Network Working Group                                       E. Rescorla
Request for Comments: 2631                                    RTFM Inc.
Category: Standards Track                                     June 1999


                 Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method

Status of this Memo

  This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
  Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
  improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
  Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
  and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

  This document standardizes one particular Diffie-Hellman variant,
  based on the ANSI X9.42 draft, developed by the ANSI X9F1 working
  group. Diffie-Hellman is a key agreement algorithm used by two
  parties to agree on a shared secret. An algorithm for converting the
  shared secret into an arbitrary amount of keying material is
  provided. The resulting keying material is used as a symmetric
  encryption key.  The Diffie-Hellman variant described requires the
  recipient to have a certificate, but the originator may have a static
  key pair (with the public key placed in a certificate) or an
  ephemeral key pair.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
  1.1. Requirements Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
  2. Overview Of Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
  2.1. Key Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
  2.1.1. Generation of ZZ  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
  2.1.2. Generation of Keying Material . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
  2.1.3. KEK Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
  2.1.4. Keylengths for common algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
  2.1.5. Public Key Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
  2.1.6. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
  2.1.7. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
  2.2. Key and Parameter Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
  2.2.1. Group Parameter Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
  2.2.1.1. Generation of p, q  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8



Rescorla                    Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


  2.2.1.2. Generation of g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
  2.2.2. Group Parameter Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
  2.3. Ephemeral-Static Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
  2.4. Static-Static Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
  2.4. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
  2.4. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
  Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

  In [DH76] Diffie and Hellman describe a means for two parties to
  agree upon a shared secret in such a way that the secret will be
  unavailable to eavesdroppers. This secret may then be converted into
  cryptographic keying material for other (symmetric) algorithms.  A
  large number of minor variants of this process exist. This document
  describes one such variant, based on the ANSI X9.42 specification.

1.1.  Requirements Terminology

  Keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and
  "MAY" that appear in this document are to be interpreted as described
  in [RFC2119].

2.  Overview Of Method

  Diffie-Hellman key agreement requires that both the sender and
  recipient of a message have key pairs. By combining one's private key
  and the other party's public key, both parties can compute the same
  shared secret number. This number can then be converted into
  cryptographic keying material.  That keying material is typically
  used as a key-encryption key (KEK) to encrypt (wrap) a content-
  encryption key (CEK) which is in turn used to encrypt the message
  data.

2.1.  Key Agreement

  The first stage of the key agreement process is to compute a shared
  secret number, called ZZ.  When the same originator and recipient
  public/private key pairs are used, the same ZZ value will result.
  The ZZ value is then converted into a shared symmetric cryptographic
  key. When the originator employs a static private/public key pair,
  the introduction of a public random value ensures that the resulting
  symmetric key will be different for each key agreement.






Rescorla                    Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


2.1.1.  Generation of ZZ

  X9.42 defines that the shared secret ZZ is generated as follows:

    ZZ = g ^ (xb * xa) mod p

  Note that the individual parties actually perform the computations:

    ZZ = (yb ^ xa)  mod p  = (ya ^ xb)  mod p

  where ^ denotes exponentiation

        ya is party a's public key; ya = g ^ xa mod p
        yb is party b's public key; yb = g ^ xb mod p
        xa is party a's private key
        xb is party b's private key
        p is a large prime
        q is a large prime
        g = h^{(p-1)/q} mod p, where
        h is any integer with 1 < h < p-1 such that h{(p-1)/q} mod p > 1
          (g has order q mod p; i.e. g^q mod p = 1 if g!=1)
        j a large integer such that p=qj + 1
        (See Section 2.2 for criteria for keys and parameters)

  In [CMS], the recipient's key is identified by the CMS
  RecipientIdentifier, which points to the recipient's certificate.
  The sender's public key is identified using the
  OriginatorIdentifierOrKey field, either by reference to the sender's
  certificate or by inline inclusion of a public key.

2.1.2.  Generation of Keying Material

  X9.42 provides an algorithm for generating an essentially arbitrary
  amount of keying material from ZZ. Our algorithm is derived from that
  algorithm by mandating some optional fields and omitting others.

