]> Ericsson AB

goran.selander@ericsson.com

RISE

shahid.raza@ri.se

Nexus

martin.furuhed@nexusgroup.com

Inria

malisa.vucinic@inria.fr

timothy.claeys@gmail.com

Security ACE Working Group Internet-Draft This document specifies public-key certificate enrollment procedures protected with lightweight application-layer security protocols suitable for Internet of Things (IoT) deployments. The protocols leverage payload formats defined in Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) and existing IoT standards including the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) format. Discussion Venues Discussion of this document takes place on the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments Working Group mailing list (ace@ietf.org), which is archived at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction One of the challenges with deploying a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for the Internet of Things (IoT) is certificate enrollment, because existing enrollment protocols are not optimized for constrained environments . One optimization of certificate enrollment targeting IoT deployments is specified in EST-coaps (), which defines a version of Enrollment over Secure Transport for transporting EST payloads over CoAP and DTLS , instead of secured HTTP. This document describes a method for protecting EST payloads over CoAP or HTTP with OSCORE . OSCORE specifies an extension to CoAP which protects the application layer message and can be applied independently of how CoAP messages are transported. OSCORE can also be applied to CoAP-mappable HTTP which enables end-to-end security for mixed CoAP and HTTP transfer of application layer data. Hence EST payloads can be protected end-to-end independent of underlying transport and through proxies translating between between CoAP and HTTP. OSCORE is designed for constrained environments, building on IoT standards such as CoAP, CBOR and COSE , and has in particular gained traction in settings where message sizes and the number of exchanged messages needs to be kept at a minimum, such as 6TiSCH , or for securing multicast CoAP messages . Where OSCORE is implemented and used for communication security, the reuse of OSCORE for other purposes, such as enrollment, reduces the code footprint. In order to protect certificate enrollment with OSCORE, the necessary keying material (notably, the OSCORE Master Secret, see ) needs to be established between EST-oscore client and EST-oscore server. For this purpose we assume by default the use of the lightweight authenticated key exchange protocol EDHOC , although pre-shared OSCORE keying material would also be an option. Other ways to optimize the performance of certificate enrollment and certificate based authentication described in this draft include the use of:

• Compact representations of X.509 certificates (see )
• Certificates by reference (see )
• Compact, CBOR representations of EST payloads (see )

Operational Differences with EST-coaps The protection of EST payloads defined in this document builds on EST-coaps but transport layer security is replaced, or complemented, by protection of the transfer- and application layer data (i.e., CoAP message fields and payload). This specification deviates from EST-coaps in the following respects:

• The DTLS record layer is replaced, or complemented, with OSCORE.
• The DTLS handshake is replaced, or complemented, with the lightweight authenticated key exchange protocol EDHOC , and makes use of the following features:
  • Authentication based on certificates is complemented with authentication based on raw public keys.
  • Authentication based on signature keys is complemented with authentication based on static Diffie-Hellman keys, for certificates/raw public keys.
  • Authentication based on certificate by value is complemented with authentication based on certificate/raw public keys by reference.
• The EST payloads protected by OSCORE can be proxied between constrained networks supporting CoAP/CoAPs and non-constrained networks supporting HTTP/HTTPs with a CoAP-HTTP proxy protection without any security processing in the proxy (see ). The concept "Registrar" and its required trust relation with EST server as described in Section 5 of is therefore redundant.

So, while the same authentication scheme (Diffie-Hellman key exchange authenticated with transported certificates) and the same EST payloads as EST-coaps also apply to EST-oscore, the latter specifies other authentication schemes and a new matching EST function. The reason for these deviations is that a significant overhead can be removed in terms of message sizes and round trips by using a different handshake, public key type or transported credential, and those are independent of the actual enrollment procedure.

Terminology 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 . These words may also appear in this document in lowercase, absent their normative meanings. This document uses terminology from which in turn is based on and, in turn, on . The term "Trust Anchor" follows the terminology of : "A trust anchor represents an authoritative entity via a public key and associated data. The public key is used to verify digital signatures, and the associated data is used to constrain the types of information for which the trust anchor is authoritative." One example of specifying more compact alternatives to X.509 certificates for exchanging trust anchor information is provided by the TrustAnchorInfo structure of , the mandatory parts of which essentially is the SubjectPublicKeyInfo structure , i.e., an algorithm identifier followed by a public key.

