA have some
knowledge about the subject's cryptographic module.
The CA must further verify that the public key contained in the
certificate is legitimately representing the subject.
CAs should not issue CA certificates with policy mapping extensions
indicating acceptance of another CA's policy unless these conditions
are met.
Combining the nonRepudiation bit in the keyUsage certificate
extension with other keyUsage bits may have security implications and
this specification therefore recommends against such practices.
The ability to compare two qualified certificates to determine if
they represent the same physical entity is dependent on the semantics
of the subjects' names. The semantics of a particular attribute may
be different for different issuers. Comparing names without
knowledge of the semantics of names in these particular certificates
may provide misleading results.
This specification is a profile of RFC 2459. The security
considerations section of that document applies to this specification
as well.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
5 References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 2247] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R. and S.
Sataluri, "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished
Names", RFC 2247, January 1998.
[RFC 2459] Housley, R., Ford, W., Polk, W. and D. Solo, "Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Certificate and CRL
Profile", RFC 2459, January 1999.
[RFC 2985] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #9: Selected Object
Classes and Attribute Types Version 2.0", RFC 2985,
November 2000.
[X.501] ITU-T Recommendation X.501: Information Technology - Open
Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Models, June
1993.
[X.509] ITU-T Recommendation X.509: Information Technology - Open
Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Authentication
Framework, June 1997.
[X.520] ITU-T Recommendation X.520: Information Technology - Open
Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Selected
Attribute Types, June 1993.
[X.680] ITU-T Recommendation X.680: Information Technology -
Abstract Syntax Notation One, 1997.
[ISO 3166] ISO Standard 3166: Codes for the representation of names
of countries, 1993.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
6 Intellectual Property Rights
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
As in RFC 2459, ASN.1 modules are supplied in two different variants
of the ASN.1 syntax.
Appendix A.1 is in the 1988 syntax, and does not use macros.
However, since the module imports type definitions from modules in
RFC 2459 which are not completely in the 1988 syntax, the same
comments as in RFC 2459 regarding its use applies here as well; i.e.,
Appendix A.1 may be parsed by an 1988 ASN.1-parser by removing the
definitions for the UNIVERSAL types and all references to them in RFC
2459's 1988 modules.
Appendix A.2 is in the 1993 syntax. However, since the module
imports type definitions from modules in RFC 2459 which are not
completely in the 1993 syntax, the same comments as in RFC 2459
regarding its use applies here as well; i.e., Appendix A.2 may be
parsed by an 1993 ASN.1-parser by removing the UTF8String choice from
the definition of DirectoryString in the module PKIX1Explicit93 in
RFC 2459. Appendix A.2 may be parsed "as is" by an 1997 ASN.1
parser, however.
In case of discrepancies between these modules, the 1988 module is
the normative one.
This document defines several new attributes, both for use in the
subject field of issued certificates and in the
subjectDirectoryAttributes extension. In the interest of conformity,
they have been defined here using the ASN.1 ATTRIBUTE definition from
RFC 2459, which is sufficient for the purposes of this document, but
greatly simplified in comparison with ISO/ITU's definition. A
complete definition of these new attributes (including matching
rules), along with object classes to support them in LDAP-accessible
directories, can be found in [PKCS 9].
This section contains the ASN.1 structure, an ASN.1 dump, and the
DER-encoding of a certificate issued in conformance with this
profile. The example has been developed with the help of the OSS
ASN.1 compiler. The certificate has the following characteristics:
1. The certificate is signed with RSA and the SHA-1 hash
algorithm
2. The issuer's distinguished name is O=GMD - Forschungszentrum
Informationstechnik GmbH; C=DE
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
3. The subject's distinguished name is CN=Petra M. Barzin, O=GMD
- Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH, C=DE
4. The certificate was issued on May 1, 2000 and will expire on
November 1, 2000
5. The certificate contains a 1024 bit RSA key
6. The certificate includes a critical key usage extension
exclusively indicating non-repudiation
7. The certificate includes a certificate policy identifier
extension indicating the practices and procedures undertaken
by the issuing CA (object identifier 1.3.36.8.1.1). The
certificate policy object identifier is defined by TeleTrust,
Germany. It is required to be set in a certificate conformant
to the German digital signature law.
8. The certificate includes a subject directory attributes
extension containing the following attributes:
surname: Barzin
given name: Petra
date of birth: October, 14th 1971
place of birth: Darmstadt
country of citizenship:Germany
gender: Female
9. The certificate includes a qualified statement private
extension indicating that the naming registration authority's
name as "municipality@darmstadt.de".
10. The certificate includes, in conformance with RFC 2459, an
authority key identifier extension.
Since extensions are DER-encoded already when placed in the structure
to be signed, they are for clarity shown here in the value notation
defined in [X.680].
This section contains the DER-encoded public RSA key of the CA who
signed the example certificate. It is included with the purpose of
simplifying verifications of the example certificate.
30818902818100ad1f35964b3674c807b9f8a645d2c8174e514b69a4b46a7382
915abbc44eccede914dae8fcc023abcea9c53380e641795cb0dda664b872fc10
9f9bbb852bf42d994f634c681608e388dce240b558513e5b60027bd1a07cef9c
9b6db37c7e1f1abd238eed96e4b669056b260f55e83f14e6027127c9deb3ad18
afcd3f8a5f5bf50203010001
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
Authors' Addresses
Stefan Santesson
AddTrust AB
P.O. Box 465
S-201 24 Malmo
Sweden
EMail: stefan@addtrust.com
Tim Polk
NIST
Building 820, Room 426
Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA
EMail: wpolk@nist.gov
Petra Barzin
SECUDE - Sicherheitstechnologie Informationssysteme GmbH
Landwehrstrasse 50a
D-64293 Darmstadt
Germany
EMail: barzin@secude.com
Magnus Nystrom
RSA Security AB
Box 10704
S-121 29 Stockholm
Sweden
EMail: magnus@rsasecurity.com
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 3039 Qualified Certificates Profile January 2001
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]