Network Working Group S. Santesson Request for Comments: 3739 Microsoft Obsoletes: 3039 M. Nystrom Category: Standards Track RSA Security T. Polk NIST March 2004
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 (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document forms a certificate profile, based on RFC 3280, for identity certificates issued to natural persons.
The profile defines specific conventions for certificates that are qualified within a defined legal framework, named Qualified Certificates. However, the profile does not define any legal requirements for such Qualified Certificates.
The goal of this document is to define a certificate profile that supports the issuance of Qualified Certificates independent of local legal requirements. The profile is however not limited to Qualified Certificates and further profiling may facilitate specific local needs.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
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 [X.509] and [RFC 3280], which defines underlying certificate formats and semantics needed for a full implementation of this standard.
This profile includes specific mechanisms intended for use with Qualified Certificates. The term Qualified Certificates and the assumptions that affect the scope of this document are discussed in Section 2.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
Section 3 defines requirements on certificate information content. This specification provides profiles for two certificate fields: issuer and subject. It also provides profiles for four certificate extensions defined in RFC 3280: subject alternate name, subject directory attributes, certificate policies, and key usage, and it defines two additional extensions: biometric information and qualified certificate statements. The certificate extensions are presented in the 1997 Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [X.680], but in conformance with RFC 3280 the 1988 ASN.1 module in Appendix A contains all normative definitions (the 1997 module in Appendix A is informative).
In Section 4, some security considerations are discussed in order to clarify the security context in which the standard may be utilized.
Appendix A contains all relevant ASN.1 structures that are not already defined in RFC 3280. Appendix B contains a note on attributes. Appendix C contains an example certificate.
The appendices sections are followed by the References, Authors Addresses, and the Full Copyright Statement.
This specification obsoletes RFC 3039. This specification differs from RFC 3039 in the following basic areas:
* Some editorial clarifications have been made to introductory sections to clarify that this profile is generally applicable to a broad type of certificates, even if its prime purpose is to facilitate issuance of Qualified Certificates.
* To align with RFC 3280, support for domainComponent and title attributes in subject names are included, and postalAddress is no longer supported.
* To align with actual usage, support for the title attribute in the subject directory attributes extension is no longer supported.
* To better facilitate broad applicability of this profile, some constraints on key usage settings in the key usage extension have been removed.
* A new qc-Statement reflecting this second version of the profile has been defined in Section 3.2.6.1. This profile obsoletes RFC 3039, but the qc-statement reflecting compliance with RFC 3039 is also defined for backwards compatibility.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
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 BCP 14, [RFC 2119].
The term "Qualified Certificate" is used by the European Directive on Electronic Signature [EU-ESDIR] to refer to a specific type of certificates, with appliance in European electronic signature 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 generally, describing a certificate whose primary purpose is to identify a person with a high level of assurance, where the certificate meets some qualification requirements defined by an applicable legal framework, such as the European Directive on Electronic Signature [EU-ESDIR]. The actual mechanisms that decide whether a certificate should or should not be considered a "Qualified Certificate" in regard to any legislation are outside the scope of this standard.
Harmonization in the field of identity certificates issued to natural persons, in particular Qualified Certificates, is essential within several aspects that fall outside the scope of RFC 3280. 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.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
This profile accommodates profiling needs for Qualified Certificates based on the assumptions that:
- Qualified Certificates are issued by a CA that makes a statement that the certificate serves the purpose of a Qualified Certificate, as discussed in Section 2.2.
- The Qualified Certificate indicates a certificate policy consistent with liabilities, practices, and procedures undertaken by the CA, as discussed in Section 2.3.
- The Qualified Certificate is issued to a natural person (living human being).
- The Qualified Certificate contains a name which may be either based on the real name of the subject or a pseudonym.
This profile defines conventions to declare within a certificate that it serves the purpose of being a Qualified Certificate. This enables the CA to explicitly define this intent.
The function of this declaration 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 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 an underlying assumption in this profile that a responsible issuing CA will undertake to follow a certificate policy that is consistent with its liabilities, practices, and procedures.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
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 a set of all objects. The distinguished name MUST be unique for each subject entity certified by the one CA as defined by the issuer name field, for the whole life time of the CA.
