This specification is one part of a family of standards for the X.509
Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for the Internet. It is based on
[X.509] and [RFC 3280], which defines underlying certificate formats
and semantics needed for a full implementation of this standard.
This profile includes specific mechanisms intended for use with
Qualified Certificates. The term Qualified Certificates and the
assumptions that affect the scope of this document are discussed in
Section 2.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
Section 3 defines requirements on certificate information content.
This specification provides profiles for two certificate fields:
issuer and subject. It also provides profiles for four certificate
extensions defined in RFC 3280: subject alternate name, subject
directory attributes, certificate policies, and key usage, and it
defines two additional extensions: biometric information and
qualified certificate statements. The certificate extensions are
presented in the 1997 Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [X.680],
but in conformance with RFC 3280 the 1988 ASN.1 module in Appendix A
contains all normative definitions (the 1997 module in Appendix A is
informative).
In Section 4, some security considerations are discussed in order to
clarify the security context in which the standard may be utilized.
Appendix A contains all relevant ASN.1 structures that are not
already defined in RFC 3280. Appendix B contains a note on
attributes. Appendix C contains an example certificate.
The appendices sections are followed by the References, Authors
Addresses, and the Full Copyright Statement.
This specification obsoletes RFC 3039. This specification differs
from RFC 3039 in the following basic areas:
* Some editorial clarifications have been made to introductory
sections to clarify that this profile is generally applicable
to a broad type of certificates, even if its prime purpose is
to facilitate issuance of Qualified Certificates.
* To align with RFC 3280, support for domainComponent and title
attributes in subject names are included, and postalAddress is
no longer supported.
* To align with actual usage, support for the title attribute in
the subject directory attributes extension is no longer
supported.
* To better facilitate broad applicability of this profile, some
constraints on key usage settings in the key usage extension
have been removed.
* A new qc-Statement reflecting this second version of the
profile has been defined in Section 3.2.6.1. This profile
obsoletes RFC 3039, but the qc-statement reflecting compliance
with RFC 3039 is also defined for backwards compatibility.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC 2119].
The term "Qualified Certificate" is used by the European Directive on
Electronic Signature [EU-ESDIR] to refer to a specific type of
certificates, with appliance in European electronic signature
legislation. This specification is intended to support this class of
certificates, but its scope is not limited to this application.
Within this standard, the term "Qualified Certificate" is used
generally, describing a certificate whose primary purpose is to
identify a person with a high level of assurance, where the
certificate meets some qualification requirements defined by an
applicable legal framework, such as the European Directive on
Electronic Signature [EU-ESDIR]. The actual mechanisms that decide
whether a certificate should or should not be considered a "Qualified
Certificate" in regard to any legislation are outside the scope of
this standard.
Harmonization in the field of identity certificates issued to natural
persons, in particular Qualified Certificates, is essential within
several aspects that fall outside the scope of RFC 3280. The most
important aspects that affect the scope of this specification are:
- Definition of names and identity information in order to identify
the associated subject in a uniform way.
- Definition of information which identifies the CA and the
jurisdiction under which the CA operates when issuing a particular
certificate.
- Definition of key usage extension usage for Qualified
Certificates.
- Definition of information structure for storage of biometric
information.
- Definition of a standardized way to store predefined statements
with relevance for Qualified Certificates.
- Requirements for critical extensions.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
This profile accommodates profiling needs for Qualified Certificates
based on the assumptions that:
- Qualified Certificates are issued by a CA that makes a statement
that the certificate serves the purpose of a Qualified
Certificate, as discussed in Section 2.2.
- The Qualified Certificate indicates a certificate policy
consistent with liabilities, practices, and procedures undertaken
by the CA, as discussed in Section 2.3.
- The Qualified Certificate is issued to a natural person (living
human being).
- The Qualified Certificate contains a name which may be either
based on the real name of the subject or a pseudonym.
This profile defines conventions to declare within a certificate that
it serves the purpose of being a Qualified Certificate. This enables
the CA to explicitly define this intent.
The function of this declaration is thus to assist any concerned
entity in evaluating the risk associated with creating or accepting
signatures that are based on a Qualified Certificate.
This profile defines two ways to include this information:
- As information defined by a certificate policy included in the
certificate policies extension, and
- As a statement included in the Qualified Certificates Statements
extension.
Certain policy aspects define the context in which this profile is to
be understood and used. It is however outside the scope of this
profile to specify any policies or legal aspects that will govern
services that issue or utilize certificates according to this
profile.
It is however an underlying assumption in this profile that a
responsible issuing CA will undertake to follow a certificate policy
that is consistent with its liabilities, practices, and procedures.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
Distinguished name is originally defined in X.501 [X.501] as a
representation of a directory name, defined as a construct that
identifies a particular object from among a set of all objects. The
distinguished name MUST be unique for each subject entity certified
by the one CA as defined by the issuer name field, for the whole life
time of the CA.
This section defines certificate profiling conventions. The profile
is based on the Internet certificate profile RFC 3280, which in turn
is based on the X.509 version 3 format. For full implementation of
this section, implementers are REQUIRED to consult the underlying
formats and semantics defined in RFC 3280.
ASN.1 definitions, relevant for this section that are not supplied by
RFC 3280, are supplied in Appendix A.
This section provides additional details regarding the contents of
two fields in the basic certificate. These fields are the issuer and
subject fields.
The issuer field SHALL identify the organization responsible for
issuing the certificate. The name SHOULD be an officially registered
name of the organization.
The distinguished name of the issuer SHALL be specified using an
appropriate subset of the following attributes:
domainComponent;
countryName;
stateOrProvinceName;
organizationName;
localityName; and
serialNumber.
The domainComponent attribute is defined in [RFC 2247], all other
attributes are defined in [RFC 3280] and [X.520].
Additional attributes MAY be present, but they SHOULD NOT be
necessary to identify the issuing organization.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
A relying party MAY have to consult associated certificate policies
and/or the issuer's CPS, in order to determine the semantics of name
fields.
The subject field of a certificate compliant with this profile SHALL
contain a distinguished name of the subject (see 2.4 for definition
of distinguished name).
The subject field SHALL contain an appropriate subset of the
following attributes:
domainComponent;
countryName;
commonName;
surname;
givenName;
pseudonym;
serialNumber;
title;
organizationName;
organizationalUnitName;
stateOrProvinceName; and
localityName.
The domainComponent attribute is defined in [RFC 2247], all other
attributes are defined in [RFC 3280] and [X.520].
Other attributes MAY also be present; however, the use of other
attributes MUST NOT be necessary to distinguish one subject name from
another subject name. That is, the attributes listed above are
sufficient to ensure unique subject names.
Of these attributes, the subject field SHALL include at least one of
the following:
Choice I: commonName
Choice II: givenName
Choice III: pseudonym
The countryName attribute value specifies a general context in
which other attributes are to be understood. The country
attribute does not necessarily indicate the subject's country of
citizenship or country of residence, nor does it have to indicate
the country of issuance.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
Note: Many X.500 implementations require the presence of countryName
in the DIT. In cases where the subject name, as specified in the
subject field, specifies a public X.500 directory entry, the
countryName attribute SHOULD always be present.
The commonName attribute value SHALL, when present, contain a name
of the subject. This MAY be in the subject's preferred
presentation format, or a format preferred by the CA, or some
other format. Pseudonyms, nicknames, and names with spelling
other than defined by the registered name MAY be used. To
understand the nature of the name presented in commonName,
complying applications MAY have to examine present values of the
givenName and surname attributes, or the pseudonym attribute.
Note: Many client implementations presuppose the presence of the
commonName attribute value in the subject field and use this value to
display the subject's name regardless of present givenName, surname,
or pseudonym attribute values.
The surname and givenName attribute types SHALL be used in the
subject field if neither the commonName attribute nor the
pseudonym attribute is present. In cases where the subject only
has a givenName, the surname attribute SHALL be omitted.
The pseudonym attribute type SHALL, if present, contain a
pseudonym of the subject. Use of the pseudonym attribute MUST NOT
be combined with use of any of the attributes surname and/or
givenName.
The serialNumber attribute type SHALL, when present, be used to
differentiate between names where the subject field would
otherwise be identical. This attribute has no defined semantics
beyond ensuring uniqueness of subject names. It MAY contain a
number or code assigned by the CA or an identifier assigned by a
government or civil authority. It is the CA's responsibility to
ensure that the serialNumber is sufficient to resolve any subject
name collisions.
The title attribute type SHALL, when present, be used to store a
designated position or function of the subject within the
organization specified by present organizational attributes in the
subject field. The association between the title, the subject,
and the organization is beyond the scope of this document.
The organizationName and the organizationalUnitName attribute
types SHALL, when present, be used to store the name and relevant
information of an organization with which the subject is
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
associated. The type of association between the organization and
the subject is beyond the scope of this document.
The stateOrProvinceName and the localityName attribute types
SHALL, when present, be used to store geographical information
with which the subject is associated. If an organizationName
value is also present, then the stateOrProvinceName and
localityName attribute values SHALL be associated with the
specified organization. The type of association between the
stateOrProvinceName and the localityName and either the subject or
the organizationName is beyond the scope of this document.
Compliant implementations SHALL be able to interpret the attributes
named in this section.
This section provides additional details regarding the contents of
four certificate extensions defined in RFC 3280: Subject Alternative
Name, Subject directory attributes, Certificate policies, and Key
usage. This section also defines two additional extensions:
biometric information and qualified certificate statements.
If the subjectAltName extension is present, and it contains a
directoryName name, then the directoryName MUST follow the
conventions specified in section 3.1.2 of this profile.
The subjectDirectoryAttributes extension MAY be present and MAY
contain additional attributes associated with the subject, as a
complement to present information in the subject field and the
subject alternative name extension.
Attributes suitable for storage in this extension are attributes
which are not part of the subject's distinguished name, but which MAY
still be useful for other purposes (e.g., authorization).
This extension MUST NOT be marked critical.
Compliant implementations SHALL be able to interpret the following
attributes:
dateOfBirth;
placeOfBirth;
gender;
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
countryOfCitizenship; and
countryOfResidence.
Other attributes MAY be included according to local definitions.
The dateOfBirth attribute SHALL, when present, contain the value
of the date of birth of the subject. The manner in which the date
of birth is associated with the subject is outside the scope of
this document. The date of birth is defined in the
GeneralizedTime format and SHOULD specify GMT 12.00.00 (noon) down
to the granularity of seconds, in order to prevent accidental
change of date due to time zone adjustments. For example, a birth
date of September 27, 1959 is encoded as "19590927120000Z".
Compliant certificate parsing applications SHOULD ignore any time
data and just present the contained date without any time zone
adjustments.
The placeOfBirth attribute SHALL, when present, contain the value
of the place of birth of the subject. The manner in which the
place of birth is associated with the subject is outside the scope
of this document.
The gender attribute SHALL, when present, contain the value of the
gender of the subject. For females the value "F" (or "f"), and
for males the value "M" (or "m"), have to be used. The manner in
which the gender is associated with the subject is outside the
scope of this document.
The countryOfCitizenship attribute SHALL, when present, contain
the identifier of at least one of the subject's claimed countries
of citizenship at the time the certificate was issued. If more
than one country of citizenship is specified, each country of
citizenship SHOULD be specified through a separate, single-valued
countryOfCitizenship attribute. Determination of citizenship is a
matter of law and is outside the scope of this document.
The countryOfResidence attribute SHALL, when present, contain the
value of at least one country in which the subject is resident.
If more than one country of residence is specified, each country
of residence SHOULD be specified through a separate, single-valued
countryOfResidence attribute. Determination of residence is a
matter of law and is outside the scope of this document.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
The certificate policies extension SHALL be present and SHALL contain
the identifier of at least one certificate policy which reflects the
practices and procedures undertaken by the CA. The certificate
policy extension MAY be marked critical.
Information provided by the issuer stating the purpose of the
certificate, as discussed in Section 2.2, SHOULD be evident through
indicated policies.
The certificate policies extension MUST include all policy
information needed for certification path validation. If policy
related statements are included in the QCStatements extension (see
3.2.6), then these statements SHOULD also be contained in the
identified policies.
Certificate policies MAY be combined with any qualifier defined in
RFC 3280.
The key usage extension SHALL be present. Key usage settings SHALL
be set in accordance with RFC 3280 definitions. Further requirements
on key usage settings MAY be defined by local policy and/or local
legal requirements.
The key usage extension SHOULD be marked critical.
This section defines an OPTIONAL extension for storage of biometric
information. Biometric information is stored in the form of a hash
of a biometric template.
The purpose of this extension is to provide a means for the
authentication of biometric information. The biometric information
that corresponds to the stored hash is not stored in this extension,
but the extension MAY include a URI (sourceDataUri) that references a
file containing this information.
If included, the URI MUST use the HTTP scheme (http://) [HTTP/1.1] or
the HTTPS scheme (https://) [RFC 2818]. Since the fact that
identifying data is being checked may itself be sensitive
information, those deploying this mechanism may also wish to consider
using URIs which cannot be easily tied by outsiders to the identities
of those whose information is being retrieved.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
Use of the URI option presumes that the data encoding format of the
file content is determined through means outside the scope of this
specification, such as file naming conventions and metadata inside
the file. Use of this URI option does not imply that it is the only
way to access this information.
It is RECOMMENDED that biometric information in this extension be
limited to information types suitable for human verification, i.e.,
where the decision of whether the information is an accurate
representation of the subject is naturally performed by a person.
This implies a usage where the biometric information is represented
by, for example, a graphical image displayed to the relying party,
which MAY be used by the relying party to enhance identification of
the subject.
This extension MUST NOT be marked critical.
biometricInfo EXTENSION ::= {
SYNTAX BiometricSyntax
IDENTIFIED BY id-pe-biometricInfo }
id-pe-biometricInfo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-pe 2}
BiometricSyntax ::= SEQUENCE OF BiometricData
BiometricData ::= SEQUENCE {
typeOfBiometricData TypeOfBiometricData,
hashAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
biometricDataHash OCTET STRING,
sourceDataUri IA5String OPTIONAL }
TypeOfBiometricData ::= CHOICE {
predefinedBiometricType PredefinedBiometricType,
biometricDataID OBJECT IDENTIFIER }
PredefinedBiometricType ::= INTEGER { picture(0),
handwritten-signature(1)} (picture|handwritten-signature,...)
The predefined biometric type picture, when present, SHALL identify
that the source picture is in the form of a displayable graphical
image of the subject. The hash of the graphical image SHALL be
calculated over the whole referenced image file.
The predefined biometric type handwritten-signature, when present,
SHALL identify that the source data is in the form of a displayable
graphical image of the subject's handwritten signature. The hash of
the graphical image SHALL be calculated over the whole referenced
image file.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
This section defines an OPTIONAL extension for the inclusion of
statements defining explicit properties of the certificate.
Each statement SHALL include an object identifier for the statement
and MAY also include optional qualifying data contained in the
statementInfo parameter.
If the statementInfo parameter is included, then the object
identifier of the statement SHALL define the syntax and SHOULD define
the semantics of this parameter. If the object identifier does not
define the semantics, a relying party may have to consult a relevant
certificate policy or CPS to determine the exact semantics.
This extension may be critical or non-critical. If the extension is
critical, this means that all statements included in the extension
are regarded as critical.
qcStatements EXTENSION ::= {
SYNTAX QCStatements
IDENTIFIED BY id-pe-qcStatements }
-- NOTE: This extension does not allow to mix critical and
-- non-critical Qualified Certificate Statements. Either all
-- statements must be critical or all statements must be
-- non-critical.
id-pe-qcStatements OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 3 }
QCStatements ::= SEQUENCE OF QCStatement
QCStatement ::= SEQUENCE {
statementId QC-STATEMENT.&Id({SupportedStatements}),
statementInfo QC-STATEMENT.&Type
({SupportedStatements}{@statementId}) OPTIONAL }
SupportedStatements QC-STATEMENT ::= { qcStatement-1,...}
A statement suitable for inclusion in this extension MAY be a
statement by the issuer that the certificate is issued as a Qualified
Certificate in accordance with a particular legal system (as
discussed in Section 2.2).
Other statements suitable for inclusion in this extension MAY be
statements related to the applicable legal jurisdiction within which
the certificate is issued. As an example, this MAY include a maximum
reliance limit for the certificate indicating restrictions on CA's
liability.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
The certificate statement (id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v1), identifies
conformance with requirements defined in the obsoleted RFC 3039
(Version 1). This statement is thus provided for identification of
old certificates issued in conformance with RFC 3039. This statement
MUST NOT be included in certificates issued in accordance with this
profile.
