RATS Working Group H. Birkholz Internet-Draft Fraunhofer SIT Intended status: Standards Track T. Fossati Expires: 13 October 2025 Arm Limited W. Pan Huawei Technologies C. Bormann Universität Bremen TZI 11 April 2025 Epoch Markers draft-ietf-rats-epoch-markers-01 Abstract This document defines Epoch Markers as a means to establish a notion of freshness among actors in a distributed system. Epoch Markers are similar to "time ticks" and are produced and distributed by a dedicated system known as the Epoch Bell. Systems receiving Epoch Markers do not need to track freshness using their own understanding of time (e.g., via a local real-time clock). Instead, the reception of a specific Epoch Marker establishes a new epoch that is shared among all recipients. This document defines Epoch Marker types, including CBOR time tags, RFC 3161 TimeStampToken, nonce-like structures, and a CWT Claim to embed Epoch Markers in RFC 8392 CBOR Web Tokens, which serve as vehicles for signed protocol messages. About This Document This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-epoch-markers/. Discussion of this document takes place on the rats Working Group mailing list (mailto:rats@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats/. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/ietf-rats/draft-birkholz-rats-epoch-marker. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 October 2025. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Epoch IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Interaction Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Epoch Marker Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Epoch Marker Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.1. CBOR Time Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.2. Classical RFC 3161 TST Info . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.3. CBOR-encoded RFC3161 TST Info . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.4. Epoch Tick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.5. Epoch Tick List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.6. Strictly Monotonically Increasing Counter . . . . . . 11 4.2. Time Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. Nonce Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1. New CBOR Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. New EM CWT Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.1. RFC 3161 TSTInfo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Introduction Systems that need to interact securely often require a shared understanding of the freshness of conveyed information. This is certainly the case in the domain of remote attestation procedures. In general, securely establishing a shared notion of freshness of the exchanged information among entities in a distributed system is not a simple task. The entire Appendix A of [RFC9334] deals solely with the topic of freshness, which is in itself an indication of how relevant, and complex, it is to establish a trusted and shared understanding of freshness in a RATS system. This document defines Epoch Markers as a way to establish a notion of freshness among actors in distributed systems. Epoch Markers are similar to "time ticks" and are produced and distributed by a dedicated system, the Epoch Bell. Actors in a system that receive Epoch Markers do not have to track freshness using their own understanding of time (e.g., via a local real-time clock). Instead, the reception of a certain Epoch Marker establishes a new epoch that is shared between all recipients. In essence, the emissions and corresponding receptions of Epoch Markers are like the ticks of a clock, with these ticks being conveyed over the Internet. In general (barring highly symmetrical topologies), epoch ticking incurs differential latency due to the non-uniform distribution of receivers with respect to the Epoch Bell. This introduces skew that needs to be taken into consideration when Epoch Markers are used. While all Epoch Markers share the same core property of behaving like clock ticks in a shared domain, various "Epoch ID" values are defined as Epoch Marker types in this document to accommodate different use cases and diverse kinds of Epoch Bells. While most Epoch Markers types are encoded in CBOR [STD94], and many of the Epoch ID types are themselves encoded in CBOR, a prominent format in this space is the TimeStampToken (TST) defined by [RFC3161], a DER-encoded TSTInfo value wrapped in a CMS envelope [RFC5652]. TSTs are produced by Time-Stamp Authorities (TSA) and exchanged via the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP). At the time of writing, TSAs are the most common providers of secure time-stamping services. Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 Therefore, reusing the core TSTInfo structure as an Epoch ID type for Epoch Markers is instrumental for enabling smooth migration paths and promote interoperability. There are, however, several other ways to represent a signed timestamp or the start of a new freshness epoch, respectively, and therefore other Epoch Marker types. To inform the design, this document discusses a number of interaction models in which Epoch Markers are expected to be exchanged. The default top-level structure of Epoch Markers described in this document is CBOR Web Tokens (CWT) [RFC8392]. The present document specifies an extensible set of Epoch Marker types, along with the em CWT claim to include them in CWTs. CWTs are signed using COSE [STD96] and benefit from wide tool support. However, CWTs are not the only containers in which Epoch Markers can be embedded. Epoch Markers can be included in any type of message that allows for the embedding of opaque bytes or CBOR data items. Examples include the Collection CMW in [I-D.ietf-lamps-csr-attestation], Evidence formats such as [TCG-CoEvidence] or [I-D.ietf-rats-eat], [I-D.ietf-rats-ar4si], or the CWT Claims Header Parameter of [I-D.ietf-scitt-architecture]. 1.1. Requirements Notation The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. In this document, CDDL [RFC8610] is used to describe the data formats. The examples in Appendix A use the CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN, [I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-literals]). 2. Epoch IDs The RATS architecture introduces the concept of Epoch IDs that mark certain events during remote attestation procedures ranging from simple handshakes to rather complex interactions including elaborate freshness proofs. The Epoch Markers defined in this document are a solution that includes the lessons learned from TSAs, the concept of Epoch IDs defined in the RATS architecture, and provides several means to identify a new freshness epoch. Some of these methods are introduced and discussed in Section 10.3 of [RFC9334] (the RATS architecture). Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 3. Interaction Models The interaction models illustrated in this section are derived from the RATS Reference Interaction Models [I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models]. In general, there are three major interaction models used in remote attestation: * ad-hoc requests (e.g., via challenge-response requests addressed at Epoch Bells), corresponding to Section 7.1 of [I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models] * unsolicited distribution (e.g., via uni-directional methods, such as broad- or multicasting from Epoch Bells), corresponding to Section 7.2 of [I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models] * solicited distribution (e.g., via a subscription to Epoch Bells), corresponding to Section 7.3 of [I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models] In all three interaction models, Epoch Markers can be used as content for the generic information element handle as introduced by [I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models]. Handles are used to establish freshness in ad-hoc, unsolicited, and solicited distribution mechanisms of an Epoch Bell. For example, an Epoch Marker can be used as a nonce in challenge-response remote attestation (e.g., for limiting the number of ad-hoc requests by a Verifier). If embedded in a CWT, an Epoch Marker can be used as a handle by extracting the value of the em Claim or by using the complete CWT including an em Claim (e.g., functioning as a signed time-stamp token). Using an Epoch Marker requires the challenger to acquire an Epoch Marker beforehand, which may introduce a sensible overhead compared to using a simple nonce. 4. Epoch Marker Structure Epoch Markers are tagged CBOR data items. As a default, Epoch Markers are transported via the em Claim in CWTs. In cases of challenge-response interactions that employ a nonce to show recentness, the em Claim can be paired with a Nonce Claim to bind the nonce with the Epoch Marker as a response message in an ad-hoc request. This in fact means that it is possible to request an Epoch Marker via a challenge-response interaction using a nonce to than use the received CWT or the Epoch Marker included as a different nonce in a separate RATS reference interaction model. Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 epoch-marker = $tagged-epoch-id ; epoch-id types independent of interaction model $tagged-epoch-id /= cbor-time $tagged-epoch-id /= #6.26980(classical-rfc3161-TST-info) $tagged-epoch-id /= #6.26981(TST-info-based-on-CBOR-time-tag) $tagged-epoch-id /= #6.26982(epoch-tick) $tagged-epoch-id /= #6.26983(epoch-tick-list) $tagged-epoch-id /= #6.26984(strictly-monotonic-counter) Figure 1: Epoch Marker types (tag numbers 2698x are suggested, not yet allocated) $$Claims-Set-Claims //= (&(em: 2000) => epoch-marker) Figure 2: Epoch Marker as a CWT Claim (CWT claim number 2000 is suggested, not yet allocated) 4.1. Epoch Marker Types This specification comes with a set of predefined Epoch Marker types. 