This section defines certificate profiling conventions. The profile is based on the Internet certificate profile RFC 3280, 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 3280.
ASN.1 definitions, relevant for this section that are not supplied by RFC 3280, are supplied in Appendix A.
This section 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 distinguished name of the issuer SHALL be specified using an appropriate subset of the following attributes:
domainComponent; countryName; stateOrProvinceName; organizationName; localityName; and serialNumber.
The domainComponent attribute is defined in [RFC 2247], all other attributes are defined in [RFC 3280] and [X.520].
Additional attributes MAY be present, but they SHOULD NOT be necessary to identify the issuing organization.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
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.
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).
The subject field SHALL contain an appropriate subset of the following attributes:
The domainComponent attribute is defined in [RFC 2247], all other attributes are defined in [RFC 3280] and [X.520].
Other attributes MAY also be present; however, the use of other attributes MUST NOT be necessary to distinguish one subject name from another subject name. That is, the attributes listed above are sufficient to ensure unique subject names.
Of these attributes, the subject field SHALL include at least one of the following:
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.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
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.
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 be used in the subject field if neither the commonName attribute nor the pseudonym attribute is present. In cases where the subject only has a givenName, 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 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 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
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
associated. The type of association between the organization and the subject is beyond the scope of this document.
The stateOrProvinceName and the localityName attribute types SHALL, when present, be used to store geographical information with which the subject is associated. If an organizationName value is also present, then the stateOrProvinceName and localityName attribute values SHALL be associated with the specified organization. The type of association between the 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.
This section provides additional details regarding the contents of four certificate extensions defined in RFC 3280: Subject Alternative Name, Subject directory attributes, Certificate policies, and Key usage. This section also defines two additional extensions: biometric information and qualified certificate statements.
If the subjectAltName extension is present, and it contains a directoryName name, then the directoryName MUST follow the conventions specified in section 3.1.2 of this profile.
The subjectDirectoryAttributes extension MAY be present and MAY contain additional attributes associated with the subject, as a 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:
dateOfBirth; placeOfBirth; gender;
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
countryOfCitizenship; and countryOfResidence.
Other attributes MAY be included according to local definitions.
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 date of birth is defined in the GeneralizedTime format and SHOULD specify GMT 12.00.00 (noon) down to the granularity of seconds, in order to prevent accidental change of date due to time zone adjustments. For example, a birth date of September 27, 1959 is encoded as "19590927120000Z". Compliant certificate parsing applications SHOULD ignore any time data and just present the contained date without any time zone adjustments.
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.
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 the certificate was issued. If more than one country of citizenship is specified, each country of citizenship SHOULD be specified through a separate, single-valued countryOfCitizenship attribute. 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 more than one country of residence is specified, each country of residence SHOULD be specified through a separate, single-valued countryOfResidence attribute. Determination of residence is a matter of law and is outside the scope of this document.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
The certificate policies extension SHALL be present and 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 MUST include all policy information needed for certification path validation. If policy related statements are included in the QCStatements extension (see 3.2.6), then these statements SHOULD also be contained in the identified policies.
Certificate policies MAY be combined with any qualifier defined in RFC 3280.
The key usage extension SHALL be present. Key usage settings SHALL be set in accordance with RFC 3280 definitions. Further requirements on key usage settings MAY be defined by local policy and/or local legal requirements.
The key usage extension SHOULD be marked critical.
This section defines an OPTIONAL 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 a means for the authentication of biometric information. The biometric information that corresponds to the stored hash is not stored in this extension, but the extension MAY include a URI (sourceDataUri) that references a file containing this information.
If included, the URI MUST use the HTTP scheme (http://) [HTTP/1.1] or the HTTPS scheme (https://) [RFC 2818]. Since the fact that identifying data is being checked may itself be sensitive information, those deploying this mechanism may also wish to consider using URIs which cannot be easily tied by outsiders to the identities of those whose information is being retrieved.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
Use of the URI option presumes that the data encoding format of the file content is determined through means outside the scope of this specification, such as file naming conventions and metadata inside the file. Use of this URI option does not imply that it is the only way to access this information.
