path: root/doc/rfc/rfc5698.txt

Network Working Group                                            T. Kunz
Request for Comments: 5698                                Fraunhofer SIT
Category: Standards Track                                     S. Okunick
                                                    pawisda systems GmbH
                                                             U. Pordesch
                                                 Fraunhofer Gesellschaft
                                                           November 2009


              Data Structure for the Security Suitability
                   of Cryptographic Algorithms (DSSC)

Abstract

   Since cryptographic algorithms can become weak over the years, it is
   necessary to evaluate their security suitability.  When signing or
   verifying data, or when encrypting or decrypting data, these
   evaluations must be considered.  This document specifies a data
   structure that enables an automated analysis of the security
   suitability of a given cryptographic algorithm at a given point of
   time, which may be in the past, the present, or the future.

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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the BSD License.







Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.








































Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................4
      1.1. Motivation .................................................4
      1.2. Terminology ................................................5
           1.2.1. Conventions Used in This Document ...................5
      1.3. Use Cases ..................................................5
   2. Requirements and Assumptions ....................................5
      2.1. Requirements ...............................................6
      2.2. Assumptions ................................................6
   3. Data Structures .................................................7
      3.1. SecuritySuitabilityPolicy ..................................7
      3.2. PolicyName .................................................8
      3.3. Publisher ..................................................9
      3.4. PolicyIssueDate ............................................9
      3.5. NextUpdate .................................................9
      3.6. Usage ......................................................9
      3.7. Algorithm ..................................................9
      3.8. AlgorithmIdentifier .......................................10
      3.9. Evaluation ................................................10
      3.10. Parameter ................................................11
      3.11. Validity .................................................12
      3.12. Information ..............................................12
      3.13. Signature ................................................12
   4. DSSC Policies ..................................................13
   5. Definition of Parameters .......................................13
   6. Processing .....................................................14
      6.1. Inputs ....................................................14
      6.2. Verify Policy .............................................14
      6.3. Algorithm Evaluation ......................................15
      6.4. Evaluation of Parameters ..................................15
      6.5. Output ....................................................16
   7. Security Considerations ........................................16
   8. IANA Considerations ............................................18
   9. References .....................................................23
      9.1. Normative References ......................................23
      9.2. Informative References ....................................24
   Appendix A.  DSSC and ERS .........................................27
     A.1.  Verification of Evidence Records Using DSSC
           (Informative) .............................................27
     A.2.  Storing DSSC Policies in Evidence Records (Normative) .....27
   Appendix B.  XML Schema (Normative) ...............................28
   Appendix C.  ASN.1 Module in 1988 Syntax (Informative) ............30
   Appendix D.  ASN.1 Module in 1997 Syntax (Normative) ..............32
   Appendix E.  Example ..............................................34






Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


1.  Introduction

1.1.  Motivation

   Digital signatures can provide data integrity and authentication.
   They are based on cryptographic algorithms that are required to have
   certain security properties.  For example, hash algorithms must be
   resistant to collisions, and in case of public key algorithms,
   computation of the private key that corresponds to a given public key
   must be infeasible.  If algorithms lack the required properties,
   signatures could be forged, unless they are protected by a strong
   cryptographic algorithm.

   Cryptographic algorithms that are used in signatures shall be
   selected to resist such attacks during their period of use.  For
   signature keys included in public key certificates, this period of
   use is the validity period of the certificate.  Cryptographic
   algorithms that are used for encryption shall resist such attacks
   during the period it is planned to keep the information confidential.

   Only very few algorithms satisfy the security requirements.  Besides,
   because of the increasing performance of computers and progresses in
   cryptography, algorithms or their parameters become insecure over the
   years.  The hash algorithm MD5, for example, is unsuitable today for
   many purposes.  A digital signature using a "weak" algorithm has no
   probative value, unless the "weak" algorithm has been protected by a
   strong algorithm before the time it was considered to be weak.  Many
   kinds of digital signed data (including signed documents, timestamps,
   certificates, and revocation lists) are affected, particularly in the
   case of long-term archiving.  Over long periods of time, it is
   assumed that the algorithms used in signatures become insecure.

   For this reason, it is important to periodically evaluate an
   algorithm's fitness and to consider the results of these evaluations
   when creating and verifying signatures, or when maintaining the
   validity of signatures made in the past.  One result is a projected
   validity period for the algorithm, i.e., a prediction of the period
   of time during which the algorithm is fit for use.  This prediction
   can help to detect whether a weak algorithm is used in a signature
   and whether that signature has been properly protected in due time by
   another signature made using an algorithm that is suitable at the
   present point of time.  Algorithm evaluations are made by expert
   committees.  In Germany, the Federal Network Agency annually
   publishes evaluations of cryptographic algorithms [BNetzAg.2008].
   Examples of other European and international evaluations are
   [ETSI-TS102176-1-2005] and [NIST.800-57-Part1.2006].





Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   These evaluations are published in documents intended to be read by
   humans.  Therefore, to enable automated processing, it is necessary
   to define a data structure that expresses the content of the
   evaluations.  This standardized data structure can be used for
   publication and can be interpreted by signature generation and
   verification tools.  Algorithm evaluations are pooled in a security
   suitability policy.  In this document, a data structure for a
   security suitability policy is specified.  Therefore, the document
   provides a framework for expressing evaluations of cryptographic
   algorithms.  This document does not attempt to catalog the security
   properties of cryptographic algorithms.  Furthermore, no guidelines
   are made about which kind of algorithms shall be evaluated, for
   example, security suitability policies may be used to evaluate public
   key and hash algorithms, signature schemes, and encryption schemes.

1.2.  Terminology

   Algorithm:  A cryptographic algorithm, i.e., a public key or hash
      algorithm.  For public key algorithms, this is the algorithm with
      its parameters, if any.  Furthermore, the term "algorithm" is used
      for cryptographic schemes and for actually padding functions.

   Operator:  Instance that uses and interprets a policy, e.g., a
      signature-verification component.

   Policy:  An abbreviation for security suitability policy.

   Publisher:  Instance that publishes the policy containing the
      evaluation of algorithms.

   Security suitability policy:  The evaluation of cryptographic
      algorithms with regard to their security in a specific application
      area, e.g., signing or verifying data.  The evaluation is
      published in an electronic format.

   Suitable algorithm:  An algorithm that is evaluated against a policy
      and determined to be valid, i.e., resistant against attacks, at a
      particular point of time.

1.2.1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   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 [RFC2119].







Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


1.3.  Use Cases

   Some use cases for a security suitability policy are presented here.

   Long-term archiving:  The most important use case is long-term
      archiving of signed data.  Algorithms or their parameters become
      insecure over long periods of time.  Therefore, signatures of
      archived data and timestamps have to be periodically renewed.  A
      policy provides information about suitable and threatened
      algorithms.  Additionally, the policy assists in verifying
      archived as well as re-signed documents.