4.1.1. CBOR Time Tags CBOR Time Tags are CBOR time representations choosing from CBOR tag 0 (tdate, RFC3339 time as a string), tag 1 (time, Posix time as int or float), or tag 1001 (extended time data item). See Section 3 of [RFC9581] for the (many) details about the CBOR extended time format (tag 1001). See Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of RFC 8949 [STD94] for tdate (tag 0) and time (tag 1). cbor-time = tdate / time / etime etime = #6.1001({* (int/tstr) => any}) The CBOR Time Tag represents a freshly sourced timestamp represented as either time or tdate (Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.1 of RFC 8949 [STD94], Appendix D of [RFC8610]), or etime [RFC9581]. 4.1.1.1. Creation To generate the cbor-time value, the emitter MUST follow the requirements in Section 4.2. Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 4.1.2. Classical RFC 3161 TST Info DER-encoded [X.690] TSTInfo [RFC3161]. See Appendix A.1 for the layout. classical-rfc3161-TST-info = bytes The following describes the classical-rfc3161-TST-info type. classical-rfc3161-TST-info: The DER-encoded TSTInfo generated by a [RFC3161] Time Stamping Authority. 4.1.2.1. Creation The Epoch Bell MUST use the following value as MessageImprint in its request to the TSA: SEQUENCE { SEQUENCE { OBJECT 2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1 (sha256) NULL } OCTET STRING BF4EE9143EF2329B1B778974AAD445064940B9CAE373C9E35A7B23361282698F } This is the sha-256 hash of the string "EPOCH_BELL". The TimeStampToken obtained by the TSA MUST be stripped of the TSA signature. Only the TSTInfo is to be kept the rest MUST be discarded. The Epoch Bell COSE signature will replace the TSA signature. 4.1.3. CBOR-encoded RFC3161 TST Info // Issue tracked at: https://github.com/ietf-rats/draft-birkholz- rats-epoch-marker/issues/18 The TST-info-based-on-CBOR-time-tag is semantically equivalent to classical [RFC3161] TSTInfo, rewritten using the CBOR type system. Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 TST-info-based-on-CBOR-time-tag = { &(version : 0) => v1 &(policy : 1) => oid &(messageImprint : 2) => MessageImprint &(serialNumber : 3) => integer &(eTime : 4) => profiled-etime ? &(ordering : 5) => bool .default false ? &(nonce : 6) => integer ? &(tsa : 7) => GeneralName * $$TSTInfoExtensions } v1 = 1 oid = #6.111(bstr) / #6.112(bstr) MessageImprint = [ hashAlg : int hashValue : bstr ] profiled-etime = #6.1001(timeMap) timeMap = { 1 => ~time ? -8 => profiled-duration * int => any } profiled-duration = {* int => any} GeneralName = [ GeneralNameType : int, GeneralNameValue : any ] ; See Section 4.2.1.6 of RFC 5280 for type/value The following describes each member of the TST-info-based-on-CBOR- time-tag map. version: The integer value 1. Cf. version, Section 2.4.2 of [RFC3161]. policy: A [RFC9090] object identifier tag (111 or 112) representing the TSA's policy under which the tst-info was produced. Cf. policy, Section 2.4.2 of [RFC3161]. messageImprint: A [RFC9054] COSE_Hash_Find array carrying the hash algorithm identifier and the hash value of the time-stamped datum. Cf. messageImprint, Section 2.4.2 of [RFC3161]. Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 serialNumber: A unique integer value assigned by the TSA to each issued tst- info. Cf. serialNumber, Section 2.4.2 of [RFC3161]. eTime: The time at which the tst-info has been created by the TSA. Cf. genTime, Section 2.4.2 of [RFC3161]. Encoded as extended time [RFC9581], indicated by CBOR tag 1001, profiled as follows: * The "base time" is encoded using key 1, indicating Posix time as int or float. * The stated "accuracy" is encoded using key -8, which indicates the maximum allowed deviation from the value indicated by "base time". The duration map is profiled to disallow string keys. This is an optional field. * The map MAY also contain one or more integer keys, which may encode supplementary information // Allowing unsigned integer (i.e., critical) keys goes counter // interoperability. ordering: boolean indicating whether tst-info issued by the TSA can be ordered solely based on the "base time". This is an optional field, whose default value is "false". Cf. ordering, Section 2.4.2 of [RFC3161]. nonce: int value echoing the nonce supplied by the requestor. Cf. nonce, Section 2.4.2 of [RFC3161]. tsa: a single-entry GeneralNames array Section 11.8 of [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert] providing a hint in identifying the name of the TSA. Cf. tsa, Section 2.4.2 of [RFC3161]. $$TSTInfoExtensions: A CDDL socket (Section 3.9 of [RFC8610]) to allow extensibility of the data format. Note that any extensions appearing here MUST match an extension in the corresponding request. Cf. extensions, Section 2.4.2 of [RFC3161]. 4.1.3.1. Creation The Epoch Bell MUST use the following value as messageImprint in its request to the TSA: Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 [ / hashAlg / -16, / sha-256 / / hashValue / h'BF4EE9143EF2329B1B778974AAD44506 4940B9CAE373C9E35A7B23361282698F' ] This is the sha-256 hash of the string "EPOCH_BELL". 4.1.4. Epoch Tick An Epoch Tick is a single opaque blob sent to multiple consumers. ; Epoch-Tick epoch-tick = tstr / bstr / int The following describes the epoch-tick type. epoch-tick: Either a string, a byte string, or an integer used by RATS roles within a trust domain as extra data (handle) included in conceptual messages [RFC9334] to associate them with a certain epoch, similar to a nonce. Technically, an Epoch Tick is not used just once (like a nonce), but by every Epoch Marker consumer involved. 4.1.4.1. Creation The emitter MUST follow the requirements in Section 4.3. 4.1.5. Epoch Tick List A list of Epoch Ticks send to multiple consumers. The consumers use each Epoch Tick in the list of sequentially, similar to a list of nonces. Technically, each sequential Epoch Tick in the distributed list is not used just once (like a nonce), but by every Epoch Marker consumer involved. ; Epoch-Tick-List epoch-tick-list = [ + epoch-tick ] The following describes the Epoch Tick List type. epoch-tick-list: A sequence of byte strings used by RATS roles in trust domain as extra data (handle) in the generation of conceptual messages as specified by the RATS architecture [RFC9334] to associate them with a certain epoch. Each Epoch Tick in the list is used in a consecutive generation of a conceptual Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 message. Asserting freshness of a conceptual message including an Epoch Tick from the epoch-tick-list requires some state on the receiver side to assess if that Epoch Tick is the appropriate next unused Epoch Tick from the epoch-tick-list. 4.1.5.1. Creation The emitter MUST follow the requirements in Section 4.3. 4.1.6. Strictly Monotonically Increasing Counter A strictly monotonically increasing counter. The counter context is defined by the Epoch bell. strictly-monotonic-counter = uint The following describes the strictly-monotonic-counter type. strictly-monotonic-counter: An unsigned integer used by RATS roles in a trust domain as extra data in the production of conceptual messages as specified by the RATS architecture [RFC9334] to associate them with a certain epoch. Each new strictly-monotonic- counter value must be higher than the last one. 4.2. Time Requirements Time MUST be sourced from a trusted clock. 4.3. Nonce Requirements A nonce value used in a protocol or message to retrieve an Epoch Marker MUST be freshly generated. The generated value MUST have at least 64 bits of entropy (before encoding). The generated value MUST be generated via a cryptographically secure random number generator. A maximum nonce size of 512 bits is set to limit the memory requirements. All receivers MUST be able to accommodate the maximum size. 5. Security Considerations TODO Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 6. IANA Considerations // RFC Editor: please replace RFCthis with the RFC number of this RFC // and remove this note. 6.1. New CBOR Tags IANA is requested to allocate the following tags in the "CBOR Tags" registry [IANA.cbor-tags], preferably with the specific CBOR tag value requested: +=======+========+===================================+===========+ | Tag | Data | Semantics | Reference | | | Item | | | +=======+========+===================================+===========+ | 26980 | bytes | DER-encoded RFC3161 TSTInfo | Section | | | | | 4.1.2 of | | | | | RFCthis | +-------+--------+-----------------------------------+-----------+ | 26981 | map | CBOR representation of RFC3161 | Section | | | | TSTInfo semantics | 4.1.3 of | | | | | RFCthis | +-------+--------+-----------------------------------+-----------+ | 26982 | tstr / | a nonce that is shared among many | Section | | | bstr / | participants but that can only be | 4.1.4 of | | | int | used once by each participant | RFCthis | +-------+--------+-----------------------------------+-----------+ | 26983 | array | a list of multi-nonce | Section | | | | | 4.1.5 of | | | | | RFCthis | +-------+--------+-----------------------------------+-----------+ | 26984 | uint | strictly monotonically increasing | Section | | | | counter | 4.1.6 of | | | | | RFCthis | +-------+--------+-----------------------------------+-----------+ Table 1: New CBOR Tags 6.2. New EM CWT Claim This specification adds the following value to the "CBOR Web Token Claims" registry [IANA.cwt]. * Claim Name: em * Claim Description: Epoch Marker Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 * Claim Key: 2000 (IANA: suggested assignment) * Claim Value Type(s): CBOR array * Change Controller: IETF * Specification Document(s): Section 4 of RFCthis 7. References 7.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-literals] Bormann, C., "CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cbor-edn- literals-16, 8 January 2025, . [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert] Mattsson, J. P., Selander, G., Raza, S., Höglund, J., and M. Furuhed, "CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-13, 3 March 2025, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3161] Adams, C., Cain, P., Pinkas, D., and R. Zuccherato, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP)", RFC 3161, DOI 10.17487/RFC3161, August 2001, . [RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70, RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig, "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392, May 2018, . Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 [RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610, June 2019, . [RFC9054] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Hash Algorithms", RFC 9054, DOI 10.17487/RFC9054, August 2022, . [RFC9090] Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Object Identifiers", RFC 9090, DOI 10.17487/RFC9090, July 2021, . [RFC9581] Bormann, C., Gamari, B., and H. Birkholz, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Time, Duration, and Period", RFC 9581, DOI 10.17487/RFC9581, August 2024, . [STD94] Internet Standard 94, . At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following: Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020, . [STD96] Internet Standard 96, . At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following: Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052, DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022, . Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Countersignatures", STD 96, RFC 9338, DOI 10.17487/RFC9338, December 2022, . [X.690] International Telecommunications Union, "Information technology — ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, August 2015, . Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 7.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-lamps-csr-attestation] Ounsworth, M., Tschofenig, H., Birkholz, H., Wiseman, M., and N. Smith, "Use of Remote Attestation with Certification Signing Requests", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lamps-csr-attestation-18, 19 March 2025, . [I-D.ietf-rats-ar4si] Voit, E., Birkholz, H., Hardjono, T., Fossati, T., and V. Scarlata, "Attestation Results for Secure Interactions", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats-ar4si- 08, 6 February 2025, . [I-D.ietf-rats-eat] Lundblade, L., Mandyam, G., O'Donoghue, J., and C. Wallace, "The Entity Attestation Token (EAT)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats-eat-31, 6 September 2024, . [I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models] Birkholz, H., Eckel, M., Pan, W., and E. Voit, "Reference Interaction Models for Remote Attestation Procedures", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats- reference-interaction-models-13, 26 February 2025, . [I-D.ietf-scitt-architecture] Birkholz, H., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Deshpande, Y., and S. Lasker, "An Architecture for Trustworthy and Transparent Digital Supply Chains", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-11, 3 March 2025, . [IANA.cbor-tags] IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags", . [IANA.cwt] IANA, "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims", . Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 [RFC9334] Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and W. Pan, "Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) Architecture", RFC 9334, DOI 10.17487/RFC9334, January 2023, . [TCG-CoEvidence] Trusted Computing Group, "TCG DICE Concise Evidence Binding for SPDM", Version 1.00, June 2023, . Appendix A. Examples The example in Figure 3 shows an Epoch Marker with an etime as the Epoch Marker type. / epoch-marker for 1996-12-19T16:39:57-08:00[America//Los_Angeles][u-ca=hebrew] / / etime / 1001({ 1: 851042397, -10: "America/Los_Angeles", -11: { "u-ca": "hebrew" } }) Figure 3: CBOR Epoch Marker based on `etime` (EDN) The encoded data item in CBOR pretty-printed form (hex with comments) is shown in Figure 4. d9 03e9 # tag(1001) a3 # map(3) 01 # unsigned(1) 1a 32b9e05d # unsigned(851042397) 29 # negative(9) 73 # text(19) 416d65726963612f4c6f735f416e67656c6573 # "America/Los_Angeles" 2a # negative(10) a1 # map(1) 64 # text(4) 752d6361 # "u-ca" 66 # text(6) 686562726577 # "hebrew" Figure 4: CBOR Epoch Marker based on `etime` (pretty hex) Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 A.1. RFC 3161 TSTInfo As a reference for the definition of TST-info-based-on-CBOR-time-tag the code block below depicts the original layout of the TSTInfo structure from [RFC3161]. TSTInfo ::= SEQUENCE { version INTEGER { v1(1) }, policy TSAPolicyId, messageImprint MessageImprint, -- MUST have the same value as the similar field in -- TimeStampReq serialNumber INTEGER, -- Time-Stamping users MUST be ready to accommodate integers -- up to 160 bits. genTime GeneralizedTime, accuracy Accuracy OPTIONAL, ordering BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE, nonce INTEGER OPTIONAL, -- MUST be present if the similar field was present -- in TimeStampReq. In that case it MUST have the same value. tsa [0] GeneralName OPTIONAL, extensions [1] IMPLICIT Extensions OPTIONAL } Acknowledgements TBD Authors' Addresses Henk Birkholz Fraunhofer SIT Rheinstrasse 75 64295 Darmstadt Germany Email: henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de Thomas Fossati Arm Limited United Kingdom Email: Thomas.Fossati@arm.com Wei Pan Huawei Technologies Email: william.panwei@huawei.com Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Epoch Markers April 2025 Carsten Bormann Universität Bremen TZI Bibliothekstr. 1 D-28359 Bremen Germany Phone: +49-421-218-63921 Email: cabo@tzi.org Birkholz, et al. Expires 13 October 2025 [Page 18]