    KM = H ( ZZ || OtherInfo)

  H is the message digest function SHA-1 [FIPS-180] ZZ is the shared
  secret value computed in Section 2.1.1. Leading zeros MUST be
  preserved, so that ZZ occupies as many octets as p. For instance, if
  p is 1024 bits, ZZ should be 128 bytes long.  OtherInfo is the DER
  encoding of the following structure:

    OtherInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
      keyInfo KeySpecificInfo,
      partyAInfo [0] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
      suppPubInfo [2] OCTET STRING



Rescorla                    Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


    }

    KeySpecificInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
      algorithm OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
      counter OCTET STRING SIZE (4..4) }

  Note that these ASN.1 definitions use EXPLICIT tagging. (In ASN.1,
  EXPLICIT tagging is implicit unless IMPLICIT is explicitly
  specified.)

  algorithm is the ASN.1 algorithm OID of the CEK wrapping algorithm
    with which this KEK will be used. Note that this is NOT an
    AlgorithmIdentifier, but simply the OBJECT IDENTIFIER. No
    parameters are used.

  counter is a 32 bit number, represented in network byte order. Its
    initial value is 1 for any ZZ, i.e. the byte sequence 00 00 00 01
    (hex), and it is incremented by one every time the above key
    generation function is run for a given KEK.

  partyAInfo is a random string provided by the sender. In CMS, it is
    provided as a parameter in the UserKeyingMaterial field (encoded as
    an OCTET STRING). If provided, partyAInfo MUST contain 512 bits.

  suppPubInfo is the length of the generated KEK, in bits, represented
    as a 32 bit number in network byte order. E.g. for 3DES it would be
    the byte sequence 00 00 00 C0.

  To generate a KEK, one generates one or more KM blocks (incrementing
  counter appropriately) until enough material has been generated.  The
  KM blocks are concatenated left to right I.e. KM(counter=1) ||
  KM(counter=2)...

  Note that the only source of secret entropy in this computation is
  ZZ.  Even if a string longer than ZZ is generated, the effective key
  space of the KEK is limited by the size of ZZ, in addition to any
  security level considerations imposed by the parameters p and q.
  However, if partyAInfo is different for each message, a different KEK
  will be generated for each message. Note that partyAInfo MUST be used
  in Static-Static mode, but MAY appear in Ephemeral-Static mode.

2.1.3.  KEK Computation

  Each key encryption algorithm requires a specific size key (n). The
  KEK is generated by mapping the left n-most bytes of KM onto the key.
  For 3DES, which requires 192 bits of keying material, the algorithm
  must be run twice, once with a counter value of 1 (to generate K1',
  K2', and the first 32 bits of K3') and once with a counter value of 2



Rescorla                    Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


  (to generate the last 32 bits of K3). K1',K2' and K3' are then parity
  adjusted to generate the 3 DES keys K1,K2 and K3.  For RC2-128, which
  requires 128 bits of keying material, the algorithm is run once, with
  a counter value of 1, and the left-most 128 bits are directly
  converted to an RC2 key. Similarly, for RC2-40, which requires 40
  bits of keying material, the algorithm is run once, with a counter
  value of 1, and the leftmost 40 bits are used as the key.

2.1.4.  Keylengths for common algorithms

  Some common key encryption algorithms have KEKs of the following
  lengths.

    3-key 3DES      192 bits
    RC2-128        128 bits
    RC2-40         40 bits

  RC2 effective key lengths are equal to RC2 real key lengths.

2.1.5.  Public Key Validation

  The following algorithm MAY be used to validate a received public key
  y.

    1. Verify that y lies within the interval [2,p-1]. If it does not,
       the key is invalid.
    2. Compute y^q mod p. If the result == 1, the key is valid.
       Otherwise the key is invalid.

  The primary purpose of public key validation is to prevent a small
  subgroup attack [LAW98] on the sender's key pair. If Ephemeral-Static
  mode is used, this check may not be necessary. See also [P1363] for
  more information on Public Key validation.

  Note that this procedure may be subject to pending patents.

2.1.6.  Example 1

  ZZ is the 20 bytes 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
                     0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13

  The key wrap algorithm is 3DES-EDE wrap.

