GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3739

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

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
     1.1.  Changes since RFC 3039 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
 2.  Requirements and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Policy Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4.  Uniqueness of Names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
 3.  Certificate and Certificate Extensions Profile . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Basic Certificate Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
           3.1.1.  Issuer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
           3.1.2.  Subject. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Certificate Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
           3.2.1.  Subject Alternative Name . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
           3.2.2.  Subject Directory Attributes . . . . . . . . . .  9
           3.2.3.  Certificate Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
           3.2.4.  Key Usage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
           3.2.5.  Biometric Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
           3.2.6.  Qualified Certificate Statements . . . . . . . . 13
 4.  Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 A.  ASN.1 Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     A.1.  1988 ASN.1 Module (Normative). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     A.2.  1997 ASN.1 Module (Informative). . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 B.  A Note on Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 C.  Example Certificate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     C.1.  ASN.1 Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
           C.1.1.  Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
           C.1.2.  The Certificate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     C.2.  ASN.1 Dump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     C.3.  DER-encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     C.4.  CA's Public Key. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

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
 [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.

1.1. Changes since RFC 3039

 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

1.2. Definitions

 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].

2. Requirements and Assumptions

 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:
  1. Definition of names and identity information in order to identify

the associated subject in a uniform way.

  1. Definition of information which identifies the CA and the

jurisdiction under which the CA operates when issuing a particular

    certificate.
  1. Definition of key usage extension usage for Qualified

Certificates.

  1. Definition of information structure for storage of biometric

information.

  1. Definition of a standardized way to store predefined statements

with relevance for Qualified Certificates.

  1. Requirements for critical extensions.

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

2.1. Properties

 This profile accommodates profiling needs for Qualified Certificates
 based on the assumptions that:
  1. 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.
  1. The Qualified Certificate indicates a certificate policy

consistent with liabilities, practices, and procedures undertaken

    by the CA, as discussed in Section 2.3.
  1. The Qualified Certificate is issued to a natural person (living

human being).

  1. The Qualified Certificate contains a name which may be either

based on the real name of the subject or a pseudonym.

2.2. Statement of Purpose

 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:
  1. As information defined by a certificate policy included in the

certificate policies extension, and

  1. As a statement included in the Qualified Certificates Statements

extension.

2.3. Policy Issues

 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

2.4. Uniqueness of names

 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.

3. Certificate and Certificate Extensions Profile

 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.

3.1. Basic Certificate Fields

 This section provides additional details regarding the contents of
 two fields in the basic certificate.  These fields are the issuer and
 subject fields.

3.1.1. Issuer

 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.

3.1.2. Subject

 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:
    domainComponent;
    countryName;
    commonName;
    surname;
    givenName;
    pseudonym;
    serialNumber;
    title;
    organizationName;
    organizationalUnitName;
    stateOrProvinceName; and
    localityName.
 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:
    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.

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.

3.2. Certificate Extensions

 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.

3.2.1. Subject Alternative Name

 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.

3.2.2. Subject Directory Attributes

 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

3.2.3. Certificate Policies

 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.

3.2.4. Key Usage

 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.

3.2.5. Biometric Information

 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 }
    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,...)
 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

3.2.6. Qualified Certificate Statements

 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 }
  1. - NOTE: This extension does not allow to mix critical and
  2. - non-critical Qualified Certificate Statements. Either all
  3. - statements must be critical or all statements must be
  4. - non-critical.
    id-pe-qcStatements     OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 3 }
    QCStatements ::= SEQUENCE OF QCStatement
    QCStatement ::= SEQUENCE {
        statementId   QC-STATEMENT.&Id({SupportedStatements}),
        statementInfo QC-STATEMENT.&Type
        ({SupportedStatements}{@statementId}) OPTIONAL }
    SupportedStatements QC-STATEMENT ::= { qcStatement-1,...}
 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

3.2.6.1. Predefined Statements

 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.
    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.