This profile includes a new qualified certificate statement
(identified by the OID id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v2), identifying
conformance with requirements defined in this profile. This
Qualified Certificate profile is referred to as version 2, while RFC
3039 is referred to as version 1.
qcStatement-1 QC-STATEMENT ::= { SYNTAX SemanticsInformation
IDENTIFIED BY id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v1 }
-- This statement identifies conformance with requirements
-- defined in RFC 3039 (Version 1). This statement may
-- optionally contain additional semantics information as
-- specified below.
qcStatement-2 QC-STATEMENT ::= { SYNTAX SemanticsInformation
IDENTIFIED BY id-qcs-pkixQCSyntax-v2 }
-- This statement identifies conformance with requirements
-- defined in this Qualified Certificate profile
-- (Version 2). This statement may optionally contain
-- additional semantics information as specified below.
SemanticsInformation ::= SEQUENCE {
semanticsIdentifier OBJECT IDENTIFIER OPTIONAL,
nameRegistrationAuthorities NameRegistrationAuthorities
OPTIONAL }
(WITH COMPONENTS {..., semanticsIdentifier PRESENT}|
WITH COMPONENTS {..., nameRegistrationAuthorities PRESENT})
NameRegistrationAuthorities ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
GeneralName
The SementicsInformation component identified by id-qcs-
pkixQCSyntax-v1 MAY contain a semantics identifier and MAY identify
one or more name registration authorities.
The semanticsIdentifier component, if present, SHALL contain an OID,
defining semantics for attributes and names in basic certificate
fields and certificate extensions. The OID may define semantics for
all, or for a subgroup of all present attributes and/or names.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
The NameRegistrationAuthorities component, if present, SHALL contain
a name of one or more name registration authorities, responsible for
registration of attributes or names associated with the subject. The
association between an identified name registration authority and
present attributes MAY be defined by a semantics identifier OID, by a
certificate policy (or CPS), or some other implicit factors.
If a value of type SemanticsInformation is present in a QCStatement
where the statementID component is set to id-qcs-pkix-QCSyntax-v1 or
id-qcs-pkix-QCSyntax-v2, then at least one of the semanticsIdentifier
or nameRegistrationAuthorities fields must be present, as indicated.
Note that the statementInfo component need not be present in a
QCStatement value even if the statementID component is set to id-
qcs-pkix-QCSyntax-v1 or id-qcs-pkix-QCSyntax-v2.
The legal value of a digital signature that is validated with a
Qualified Certificate will be highly dependent upon the policy
governing the use of the associated private key. Both the private
key holder, as well as the relying party, should make sure that the
private key is used only with the consent of the legitimate key
holder.
Since the public keys are for public use with legal implications for
involved parties, certain conditions should exist before CAs issue
certificates as Qualified Certificates. The associated private keys
must be unique for the subject, and must be maintained under the
subject's sole control. That is, a CA should not issue a qualified
certificate if the means to use the private key is not protected
against unintended usage. This implies that the CA has some
knowledge about the subject's cryptographic module.
The CA must further verify that the public key contained in the
certificate is legitimately representing the subject.
CAs should not issue CA certificates with policy mapping extensions
indicating acceptance of another CA's policy unless these conditions
are met.
Combining the nonRepudiation bit in the keyUsage certificate
extension with other keyUsage bits may have security implications
depending on the context in which the certificate is to be used.
Applications validating electronic signatures based on such
certificates should determine whether the present key usage
combination is appropriate for their use.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
The ability to compare two qualified certificates to determine if
they represent the same physical entity is dependent on the semantics
of the subjects' names. The semantics of a particular attribute may
be different for different issuers. Comparing names without
knowledge of the semantics of names in these particular certificates
may provide misleading results.
This specification is a profile of RFC 3280. The security
considerations section of that document applies to this specification
as well.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
As in RFC 3280, ASN.1 modules are supplied in two different variants
of the ASN.1 syntax.
Appendix A.1 is in the 1988 syntax, and does not use macros.
However, since the module imports type definitions from modules in
RFC 3280 which are not completely in the 1988 syntax, the same
comments as in RFC 3280 regarding its use applies here as well; i.e.,
Appendix A.1 may be parsed by an 1988 ASN.1-parser by removing the
definitions for the UNIVERSAL types and all references to them in RFC
3280's 1988 modules.
Appendix A.2 is in the 1997 syntax.
In case of discrepancies between these modules, the 1988 module is
the normative one.
This document defines several new attributes, both for use in the
subject field of issued certificates and in the
subjectDirectoryAttributes extension. A complete definition of these
new attributes (including matching rules), along with object classes
to support them in LDAP-accessible directories, can be found in
PKCS 9 [RFC 2985].
This section contains the ASN.1 structure, an ASN.1 dump, and the
DER-encoding of a certificate issued in conformance with this
profile. The example has been developed with the help of the OSS
ASN.1 compiler. The certificate has the following characteristics:
1. The certificate is signed with RSA and the SHA-1 hash
algorithm
2. The issuer's distinguished name is (using the syntax specified
in [RFC 2253]): O=GMD - Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik
GmbH, C=DE
3. The subject's distinguished name is (using the syntax
specified in [RFC 2253]): GN=Petra+SN=Barzin, O=GMD
- Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH, C=DE
4. The certificate was issued on 1 February, 2004 and will expire
on 1 February, 2008
5. The certificate contains a 1024 bit RSA key
6. The certificate includes a critical key usage extension
exclusively indicating non-repudiation
7. The certificate includes a certificate policy identifier
extension indicating the practices and procedures undertaken
by the issuing CA (object identifier 1.3.36.8.1.1). The
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
certificate policy object identifier is defined by TeleTrust,
Germany.
8. The certificate includes a subject directory attributes
extension containing the following attributes:
date of birth: October, 14th 1971
place of birth: Darmstadt
country of citizenship:Germany
gender: Female
9. The certificate includes a qualified statement certificate
extension indicating that the naming registration authority's
name is "municipality@darmstadt.de".
10. The certificate includes, in conformance with RFC 3280, an
authority key identifier extension.
Since extensions are DER-encoded already when placed in the structure
to be signed, they are, for clarity, shown here in the value notation
defined in [X.680].
This section contains the DER-encoded public RSA key of the CA who
signed the example certificate. It is included with the purpose of
simplifying verifications of the example certificate.
30818902818100c88f4bdb66f713ba3dd7a9069880e888d4321acb53cda7fcdf
da89b834e25430b956d46a438baa6798035af30db378424e00a8296b012b1b24
f9cf0b3f83be116cd8a36957dc3f54cbd7c58a10c380b3dfa15bd2922ea8660f
96e1603d81357c0442ad607c5161d083d919fd5307c1c3fa6dfead0e6410999e
8b8a8411d525dd0203010001
References
Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 2247] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber R. and S.
Sataluri, "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished
Names", RFC 2247, January 1998.
[RFC 2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
[RFC 2985] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #9: Selected Object
Classes and Attribute Types Version 2.0", RFC 2985,
November 2000.
[RFC 3280] Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W. and D. Solo, "Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Certificate and
Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280,
April 2002.
[X.509] ITU-T Recommendation X.509 (2000) | ISO/IEC 9594-8:2001,
Information technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
The Directory: Public-key and attribute certificate
frameworks
[X.520] ITU-T Recommendation X.520 (2001) | ISO/IEC 9594-6:2001,
Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
The Directory: Selected Attribute Types, 2001.
[X.680] ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002),
Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One,
2002.
[ISO 3166] ISO 3166-1:1997, Codes for the representation of names of
countries, 1997.
[HTTP/1.1] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
Informative References
[X.501] ITU-T recommendation X.501 (2001) | ISO/IEC 9594-2:2001,
Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
The Directory: Models, 2001.
[EU-ESDIR] Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for
electronic signatures, 1999.
[RFC 2253] Wahl, M., Kille, S. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of
Distinguished Names", RFC 2253, December 1997.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
Authors' Addresses
Stefan Santesson
Microsoft Denmark
Tuborg Boulevard 12
DK-2900 Hellerup
Denmark
EMail: stefans@microsoft.com
Tim Polk
NIST
Building 820, Room 426
Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA
EMail: wpolk@nist.gov
Magnus Nystrom
RSA Security
Box 10704
S-121 29 Stockholm
Sweden
EMail: magnus@rsasecurity.com
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 3739 Qualified Certificates Profile March 2004
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to
rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Santesson, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]