It is RECOMMENDED that biometric information in this extension be 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 }
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 be calculated over the whole referenced image file.
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 be calculated over the whole referenced image file.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
This section defines an OPTIONAL extension for the inclusion of statements defining explicit properties of the certificate.
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 }
-- NOTE: This extension does not allow to mix critical and -- non-critical Qualified Certificate Statements. Either all -- statements must be critical or all statements must be -- non-critical.
A 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.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
The certificate statement (id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v1), identifies conformance with requirements defined in the obsoleted RFC 3039 (Version 1). This statement is thus provided for identification of old certificates issued in conformance with RFC 3039. This statement MUST NOT be included in certificates issued in accordance with this profile.
This profile includes a new qualified certificate statement (identified by the OID id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v2), identifying conformance with requirements defined in this profile. This Qualified Certificate profile is referred to as version 2, while RFC 3039 is referred to as version 1.
qcStatement-1 QC-STATEMENT ::= { SYNTAX SemanticsInformation IDENTIFIED BY id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v1 } -- This statement identifies conformance with requirements -- defined in RFC 3039 (Version 1). This statement may -- optionally contain additional semantics information as -- specified below.
qcStatement-2 QC-STATEMENT ::= { SYNTAX SemanticsInformation IDENTIFIED BY id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v2 } -- This statement identifies conformance with requirements -- defined in this Qualified Certificate profile -- (Version 2). This statement may optionally contain -- additional semantics information as specified below.
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.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
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.
If a value of type SemanticsInformation is present in a QCStatement where the statementID component is set to id-qcs-pkix-QCSyntax-v1 or id-qcs-pkix-QCSyntax-v2, then at least one of the semanticsIdentifier or nameRegistrationAuthorities fields must be present, as indicated. Note that the statementInfo component need not be present in a QCStatement value even if the statementID component is set to id- qcs-pkix-QCSyntax-v1 or id-qcs-pkix-QCSyntax-v2.
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 has 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 depending on the context in which the certificate is to be used. Applications validating electronic signatures based on such certificates should determine whether the present key usage combination is appropriate for their use.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
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 3280. The security considerations section of that document applies to this specification as well.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
As in RFC 3280, 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 3280 which are not completely in the 1988 syntax, the same comments as in RFC 3280 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 3280's 1988 modules.
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
-- QC Statements Extension -- NOTE: This extension does not allow to mix critical and -- non-critical Qualified Certificate Statements. Either all -- statements must be critical or all statements must be -- non-critical.
QCStatement ::= SEQUENCE { statementId OBJECT IDENTIFIER, statementInfo ANY DEFINED BY statementId OPTIONAL}
-- QC statements id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-qcs 1 } -- This statement identifies conformance with requirements -- defined in RFC 3039 (Version 1). This statement may -- optionally contain additional semantics information as specified -- below.
id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v2 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-qcs 2 } -- This statement identifies conformance with requirements -- defined in this Qualified Certificate profile -- (Version 2). This statement may optionally contain -- additional semantics information as specified below.
SemanticsInformation ::= SEQUENCE { semanticsIndentifier OBJECT IDENTIFIER OPTIONAL, nameRegistrationAuthorities NameRegistrationAuthorities OPTIONAL } -- At least one field shall be present
NameRegistrationAuthorities ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF GeneralName
dateOfBirth ATTRIBUTE ::= { WITH SYNTAX GeneralizedTime ID id-pda-dateOfBirth }
placeOfBirth ATTRIBUTE ::= { WITH SYNTAX DirectoryString {ub-name} ID id-pda-placeOfBirth }
gender ATTRIBUTE ::= { WITH SYNTAX PrintableString (SIZE(1) ^ FROM("M"|"F"|"m"|"f")) ID id-pda-gender }
countryOfCitizenship ATTRIBUTE ::= { WITH SYNTAX PrintableString (SIZE (2)) (CONSTRAINED BY { -- ISO 3166 codes only -- }) ID id-pda-countryOfCitizenship }
countryOfResidence ATTRIBUTE ::= { WITH SYNTAX PrintableString (SIZE (2)) (CONSTRAINED BY { -- ISO 3166 codes only -- }) ID id-pda-countryOfResidence }
-- Certificate extensions
-- Biometric info extension
biometricInfo EXTENSION ::= { SYNTAX BiometricSyntax IDENTIFIED BY id-pe-biometricInfo }
-- QC Statements Extension -- NOTE: This extension does not allow to mix critical and -- non-critical Qualified Certificate Statements. Either all -- statements must be critical or all statements must be -- non-critical.