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.

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 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

A. ASN.1 Definitions

 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.
 Appendix A.2 is in the 1997 syntax.
 In case of discrepancies between these modules, the 1988 module is
 the normative one.

A.1. 1988 ASN.1 Module (Normative)

 PKIXqualified88 {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
     internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
     id-mod-qualified-cert(31) }
 DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::=
 BEGIN
  1. - EXPORTS ALL –
 IMPORTS
 GeneralName
     FROM PKIX1Implicit88 {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
     internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
     id-pkix1-implicit(19)}
 AlgorithmIdentifier, DirectoryString, AttributeType, id-pkix, id-pe
     FROM PKIX1Explicit88 {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
     internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
     id-pkix1-explicit(18)};
  1. - Locally defined OIDs
  1. - Arc for QC personal data attributes

id-pda OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 9 }

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

  1. - Arc for QC statements

id-qcs OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 11 }

  1. - Personal data attributes
 id-pda-dateOfBirth          AttributeType ::= { id-pda 1 }
 DateOfBirth ::=             GeneralizedTime
 id-pda-placeOfBirth         AttributeType ::= { id-pda 2 }
 PlaceOfBirth ::=            DirectoryString
 id-pda-gender               AttributeType ::= { id-pda 3 }
 Gender ::=                  PrintableString (SIZE(1))
                             -- "M", "F", "m" or "f"
 id-pda-countryOfCitizenship AttributeType ::= { id-pda 4 }
 CountryOfCitizenship ::=    PrintableString (SIZE (2))
                             -- ISO 3166 Country Code
 id-pda-countryOfResidence   AttributeType ::= { id-pda 5 }
 CountryOfResidence ::=      PrintableString (SIZE (2))
                             -- ISO 3166 Country Code
  1. - Certificate extensions
  1. - Biometric info extension
 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,
     biometricDataOid          OBJECT IDENTIFIER }
 PredefinedBiometricType ::= INTEGER {
     picture(0), handwritten-signature(1)}
     (picture|handwritten-signature)

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

  1. - QC Statements Extension
  2. - NOTE: This extension does not allow to mix critical and
  3. - non-critical Qualified Certificate Statements. Either all
  4. - statements must be critical or all statements must be
  5. - non-critical.
 id-pe-qcStatements OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 3}
 QCStatements ::= SEQUENCE OF QCStatement
 QCStatement ::= SEQUENCE {
     statementId        OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
     statementInfo      ANY DEFINED BY statementId OPTIONAL}
  1. - QC statements

id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-qcs 1 }

  1. - This statement identifies conformance with requirements
  2. - defined in RFC 3039 (Version 1). This statement may
  3. - optionally contain additional semantics information as specified
  4. - 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
 END

A.2. 1997 ASN.1 Module (Informative)

 PKIXqualified97 {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
     internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
     id-mod-qualified-cert-97(35) }
 DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::=
 BEGIN
  1. - EXPORTS ALL –

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

 IMPORTS
 informationFramework, certificateExtensions, selectedAttributeTypes,
     authenticationFramework, upperBounds, id-at
     FROM UsefulDefinitions {joint-iso-itu-t(2) ds(5) module(1)
     usefulDefinitions(0) 3 }
 ub-name
     FROM UpperBounds upperBounds
 GeneralName
     FROM CertificateExtensions certificateExtensions
 ATTRIBUTE, AttributeType
     FROM InformationFramework informationFramework
 DirectoryString
     FROM SelectedAttributeTypes selectedAttributeTypes
 AlgorithmIdentifier, Extension, EXTENSION
     FROM AuthenticationFramework authenticationFramework
 id-pkix, id-pe
     FROM PKIX1Explicit88 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
     internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
     id-pkix1-explicit(18) };
  1. - Locally defined OIDs
  1. - Arc for QC personal data attributes

