idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pkix-pkixrep-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 36. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 192. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Reference to BCP 78 -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 2 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 3 IPR Disclosure Invitation. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (September 2005) is 6790 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: 'RFC2119' is mentioned on line 48, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC 2119' is defined on line 196, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 2782' is defined on line 199, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 2559' is defined on line 202, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 2560' is defined on line 206, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2559 (Obsoleted by RFC 3494) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2560 (Obsoleted by RFC 6960) Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Draft S. Boeyen 3 PKIX Working Group Entrust Inc. 4 Document: draft-ietf-pkix-pkixrep-04.txt P. Hallam-Baker 5 Expires: Jan 2006 VeriSign Inc. 6 Experimental September 2005 8 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure 9 Repository Locator Service 10 12 Status of this Memo 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 16 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 17 Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 25 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 27 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 30 This Internet-Draft will expire in Jan 2006. Comments should be sent 31 to the PKIX mail list at: ietf-pkix@imc.org. 33 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 34 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 35 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 36 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 38 Abstract 40 This document defines a PKI repository locator service. The service 41 makes use of DNS SRV records defined in accordance with RFC 2782. The 42 service enables certificate using systems to locate PKI repositories 44 Conventions used in this document 45 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", 46 "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document (in uppercase, 47 as shown) are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 49 In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and 50 server respectively. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Overview.......................................................2 55 2. SRV RR definition..............................................2 56 2.1 Assignment of new protocol prefixes........................3 57 2.2 Use of multiple repositories...............................3 58 2.3 SRV RR example.............................................3 59 3. Security considerations........................................4 60 4. IANA Considerations............................................4 61 Copyright.........................................................4 62 References........................................................5 63 Author's Addresses................................................5 65 1. Overview 67 Operational protocols have been specified for retrieval of PKI data, 68 including public-key certificates and revocation information, from 69 PKI repositories in a number of RFCs including RFC 2559, RFC 2560 70 and RFC 2585. These RFCs assume that a certificate using system has 71 the knowledge information necessary to identify, locate and connect 72 to the PKI repository with a specific protocol. Although there are 73 some tools available in protocol-specific environments for this 74 purpose, such as knowledge references in directory systems, these are 75 restricted to use with a single protocol and do not share a common 76 means of publication. This draft provides a solution to this problem 77 through the use of SRV RRs in DNS. This solution is expected to be 78 particularly useful in environments where only a domain name is 79 available. In other situations (e.g. where a certificate is available 80 that contains the required information), such a DNS lookup is not 81 needed. 83 RFC 2782 defines a DNS RR for specifying the location of services 84 (SRV). This Internet-draft defines SRV records for a PKI repository 85 locator service to enable PKI clients to obtain the necessary 86 information to connect to a domain's PKI repository, including 87 information about each protocol that is supported by that domain for 88 access to its repository. This Internet-draft includes the definition 89 of a SRV RR format for this service and an example of its potential 90 use in an email environment. 92 2. SRV RR definition 93 The format of the SRV RR, whose DNS type code is 33, is: 95 _Service._Proto.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Port Target 97 For the PKI repository locator service, this draft uses the symbolic 98 name "PKIXREP". Note that when used in an SRV RR, this name MUST 99 be prepended with a "_" character. 101 The protocols that can be included in PKIXREP SRV RRs are: 103 Protocol SRV Prefix 105 LDAP _LDAP 106 HTTP _HTTP 107 OCSP _OCSP 109 2.1 Assignment of new protocol prefixes 111 Protocol prefix assignments for new PKIX repository protocols SHOULD 112 be defined in the document that specifies the protocol. 114 2.2 Use of multiple repositories 116 The existence of multiple repositories MAY be determined by making 117 separate DNS queries for each of the protocols supported by the 118 client. 120 If this approach is found to be unacceptably inefficient due to a 121 proliferation of repository protocols at a future date the service 122 discovery protocol could be extended to allow the repository to 123 advertise the protocols supported. 125 2.3 SRV RR example 127 This example uses fictional domain "example.com" as an aid in 128 understanding the use of SRV records by a certificate using system. 130 Let an email client that needs a certificate for a recipient be Alice 131 and assume that Alice's client system supports LDAP for certificate 132 retrieval. Let the message recipient be Bob and let Bob's email 133 address be bob@example.com. Assume that example.test maintains a 134 "border directory" PKI repository and that Bob's certificate is 135 available from that directory "border.example.com" via LDAP. 137 Alice's client system retrieves, via DNS, the SRV record for 138 _PKIXREP._LDAP.example.com. 140 - the QNAME of the DNS query is _PKIXREP._LDAP.example.com 141 - the QCLASS of the DNS query is IN 142 - the QTYPE of the DNS query is SRV 144 The result SHOULD include the host address for example.com's border 145 directory system. 147 Note that if example.com operated their service on a number of hosts, 148 more than one SRV RR would be returned. In this case, RFC 2782 149 defines the procedure to be followed in determining which of these 150 should be accessed first. 152 3. Security considerations 154 Security issues regarding PKI repositories themselves are outside the 155 scope of this specification. For LDAP repositories, for example, 156 specific security considerations are addressed in RFC 2559. 158 Security issues with respect to the use of SRV records in general are 159 addressed in RFC 2782 and these issues apply to the use of SRV 160 records in the context of the PKIXREP service defined here. 162 4. IANA Considerations 164 This document reserves the use of "_PKIXREP" Service label. Since 165 this relates to a service which may pass messages over a number of 166 different message transports, they must be associated with a specific 167 transport. 169 In order to ensure that the association between "_PKIXREP" and their 170 respective underlying services is deterministic, this document 171 requests that IANA create a registry: The PKIX SRV Protocol Label. 173 For this registry, an entry shall consist of a label name and a 174 pointer to a specification describing how the protocol named in the 175 label uses SRV. Specifications should conform to the requirements 176 listed in RFC 2434 for "specification required". 178 Copyright 180 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 182 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 183 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 184 retain all their rights." 186 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 187 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 188 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 189 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 190 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 191 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 192 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 194 References 196 [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Keywords for use in RFCs to indicate 197 requirement levels, March 1997. 199 [RFC 2782] Gulbrandsen, A. Vixie, P. and Esibov, L., "A DNS RR for 200 specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", Feb 2000. 202 [RFC 2559] Boeyen, S. Howes, T. and Richard, P., "Internet X.509 203 Public Key Infrastructure Operational Protocols - LDAPv2", 204 April 1999. 206 [RFC 2560] Myers, M. Ankney, R. Malpani, A. Galperin, S. and Adams, C. 207 "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate 208 Status Protocol - OCSP", June 1999. 210 RFC 2585] Housley, R. and Hoffman, P. "Internet X.509 Public Key 211 Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP", 212 May, 1999. 214 RFC 2434] Narten, T. and Alvestrand, H. "Guidelines for Writing an 215 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, BCP 26, 216 October 1998. 218 Author's Addresses 220 Sharon Boeyen 221 Entrust 222 1000 Innovation Drive 223 Ottawa, Ontario 224 Canada K2K 3E7 225 email: sharon.boeyen@entrust.com 227 Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 228 VeriSign Inc. 229 401 Edgewater Place, Suite 280 230 Wakefield MA 01880 231 email: pbaker@VeriSign.com