Authentication This specification replaces the DTLS handshake in EST-coaps with the lightweight authenticated key exchange protocol EDHOC . During initial enrollment the EST-oscore client and server run EDHOC to authenticate and establish the OSCORE security context with which the EST payloads are protected. EST-oscore clients and servers MUST perform mutual authentication. The EST server and EST client are responsible for ensuring that an acceptable cipher suite is negotiated. The client MUST authenticate the server before accepting any server response. The server MUST authenticate the client and provide relevant information to the CA for decision about issuing a certificate.

EDHOC EDHOC supports authentication with certificates/raw public keys (referred to as "credentials"), and the credentials may either be transported in the protocol, or referenced. This is determined by the identifier of the credential of the endpoint, ID_CRED_x for x= Initiator/Responder, which is transported in an EDHOC message. This identifier may be the credential itself (in which case the credential is transported), or a pointer such as a URI to the credential (e.g., x5t, see ) or some other identifier which enables the receiving endpoint to retrieve the credential.

Certificate-based Authentication EST-oscore, like EST-coaps, supports certificate-based authentication between EST client and server. In this case the client MUST be configured with an Implicit or Explicit Trust Anchor (TA) database, enabling the client to authenticate the server. During the initial enrollment the client SHOULD populate its Explicit TA database and use it for subsequent authentications. The EST client certificate SHOULD conform to . The EST client and/or EST server certificate MAY be a (natively signed) CBOR certificate .

Channel Binding The specification describes proof-of-possession as the ability of a client to prove its possession of a private key which is linked to a certified public key. In case of signature key, a proof-of-possession is generated by the client when it signs the PKCS#10 Request during the enrollment phase. Connection-based proof-of-possession is OPTIONAL for EST-oscore clients and servers. When desired the client can use the EDHOC-Exporter API to extract channel-binding information and provide a connection-based proof-of possession. Channel-binding information is obtained as follows edhoc-unique = EDHOC-Exporter(TBD1, "EDHOC Unique", length), where TBD1 is a registered label from the EDHOC Exporter Label registry, length equals the desired length of the edhoc-unique byte string. The client then adds the edhoc-unique byte string as a challengePassword (see Section 5.4.1 of ) in the attributes section of the PKCS#10 Request to prove to the server that the authenticated EDHOC client is in possession of the private key associated with the certification request, and signed the certification request after the EDHOC session was established.

Optimizations

• The last message of the EDHOC protocol, message_3, MAY be combined with an OSCORE request, enabling authenticated Diffie-Hellman key exchange and a protected CoAP request/response (which may contain an enrolment request and response) in two round trips .
• The certificates MAY be compressed, e.g. using the CBOR encoding defined in .
• The certificate MAY be referenced instead of transported . The EST-oscore server MAY use information in the credential identifier field of the EDHOC message (ID_CRED_x) to access the EST-oscore client certificate, e.g., in a directory or database provided by the issuer. In this case the certificate may not need to be transported over a constrained link between EST client and server.
• Conversely, the response to the PKCS#10 request MAY be a reference to the enrolled certificate rather than the certificate itself. The EST-oscore server MAY in the enrolment response to the EST-oscore client include a pointer to a directory or database where the certificate can be retrieved.

Protocol Design and Layering EST-oscore uses CoAP and Block-Wise to transfer EST messages in the same way as . Instead of DTLS record layer, OSCORE is used to protect the EST payloads. DTLS handshake is replaced with EDHOC . below shows the layered EST-oscore architecture.

EST protected with OSCORE.

EST-oscore follows much of the EST-coaps and EST design.