id-pda OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 9 }

  1. - Arc for QC statements

id-qcs OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 11 }

  1. - Personal data attributes
 id-pda-dateOfBirth          AttributeType ::= { id-pda 1 }
 id-pda-placeOfBirth         AttributeType ::= { id-pda 2 }
 id-pda-gender               AttributeType ::= { id-pda 3 }
 id-pda-countryOfCitizenship AttributeType ::= { id-pda 4 }
 id-pda-countryOfResidence   AttributeType ::= { id-pda 5 }
  1. - Certificate extensions
 id-pe-biometricInfo         OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 2 }
 id-pe-qcStatements          OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 3 }

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

  1. - QC statements
 id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v1      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-qcs 1 }
 id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v2      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-qcs 2 }
  1. - Personal data attributes
 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 }
  1. - Certificate extensions
  1. - Biometric info extension
 biometricInfo  EXTENSION ::= {
     SYNTAX             BiometricSyntax
     IDENTIFIED BY      id-pe-biometricInfo }
 BiometricSyntax ::= SEQUENCE OF BiometricData
 BiometricData ::= SEQUENCE {
     typeOfBiometricData TypeOfBiometricData,
     hashAlgorithm       AlgorithmIdentifier,
     biometricDataHash   OCTET STRING,
     sourceDataUri       IA5String OPTIONAL,
     ... -- For future extensions -- }
 TypeOfBiometricData ::= CHOICE {
     predefinedBiometricType PredefinedBiometricType,

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 21] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

     biometricDataOid        OBJECT IDENTIFIER }
 PredefinedBiometricType ::= INTEGER {
     picture(0), handwritten-signature(1)}
     (picture|handwritten-signature,...)
  1. - QC Statements Extension
  2. - NOTE: This extension does not allow to mix critical and
  3. - non-critical Qualified Certificate Statements. Either all
  4. - statements must be critical or all statements must be
  5. - non-critical.
 qcStatements  EXTENSION ::= {
     SYNTAX        QCStatements
     IDENTIFIED BY id-pe-qcStatements }
 QCStatements ::= SEQUENCE OF QCStatement
 QCStatement ::= SEQUENCE {
     statementId   QC-STATEMENT.&id({SupportedStatements}),
     statementInfo QC-STATEMENT.&Type
     ({SupportedStatements}{@statementId}) OPTIONAL }
 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.
 SemanticsInformation ::= SEQUENCE {
     semanticsIdentifier         OBJECT IDENTIFIER OPTIONAL,
     nameRegistrationAuthorities NameRegistrationAuthorities OPTIONAL
     }(WITH COMPONENTS {..., semanticsIdentifier PRESENT}|
       WITH COMPONENTS {..., nameRegistrationAuthorities PRESENT})

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

 NameRegistrationAuthorities ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF GeneralName
  1. - The following information object set is defined to constrain the
  2. - set of attributes applications are required to recognize as QCSs.

SupportedStatements QC-STATEMENT ::= {

     qcStatement-1 |
     qcStatement-2 , ... -- For future extensions -- }
 END

B. A Note on Attributes

 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].

C. Example Certificate

 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
    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

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.

C.1. ASN.1 Structure

C.1.1. Extensions

 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].

C.1.1.1. The subjectDirectoryAttributes Extension

 certSubjDirAttrs AttributesSyntax ::= {
     {
         type id-pda-countryOfCitizenship,
         values {
             PrintableString : "DE"
         }
     },
     {
         type id-pda-gender,
         values {
             PrintableString : "F"
         }
     },
     {
         type id-pda-dateOfBirth,
         values {
             GeneralizedTime : "197110141200Z"
         }
     },
     {

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 24] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

         type id-pda-placeOfBirth,
         values {
             DirectoryString : utf8String : "Darmstadt"
         }
     }
 }