   Services:  Services may provide information about cryptographic
      algorithms.  On the basis of a policy, a service is able to
      provide the date when an algorithm became insecure or presumably
      will become insecure, as well as information regarding which
      algorithms are presently valid.  Verification tools or long-term
      archiving systems can request such services and therefore do not
      need to deal with the algorithm security by themselves.

      Long-term Archive Services (LTA) as defined in [RFC4810] may use
      the policy for signature renewal.

   Signing and verifying:  When signing documents or certificates, it
      must be assured that the algorithms used for signing or verifying
      are suitable.  Accordingly, when verifying Cryptographic Message
      Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] or XML signatures ([RFC3275],
      [ETSI-TS101903]), not only the validity of the certificates but
      also the validity of all involved algorithms may be checked.

   Re-encryption:  A security suitability policy can also be used to
      decide if encrypted documents must be re-encrypted because the
      encryption algorithm is no longer secure.

2.  Requirements and Assumptions

   Section 2.1 describes general requirements for a data structure
   containing the security suitability of algorithms.  In Section 2.2,
   assumptions are specified concerning both the design and the usage of
   the data structure.

   A policy contains a list of algorithms that have been evaluated by a
   publisher.  An algorithm evaluation is described by its identifier,
   security constraints, and validity period.  By these constraints, the
   requirements for algorithm properties must be defined, e.g., a public
   key algorithm is evaluated on the basis of its parameters.





Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


2.1.  Requirements

   Automatic interpretation:  The data structure of the policy must
      allow automated evaluation of the security suitability of an
      algorithm.

   Flexibility:  The data structure must be flexible enough to support
      new algorithms.  Future policy publications may include
      evaluations of algorithms that are currently unknown.  It must be
      possible to add new algorithms with the corresponding security
      constraints in the data structure.  Additionally, the data
      structure must be independent of the intended use, e.g.,
      encryption, signing, verifying, and signature renewing.  Thus, the
      data structure is usable in every use case.

   Source authentication:  Policies may be published by different
      institutions, e.g., on the national or European Union (EU) level,
      whereas one policy needs not to be in agreement with the other
      one.  Furthermore, organizations may undertake their own
      evaluations for internal purposes.  For this reason a policy must
      be attributable to its publisher.

   Integrity and authenticity:  It must be possible to assure the
      integrity and authenticity of a published security suitability
      policy.  Additionally, the date of issue must be identifiable.

2.2.  Assumptions

   It is assumed that a policy contains the evaluations of all currently
   known algorithms, including the expired ones.

   An algorithm is suitable at a time of interest if it is contained in
   the current policy and the time of interest is within the validity
   period.  Additionally, if the algorithm has any parameters, these
   parameters must meet the requirements defined in the security
   constraints.

   If an algorithm appears in a policy for the first time, it may be
   assumed that the algorithm has already been suitable in the past.
   Generally, algorithms are used in practice prior to evaluation.

   To avoid inconsistencies, multiple instances of the same algorithm
   are prohibited.  The publisher must take care to prevent conflicts
   within a policy.

   Assertions made in the policy are suitable at least until the next
   policy is published.




Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   Publishers may extend the lifetime of an algorithm prior to reaching
   the end of the algorithm's validity period by publishing a revised
   policy.  Publishers should not resurrect algorithms that are expired
   at the time a revised policy is published.

3.  Data Structures

   This section describes the syntax of a security suitability policy
   defined as an XML schema [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028].  ASN.1
   modules are defined in Appendix C and Appendix D.  The schema uses
   the following XML namespace [W3C.REC-xml-names-20060816]:

      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dssc

   Within this document, the prefix "dssc" is used for this namespace.
   The schema starts with the following schema definition:

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
              xmlns:dssc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dssc"
              xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
              targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dssc"
              elementFormDefault="qualified"
              attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
   <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
              schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2001/xml.xsd"/>
   <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
              schemaLocation="xmldsig-core-schema.xsd"/>

3.1.  SecuritySuitabilityPolicy

   The SecuritySuitabilityPolicy element is the root element of a
   policy.  It has an optional id attribute, which MUST be used as a
   reference when signing the policy (Section 3.13).  The optional lang
   attribute defines the language according to [RFC5646].  The language
   is applied to all human-readable text within the policy.  If the lang
   attribute is omitted, the default language is English ("en").  The
   element is defined by the following schema:













Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   <xs:element name="SecuritySuitabilityPolicy"
               type="dssc:SecuritySuitabilityPolicyType"/>
   <xs:complexType name="SecuritySuitabilityPolicyType">
     <xs:sequence>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:PolicyName"/>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:Publisher"/>
       <xs:element name="PolicyIssueDate" type="xs:dateTime"/>
       <xs:element name="NextUpdate" type="xs:dateTime" minOccurs="0"/>
       <xs:element name="Usage" type="xs:string" minOccurs="0"/>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:Algorithm" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
       <xs:element ref="ds:Signature" minOccurs="0"/>
     </xs:sequence>
     <xs:attribute name="version" type="xs:string" default="1"/>
     <xs:attribute name="lang" default="en"/>
     <xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:ID"/>
   </xs:complexType>

3.2.  PolicyName

   The PolicyName element contains an arbitrary name for the policy.
   The optional elements Object Identifier (OID) and Uniform Resource
   Identifier (URI) MAY be used for the identification of the policy.
   OIDs MUST be expressed in the dot notation.

   <xs:element name="PolicyName" type="dssc:PolicyNameType"/>
   <xs:complexType name="PolicyNameType">
     <xs:sequence>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:Name"/>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:ObjectIdentifier" minOccurs="0"/>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:URI" minOccurs="0"/>
     </xs:sequence>
   </xs:complexType>

   <xs:element name="Name" type="xs:string"/>
   <xs:element name="ObjectIdentifier">
     <xs:simpleType>
       <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
         <xs:pattern value="(\d+\.)+\d+"/>
       </xs:restriction>
     </xs:simpleType>
   </xs:element>
   <xs:element name="URI" type="xs:anyURI"/>









Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


3.3.  Publisher

   The Publisher element contains information about the publisher of the
   policy.  It is composed of the name (e.g., name of institution), an
   optional address, and an optional URI.  The Address element contains
   arbitrary free-format text not intended for automatic processing.

   <xs:element name="Publisher" type="dssc:PublisherType"/>
   <xs:complexType name="PublisherType">
     <xs:sequence>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:Name"/>
       <xs:element name="Address" type="xs:string" minOccurs="0"/>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:URI" minOccurs="0"/>
     </xs:sequence>
   </xs:complexType>

3.4.  PolicyIssueDate

   The PolicyIssueDate element indicates the point of time when the
   policy was issued.

3.5.  NextUpdate

   The optional NextUpdate element MAY be used to indicate when the next
   policy will be issued.

3.6.  Usage

   The optional Usage element determines the intended use of the policy
   (e.g., certificate validation, signing and verifying documents).  The
   element contains free-format text intended only for human
   readability.

3.7.  Algorithm

   A security suitability policy MUST contain at least one Algorithm
   element.  An algorithm is identified by an AlgorithmIdentifier
   element.  Additionally, the Algorithm element contains all
   evaluations of the specific cryptographic algorithm.  More than one
   evaluation may be necessary if the evaluation depends on the
   parameter constraints.  The optional Information element MAY be used
   to provide additional information like references on algorithm
   specifications.  In order to give the option to extend the Algorithm
   element, it additionally contains a wildcard.  The Algorithm element
   is defined by the following schema:






Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   <xs:element name="Algorithm" type="dssc:AlgorithmType"/>
   <xs:complexType name="AlgorithmType">
     <xs:sequence>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:AlgorithmIdentifier"/>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:Evaluation" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:Information" minOccurs="0"/>
       <xs:any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0"/>
     </xs:sequence>
   </xs:complexType>

3.8.  AlgorithmIdentifier

   The AlgorithmIdentifier element is used to identify a cryptographic
   algorithm.  It consists of the algorithm name, at least one OID, and
   optional URIs.  The algorithm name is not intended to be parsed by
   automatic processes.  It is only intended to be read by humans.  The
   OID MUST be expressed in dot notation (e.g., "1.3.14.3.2.26").  The
   element is defined as follows:

   <xs:element name="AlgorithmIdentifier"
               type="dssc:AlgorithmIdentifierType"/>
   <xs:complexType name="AlgorithmIdentifierType">
     <xs:sequence>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:Name"/>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:ObjectIdentifier" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:URI" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
     </xs:sequence>
   </xs:complexType>

3.9.  Evaluation

   The Evaluation element contains the evaluation of one cryptographic
   algorithm in dependence of its parameter constraints.  For example,
   the suitability of the RSA algorithm depends on the modulus length
   (RSA with a modulus length of 1024 may have another suitability
   period as RSA with a modulus length of 2048).  Current hash
   algorithms like SHA-1 or RIPEMD-160 do not have any parameters.
   Therefore, the Parameter element is optional.  The suitability of the
   algorithm is expressed by a validity period, which is defined by the
   Validity element.  An optional wildcard MAY be used to extend the
   Evaluation element.










Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   <xs:element name="Evaluation" type="dssc:EvaluationType"/>
   <xs:complexType name="EvaluationType">
     <xs:sequence>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:Parameter" minOccurs="0"
                                        maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
       <xs:element ref="dssc:Validity"/>
       <xs:any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0"/>
     </xs:sequence>
   </xs:complexType>

3.10.  Parameter

   The Parameter element is used to express constraints on algorithm-
   specific parameters.

   The Parameter element has a name attribute, which holds the name of
   the parameter (e.g., "moduluslength" for RSA [RFC3447]).  Section 5
   defines parameter names for currently known public key algorithms;
   these parameter names SHOULD be used.  For the actual parameter, a
   range of values or an exact value may be defined.  These constraints
   are expressed by the following elements:

   Min:  The Min element defines the minimum value of the parameter.
      That means values equal or greater than the given value meet the
      requirements.

   Max:  The Max element defines the maximum value the parameter may
      take.

   At least one of both elements MUST be set to define a range of
   values.  A range MAY also be specified by a combination of both
   elements, whereas the value of the Min element MUST be less than or
   equal to the value of the Max element.  The parameter may have any
   value within the defined range, including the minimum and maximum
   values.  An exact value is expressed by using the same value in both
   the Min and the Max element.

   These constraints are sufficient for all current algorithms.  If
   future algorithms need constraints that cannot be expressed by the
   elements above, an arbitrary XML structure MAY be inserted that meets
   the new constraints.  For this reason, the Parameter element contains
   a wildcard.  A parameter MUST contain at least one constraint.  The
   schema for the Parameter element is as follows:








Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   <xs:element name="Parameter" type="dssc:ParameterType"/>
   <xs:complexType name="ParameterType">
     <xs:sequence>
       <xs:element name="Min" type="xs:int" minOccurs="0"/>
       <xs:element name="Max" type="xs:int" minOccurs="0"/>
       <xs:any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0"/>
     </xs:sequence>
     <xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" use="required"/>
   </xs:complexType>


3.11.  Validity

   The Validity element is used to define the period of the (predicted)
   suitability of the algorithm.  It is composed of an optional start
   date and an optional end date.  Defining no end date means the
   algorithm has an open-end validity.  Of course, this may be
   restricted by a future policy that sets an end date for the
   algorithm.  If the end of the validity period is in the past, the
   algorithm was suitable until that end date.  The element is defined
   by the following schema:

   <xs:element name="Validity" type="dssc:ValidityType"/>
   <xs:complexType name="ValidityType">
     <xs:sequence>
       <xs:element name="Start" type="xs:date" minOccurs="0"/>
       <xs:element name="End" type="xs:date" minOccurs="0"/>
     </xs:sequence>
   </xs:complexType>

3.12.  Information

   The Information element MAY be used to give additional textual
   information about the algorithm or the evaluation, e.g., references
   on algorithm specifications.  The element is defined as follows:

   <xs:element name="Information" type="dssc:InformationType"/>
   <xs:complexType name="InformationType">
     <xs:sequence>
       <xs:element name="Text" type="xs:string" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
     </xs:sequence>
   </xs:complexType>









Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 13]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


3.13.  Signature

   The optional Signature element MAY be used to guarantee the integrity
   and authenticity of the policy.  It is an XML signature specified in
   [RFC3275].  The signature MUST relate to the
   SecuritySuitabilityPolicy element.  If the Signature element is set,
   the SecuritySuitabilityPolicy element MUST have the optional id
   attribute.  This attribute MUST be used to reference the
   SecuritySuitabilityPolicy element within the Signature element.
   Since it is an enveloped signature, the signature MUST use the
   transformation algorithm identified by the following URI:

      http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#enveloped-signature

4.  DSSC Policies

   DSSC policies MUST be expressed either in XML or ASN.1.  However, in
   order to reach interoperability, DSSC policies SHOULD be published in
   both XML and ASN.1.

   In the case of XML, a DSSC policy is an XML document that MUST be
   well-formed and SHOULD be valid.  XML-encoded DSSC policies MUST be
   based on XML 1.0 [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] and MUST be encoded using
   UTF-8 [RFC3629].  This specification makes use of XML namespaces
   [W3C.REC-xml-names-20060816] for identifying DSSC policies.  The
   namespace URI for elements defined by this specification is a URN
   [RFC2141] using the namespace prefix "dssc".  This URN is:

      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dssc

   XML-encoded DSSC policies are identified with the MIME type
   "application/dssc+xml" and are instances of the XML schema
   [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] defined in Appendix B.

   A file containing a DSSC policy in ASN.1 representation (for
   specification of ASN.1 refer to [CCITT.x208.1988], [CCITT.x209.1988],
   [CCITT.x680.2002] and [CCITT.x690.2002]) MUST contain only the DER
   encoding of one DSSC policy, i.e., there MUST NOT be extraneous
   header or trailer information in the file.  ASN.1-based DSSC policies
   are identified with the MIME type "application/dssc+der".
   Appropriate ASN.1 modules are defined in Appendices C (1988-ASN.1
   syntax) and D (1997-ASN.1 syntax).









Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 14]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


5.  Definition of Parameters

   This section defines the parameter names for the currently known
   public key algorithms.  The following parameters also refer to
   cryptographic schemes based on these public key algorithms (e.g., the
   PKCS#1 v1.5 signature scheme SHA-256 with RSA [RFC3447]).

      The parameter of RSA [RFC3447] SHOULD be named "moduluslength".

      The parameters for the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA)
      [FIPS186-2] SHOULD be "plength" and "qlength".

   These parameter names have been registered by IANA (see Section 8).
   It may be necessary to register further algorithms not given in this
   section (in particular, future algorithms).  The process for
   registering parameter names of further algorithms is described in
   Section 8.  Publishers of policies SHOULD use these parameter names
   so that the correct interpretation is guaranteed.

6.  Processing

   Evaluation of an algorithm's security suitability is described in
   three parts: verification of the policy, determination of algorithm
   validity, and evaluation of algorithm parameters, if any.

   In the following sections, a process is described

   o  to determine if an algorithm was suitable at a particular point of
      time, and

   o  to determine until what time an algorithm was or will be suitable.

6.1.  Inputs

   To determine the security suitability of an algorithm, the following
   information is required:

   o  Policy

   o  Current time

   o  Algorithm identifier and parameter constraints (if associated)

   o  Time of interest (optional).  Providing no time of interest means
      determination of the validity end date of the algorithm.






Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 15]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


6.2.  Verify Policy

   The signature on the policy SHOULD be verified and a certification
   path from the policy signer's certificate to a current trust anchor
   SHOULD be constructed and validated [RFC5280].  The algorithms used
   to verify the digital signature and validate the certification path
   MUST be suitable per the contents of the policy being verified.  If
   signature verification fails, certification path validation fails or
   an unsuitable algorithm is required to perform these checks, then the
   policy MUST be rejected.

   The nextUpdate time in the policy MUST be either greater than the
   current time or absent.  If the nextUpdate time is less than the
   current time, the policy MUST be rejected.

6.3.  Algorithm Evaluation

   To determine the validity period of an algorithm, locate the
   Algorithm element in the policy that corresponds to the algorithm
   identifier provided as input.  The Algorithm element is located by
   comparing the OID in the element to the OID included in the algorithm
   identifier provided as input.

   If no matching Algorithm element is found, then the algorithm is
   unknown.

   If the time of interest was provided as input, the validity of each
   Evaluation element MUST be checked in order to determine if the
   algorithm was suitable at the time of interest.  For each Evaluation
   element:

   o  Confirm the Start time is either less than the time of interest or
      absent.  Discard the entry if the Start time is present and
      greater than the time of interest.

   o  Confirm the End time is either greater than the time of interest
      or absent.  Discard the entry if the End time is present and less
      than the time of interest.

   If all Evaluation elements were rejected, the algorithm is not
   suitable according to the policy.

   Any entries not rejected will be used for the evaluation of the
   parameters, if any.







Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 16]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


6.4.  Evaluation of Parameters

   Any necessary parameters of the entries not rejected MUST be
   evaluated within the context of the type and usage of the algorithm.
   Details of parameter evaluation are defined on a per-algorithm basis.

   To evaluate the parameters, the Parameter elements of each Evaluation
   element that has not been rejected in the process described in
   Section 6.3 MUST be checked.  For each Parameter element:

   o  Confirm that the parameter was provided as input.  Discard the
      Evaluation element if the parameter does not match to any of the
      parameters provided as input.

   o  If the Parameter element has a Min element, confirm that the
      parameter value is less than or equal to the corresponding
      parameter provided as input.  Discard the Evaluation element if
      the parameter value does not meet the constraint.

   o  If the Parameter element has a Max element, confirm that the
      parameter value is greater than or equal to the corresponding
      parameter provided as input.  Discard the Evaluation element if
      the parameter value does not meet the constraint.

   o  If the Parameter has another constraint, confirm that the value of
      the corresponding parameter provided as input meets this
      constraint.  If it does not or if the constraint is unrecognized,
      discard the Evaluation element.

   If all Evaluation elements were rejected, the algorithm is not
   suitable according to the policy.

   Any entries not rejected will be provided as output.

6.5.  Output

   If the algorithm is not in the policy, return an error "algorithm
   unknown".

   If no time of interest was provided as input, return the maximum End
   time of the Evaluation elements that were not discarded.  If at least
   one End time of these Evaluation elements is absent, return
   "algorithm has an indefinite End time".

   Otherwise, if the algorithm is not suitable relative to the time of
   interest, return an error "algorithm unsuitable".





Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 17]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   If the algorithm is suitable relative to the time of interest, return
   the Evaluation elements that were not discarded.

7.  Security Considerations

   The policy for an algorithm's security suitability has a great impact
   on the quality of the results of signature generation and
   verification operations.  If an algorithm is incorrectly evaluated
   against a policy, signatures with a low probative force could be
   created or verification results could be incorrect.  The following
   security considerations have been identified:

   1.  Publishers MUST ensure unauthorized manipulation of any security
       suitability is not possible prior to a policy being signed and
       published.  There is no mechanism provided to revoke a policy
       after publication.  Since the algorithm evaluations change
       infrequently, the lifespan of a policy should be carefully
       considered prior to publication.

   2.  Operators SHOULD only accept policies issued by a trusted
       publisher.  Furthermore, the validity of the certificate used to
       sign the policy SHOULD be verifiable by Certificate Revocation
       List (CRL) [RFC5280] or Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP)
       [RFC2560].  The certificate used to sign the policy SHOULD be
       revoked if the algorithms used in this certificate are no longer
       suitable.  It MUST NOT be possible to alter or replace a policy
       once accepted by an operator.

   3.  Operators SHOULD periodically check to see if a new policy has
       been published to avoid using obsolete policy information.  For
       publishers, it is suggested not to omit the NextUpdate element in
       order to give operators a hint regarding when the next policy
       will be published.

   4.  When signing a policy, algorithms that are suitable according to
       this policy SHOULD be used.

   5.  The processing rule described in Section 6 is about one
       cryptographic algorithm independent of the use case.  Depending
       upon the use case, an algorithm that is no longer suitable at the
       time of interest, does not necessarily mean that the data
       structure where it is used is no longer secure.  For example, a
       signature has been made with an RSA signer's key of 1024 bits.
       This signature is timestamped with a timestamp token that uses an
       RSA key of 2048 bits, before an RSA key size of 1024 bits will be
       broken.  The fact that the signature key of 1024 bits is no
       longer suitable at the time of interest does not mean that the




Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 18]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


       whole data structure is no longer secure, if an RSA key size of
       2048 bits is still suitable at the time of interest.

   6.  In addition to the key size considerations, other considerations
       must be applied, like whether a timestamp token has been provided
       by a trusted authority.  This means that the simple use of a
       suitability policy is not the single element to consider when
       evaluating the security of a complex data structure that uses
       several cryptographic algorithms.

   7.  The policies described in this document are suitable to evaluate
       basic cryptographic algorithms, like public key or hash
       algorithms, as well as cryptographic schemes (e.g., the PKCS#1
       v1.5 signature schemes [RFC3447]).  But it MUST be kept in mind
       that a basic cryptographic algorithm that is suitable according
       to the policy does not necessarily mean that any cryptographic
       schemes based on this algorithm are also secure.  For example, a
       signature scheme based on RSA must not necessarily be secure if
       RSA is suitable.  In case of a complete signature verification,
       including validation of the certificate path, various algorithms
       have to be checked against the policy (i.e., signature schemes of
       signed data objects and revocation information, public key
       algorithms of the involved certificates, etc.).  Thus, a policy
       SHOULD contain evaluations of public key and hash algorithms as
       well as of signature schemes.

   8.  Re-encrypting documents that were originally encrypted using an
       algorithm that is no longer suitable will not protect the
       semantics of the document if the document has been intercepted.
       However, for documents stored in an encrypted form, re-encryption
       must be considered, unless the document has lost its original
       value.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines the XML namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dssc"
   according to the guidelines in [RFC3688].  This namespace has been
   registered in the IANA XML Registry.

   This document defines an XML schema (see Appendix B) according to the
   guidelines in [RFC3688].  This XML schema has been registered in the
   IANA XML Registry and can be identified with the URN
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:dssc".

   This document defines the MIME type "application/dssc+xml".  This
   MIME type has been registered by IANA under "MIME Media Types"
   according to the procedures of [RFC4288].




Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 19]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


      Type name: application

      Subtype name: dssc+xml

      Required parameters: none

      Optional parameters: "charset" as specified for "application/xml"
      in [RFC3023].

      Encoding considerations: Same as specified for "application/xml"
      in [RFC3023].

      Security considerations: Same as specified for "application/xml"
      in Section 10 of [RFC3023].  For further security considerations,
      see Section 7 of this document.

      Interoperability considerations: Same as specified for
      "application/xml" in [RFC3023].

      Published specification: This document.

      Applications that use this media: Applications for long-term
      archiving of signed data, applications for signing data /
      verifying signed data, and applications for encrypting /
      decrypting data.

      Additional information:

         Magic number(s): none

         File extension(s): .xdssc

         Macintosh file type code: "TEXT"

         Object Identifiers: none

      Person to contact for further information: Thomas Kunz
      (thomas.kunz@sit.fraunhofer.de)

      Intended usage: COMMON

      Restrictions on usage: none

      Author/Change controller: IETF

   This document defines the MIME type "application/dssc+der".  This
   MIME type has been registered by IANA under "MIME Media Types"
   according to the procedures of [RFC4288].



Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 20]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


      Type name: application

      Subtype name: dssc+der

      Required parameters: none

      Optional parameters: none

      Encoding considerations: binary

      Security considerations: See Section 7 of this document.

      Interoperability considerations: none

      Published specification: This document.

      Applications that use this media: Applications for long-term
      archiving of signed data, applications for signing data /
      verifying signed data, and applications for encrypting /
      decrypting data.

      Additional information:

         Magic number(s): none

         File extension(s): .dssc

         Macintosh file type code: none

         Object Identifiers: none

      Person to contact for further information: Thomas Kunz
      (thomas.kunz@sit.fraunhofer.de)

      Intended usage: COMMON

      Restrictions on usage: none

      Author/Change controller: IETF

   This specification creates a new IANA registry entitled "Data
   Structure for the Security Suitability of Cryptographic Algorithms
   (DSSC)".  This registry contains two sub-registries entitled
   "Parameter Definitions" and "Cryptographic Algorithms".  The policy
   for future assignments to the sub-registry "Parameter Definitions" is
   "RFC Required".





Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 21]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   The initial values for the "Parameter Definitions" sub-registry are:

   Value              Description                     Reference
   --------------     ------------------------------- ------------------
   moduluslength      Parameter for RSA               RFC 5698
                      (integer value)
   plength            Parameter for DSA               RFC 5698
                      (integer value, used together
                      with parameter "qlength")
   qlength            Parameter for DSA               RFC 5698
                      (integer value, used together
                      with parameter "plength")

   The sub-registry "Cryptographic Algorithms" contains textual names as
   well as Object Identifiers (OIDs) and Uniform Resource Identifiers
   (URIs) of cryptographic algorithms.  It serves as assistance when
   creating a new policy.  The policy for future assignments is "First
   Come First Served".  When registering a new algorithm, the following
   information MUST be provided:

   o  The textual name of the algorithm.

   o  The OID of the algorithm.

   o  A reference to a publicly available specification that defines the
      algorithm and its identifiers.

   Optionally, a URI MAY be provided if possible.

   The initial values for the "Cryptographic Algorithms" sub-registry
   are:




















Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 22]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


  Name                      OID / URI                         Reference
  -----------------------   --------------------------------- ----------
  rsaEncryption             1.2.840.113549.1.1.1              [RFC3447]

  dsa                       1.2.840.10040.4.1                 [RFC3279]

  md2                       1.2.840.113549.2.2                [RFC3279]

  md5                       1.2.840.113549.2.5                [RFC3279]
            http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#md5        [RFC4051]

  sha-1                     1.3.14.3.2.26                     [RFC3279]
            http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1            [RFC3275]

  sha-224                   2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.4            [RFC4055]
            http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#sha224     [RFC4051]

  sha-256                   2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1            [RFC4055]

  sha-384                   2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.2            [RFC4055]
            http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#sha384     [RFC4051]

  sha-512                   2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.3            [RFC4055]

  md2WithRSAEncryption      1.2.840.113549.1.1.2              [RFC3443]

  md5WithRSAEncryption      1.2.840.113549.1.1.4              [RFC3443]
            http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rsa-md5    [RFC4051]

  sha1WithRSAEncryption     1.2.840.113549.1.1.5              [RFC3443]
            http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1        [RFC3275]

  sha256WithRSAEncryption   1.2.840.113549.1.1.11             [RFC3443]
            http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rsa-sha256 [RFC4051]

  sha384WithRSAEncryption   1.2.840.113549.1.1.12             [RFC3443]
            http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rsa-sha384 [RFC4051]

  sha512WithRSAEncryption   1.2.840.113549.1.1.13             [RFC3443]
            http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmldsig-more#rsa-sha512 [RFC4051]

  sha1WithDSA               1.2.840.10040.4.3                 [RFC3279]
            http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#dsa-sha1        [RFC3275]








Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 23]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [CCITT.x680.2002]
              International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative
              Committee, "Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1):
              Specification of basic notation", CCITT Recommendation
              X.680, July 2002.

   [CCITT.x690.2002]
              International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative
              Committee, "AASN.1 encoding rules:  Specification of basic
              encoding Rules (BER), Canonical encoding rules (CER) and
              Distinguished encoding rules (DER)", CCITT Recommendation
              X.690, July 2002.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2141]  Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.

   [RFC2560]  Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and C.
              Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
              Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999.

   [RFC3023]  Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
              Types", RFC 3023, January 2001.

   [RFC3275]  Eastlake, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "(Extensible Markup
              Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275,
              March 2002.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              January 2004.

   [RFC4288]  Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
              Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.

   [RFC4998]  Gondrom, T., Brandner, R., and U. Pordesch, "Evidence
              Record Syntax (ERS)", RFC 4998, August 2007.







Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 24]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

   [RFC5646]  Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying
              Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.

   [RFC5652]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)",
              RFC 5652, September 2009.

   [W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
              Yergeau, F., Maler, E., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.,
              and T. Bray, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
              Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
              xml-20081126, November 2008,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.

   [W3C.REC-xml-names-20060816]
              Layman, A., Hollander, D., Tobin, R., and T. Bray,
              "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Second Edition)", World Wide Web
              Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-names-20060816,
              August 2006,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816>.

   [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
              Thompson, H., Beech, D., Mendelsohn, N., and M. Maloney,
              "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", World Wide
              Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-20041028,
              October 2004,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [BNetzAg.2008]
              Federal Network Agency for Electricity, Gas,
              Telecommunications, Post and Railway, "Bekanntmachung zur
              elektronischen Signatur nach dem Signaturgesetz und der
              Signaturverordnung (Uebersicht ueber geeignete
              Algorithmen)", December 2007,
              <http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/media/archive/12198.pdf>.

   [CCITT.x208.1988]
              International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative
              Committee, "Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One
              (ASN.1)", CCITT Recommendation X.208, November 1988.





Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 25]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   [CCITT.x209.1988]
              International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative
              Committee, "Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for
              Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1)",
              CCITT Recommendation X.209, November 1988.

   [ETSI-TS101903]
              European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI),
              "XML Advanced Electronic Signatures (XAdES)", ETSI TS 101
              903 V1.3.2, March 2006.

   [ETSI-TS102176-1-2005]
              European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI),
              "Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI);
              "Algorithms and Parameters for Secure Electronic
              Signatures; Part 1: Hash functions and asymmetric
              algorithms"", ETSI TS 102 176-1 V2.0.0, November 2007.

   [FIPS186-2]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Digital
              Signature Standard (DSS)", FIPS PUB 186-2 with Change
              Notice, January 2000.

   [NIST.800-57-Part1.2006]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology,
              "Recommendation for Key Management - Part 1: General
              (Revised)", NIST 800-57 Part 1, May 2006.

   [RFC3279]  Bassham, L., Polk, W., and R. Housley, "Algorithms and
              Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 3279, April 2002.

   [RFC3443]  Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
              in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", RFC
              3443, January 2003.

   [RFC3447]  Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography
              Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications
              Version 2.1", RFC 3447, February 2003.

   [RFC4051]  Eastlake, D., "Additional XML Security Uniform Resource
              Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 4051, April 2005.








Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 26]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   [RFC4055]  Schaad, J., Kaliski, B., and R. Housley, "Additional
              Algorithms and Identifiers for RSA Cryptography for use in
              the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
              and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 4055,
              June 2005.

   [RFC4810]  Wallace, C., Pordesch, U., and R. Brandner, "Long-Term
              Archive Service Requirements", RFC 4810, March 2007.











































Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 27]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


Appendix A.  DSSC and ERS

A.1.  Verification of Evidence Records Using DSSC (Informative)

   This section describes the verification of an Evidence Record
   according to the Evidence Record Syntax (ERS, [RFC4998]), using the
   presented data structure.

   An Evidence Record contains a sequence of ArchiveTimeStampChains,
   which consist of ArchiveTimeStamps.  For each ArchiveTimeStamp the
   hash algorithm used for the hash tree (digestAlgorithm) as well as
   the public key algorithm and hash algorithm in the timestamp
   signature have to be examined.  The relevant date is the time
   information in the timestamp (date of issue).  Starting with the
   first ArchiveTimeStamp, it has to be assured that:

   1.  The timestamp uses public key and hash algorithms that were
       suitable at the date of issue.

   2.  The hashtree was built with a hash algorithm that was suitable at
       the date of issue as well.

   3.  Algorithms for timestamp and hashtree in the preceding
       ArchiveTimeStamp must have been suitable at the issuing date of
       considered ArchiveTimeStamp.

   4.  Algorithms in the last ArchiveTimeStamp have to be suitable now.

   If the check of one of these items fails, this will lead to a failure
   of the verification.

A.2.  Storing DSSC Policies in Evidence Records (Normative)

   This section describes how to store a policy in an Evidence Record.
   ERS provides the field cryptoInfos for the storage of additional
   verification data.  For the integration of a security suitability
   policy in an Evidence Record, the following content types are defined
   for both ASN.1 and XML representation:

   DSSC_ASN1 {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
           internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5)
           ltans(11) id-ct(1) id-ct-dssc-asn1(2) }

   DSSC_XML {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
           internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5)
           ltans(11) id-ct(1) id-ct-dssc-xml(3) }





Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 28]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


Appendix B.  XML Schema (Normative)

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
             xmlns:dssc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dssc"
             xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
             targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dssc"
             elementFormDefault="qualified"
             attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
    <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
               schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2001/xml.xsd"/>
    <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
               schemaLocation="xmldsig-core-schema.xsd"/>
    <xs:element name="SecuritySuitabilityPolicy"
                type="dssc:SecuritySuitabilityPolicyType"/>
    <xs:complexType name="SecuritySuitabilityPolicyType">
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:PolicyName"/>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:Publisher"/>
        <xs:element name="PolicyIssueDate" type="xs:dateTime"/>
        <xs:element name="NextUpdate" type="xs:dateTime" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:element name="Usage" type="xs:string" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:Algorithm" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
        <xs:element ref="ds:Signature" minOccurs="0"/>
      </xs:sequence>
      <xs:attribute name="version" type="xs:string" default="1"/>
      <xs:attribute name="lang" default="en"/>
      <xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:ID"/>
    </xs:complexType>
    <xs:element name="PolicyName" type="dssc:PolicyNameType"/>
    <xs:complexType name="PolicyNameType">
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:Name"/>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:ObjectIdentifier" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:URI" minOccurs="0"/>
      </xs:sequence>
    </xs:complexType>
    <xs:element name="Publisher" type="dssc:PublisherType"/>
    <xs:complexType name="PublisherType">
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:Name"/>
        <xs:element name="Address" type="xs:string" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:URI" minOccurs="0"/>
      </xs:sequence>
    </xs:complexType>
    <xs:element name="Name" type="xs:string"/>
    <xs:element name="ObjectIdentifier">
      <xs:simpleType>



Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 29]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


        <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
          <xs:pattern value="(\d+\.)+\d+"/>
        </xs:restriction>
      </xs:simpleType>
    </xs:element>
    <xs:element name="URI" type="xs:anyURI"/>
    <xs:element name="Algorithm" type="dssc:AlgorithmType"/>
    <xs:complexType name="AlgorithmType">
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:AlgorithmIdentifier"/>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:Evaluation" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:Information" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0"/>
      </xs:sequence>
    </xs:complexType>
    <xs:element name="AlgorithmIdentifier"
                type="dssc:AlgorithmIdentifierType"/>
    <xs:complexType name="AlgorithmIdentifierType">
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:Name"/>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:ObjectIdentifier" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:URI" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      </xs:sequence>
    </xs:complexType>
    <xs:element name="Validity" type="dssc:ValidityType"/>
    <xs:complexType name="ValidityType">
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element name="Start" type="xs:date" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:element name="End" type="xs:date" minOccurs="0"/>
      </xs:sequence>
    </xs:complexType>
    <xs:element name="Information" type="dssc:InformationType"/>
    <xs:complexType name="InformationType">
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element name="Text" type="xs:string" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      </xs:sequence>
    </xs:complexType>
    <xs:element name="Evaluation" type="dssc:EvaluationType"/>
    <xs:complexType name="EvaluationType">
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:Parameter" minOccurs="0"
                                         maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
        <xs:element ref="dssc:Validity"/>
        <xs:any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0"/>
      </xs:sequence>
    </xs:complexType>
    <xs:element name="Parameter" type="dssc:ParameterType"/>
    <xs:complexType name="ParameterType">



Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 30]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element name="Min" type="xs:int" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:element name="Max" type="xs:int" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0"/>
      </xs:sequence>
      <xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" use="required"/>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:schema>

Appendix C.  ASN.1 Module in 1988 Syntax (Informative)

   ASN.1-Module

   DSSC {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
            internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5)
            ltans(11) id-mod(0) id-mod-dssc88(6) id-mod-dssc88-v1(1) }

   DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
   BEGIN

   -- EXPORT ALL --

   IMPORTS

   -- Import from RFC 5280 [RFC5280]
   -- Delete following import statement
   -- if "new" types are supported

   UTF8String FROM PKIX1Explicit88
               { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
               internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)
               mod(0) pkix1-explicit(18) }

   -- Import from RFC 5652 [RFC5652]

   ContentInfo FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax2004
               { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840)
               rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9)
               smime(16) modules(0) cms-2004(24)}

   ;

   SecuritySuitabilityPolicy ::= ContentInfo

   -- contentType is id-signedData as defined in [RFC5652]
   -- content is SignedData as defined in [RFC5652]
   -- eContentType within SignedData is id-ct-dssc
   -- eContent within SignedData is TBSPolicy



Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 31]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   id-ct-dssc  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
               iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
               internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5)
               ltans(11) id-ct(1) id-ct-dssc-tbsPolicy(6) }

   TBSPolicy ::= SEQUENCE {
        version          INTEGER               DEFAULT   {v1(1)},
        language         UTF8String            DEFAULT   "en",
        policyName       PolicyName,
        publisher        Publisher,
        policyIssueDate  GeneralizedTime,
        nextUpdate       GeneralizedTime       OPTIONAL,
        usage            UTF8String            OPTIONAL,
        algorithms       SEQUENCE OF Algorithm
   }

   PolicyName ::= SEQUENCE {
        name  UTF8String,
        oid   OBJECT IDENTIFIER OPTIONAL,
        uri   IA5String         OPTIONAL
   }

   Publisher ::= SEQUENCE {
        name        UTF8String,
        address [0] UTF8String  OPTIONAL,
        uri     [1] IA5String   OPTIONAL
   }

   Algorithm ::= SEQUENCE {
        algorithmIdentifier     AlgID,
        evaluations             SEQUENCE OF Evaluation,
        information         [0] SEQUENCE OF UTF8String  OPTIONAL,
        other               [1] Extension               OPTIONAL
   }

   Extension ::= SEQUENCE {
        extensionType           OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
        extension               ANY DEFINED BY extensionType
   }

   AlgID ::= SEQUENCE {
        name      UTF8String,
        oid   [0] SEQUENCE OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
        uri   [1] SEQUENCE OF IA5String          OPTIONAL
   }

   Evaluation ::= SEQUENCE {
        parameters           [0] SEQUENCE OF Parameter OPTIONAL,



Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 32]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


        validity             [1] Validity,
        other                [2] Extension             OPTIONAL
   }

   Parameter ::= SEQUENCE {
        name       UTF8String,
        min    [0] INTEGER     OPTIONAL,
        max    [1] INTEGER     OPTIONAL,
        other  [2] Extension   OPTIONAL
   }

   Validity ::= SEQUENCE {
        start  [0] GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL,
        end    [1] GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL
   }

   END

Appendix D.  ASN.1 Module in 1997 Syntax (Normative)

   ASN.1-Module

   DSSC {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
            internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5)
            ltans(11) id-mod(0) id-mod-dssc(7) id-mod-dssc-v1(1) }

   DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
   BEGIN

   -- EXPORT ALL --

   IMPORTS

   -- Import from RFC 5280 [RFC5280]
   -- Delete following import statement
   -- if "new" types are supported

   UTF8String FROM PKIX1Explicit88
               { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
               internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)
               mod(0) pkix1-explicit(18) }

   -- Import from RFC 5652 [RFC5652]

   ContentInfo FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax2004
               { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840)
               rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9)
               smime(16) modules(0) cms-2004(24)}



Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 33]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   ;

   SecuritySuitabilityPolicy ::= ContentInfo

   -- contentType is id-signedData as defined in [RFC5652]
   -- content is SignedData as defined in [RFC5652]
   -- eContentType within SignedData is id-ct-dssc
   -- eContent within SignedData is TBSPolicy

   id-ct-dssc  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
               iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
               internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5)
               ltans(11) id-ct(1) id-ct-dssc-tbsPolicy(6) }

   TBSPolicy ::= SEQUENCE {
        version          INTEGER               DEFAULT   {v1(1)},
        language         UTF8String            DEFAULT   "en",
        policyName       PolicyName,
        publisher        Publisher,
        policyIssueDate  GeneralizedTime,
        nextUpdate       GeneralizedTime       OPTIONAL,
        usage            UTF8String            OPTIONAL,
        algorithms       SEQUENCE OF Algorithm
   }

   PolicyName ::= SEQUENCE {
        name  UTF8String,
        oid   OBJECT IDENTIFIER OPTIONAL,
        uri   IA5String         OPTIONAL
   }

   Publisher ::= SEQUENCE {
        name         UTF8String,
        address  [0] UTF8String  OPTIONAL,
        uri      [1] IA5String   OPTIONAL
   }

   Algorithm ::= SEQUENCE {
        algorithmIdentifier     AlgID,
        evaluations             SEQUENCE OF Evaluation,
        information         [0] SEQUENCE OF UTF8String  OPTIONAL,
        other               [1] Extension               OPTIONAL
   }

   Extension ::= SEQUENCE {
        extensionType  EXTENSION-TYPE.&id ({SupportedExtensions}),
        extension      EXTENSION-TYPE.&Type
                            ({SupportedExtensions}{@extensionType})



Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 34]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


   }

   EXTENSION-TYPE ::= TYPE-IDENTIFIER

   SupportedExtensions EXTENSION-TYPE ::= {...}

   AlgID ::= SEQUENCE {
        name      UTF8String,
        oid   [0] SEQUENCE OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
        uri   [1] SEQUENCE OF IA5String          OPTIONAL
   }

   Evaluation ::= SEQUENCE {
        parameters           [0] SEQUENCE OF Parameter OPTIONAL,
        validity             [1] Validity,
        other                [2] Extension             OPTIONAL
   }

   Parameter ::= SEQUENCE {
        name       UTF8String,
        min    [0] INTEGER     OPTIONAL,
        max    [1] INTEGER     OPTIONAL,
        other  [2] Extension   OPTIONAL
   }

   Validity ::= SEQUENCE {
        start  [0] GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL,
        end    [1] GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL
   }

   END

Appendix E.  Example

   The following example shows a policy that may be used for signature
   verification.  It contains hash algorithms, public key algorithms,
   and signature schemes.  SHA-1 as well as RSA with modulus length of
   1024 are examples for expired algorithms.

   <SecuritySuitabilityPolicy xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dssc"
     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
    <PolicyName>
     <Name>Evaluation of cryptographic algorithms</Name>
    </PolicyName>
    <Publisher>
     <Name>Some Evaluation Authority</Name>
    </Publisher>
    <PolicyIssueDate>2009-01-01T00:00:00</PolicyIssueDate>



Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 35]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


    <Usage>Digital signature verification</Usage>
    <Algorithm>
     <AlgorithmIdentifier>
      <Name>SHA-1</Name>
      <ObjectIdentifier>1.3.14.3.2.26</ObjectIdentifier>
     </AlgorithmIdentifier>
     <Evaluation>
      <Validity>
       <End>2008-06-30</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
    </Algorithm>
    <Algorithm>
     <AlgorithmIdentifier>
      <Name>SHA-256</Name>
      <ObjectIdentifier>2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1</ObjectIdentifier>
     </AlgorithmIdentifier>
     <Evaluation>
      <Validity>
       <End>2014-12-31</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
    </Algorithm>
    <Algorithm>
     <AlgorithmIdentifier>
      <Name>SHA-512</Name>
      <ObjectIdentifier>2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.3</ObjectIdentifier>
     </AlgorithmIdentifier>
     <Evaluation>
      <Validity>
       <End>2014-12-31</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
    </Algorithm>
    <Algorithm>
     <AlgorithmIdentifier>
      <Name>RSA</Name>
      <ObjectIdentifier>1.2.840.113549.1.1.1</ObjectIdentifier>
     </AlgorithmIdentifier>
     <Evaluation>
      <Parameter name="moduluslength">
       <Min>1024</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2008-03-31</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
     <Evaluation>



Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 36]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


      <Parameter name="moduluslength">
       <Min>2048</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2014-12-31</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
    </Algorithm>
    <Algorithm>
     <AlgorithmIdentifier>
      <Name>DSA</Name>
      <ObjectIdentifier>1.2.840.10040.4.1</ObjectIdentifier>
     </AlgorithmIdentifier>
     <Evaluation>
      <Parameter name="plength">
       <Min>1024</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Parameter name="qlength">
       <Min>160</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2007-12-31</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
     <Evaluation>
      <Parameter name="plength">
       <Min>2048</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Parameter name="qlength">
       <Min>224</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2014-12-31</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
    </Algorithm>
    <Algorithm>
     <AlgorithmIdentifier>
      <Name>PKCS#1 v1.5 SHA-1 with RSA</Name>
      <ObjectIdentifier>1.2.840.113549.1.1.5</ObjectIdentifier>
     </AlgorithmIdentifier>
     <Evaluation>
      <Parameter name="moduluslength">
       <Min>1024</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2008-03-31</End>
      </Validity>



Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 37]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


     </Evaluation>
     <Evaluation>
      <Parameter name="moduluslength">
       <Min>2048</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2008-06-30</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
    </Algorithm>
    <Algorithm>
     <AlgorithmIdentifier>
      <Name>PKCS#1 v1.5 SHA-256 with RSA</Name>
      <ObjectIdentifier>1.2.840.113549.1.1.11</ObjectIdentifier>
     </AlgorithmIdentifier>
     <Evaluation>
      <Parameter name="moduluslength">
       <Min>1024</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2008-03-31</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
     <Evaluation>
      <Parameter name="moduluslength">
       <Min>2048</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2014-12-31</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
    </Algorithm>
    <Algorithm>
     <AlgorithmIdentifier>
      <Name>PKCS#1 v1.5 SHA-512 with RSA</Name>
      <ObjectIdentifier>1.2.840.113549.1.1.13</ObjectIdentifier>
     </AlgorithmIdentifier>
     <Evaluation>
      <Parameter name="moduluslength">
       <Min>1024</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2008-03-31</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
     <Evaluation>
      <Parameter name="moduluslength">
       <Min>2048</Min>



Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 38]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2014-12-31</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
    </Algorithm>
    <Algorithm>
     <AlgorithmIdentifier>
      <Name>SHA-1 with DSA</Name>
      <ObjectIdentifier>1.2.840.10040.4.3</ObjectIdentifier>
     </AlgorithmIdentifier>
     <Evaluation>
      <Parameter name="plength">
       <Min>1024</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Parameter name="qlength">
       <Min>160</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2007-12-31</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
     <Evaluation>
      <Parameter name="plength">
       <Min>2048</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Parameter name="qlength">
       <Min>224</Min>
      </Parameter>
      <Validity>
       <End>2008-06-30</End>
      </Validity>
     </Evaluation>
    </Algorithm>
   </SecuritySuitabilityPolicy>
















Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 39]
^L
RFC 5698                          DSSC                     November 2009


Authors' Addresses

   Thomas Kunz
   Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology
   Rheinstrasse 75
   Darmstadt  D-64295
   Germany

   EMail: thomas.kunz@sit.fraunhofer.de


   Susanne Okunick
   pawisda systems GmbH
   Robert-Koch-Strasse 9
   Weiterstadt  D-64331
   Germany

   EMail: susanne.okunick@pawisda.de


   Ulrich Pordesch
   Fraunhofer Gesellschaft
   Rheinstrasse 75
   Darmstadt  D-64295
   Germany

   EMail: ulrich.pordesch@zv.fraunhofer.de
























Kunz, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 40]
^L