  No partyAInfo is used.

  Consequently, the input to the first invocation of SHA-1 is:

  00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 ; ZZ



Rescorla                    Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


  30 1d
     30 13
        06 0b 2a 86 48 86 f7 0d 01 09 10 03 06          ; 3DES wrap OID
        04 04
           00 00 00 01                                        ; Counter
     a2 06
        04 04
        00 00 00 c0                                        ; key length

  And the output is the 20 bytes:

  a0 96 61 39 23 76 f7 04 4d 90 52 a3 97 88 32 46 b6 7f 5f 1e

  The input to the second invocation of SHA-1 is:

  00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 ; ZZ
  30 1d
     30 13
        06 0b 2a 86 48 86 f7 0d 01 09 10 03 06          ; 3DES wrap OID
        04 04
           00 00 00 02                                        ; Counter
     a2 06
        04 04
        00 00 00 c0                                        ; key length

  And the output is the 20 bytes:

  f6 3e b5 fb 5f 56 d9 b6 a8 34 03 91 c2 d3 45 34 93 2e 11 30

  Consequently,
  K1'=a0 96 61 39 23 76 f7 04
  K2'=4d 90 52 a3 97 88 32 46
  K3'=b6 7f 5f 1e f6 3e b5 fb

  Note: These keys are not parity adjusted

2.1.7.  Example 2

  ZZ is the 20 bytes 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
                     0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13

  The key wrap algorithm is RC2-128 key wrap, so we need 128 bits (16
  bytes) of keying material.

  The partyAInfo used is the 64 bytes

  01 23 45 67 89 ab cd ef fe dc ba 98 76 54 32 01
  01 23 45 67 89 ab cd ef fe dc ba 98 76 54 32 01



Rescorla                    Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


  01 23 45 67 89 ab cd ef fe dc ba 98 76 54 32 01
  01 23 45 67 89 ab cd ef fe dc ba 98 76 54 32 01

  Consequently, the input to SHA-1 is:

  00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 ; ZZ
  30 61
     30 13
        06 0b 2a 86 48 86 f7 0d 01 09 10 03 07           ; RC2 wrap OID
        04 04
           00 00 00 01                                        ; Counter
     a0 42
        04 40
           01 23 45 67 89 ab cd ef fe dc ba 98 76 54 32 01 ; partyAInfo
           01 23 45 67 89 ab cd ef fe dc ba 98 76 54 32 01
           01 23 45 67 89 ab cd ef fe dc ba 98 76 54 32 01
           01 23 45 67 89 ab cd ef fe dc ba 98 76 54 32 01
     a2 06
        04 04
           00 00 00 80                                     ; key length

  And the output is the 20 bytes:

  48 95 0c 46 e0 53 00 75 40 3c ce 72 88 96 04 e0 3e 7b 5d e9

  Consequently,
  K=48 95 0c 46 e0 53 00 75 40 3c ce 72 88 96 04 e0

2.2.  Key and Parameter Requirements

  X9.42 requires that the group parameters be of the form p=jq + 1
  where q is a large prime of length m and j>=2. An algorithm for
  generating primes of this form (derived from the algorithms in FIPS
  PUB 186-1[FIPS-186] and [X942]can be found in appendix A.

  X9.42 requires that the private key x be in the interval [2, (q -
  2)].  x should be randomly generated in this interval. y is then
  computed by calculating g^x mod p.  To comply with this memo, m MUST
  be >=160 bits in length, (consequently, q MUST be at least 160 bits
  long). When symmetric ciphers stronger than DES are to be used, a
  larger m may be advisable. p must be a minimum of 512 bits long.

2.2.1.  Group Parameter Generation

  Agents SHOULD generate domain parameters (g,p,q) using the following
  algorithm, derived from [FIPS-186] and [X942]. When this algorithm is
  used, the correctness of the generation procedure can be verified by
  a third party by the algorithm of 2.2.2.



Rescorla                    Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


2.2.1.1.  Generation of p, q

  This algorithm generates a p, q pair where q is of length m and p is
  of length L.

