idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6698, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC6698 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (February 14, 2014) is 3716 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC-this-document' is mentioned on line 133, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DANE O. Gudmundsson 3 Internet-Draft Shinkuro Inc. 4 Updates: 6698 (if approved) February 14, 2014 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: August 18, 2014 8 Adding acronyms to simplify DANE conversations 9 draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-04 11 Abstract 13 Experience has shown that people get confused using the three numeric 14 fields the TLSA record. This document specifies descriptive acronyms 15 for the three numeric fields in the TLSA records. This document 16 updates the format of the IANA registry created by RFC6698. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2.1. TLSA Certificate Usages Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2.2. TLSA Selectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2.3. TLSA Matching types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3. Examples of usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3.1. TLSA records using/displaying the acronyms: . . . . . . . 4 59 3.2. Acronym use in a specification example: . . . . . . . . . 4 60 4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 Appendix A. Document history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 1. Introduction 70 During discussions on how to add DANE [RFC6698] technology to new 71 protocols/services people repeatedly have got confused as to what the 72 numeric values stand for and even the order of the fields of a TLSA 73 record (TLSA is not an acronym but a name). This document updates 74 the IANA registry definition for TLSA record to add a column with an 75 acronym for each specified field, in order to reduce confusion. This 76 document does not change the DANE protocol in any way. 78 It is expected that DANE parsers in applications and DNS software can 79 adopt parsing the acronyms for each field. 81 2. IANA considerations 83 This document applies to "DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities 84 (DANE) Parameters" located at "http://www.iana.org/assignments/dane- 85 parameters/dane-parameters.xhtml". Each one of the Sub-registries 86 will add a column with an acronym for that field. 88 [RFC6698] and this document are both to be the reference documents 89 for the three sub-registries. 91 As these acronyms are offered for human consumption, case does not 92 matter, it is expected that software that parses TLSA records will 93 handle upper, mixed or lower case use as input. 95 2.1. TLSA Certificate Usages Registry 96 Update reference for this registry to include both [RFC6698] and 97 [RFC-this-document] 99 +-------+----------+--------------------------------+-------------+ 100 | Value | Acronym | Short Description | Reference | 101 +-------+----------+--------------------------------+-------------+ 102 | 0 | PKIX-TA | CA constraint | [RFC6698] | 103 | 1 | PKIX-EE | Service certificate constraint | [RFC6698] | 104 | 2 | DANE-TA | Trust anchor assertion | [RFC6698] | 105 | 3 | DANE-EE | Domain-issued certificate | [RFC6698] | 106 | 4-254 | | Unassigned | | 107 | 255 | PrivCert | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC6698] | 108 +-------+----------+--------------------------------+-------------+ 110 Table 1: TLSA Certificate Usages 112 Other options suggested for 0: PKIX-TA 114 2.2. TLSA Selectors 116 Update reference for this registry to include both [RFC6698] and 117 [RFC-this-document] 119 +-------+---------+--------------------------+-------------+ 120 | Value | Acronym | Short Description | Reference | 121 +-------+---------+--------------------------+-------------+ 122 | 0 | Cert | Full certificate | [RFC6698] | 123 | 1 | SPKI | SubjectPublicKeyInfo | [RFC6698] | 124 | 2-254 | | Unassigned | | 125 | 255 | PrivSel | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC6698] | 126 +-------+---------+--------------------------+-------------+ 128 Table 2: TLSA Selectors 130 2.3. TLSA Matching types 132 Update reference for this registry to include both [RFC6698] and 133 [RFC-this-document] 135 +-------+-----------+--------------------------+-------------+ 136 | Value | Acronym | Short Description | Reference | 137 +-------+-----------+--------------------------+-------------+ 138 | 0 | Full | No hash used | [RFC6698] | 139 | 1 | SHA2-256 | 256 bit hash by SHA2 | [RFC6234] | 140 | 2 | SHA2-512 | 512 bit hash by SHA2 | [RFC6234] | 141 | 3-254 | | Unassigned | | 142 | 255 | PrivMatch | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC6698] | 143 +-------+-----------+--------------------------+-------------+ 144 Table 3: TLSA Matching types 146 3. Examples of usage 148 Two examples below 150 3.1. TLSA records using/displaying the acronyms: 151 _666._tcp.first.example. TLSA PKIX-TA CERT SHA2-512 {blob} 152 _666._tcp.second.example. TLSA DANE-TA SPKI SHA2-256 {blob} 154 3.2. Acronym use in a specification example: 156 Protocol FOO only allows TLSA records using PKIX-EE and DANE-EE, with 157 selector SPKI and using SHA2-512. 159 4. Security considerations 161 This document only changes registry fields and does not change the 162 behavior of any protocol. The hope is to reduce confusion and lead 163 to better specification and operations. 165 5. Acknowledgements 167 Scott Schmit offered real good suggestions to decrease the 168 possibility of confusion. Viktor Dukhovni provided comments from 169 expert point of view. Jim Schaad, Wes Hardaker and Paul Hoffman 170 provided feedback during WGLC. Dan Romascanu and Tobias Gondrom 171 provided pointed out few defects in the IESG last call. 173 6. References 175 6.1. Normative References 177 [RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication 178 of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) 179 Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, August 2012. 181 6.2. Informative References 183 [RFC6234] Eastlake, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms 184 (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, May 2011. 186 Appendix A. Document history 188 [RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ] 190 00 Initial version 191 01 Updated version based on some comments ready for WGLC 193 00 WG version almost identical to 01 195 01 WG version result of WG last call one possible issue remains PKIX- 196 CA ==> PKIX-TA no clear message if that change should be made 198 02 WG version PKIX-CA ==> PKIX-TA 200 03 IETF submission version, abstract needed to mention RFC6698. 202 04 Addressed all comments received during IETF last call 204 Author's Address 206 Olafur Gudmundsson 207 Shinkuro Inc. 208 4922 Fairmont Av, Suite 250 209 Bethesda, MD 20814 210 USA 212 Email: ogud@ogud.com