Discovery and URI The discovery of EST resources and the definition of the short EST-coaps URI paths specified in Section 4.1 of , as well as the new Resource Type defined in Section 8.2 of apply to EST-oscore. Support for OSCORE is indicated by the "osc" attribute defined in Section 9 of , for example: ; rt="ace.est";osc ]]>

Mandatory/optional EST Functions The EST-oscore specification has the same set of required-to-implement functions as EST-coaps. The content of is adapted from Section 4.2 in and uses the updated URI paths (see ). Mandatory and optional EST-oscore functions

EST functions	EST-oscore implementation
/crts	MUST
/sen	MUST
/sren	MUST
/skg	OPTIONAL
/skc	OPTIONAL
/att	OPTIONAL

/crts EST-coaps provides the /crts operation. A successful request from the client to this resource will be answered with a bag of certificates which is subsequently installed in the Explicit TA. A trust anchor is commonly a self-signed certificate of the CA public key. In order to reduce transport overhead, the trust anchor could be just the CA public key and associated data (see ), e.g., the SubjectPublicKeyInfo, or a public key certificate without the signature. In either case they can be compactly encoded, e.g. using CBOR encoding .

Payload formats Similar to EST-coaps, EST-oscore allows transport of the ASN.1 structure of a given Media-Type in binary format. In addition, EST-oscore uses the same CoAP Content-Format Options to transport EST requests and responses . summarizes the information from Section 4.3 in . EST functions and there associated Media-Type and IANA numbers

URI	Content-Format	#IANA
/crts	N/A (req)	-
	application/pkix-cert (res)	287
	application/pkcs-7-mime;smime-type=certs-only (res)	281
/sen	application/pkcs10 (req)	286
	application/pkix-cert (res)	287
	application/pkcs-7-mime;smime-type=certs-only (res)	281
/sren	application/pkcs10 (req)	286
	application/pkix-cert (res)	287
	application/pkcs-7-mime;smime-type=certs-only (res)	281
/skg	application/pkcs10 (req)	286
	application/multipart-core (res)	62
/skc	application/pkcs10 (req)	286
	application/multipart-core (res)	62
/att	N/A (req)	-
	application/csrattrs (res)	285

Message Bindings The EST-oscore message characteristics are identical to those specified in Section 4.4 of . It is RECOMMENDED that

• The EST-oscore endpoints support delayed responses
• The endpoints supports the following CoAP options: OSCORE, Uri-Host, Uri-Path, Uri-Port, Content-Format, Block1, Block2, and Accept.
• The EST URLs based on https:// are translated to coap://, but with mandatory use of the CoAP OSCORE option.

CoAP response codes See Section 4.5 in .

Message fragmentation The EDHOC key exchange is optimized for message overhead, in particular the use of static DH keys instead of signature keys for authentication (e.g., method 3 of ). Together with various measures listed in this document such as CBOR-encoded payloads (), CBOR certificates , certificates by reference (), and trust anchors without signature (), a significant reduction of message sizes can be achieved. Nevertheless, depending on application, the protocol messages may become larger than available frame size resulting in fragmentation and, in resource constrained networks such as IEEE 802.15.4 where throughput is limited, fragment loss can trigger costly retransmissions. It is RECOMMENDED to prevent IP fragmentation, since it involves an error-prone datagram reconstitution. To limit the size of the CoAP payload, this specification mandates the implementation of CoAP option Block1 and Block2 fragmentation mechanism as described in Section 4.6 of .

Delayed Responses See Section 4.7 in .

Enrollment of Static DH Keys This section specifies how the EST client enrolls a static DH key. Because a DH key pair cannot be used for signing operations, the EST client attempting to enroll a DH key must use an alternative proof-of-possesion algorithm. The EST client obtained the CA certs including the CA's DH certificate using the /crts function. The certificate indicates the DH group parameters which MUST be respected by the EST client when generating its own DH key pair. The EST client prepares the PKCS #10 object and signs it by following the steps in Section 4 of . The Key Derivation Function (KDF) and the MAC MUST be set to the HDKF and HMAC algorithms used by OSCORE. As per , the HKDF MUST be one of the HMAC-based HKDF algorithms defined for COSE . The KDF and MAC is thus defined by the hash algorithm used by OSCORE in HKDF and HMAC, which by default is SHA-256. When EDHOC is used, then the hash algorithm is the application hash algorithm of the selected cipher suite.

HTTP-CoAP Proxy As noted in Section 5 of , in real-world deployments, the EST server will not always reside within the CoAP boundary. The EST-server can exist outside the constrained network in a non-constrained network that supports HTTP but not CoAP, thus requiring an intermediary CoAP-to-HTTP proxy. Since OSCORE is applicable to CoAP-mappable HTTP (see Section 11 of ) the EST payloads can be protected end-to-end between EST client and EST server independent of transport protocol or potential transport layer security which may need to be terminated in the proxy, see . Therefore the concept "Registrar" and its required trust relation with EST server as described in Section 5 of is redundant. The mappings between CoAP and HTTP referred to in Section 8.1 of apply, and additional mappings resulting from the use of OSCORE are specified in Section 11 of . OSCORE provides end-to-end security between EST Server and EST Client. The use of TLS and DTLS is optional.

CoAP-to-HTTP proxy at the CoAP boundary. | CoAP-to-HTTP |<-------->| EST Client| || |Server| (TLS) | Proxy | (DTLS) '-----------' || '------' '-----------------' || || || <------------------------------------------------> || OSCORE || || |'--------------------------'| '----------------------------' ]]>

Security Considerations TBD: Compare with RFC9148 TBD: Channel binding security considerations: 3SHAKE attack and EDHOC.

Privacy Considerations TBD

IANA Considerations

EDHOC Exporter Label Registry IANA is requested to register the following entry in the "EDHOC Exporter Label" registry under the group name "Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC).

EDHOC Exporter Label

Acknowledgments

References Normative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This document specifies a simple Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC)-based key derivation function (HKDF), which can be used as a building block in various protocols and applications. The key derivation function (KDF) is intended to support a wide range of applications and requirements, and is conservative in its use of cryptographic hash functions. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document describes two methods for producing an integrity check value from a Diffie-Hellman key pair and one method for producing an integrity check value from an Elliptic Curve key pair. This behavior is needed for such operations as creating the signature of a Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #10 Certification Request. These algorithms are designed to provide a Proof-of-Possession of the private key and not to be a general purpose signing algorithm. This document obsoletes RFC 2875. The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the need for version negotiation. These design goals make it different from earlier binary serializations such as ASN.1 and MessagePack. The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a specialized web transfer protocol for use with constrained nodes and constrained (e.g., low-power, lossy) networks. The nodes often have 8-bit microcontrollers with small amounts of ROM and RAM, while constrained networks such as IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs) often have high packet error rates and a typical throughput of 10s of kbit/s. The protocol is designed for machine- to-machine (M2M) applications such as smart energy and building automation. CoAP provides a request/response interaction model between application endpoints, supports built-in discovery of services and resources, and includes key concepts of the Web such as URIs and Internet media types. CoAP is designed to easily interface with HTTP for integration with the Web while meeting specialized requirements such as multicast support, very low overhead, and simplicity for constrained environments. A common design pattern in Internet of Things (IoT) deployments is the use of a constrained device that collects data via sensors or controls actuators for use in home automation, industrial control systems, smart cities, and other IoT deployments. This document defines a Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) 1.2 profile that offers communications security for this data exchange thereby preventing eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery. The lack of communication security is a common vulnerability in IoT products that can easily be solved by using these well-researched and widely deployed Internet security protocols. The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a RESTful transfer protocol for constrained nodes and networks. Basic CoAP messages work well for small payloads from sensors and actuators; however, applications will need to transfer larger payloads occasionally -- for instance, for firmware updates. In contrast to HTTP, where TCP does the grunt work of segmenting and resequencing, CoAP is based on datagram transports such as UDP or Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS). These transports only offer fragmentation, which is even more problematic in constrained nodes and networks, limiting the maximum size of resource representations that can practically be transferred. Instead of relying on IP fragmentation, this specification extends basic CoAP with a pair of "Block" options for transferring multiple blocks of information from a resource representation in multiple request-response pairs. In many important cases, the Block options enable a server to be truly stateless: the server can handle each block transfer separately, with no need for a connection setup or other server-side memory of previous block transfers. Essentially, the Block options provide a minimal way to transfer larger representations in a block-wise fashion. A CoAP implementation that does not support these options generally is limited in the size of the representations that can be exchanged, so there is an expectation that the Block options will be widely used in CoAP implementations. Therefore, this specification updates RFC 7252. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format designed for small code size and small message size. There is a need for the ability to have basic security services defined for this data format. This document defines the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) protocol. This specification describes how to create and process signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption using CBOR for serialization. This specification additionally describes how to represent cryptographic keys using CBOR. This document defines Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE), a method for application-layer protection of the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), using CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE). OSCORE provides end-to-end protection between endpoints communicating using CoAP or CoAP-mappable HTTP. OSCORE is designed for constrained nodes and networks supporting a range of proxy operations, including translation between different transport protocols. Although an optional functionality of CoAP, OSCORE alters CoAP options processing and IANA registration. Therefore, this document updates RFC 7252. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format designed for small code size and small message size. There is a need to be able to define basic security services for this data format. This document defines the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) protocol. This specification describes how to create and process signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption using CBOR for serialization. This specification additionally describes how to represent cryptographic keys using CBOR. This document, along with RFC 9053, obsoletes RFC 8152. Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) is used as a certificate provisioning protocol over HTTPS. Low-resource devices often use the lightweight Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) for message exchanges. This document defines how to transport EST payloads over secure CoAP (EST-coaps), which allows constrained devices to use existing EST functionality for provisioning certificates. Ericsson AB Ericsson AB Ericsson AB This document specifies Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC), a very compact and lightweight authenticated Diffie-Hellman key exchange with ephemeral keys. EDHOC provides mutual authentication, forward secrecy, and identity protection. EDHOC is intended for usage in constrained scenarios and a main use case is to establish an OSCORE security context. By reusing COSE for cryptography, CBOR for encoding, and CoAP for transport, the additional code size can be kept very low. Informative References This memo represents a republication of PKCS #9 v2.0 from RSA Laboratories' Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) series, and change control is retained within the PKCS process. The body of this document, except for the security considerations section, is taken directly from that specification. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo represents a republication of PKCS #10 v1.7 from RSA Laboratories' Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) series, and change control is retained within the PKCS process. The body of this document, except for the security considerations section, is taken directly from the PKCS #9 v2.0 or the PKCS #10 v1.7 document. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This document defines the base syntax for CMC, a Certificate Management protocol using the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS). This protocol addresses two immediate needs within the Internet Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) community: 1. The need for an interface to public key certification products and services based on CMS and PKCS #10 (Public Key Cryptography Standard), and 2. The need for a PKI enrollment protocol for encryption only keys due to algorithm or hardware design. CMC also requires the use of the transport document and the requirements usage document along with this document for a full definition. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This memo profiles the X.509 v3 certificate and X.509 v2 certificate revocation list (CRL) for use in the Internet. An overview of this approach and model is provided as an introduction. The X.509 v3 certificate format is described in detail, with additional information regarding the format and semantics of Internet name forms. Standard certificate extensions are described and two Internet-specific extensions are defined. A set of required certificate extensions is specified. The X.509 v2 CRL format is described in detail along with standard and Internet-specific extensions. An algorithm for X.509 certification path validation is described. An ASN.1 module and examples are provided in the appendices. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document describes a structure for representing trust anchor information. A trust anchor is an authoritative entity represented by a public key and associated data. The public key is used to verify digital signatures, and the associated data is used to constrain the types of information or actions for which the trust anchor is authoritative. The structures defined in this document are intended to satisfy the format-related requirements defined in Trust Anchor Management Requirements. [STANDARDS-TRACK] A trust anchor represents an authoritative entity via a public key and associated data. The public key is used to verify digital signatures, and the associated data is used to constrain the types of information for which the trust anchor is authoritative. A relying party uses trust anchors to determine if a digitally signed object is valid by verifying a digital signature using the trust anchor's public key, and by enforcing the constraints expressed in the associated data for the trust anchor. This document describes some of the problems associated with the lack of a standard trust anchor management mechanism and defines requirements for data formats and push-based protocols designed to address these problems. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document specifies version 1.2 of the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. The DTLS protocol provides communications privacy for datagram protocols. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. The DTLS protocol is based on the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol and provides equivalent security guarantees. Datagram semantics of the underlying transport are preserved by the DTLS protocol. This document updates DTLS 1.0 to work with TLS version 1.2. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Internet Protocol Suite is increasingly used on small devices with severe constraints on power, memory, and processing resources, creating constrained-node networks. This document provides a number of basic terms that have been useful in the standardization work for constrained-node networks. This document profiles certificate enrollment for clients using Certificate Management over CMS (CMC) messages over a secure transport. This profile, called Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST), describes a simple, yet functional, certificate management protocol targeting Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) clients that need to acquire client certificates and associated Certification Authority (CA) certificates. It also supports client-generated public/private key pairs as well as key pairs generated by the CA. CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact means of representing claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a CWT are encoded in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added application-layer security protection. A claim is a piece of information asserted about a subject and is represented as a name/value pair consisting of a claim name and a claim value. CWT is derived from JSON Web Token (JWT) but uses CBOR rather than JSON. This document describes the minimal framework required for a new device, called a "pledge", to securely join a 6TiSCH (IPv6 over the Time-Slotted Channel Hopping mode of IEEE 802.15.4) network. The framework requires that the pledge and the JRC (Join Registrar/Coordinator, a central entity), share a symmetric key. How this key is provisioned is out of scope of this document. Through a single CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol) request-response exchange secured by OSCORE (Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments), the pledge requests admission into the network, and the JRC configures it with link-layer keying material and other parameters. The JRC may at any time update the parameters through another request-response exchange secured by OSCORE. This specification defines the Constrained Join Protocol and its CBOR (Concise Binary Object Representation) data structures, and it describes how to configure the rest of the 6TiSCH communication stack for this join process to occur in a secure manner. Additional security mechanisms may be added on top of this minimal framework. RISE AB Ericsson AB Ericsson AB Ericsson AB Universitaet Duisburg-Essen This document defines Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE), providing end-to-end security of CoAP messages exchanged between members of a group, e.g., sent over IP multicast. In particular, the described approach defines how OSCORE is used in a group communication setting to provide source authentication for CoAP group requests, sent by a client to multiple servers, and for protection of the corresponding CoAP responses. Group OSCORE also defines a pairwise mode where each member of the group can efficiently derive a symmetric pairwise key with any other member of the group for pairwise OSCORE communication. Ericsson RISE AB RISE AB Fraunhofer AISEC Ericsson The lightweight authenticated key exchange protocol EDHOC can be run over CoAP and used by two peers to establish an OSCORE Security Context. This document further profiles this use of the EDHOC protocol, by specifying a number of additional and optional mechanisms. These especially include an optimization approach for combining the execution of EDHOC with the first subsequent OSCORE transaction. This combination reduces the number of round trips required to set up an OSCORE Security Context and to complete an OSCORE transaction using that Security Context. August Cellars The CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) message structure uses references to keys in general. For some algorithms, additional properties are defined that carry parameters relating to keys as needed. The COSE Key structure is used for transporting keys outside of COSE messages. This document extends the way that keys can be identified and transported by providing attributes that refer to or contain X.509 certificates. Ericsson AB Ericsson AB RISE AB RISE AB Nexus Group This document specifies a CBOR encoding of X.509 certificates. The resulting certificates are called C509 Certificates. The CBOR encoding supports a large subset of RFC 5280 and all certificates compatible with the RFC 7925, IEEE 802.1AR (DevID), CNSA, RPKI, GSMA eUICC, and CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements profiles. When used to re-encode DER encoded X.509 certificates, the CBOR encoding can in many cases reduce the size of RFC 7925 profiled certificates with over 50%. The CBOR encoded structure can alternatively be signed directly ("natively signed"), which does not require re- encoding for the signature to be verified. The document also specifies C509 COSE headers, a C509 TLS certificate type, and a C509 file format.