qcStatements EXTENSION ::= { SYNTAX QCStatements IDENTIFIED BY id-pe-qcStatements }
QC-STATEMENT ::= CLASS { &id OBJECT IDENTIFIER UNIQUE, &Type OPTIONAL } WITH SYNTAX { [SYNTAX &Type] IDENTIFIED BY &id }
qcStatement-1 QC-STATEMENT ::= { SYNTAX SemanticsInformation IDENTIFIED BY id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v1} -- This statement identifies conformance with requirements -- defined in RFC 3039 (Version 1). This statement -- may optionally contain additional semantics information -- as specified below.
qcStatement-2 QC-STATEMENT ::= { SYNTAX SemanticsInformation IDENTIFIED BY id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v2} -- This statement identifies conformance with requirements -- defined in this Qualified Certificate profile -- (Version 2). This statement may optionally contain -- additional semantics information as specified below.
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
NameRegistrationAuthorities ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF GeneralName
-- The following information object set is defined to constrain the -- set of attributes applications are required to recognize as QCSs. SupportedStatements QC-STATEMENT ::= { qcStatement-1 | qcStatement-2 , ... -- For future extensions -- }
This document defines several new attributes, both for use in the subject field of issued certificates and in the subjectDirectoryAttributes extension. 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 [RFC 2985].
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 (using the syntax specified in [RFC 2253]): O=GMD - Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH, C=DE
3. The subject's distinguished name is (using the syntax specified in [RFC 2253]): GN=Petra+SN=Barzin, O=GMD - Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH, C=DE
4. The certificate was issued on 1 February, 2004 and will expire on 1 February, 2008
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
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
certificate policy object identifier is defined by TeleTrust, Germany.
8. The certificate includes a subject directory attributes extension containing the following attributes:
date of birth: October, 14th 1971 place of birth: Darmstadt country of citizenship:Germany gender: Female
9. The certificate includes a qualified statement certificate extension indicating that the naming registration authority's name is "municipality@darmstadt.de".
10. The certificate includes, in conformance with RFC 3280, 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].
The signed portion of the certificate is shown here in the value notation defined in [X.680]. Note that extension values are already DER encoded in this structure. Some values have been truncated for readability purposes.
certCertInfo CertificateInfo ::= { version v3, serialNumber 1234567890,
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
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.
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
[RFC 2985] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #9: Selected Object Classes and Attribute Types Version 2.0", RFC 2985, November 2000.
[RFC 3280] Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W. and D. Solo, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280, April 2002.
[X.509] ITU-T Recommendation X.509 (2000) | ISO/IEC 9594-8:2001, Information technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Public-key and attribute certificate frameworks
[X.520] ITU-T Recommendation X.520 (2001) | ISO/IEC 9594-6:2001, Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Selected Attribute Types, 2001.
[ISO 3166] ISO 3166-1:1997, Codes for the representation of names of countries, 1997.
[HTTP/1.1] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
Informative References
[X.501] ITU-T recommendation X.501 (2001) | ISO/IEC 9594-2:2001, Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Models, 2001.
[EU-ESDIR] Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures, 1999.
[RFC 2253] Wahl, M., Kille, S. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished Names", RFC 2253, December 1997.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
Authors' Addresses
Stefan Santesson Microsoft Denmark Tuborg Boulevard 12 DK-2900 Hellerup Denmark
EMail: stefans@microsoft.com
Tim Polk NIST Building 820, Room 426 Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA
EMail: wpolk@nist.gov
Magnus Nystrom RSA Security Box 10704 S-121 29 Stockholm Sweden
EMail: magnus@rsasecurity.com
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.