C.1.1.2. The keyUsage Extension

 certKeyUsage KeyUsage ::= {nonRepudiation}

C.1.1.3. The certificatePolicies Extension

 certCertificatePolicies CertificatePoliciesSyntax ::= {
     {
         policyIdentifier {1 3 36 8 1 1}
     }
 }

C.1.1.4. The qcStatements Extension

 certQCStatement QCStatements ::= {
     {
         statementId   id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v2,
         statementInfo SemanticsInformation : {
             nameRegistrationAuthorities {
                 rfc822Name : "municipality@darmstadt.de"
             }
         }
     }
 }

C.1.1.5. The authorityKeyIdentifier Extension

 certAKI AuthorityKeyIdentifier ::= {
     keyIdentifier '000102030405060708090A0B0C0D0E0FFEDCBA98'H
 }

C.1.2. The Certificate

 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

   signature
   {
     algorithm { 1 2 840 113549 1 1 5 },
     parameters RSAParams : NULL
   },
   issuer rdnSequence :
     {
       {
         {
           type { 2 5 4 6 },
           value PrintableString : "DE"
         }
       },
       {
         {
           type { 2 5 4 10 },
           value UTF8String :
         }
       }
     },
   validity
   {
     notBefore utcTime : "040201100000Z",
     notAfter utcTime :  "080201100000Z"
   },
   subject rdnSequence :
     {
       {
         {
           type { 2 5 4 6 },
           value PrintableString : "DE"
         }
       },
       {
         {
           type { 2 5 4 10 },
           value UTF8String :
             "GMD Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH"
         }
       },
       {
         {
           type { 2 5 4 4 },
           value UTF8String : "Barzin"
         },
         {
           type { 2 5 4 42 },
           value UTF8String : "Petra"

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 26] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

         }
       }
     },
   subjectPublicKeyInfo
   {
     algorithm
     {
       algorithm { 1 2 840 113549 1 1 1 },
       parameters RSAParams : NULL
     },
     subjectPublicKey '30818902818100DCE74CD5...0203010001'H
   },
   extensions
   {
     {
       extnId { 2 5 29 9 },  -- subjectDirectoryAttributes
       extnValue '305B301006082B0601050507090...7374616474'H
     },
     {
       extnId { 2 5 29 15 }, -- keyUsage
       critical TRUE,
       extnValue '03020640'H
     },
     {
       extnId { 2 5 29 32 }, -- certificatePolicies
       extnValue '3009300706052B24080101'H
     },
     {
       extnId { 2 5 29 35 }, -- authorityKeyIdentifier
       extnValue '30168014000102030405060708090A0B0C0D0E0FFEDCBA98'H
     },
     {
       extnId { 1 3 6 1 5 5 7 1 3 }, -- qcStatements
       extnValue '302B302906082B06010505070B0...4742E6465 'H
     }
   }
 }

C.2. ASN.1 Dump

 This section contains an ASN.1 dump of the signed portion of the
 certificate.  Some values have been truncated for readability
 purposes.

CertificateInfo SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16] constructed; length = 633

version : tag = [0] constructed; length = 3
  Version INTEGER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 2] primitive; length = 1
    2

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 27] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

