Internet Security Research Group

roland@letsencrypt.org

General ACME Working Group This document specifies identifiers and challenges required to enable the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) to issue certificates for IP addresses.

The Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) only defines challenges for validating control of DNS host name identifiers which limits its use to being used for issuing certificates for DNS identifiers. In order to allow validation of IPv4 and IPv6 identifiers for inclusion in X.509 certificates this document specifies how challenges defined in the original ACME specification and the TLS-ALPN extension specification can be used to validate IP identifiers.

In this document, the key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, .

only defines the identifier type “dns” which is used to refer to fully qualified domain names. If a ACME server wishes to request proof that a user controls a IPv4 or IPv6 address it MUST create an authorization with the identifier type “ip”. The value field of the identifier MUST contain the textual form of the address as defined in Section 2.1 for IPv4 and in Section 4 for IPv6. An identifier for the IPv6 address 2001:db8::1 would be formatted like so:

IP identifiers MAY be used with the existing “http-01” and “tls-alpn-01” challenges from Section 8.3 and Section 3 respectively. To use IP identifiers with these challenges their initial DNS resolution step MUST be skipped and the IP address used for validation MUST be the value of the identifier.

For the “http-01” challenge the Host header MUST be set to the IP address being used for validation per . The textual form of this address MUST be those defined in Section 2.1 for IPv4 and in Section 4 for IPv6.

For the “tls-alpn-01” challenge the subjectAltName extension in the validation certificate MUST contain a single iPAddress which matches the address being validated. As does not permit IP addresses to be used in the SNI extension HostName the server MUST instead use the IN-ADDR.ARPA or IP6.ARPA reverse mapping of the IP address as the HostName value instead of the literal IP address. For example if the IP address being validated is 2001:db8::1 the SNI HostName should contain “1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa.”.

The existing “dns-01” challenge MUST NOT be used to validate IP identifiers.

Adds a new type to the Identifier list defined in Section 9.7.7 of with the label “ip” and reference I-D.ietf-acme-ip.

Adds the value “ip” to the Identifier Type column in the Validation Methods list defined in Section 9.7.8 of for the “http-01” and “tls-alpn-01” challenges.

The author would like to thank those who contributed to this document and offered editorial and technical input, especially Jacob Hoffman-Andrews and Daniel McCarney.

This RFC is the revised basic definition of The Domain Name System. It obsoletes RFC-882. This memo describes the domain style names and their used for host address look up and electronic mail forwarding. It discusses the clients and servers in the domain name system and the protocol used between them. This RFC is an official specification for the Internet community. It incorporates by reference, amends, corrects, and supplements the primary protocol standards documents relating to hosts. [STANDARDS-TRACK] 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 defines the changes that need to be made to the Domain Name System (DNS) to support hosts running IP version 6 (IPv6). The changes include a resource record type to store an IPv6 address, a domain to support lookups based on an IPv6 address, and updated definitions of existing query types that return Internet addresses as part of additional section processing. The extensions are designed to be compatible with existing applications and, in particular, DNS implementations themselves. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP Version 6 (IPv6) protocol. The document includes the IPv6 addressing model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6 unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an IPv6 node's required addresses.This document obsoletes RFC 3513, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture". [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document describes the commonly used base 64, base 32, and base 16 encoding schemes. It also discusses the use of line-feeds in encoded data, use of padding in encoded data, use of non-alphabet characters in encoded data, use of different encoding alphabets, and canonical encodings. [STANDARDS-TRACK] As IPv6 deployment increases, there will be a dramatic increase in the need to use IPv6 addresses in text. While the IPv6 address architecture in Section 2.2 of RFC 4291 describes a flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address, this flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system engineers, and users. This document defines a canonical textual representation format. It does not define a format for internal storage, such as within an application or database. It is expected that the canonical format will be followed by humans and systems when representing IPv6 addresses as text, but all implementations must accept and be able to handle any legitimate RFC 4291 format. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document provides specifications for existing TLS extensions. It is a companion document for RFC 5246, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2". The extensions specified are server_name, max_fragment_length, client_certificate_url, trusted_ca_keys, truncated_hmac, and status_request. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document provides an overview of HTTP architecture and its associated terminology, defines the "http" and "https" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes, defines the HTTP/1.1 message syntax and parsing requirements, and describes related security concerns for implementations. Public Key Infrastructure X.509 (PKIX) certificates are used for a number of purposes, the most significant of which is the authentication of domain names. Thus, certification authorities (CAs) in the Web PKI are trusted to verify that an applicant for a certificate legitimately represents the domain name(s) in the certificate. Today, this verification is done through a collection of ad hoc mechanisms. This document describes a protocol that a CA and an applicant can use to automate the process of verification and certificate issuance. The protocol also provides facilities for other certificate management functions, such as certificate revocation. RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: The source for this draft is maintained in GitHub. Suggested changes should be submitted as pull requests at https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme [1]. Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantive change should be discussed on the ACME mailing list (acme@ietf.org). This document specifies a new challenge for the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) protocol which allows for domain control validation using TLS.