  1. Set m' = m/160 where / represents integer division with rounding
     upwards. I.e. 200/160 = 2.

  2. Set L'=  L/160

  3. Set N'=  L/1024

  4. Select an arbitrary bit string SEED such that the length of SEED
     >= m

  5. Set U = 0

  6. For i = 0 to m' - 1

       U = U + (SHA1[SEED + i] XOR SHA1[(SEED + m' + i)) * 2^(160 * i)

  Note that for m=160, this reduces to the algorithm of [FIPS-186]

       U = SHA1[SEED] XOR SHA1[(SEED+1) mod 2^160 ].

  5. Form q from U by computing U mod (2^m) and setting the most
     significant bit (the 2^(m-1) bit) and the least significant bit to
     1. In terms of boolean operations, q = U OR 2^(m-1) OR 1. Note
     that 2^(m-1) < q < 2^m

  6. Use a robust primality algorithm to test whether q is prime.

  7. If q is not prime then go to 4.

  8. Let counter = 0

  9. Set R = seed + 2*m' + (L' * counter)

  10. Set V = 0

  12. For i = 0 to L'-1 do

      V = V + SHA1(R + i) * 2^(160 * i)

  13. Set W = V mod 2^L

  14. Set X = W OR 2^(L-1)




Rescorla                    Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


  Note that 0 <= W < 2^(L-1) and hence X >= 2^(L-1)

  15. Set p = X - (X mod (2*q)) + 1

  6. If p > 2^(L-1) use a robust primality test to test whether p is
     prime. Else go to 18.

  17. If p is prime output p, q, seed, counter and stop.

  18. Set counter = counter + 1

  19. If counter < (4096 * N) then go to 8.

  20. Output "failure"

  Note: A robust primality test is one where the probability of a non-
  prime number passing the test is at most 2^-80. [FIPS-186] provides a
  suitable algorithm, as does [X942].

2.2.1.2.  Generation of g

  This section gives an algorithm (derived from [FIPS-186]) for
  generating g.

  1. Let j = (p - 1)/q.

  2. Set h = any integer, where 1 < h < p - 1 and h differs
     from any value previously tried.

  3. Set g = h^j mod p

  4. If g = 1 go to step 2

2.2.2.  Group Parameter Validation

  The ASN.1 for DH keys in [PKIX] includes elements j and validation-
  Parms which MAY be used by recipients of a key to verify that the
  group parameters were correctly generated. Two checks are possible:

    1. Verify that p=qj + 1. This demonstrates that the parameters meet
       the X9.42 parameter criteria.
    2. Verify that when the p,q generation procedure of [FIPS-186]
       Appendix 2 is followed with seed 'seed', that p is found when
       'counter' = pgenCounter.

    This demonstrates that the parameters were randomly chosen and
    do not have a special form.




Rescorla                    Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


  Whether agents provide validation information in their certificates
  is a local matter between the agents and their CA.

2.3.  Ephemeral-Static Mode

  In Ephemeral-Static mode, the recipient has a static (and certified)
  key pair, but the sender generates a new key pair for each message
  and sends it using the originatorKey production. If the sender's key
  is freshly generated for each message, the shared secret ZZ will be
  similarly different for each message and partyAInfo MAY be omitted,
  since it serves merely to decouple multiple KEKs generated by the
  same set of pairwise keys. If, however, the same ephemeral sender key
  is used for multiple messages (e.g. it is cached as a performance
  optimization) then a separate partyAInfo MUST be used for each
  message. All implementations of this standard MUST implement
  Ephemeral-Static mode.

  In order to resist small subgroup attacks, the recipient SHOULD
  perform the check described in 2.1.5. If an opponent cannot determine
  success or failure of a decryption operation by the recipient, the
  recipient MAY choose to omit this check. See also [LL97] for a method
  of generating keys which are not subject to small subgroup attack.

2.4.  Static-Static Mode

  In Static-Static mode, both the sender and the recipient have a
  static (and certified) key pair. Since the sender's and recipient's
  keys are therefore the same for each message, ZZ will be the same for
  each message. Thus, partyAInfo MUST be used (and different for each
  message) in order to ensure that different messages use different
  KEKs. Implementations MAY implement Static-Static mode.