serialNumber CertificateSerialNumber INTEGER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 2]
primitive; length = 4
  1234567890
signature AlgorithmIdentifier SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
constructed; length = 13
  algorithm OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
  primitive; length = 9
    { 1 2 840 113549 1 1 5 }
  parameters OpenType
    NULL
issuer Name CHOICE
  rdnSequence RDNSequence SEQUENCE OF: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
  constructed; length = 72
    RelativeDistinguishedName SET OF: tag = [UNIVERSAL 17]
    constructed; length = 11
      AttributeTypeAndValue SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
      constructed; length = 9
        type OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
        primitive; length = 3
          { 2 5 4 6 } -- id-at-countryName
        value PrintableString
          "DE"
    RelativeDistinguishedName SET OF: tag = [UNIVERSAL 17]
    constructed; length = 57
      AttributeTypeAndValue SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
      constructed; length = 55
        type OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
        primitive; length = 3
          { 2 5 4 10 } -- id-at-organizationName
        value UTF8String
          "GMD Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH"
validity Validity SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
constructed; length = 30
  notBefore Time CHOICE
    utcTime UTCTime: tag = [UNIVERSAL 23] primitive; length = 13
      040201100000Z
  notAfter Time CHOICE
    utcTime UTCTime: tag = [UNIVERSAL 23] primitive; length = 13
      080201100000Z
subject Name CHOICE
  rdnSequence RDNSequence SEQUENCE OF: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
  constructed; length = 101
    RelativeDistinguishedName SET OF: tag = [UNIVERSAL 17]
    constructed; length = 11
      AttributeTypeAndValue SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
      constructed; length = 9
        type OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
        primitive; length = 3

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 28] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

          { 2 5 4 6 } -- id-at-countryName
        value PrintableString
          "DE"
    RelativeDistinguishedName SET OF: tag = [UNIVERSAL 17]
    constructed; length = 55
      AttributeTypeAndValue SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
      constructed; length = 53
        type OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
        primitive; length = 3
          { 2 5 4 10 } -- id-at-organizationName
        value UTF8String
          "GMD Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH"
    RelativeDistinguishedName SET OF: tag = [UNIVERSAL 17]
    constructed; length = 29
      AttributeTypeAndValue SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
      constructed; length = 13
        type OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
        primitive; length = 3
          { 2 5 4 4 } -- id-at-surname
        value UTF8String
          "Barzin"
      AttributeTypeAndValue SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
      constructed; length = 12
        type OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
        primitive; length = 3
          { 2 5 4 42 } -- id-at-givenName
        value UTF8String
          "Petra"
subjectPublicKeyInfo SubjectPublicKeyInfo SEQUENCE:
tag = [UNIVERSAL 16] constructed; length = 159
  algorithm AlgorithmIdentifier SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
  constructed; length = 13
    algorithm OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
    primitive; length = 9
      { 1 2 840 113549 1 1 1 } -- rsaEncryption
    parameters OpenType
      NULL
  subjectPublicKey BIT STRING: tag = [UNIVERSAL 3]
  primitive; length = 141
    0x0030818902818100dce74cd5a1d55aeb01cf5ecc20f3c3fca787...
extensions : tag = [3] constructed; length = 233
  Extensions SEQUENCE OF: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
  constructed; length = 230
    Extension SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
    constructed; length = 100
      extnId OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
      primitive; length = 3
        { 2 5 29 9 } -- id-ce-subjectDirectoryAttributes

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 29] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

      extnValue OCTET STRING: tag = [UNIVERSAL 4]
      primitive; length = 93
        0x305b301006082b06010505070904310413024445300f06082...
    Extension SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
    constructed; length = 14
      extnId OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
        primitive; length = 3
        { 2 5 29 15 } -- id-ce-keyUsage
      critical BOOLEAN: tag = [UNIVERSAL 1] primitive; length = 1
        TRUE
      extnValue OCTET STRING: tag = [UNIVERSAL 4]
      primitive; length = 4
        0x03020640
    Extension SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
    constructed; length = 18
      extnId OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
      primitive; length = 3
        { 2 5 29 32 } -- id-ce-certificatePolicies
      extnValue OCTET STRING: tag = [UNIVERSAL 4]
      primitive; length = 11
        0x3009300706052b24080101
    Extension SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
    constructed; length = 31
      extnId OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
      primitive; length = 3
        { 2 5 29 35 } -- id-ce-authorityKeyIdentifier
      extnValue OCTET STRING: tag = [UNIVERSAL 4]
      primitive; length = 24
        0x30168014000102030405060708090a0b0c0d0e0ffedcba98
    Extension SEQUENCE: tag = [UNIVERSAL 16]
    constructed; length = 57
      extnId OBJECT IDENTIFIER: tag = [UNIVERSAL 6]
      primitive; length = 8
        { 1 3 6 1 5 5 7 1 3 } -- id-pe-qcStatements
      extnValue OCTET STRING: tag = [UNIVERSAL 4]
      primitive; length = 45
        0x302b302906082b06010505070b02301d301b81196d756e696...