  In order to prevent small subgroup attacks, both originator and
  recipient SHOULD either perform the validation step described in
  Section 2.1.5 or verify that the CA has properly verified the
  validity of the key.  See also [LL97] for a method of generating keys
  which are not subject to small subgroup attack.

Acknowledgements

  The Key Agreement method described in this document is based on work
  done by the ANSI X9F1 working group. The author wishes to extend his
  thanks for their assistance.

  The author also wishes to thank Stephen Henson, Paul Hoffman, Russ
  Housley, Burt Kaliski, Brian Korver, John Linn, Jim Schaad, Mark
  Schertler, Peter Yee, and Robert Zuccherato for their expert advice
  and review.



Rescorla                    Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


References

  [CMS]       Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax", RFC 2630,
              June 1999.

  [FIPS-46-1] Federal Information Processing Standards Publication
              (FIPS PUB) 46-1, Data Encryption Standard, Reaffirmed
              1988 January 22 (supersedes FIPS PUB 46, 1977 January
              15).

  [FIPS-81]   Federal Information Processing Standards Publication
              (FIPS PUB) 81, DES Modes of Operation, 1980 December 2.

  [FIPS-180]  Federal Information Processing Standards Publication
              (FIPS PUB) 180-1, "Secure Hash Standard", 1995 April 17.

  [FIPS-186]  Federal Information Processing Standards Publication
              (FIPS PUB) 186, "Digital Signature Standard", 1994 May
              19.

  [P1363]     "Standard Specifications for Public Key Cryptography",
              IEEE P1363 working group draft, 1998, Annex D.

  [PKIX]      Housley, R., Ford, W., Polk, W. and D. Solo, "Internet
              X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL
              Profile", RFC 2459, January 1999.

  [LAW98]     L. Law, A. Menezes, M. Qu, J. Solinas and S. Vanstone,
              "An efficient protocol for authenticated key agreement",
              Technical report CORR 98-05, University of Waterloo,
              1998.

  [LL97]      C.H. Lim and P.J. Lee, "A key recovery attack on discrete
              log-based schemes using a prime order subgroup", B.S.
              Kaliski, Jr., editor, Advances in Cryptology - Crypto
              '97, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1295, 1997,
              Springer-Verlag, pp. 249-263.

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

  [X942]      "Agreement Of Symmetric Keys Using Diffie-Hellman and MQV
              Algorithms", ANSI draft, 1998.








Rescorla                    Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


Security Considerations

  All the security in this system is provided by the secrecy of the
  private keying material. If either sender or recipient private keys
  are disclosed, all messages sent or received using that key are
  compromised. Similarly, loss of the private key results in an
  inability to read messages sent using that key.

  Static Diffie-Hellman keys are vulnerable to a small subgroup attack
  [LAW98]. In practice, this issue arises for both sides in Static-
  Static mode and for the receiver during Ephemeral-Static mode.
  Sections 2.3 and 2.4 describe appropriate practices to protect
  against this attack. Alternatively, it is possible to generate keys
  in such a fashion that they are resistant to this attack. See [LL97]

  The security level provided by these methods depends on several
  factors. It depends on the length of the symmetric key (typically, a
  2^l security level if the length is l bits); the size of the prime q
  (a 2^{m/2} security level); and the size of the prime p (where the
  security level grows as a subexponential function of the size in
  bits).  A good design principle is to have a balanced system, where
  all three security levels are approximately the same. If many keys
  are derived from a given pair of primes p and q, it may be prudent to
  have higher levels for the primes. In any case, the overall security
  is limited by the lowest of the three levels.

Author's Address

  Eric Rescorla
  RTFM Inc.
  30 Newell Road, #16
  East Palo Alto, CA 94303

  EMail: [email protected]

















Rescorla                    Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 2631          Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method          June 1999


Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

  This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
  others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
  or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
  and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
  kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
  included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
  document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
  the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
  Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
  developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
  copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
  followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
  English.

  The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
  revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

  This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
  "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
  TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement


  Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
  Internet Society.


















Rescorla                    Standards Track                    [Page 13]