C.3 DER-encoding

 This section contains the full, DER-encoded certificate, in hex.

30820310 30820279 A0030201 02020449 9602D230 0D06092A 864886F7 0D010105 05003048 310B3009 06035504 06130244 45313930 37060355 040A0C30 474D4420 2D20466F 72736368 756E6773 7A656E74 72756D20 496E666F 726D6174 696F6E73 74656368 6E696B20 476D6248 301E170D 30343032 30313130 30303030 5A170D30 38303230 31313030 3030305A 3065310B 30090603 55040613 02444531 37303506 0355040A 0C2E474D 4420466F 72736368 756E6773 7A656E74 72756D20 496E666F

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 30] RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004

726D6174 696F6E73 74656368 6E696B20 476D6248 311D300C 06035504 2A0C0550 65747261 300D0603 5504040C 06426172 7A696E30 819F300D 06092A86 4886F70D 01010105 0003818D 00308189 02818100 DCE74CD5 A1D55AEB 01CF5ECC 20F3C3FC A787CFCB 571A21AA 8A20AD5D FF015130 DE724E5E D3F95392 E7BB16C4 A71D0F31 B3A9926A 8F08EA00 FDC3A8F2 BB016DEC A3B9411B A2599A2A 8CB655C6 DFEA25BF EDDC73B5 94FAA0EF E595C612 A6AE5B8C 7F0CA19C EC4FE7AB 60546768 4BB2387D 5F2F7EBD BC3EF0A6 04F6B404 01176925 02030100 01A381E9 3081E630 64060355 1D09045D 305B3010 06082B06 01050507 09043104 13024445 300F0608 2B060105 05070903 31031301 46301D06 082B0601 05050709 01311118 0F313937 31313031 34313230 3030305A 30170608 2B060105 05070902 310B0C09 4461726D 73746164 74300E06 03551D0F 0101FF04 04030206 40301206 03551D20 040B3009 30070605 2B240801 01301F06 03551D23 04183016 80140001 02030405 06070809 0A0B0C0D 0E0FFEDC BA983039 06082B06 01050507 0103042D 302B3029 06082B06 01050507 0B02301D 301B8119 6D756E69 63697061 6C697479 40646172 6D737461 64742E64 65300D06 092A8648 86F70D01 01050500 03818100 8F8C80BB B2D86B75 F4E21F82 EFE0F20F 6C558890 A6E73118 8359B9C7 8CE71C92 0C66C600 53FBC924 825090F2 95B08826 EAF3FF1F 5917C80B B4836129 CFE5563E 78592B5B B0F9ACB5 2915F0F2 BC36991F 21436520 E9064761 D932D871 F71FFEBD AD648FA7 CF3C1BC0 96F112D4 B882B39F E1A16A90 AE1A80B8 A9676518 B5AA7E97

C.4. CA's Public RSA Key

 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.
 30818902818100c88f4bdb66f713ba3dd7a9069880e888d4321acb53cda7fcdf
 da89b834e25430b956d46a438baa6798035af30db378424e00a8296b012b1b24
 f9cf0b3f83be116cd8a36957dc3f54cbd7c58a10c380b3dfa15bd2922ea8660f
 96e1603d81357c0442ad607c5161d083d919fd5307c1c3fa6dfead0e6410999e
 8b8a8411d525dd0203010001

References

Normative 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 2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 31] 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.
 [X.680]    ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002),
            Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One,
            2002.
 [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.

Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3739.txt · Last modified: 2004/03/12 19:32 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki