Cisco

1899 Wyknoop Street, Suite 600 Denver CO 80202 USA +1-303-308-3282 psaintan@cisco.com

PayPal

2211 North First Street San Jose California 95131 US Jeff.Hodges@PayPal.com

Applications Internet-Draft PKIX X.509 certificates TLS Transport Layer Security Many application technologies enable secure communication between two entities by means of Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) certificates in the context of Transport Layer Security (TLS). This document specifies procedures for representing and verifying the identity of application services in such interactions.

The visible face of the Internet largely consists of services that employ a client-server architecture in which an interactive or automated client communicates with an application service in order to retrieve or upload information, communicate with other entities, or access a broader network of services. When a client communicates with an application service using Transport Layer Security or Datagram Transport Layer Security , it references some notion of the server's identity (e.g., "the website at example.com") while attempting to establish secure communication. Likewise, during TLS negotiation the server presents its notion of the service's identity in the form of a public-key certificate that was issued by a certification authority (CA) in the context of the Internet Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 . Informally, we can think of these identities as the client's "reference identity" and the server's "presented identity" (these rough ideas are defined more precisely later in this document through the concept of particular identifiers). In general, a client needs to verify that the server's presented identity matches its reference identity so it can authenticate the communication. Many application technologies adhere to the pattern just outlined. Such protocols have traditionally specified their own rules for representing and verifying application service identity. Unfortunately, this divergence of approaches has caused some confusion among certification authorities, application developers, and protocol designers. Therefore, to codify secure procedures for the implementation and deployment of PKIX-based authentication, this document specifies recommended procedures for representing and verifying application service identity in certificates intended for use in application protocols employing TLS.

The primary audience for this document consists of application protocol designers, who can reference this document instead of defining their own rules for the representation and verification of application service identity. Secondarily, the audience consists of certification authorities, service providers, and client developers from technology communities that might re-use the recommendations in this document when defining certificate issuance policies, generating certificate signing requests, or writing software algorithms for identity matching.

This document is longer than the authors would have liked because it was necessary to carefully define terminology, explain the underlying concepts, define the scope, and specify recommended behavior for both certification authorities and application software implementations. The following sections are of special interest to various audiences: Protocol designers might want to first read the checklist in . Certification authorities might want to first read the recommendations for representation of server identity in . Service providers might want to first read the recommendations for requesting of server certificates in . Software implementors might want to first read the recommendations for verification of server identity in . The sections on terminology (), naming of application services (), document scope (), and the like provide useful background information regarding the recommendations and guidelines that are contained in the above-referenced sections, but are not absolutely necessary for a first reading of this document.

This document does not supersede the rules for certificate issuance or validation provided in . Therefore, is authoritative on any point that might also be discussed in this document. Furthermore, also governs any certificate-related topic on which this document is silent, including but not limited to certificate syntax, certificate extensions such as name constraints and extended key usage, and handling of certification paths. This document addresses only name forms in the leaf "end entity" server certificate, not any name forms in the chain of certificates used to validate the server certificate. Therefore, in order to ensure proper authentication, application clients need to verify the entire certification path per . This document also does not supersede the rules for verifying service identity provided in specifications for existing application protocols published prior to this document, such as those excerpted under . However, the procedures described here can be referenced by future specifications, including updates to specifications for existing application protocols if the relevant technology communities agree to do so.

To orient the reader, this section provides an informational overview of the recommendations contained in this document. For the primary audience of application protocol designers, this document provides recommended procedures for the representation and verification of application service identity within PKIX certificates used in the context of TLS. For the secondary audiences, in essence this document encourages certification authorities, application service providers, and application client developers to coalesce on the following practices: Move away from including and checking strings that look like domain names in the subject's Common Name. Move toward including and checking DNS domain names via the subjectAlternativeName extension designed for that purpose: dNSName. Move toward including and checking even more specific subjectAlternativeName extensions where appropriate for the using protocol (e.g., uniformResourceIdentifier and the otherName form SRVName). Move away from the issuance of so-called wildcard certificates (e.g., a certificate containing an identifier for "*.example.com"). These suggestions are not entirely consistent with all practices that are currently followed by certification authorities, client developers, and service providers. However, they reflect the best aspects of current practices and are expected to become more widely adopted in the coming years.

This document attempts to generalize best practices from the many application technologies that currently use PKIX certificates with TLS. Such technologies include, but are not limited to: The Internet Message Access Protocol and the Post Office Protocol , for which see also The Hypertext Transfer Protocol , for which see also The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol , for which see also and its predecessor The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol , for which see also and The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol , for which see also The Network News Transfer Protocol , for which see also The NETCONF Configuration Protocol , for which see also and The Syslog Protocol , for which see also and The Session Initiation Protocol , for which see also The Simple Network Management Protocol , for which see also The General Internet Signalling Transport However, as noted, this document does not supersede the rules for verifying service identity provided in specifications for those application protocols.

This document applies only to service identities associated with fully-qualified DNS domain names, only to TLS and DTLS (or the older Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) technology), and only to PKIX-based systems. As a result, the scenarios described in the following section are out of scope for this specification (although they might be addressed by future specifications).

The following topics are out of scope for this specification: Client or end-user identities. Certificates representing client or end-user identities (e.g., the rfc822Name identifier) can be used for mutual authentication between a client and server or between two clients, thus enabling stronger client-server security or end-to-end security. However, certification authorities, application developers, and service operators have less experience with client certificates than with server certificates, thus giving us fewer models from which to generalize and a less solid basis for defining best practices. Identifiers other than fully-qualified DNS domain names. Some certification authorities issue server certificates based on IP addresses, but preliminary evidence indicates that such certificates are a very small percentage (less than 1%) of issued certificates. Furthermore, IP addresses are not necessarily reliable identifiers for application services because of the existence of private internets , host mobility, multiple interfaces on a given host, Network Address Translators (NATs) resulting in different addresses for a host from different locations on the network, the practice of grouping many hosts together behind a single IP address, etc. Most fundamentally, most users find DNS domain names much easier to work with than IP addresses, which is why the domain name system was designed in the first place. We prefer to define best practices for the much more common use case and not to complicate the rules in this specification. Furthermore, we focus here on application service identities, not specific resources located at such services. Therefore this document discusses Uniform Resource Identifiers only as a way to communicate a DNS domain name (via the URI "host" component or its equivalent), not as a way to communicate other aspects of a service such as a specific resource (via the URI "path" component) or parameters (via the URI "query" component). We also do not discuss attributes unrelated to DNS domain names, such as those defined in and other such specifications (e.g., organizational attributes, geographical attributes, company logos, and the like). Security protocols other than , , or the older Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) technology. Although other secure, lower-layer protocols exist and even employ PKIX certificates at times (e.g., IPsec ), their use cases can differ from those of TLS-based and DTLS-based application technologies. Furthermore, application technologies have less experience with IPsec than with TLS, thus making it more difficult to gather feedback on proposed best practices. Keys or certificates employed outside the context of PKIX-based systems. Some deployed application technologies use a web of trust model based on or similar to OpenPGP , or use self-signed certificates, or are deployed on networks that are not directly connected to the public Internet and therefore cannot depend on Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) or the Online Certificate Status Protocol to check CA-issued certificates. However, the method for binding a public key to an identifier in OpenPGP differs essentially from the method in X.509, the data in self-signed certificates has not been certified by a third party in any way, and checking of CA-issued certificates via CRLs or OSCP is critically important to maintaining the security of PKIX-based systems. Attempting to define best practices for such technologies would unduly complicate the rules defined in this specification. Certification authority policies, such as: What types or "classes" of certificates to issue and whether to apply different policies for them (e.g., allow the wildcard character in certificates issued to individuals who have provided proof of identity but do not allow the wildcard character in "Extended Validation" certificates ). Whether to issue certificates based on IP addresses (or some other form, such as relative domain names) in addition to fully-qualified DNS domain names. Which identifiers to include (e.g., whether to include SRV-IDs or URI-IDs as defined in the body of this specification). How to certify or validate fully-qualified DNS domain names and application service types. How to certify or validate other kinds of information that might be included in a certificate (e.g., organization name). Resolution of DNS domain names. Although the process whereby a client resolves the DNS domain name of an application service can involve several steps (e.g., this is true of resolutions that depend on DNS SRV resource records, Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) DNS resource records , and related technologies such as ), for our purposes we care only about the fact that the client needs to verify the identity of the entity with which it communicates as a result of the resolution process. Thus the resolution process itself is out of scope for this specification. User interface issues. In general, such issues are properly the responsibility of client software developers and standards development organizations dedicated to particular application technologies (see for example ).

Because many concepts related to "identity" are often too vague to be actionable in application protocols, we define a set of more concrete terms for use in this specification. A service on the Internet that enables interactive and automated clients to connect for the purpose of retrieving or uploading information, communicating with other entities, or connecting to a broader network of services. An organization or individual that hosts or deploys an application service. A colloquial name for the ASN.1-based construction comprising a Relative Distinguished Name (RDN), which itself is a building-block component of Distinguished Names. See Section 2 of . A software agent or device that is not directly controlled by a human user. A domain name or host name that is explicitly configured for communicating with the source domain, by either (a) the human user controlling an interactive client or (b) a trusted administrator. In case (a), one example of delegation is an account setup that specifies the domain name of a particular host to be used for retrieving information or connecting to a network, which might be different from the server portion of the user's account name (e.g., a server at mailhost.example.com for connecting to an IMAP server hosting an email address of juliet@example.com). In case (b), one example of delegation is an admin-configured host-to-address/address-to-host lookup table. A domain name or host name that a client has derived from the source domain in an automated fashion (e.g., by means of a lookup). A particular instance of an identifier type that is either presented by a server in a certificate or referenced by a client for matching purposes. A formally defined category of identifier that can be included in a certificate and therefore that can also be used for matching purposes. For conciseness and convenience, we define the following identifier types of interest, which are based on those found in the PKIX specification and various PKIX extensions. CN-ID = a Relative Distinguished Name (RDN) in the certificate subject field that contains one and only one attribute-type-and-value pair of type Common Name (CN), where the value matches the overall form of a domain name (informally, dot-separated letter-digit-hyphen labels); see and also DNS-ID = a subjectAltName entry of type dNSName; see SRV-ID = a subjectAltName entry of type otherName whose name form is SRVName; see URI-ID = a subjectAltName entry of type uniformResourceIdentifier whose value includes both (i) a "scheme" and (ii) a "host" component (or its equivalent) that matches the "reg-name" rule (where the quoted terms represent the associated productions from ); see and A software agent or device that is directly controlled by a human user. (Other specifications related to security and application protocols, such as , often refer to this entity as a "user agent". The act of establishing a cached name association between the application service's certificate and one of the client's reference identifiers, despite the fact that none of the presented identifiers matches the given reference identifier. Pinning is accomplished by allowing a human user to positively accept the mismatch during an attempt to communicate with the application service. Once a cached name association is established, the certificate is said to be pinned to the reference identifier and in future communication attempts the client simply verifies that the service's presented certificate matches the pinned certificate, as described under . (A similar definition of "pinning" is provided in .) PKIX is a short name for the Internet Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 defined in RFC 5280 [PKIX], which comprises a profile of the X.509v3 certificate specifications and X.509v2 certificate revocation list (CRL) specifications for use in the Internet. A software implementation or deployed service that makes use of X.509v3 certificates and X.509v2 certificate revocation lists (CRLs). An X.509v3 certificate generated and employed in the context of PKIX. An identifier that is presented by a server to a client within a PKIX certificate when the client attempts to establish secure communication with the server; the certificate can include one or more presented identifiers of different types, and if the server hosts more than one domain then the certificate might present distinct identifiers for each domain. An identifier, constructed from a source domain and optionally a service type, used by the client for matching purposes when examining presented identifiers. A formal identifier for the application protocol used to provide a particular kind of service at a domain; the service type typically takes the form of a Uniform Resource Identifier scheme or a DNS SRV Service . The fully-qualified DNS domain name that a client expects an application service to present in the certificate (e.g., "www.example.com"), typically input by a human user, configured into a client, or provided by reference such as in a hyperlink. The combination of a source domain and, optionally, a service type enables a client to construct one or more reference identifiers. An identifier placed in a subjectAltName extension. A standard PKIX certificate extension enabling identifiers of various types to be bound to the certificate subject -- in addition to, or in place of, identifiers that may be embedded within or provided as a certificate's subject field. The subject field of a PKIX certificate identifies the entity associated with the public key stored in the subject public key field (see Section 4.1.2.6 of ). In an overall sense, a subject's name(s) can be represented by or in the subject field, the subjectAltName extension, or both (see for details). More specifically, the term often refers to the name of a PKIX certificate's subject, encoded as the X.501 type Name and conveyed in a certificate's subject field (see Section 4.1.2.6 of ). An entity that assumes the role of a client in a Transport Layer Security negotiation; in this specification we generally assume that the TLS client is an (interactive or automated) application client, however in application protocols that enable server-to-server communication the TLS client could be a peer application service. An entity that assumes the role of a server in a Transport Layer Security negotiation; in this specfication we assume that the TLS server is an application service. Most security-related terms in this document are to be understood in the sense defined in ; such terms include, but are not limited to, "attack", "authentication", "authorization", "certification authority", "certification path", "certificate", "credential", "identity", "self-signed certificate", "trust", "trust anchor", "trust chain", "validate", and "verify". The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 .

This section discusses naming of application services on the Internet, followed by a brief tutorial about subject naming in PKIX.

This specification assumes that the name of an application service is based on a DNS domain name (e.g., "example.com") -- supplemented in some circumstances by a service type (e.g., "the IMAP server at example.com"). From the perspective of the application client or user, some names are direct because they are provided directly by a human user (e.g., via runtime input, prior configuration, or explicit acceptance of a client communication attempt) whereas other names are indirect because they are automatically resolved by the client based on user input (e.g., a target name resolved from a source name using DNS SRV or NAPTR records). This dimension matters most for certificate consumption, specifically verification as discussed in this document. From the perspective of the application service, some names are unrestricted because they can be used in any type of service (e.g., a certificate might be re-used for both the HTTP service and the IMAP service at example.com) whereas other names are restricted because they can be used in only one type of service (e.g., a special-purpose certificate that can be used only for an IMAP service). This dimension matters most for certificate issuance. Therefore we can categorize the identifier types of interest as follows: A CN-ID is direct and unrestricted. A DNS-ID is direct and unrestricted. An SRV-ID can be either direct or (more typically) indirect, and is restricted. A URI-ID is direct and restricted. We summarize this taxonomy in the following table.

When implementing software, deploying services, and issuing certificates for secure PKIX-based authentication, it is important to keep these distinctions in mind. In particular, best practices differ somewhat for application server implementations, application client implementations, application service providers, and certification authorities. Ideally, protocol specifications that reference this document will specify which identifiers are mandatory-to-implement by servers and clients, which identifiers ought to be supported by certificate issuers, and which identifiers ought to be requested by application service providers. Because these requirements differ across applications, it is impossible to categorically stipulate universal rules (e.g., that all software implementations, service providers, and certification authorities for all application protocols need to use or support DNS-IDs as a baseline for the purpose of interoperability). However, it is preferable that each application protocol will at least define a baseline that applies to the community of software developers, application service providers, and CAs actively using or supporting that technology (one such community, the CA/Browser Forum, has codified such a baseline for "Extended Validation Certificates" in ).

For the purposes of this specification, the name of an application service is (or is based on) a DNS domain name that conforms to one of the following forms: A "traditional domain name", i.e., a fully-qualified DNS domain name or "FQDN" (see ) all of whose labels are "LDH labels" as described in . Informally, such labels are constrained to letters, digits, and the hyphen, with the hyphen prohibited in the first character position. Additional qualifications apply (please refer to the above-referenced specifications for details) but they are not relevant to this specification. An "internationalized domain name", i.e., a DNS domain name that conforms to the overall form of a domain name (informally, dot-separated letter-digit-hyphen labels) but includes at least one label containing appropriately encoded Unicode code points outside the traditional US-ASCII range. That is, it contains at least one U-label or A-label, but otherwise may contain any mixture of NR-LDH labels, A-labels, or U-labels, as described in and the associated documents).

In theory, the Internet Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 employs the global directory service model defined in and . Under that model, information is held in a directory information base (DIB) and entries in the DIB are organized in a hierarchy called the directory information tree (DIT). An object or alias entry in that hierarchy consists of a set of attributes (each of which has a defined type and one or more values) and is uniquely identified by a Distinguished Name (DN). The DN of an entry is constructed by combining the Relative Distinguished Names of its superior entries in the tree (all the way down to the root of the DIT) with one or more specially-nominated attributes of the entry itself (which together comprise the Relative Distinguished Name (RDN) of the entry, so-called because it is relative to the Distinguished Names of the superior entries in the tree). The entry closest to the root is sometimes referred to as the "most significant" entry and the entry farthest from the root is sometimes referred to as the "least significant" entry. An RDN is a set (i.e., an unordered group) of attribute-type-and-value pairs (see also ), each of which asserts some attribute about the entry. In practice, the certificates used in and borrow key concepts from X.500 and X.501 (e.g., DNs and RDNs) to identify entities, but such certificates are not necessarily part of a global directory information base. Specifically, the subject field of a PKIX certificate is an X.501 type Name that "identifies the entity associated with the public key stored in the subject public key field" (see Section 4.1.2.6 of ). However, it is perfectly acceptable for the subject field to be empty, as long as the certificate contains a subject alternative name ("subjectAltName") extension that includes at least one subjectAltName entry, because the subjectAltName extension allows various identities to be bound to the subject (see Section 4.2.1.6 of ). The subjectAltName extension itself is a sequence of typed entries, where each type is a distinct kind of identifier. For our purposes, an application service can be identified by a name or names carried in the subject field (i.e., a CN-ID) and/or in one of the following identifier types within subjectAltName entries: DNS-ID SRV-ID URI-ID Existing certificates often use a CN-ID in the subject field to represent a fully-qualified DNS domain name; for example, consider the following three subject names, where the attribute of type Common Name contains a string whose form matches that of a fully-qualified DNS domain name ("im.example.org", "mail.example.net", and "www.example.com" respectively):

However, the Common Name is not strongly typed because a Common Name might contain a human-friendly string for the service, rather than a string whose form matches that of a fully-qualified DNS domain name (a certificate with such a single Common Name will typically have at least one subjectAltName entry containing the fully-qualified DNS domain name):

Or, a certificate's subject might contain both a CN-ID as well as another common name attribute containing a human-friendly string:

In general, this specification recommends and prefers use of subjectAltName entries (DNS-ID, SRV-ID, URI-ID, etc.) over use of the subject field (CN-ID) where possible, as more completely described in the following sections. However, specifications that re-use this one can legitimately encourage continued support for the CN-ID identifier type if they have good reasons to do so, such as backward compatibility with deployed infrastructure (see, for example, ).

Confusion sometimes arises from different renderings or encodings of the hierarchical information contained in a certificate. Certificates are binary objects and are encoded using the Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) specified in . However, some implementations generate displayable (a.k.a. printable) renderings of the certificate issuer, subject field, and subjectAltName extension, and these renderings convert the DER-encoded sequences into a "string representation" before being displayed. Because a certificate subject field (of type Name , the same as for a Distinguished Name (DN) ) is an ordered sequence, order is typically preserved in subject string representations, although the two most prevalent subject (and DN) string representations differ in employing left-to-right vs. right-to-left ordering. However, because a Relative Distinguished Name (RDN) is an unordered group of attribute-type-and-value pairs, the string representation of an RDN can differ from the canonical DER encoding (and the order of attribute-type-and-value pairs can differ in the RDN string representations or display orders provided by various implementations). Furthermore, various specifications refer to the order of RDNs in DNs or certificate subject fields using terminology that is implicitly related to an information hierarchy (which may or may not actually exist), such as "most specific" vs. "least specific", "left-most" vs. "right-most", "first" vs. "last", or "most significant" vs. "least significant" (see for example ). To reduce confusion, in this specification we avoid such terms and instead use the terms provided under ; in particular, we do not use the term "(most specific) Common Name field in the subject field" from and instead state that a CN-ID is a Relative Distinguished Name (RDN) in the certificate subject containing one and only one attribute-type-and-value pair of type Common Name (thus removing the possibility that an RDN might contain multiple AVAs of type CN, one of which could be considered "most specific"). Finally, although theoretically some consider the order of RDNs within a subject field to have meaning, in practice that rule is often not observed. An AVA of type CN is considered to be valid at any position within the subject field.

This section provides guidelines for designers of application protocols, in the form of a checklist to follow when re-using the recommendations provided in this document. Does your technology use DNS SRV records to resolve the DNS domain names of application services? If so, consider recommending or requiring support for the SRV-ID identifier type in PKIX certificates issued and used in your technology community. (Note that many application existing technologies use DNS SRV records to resolve the DNS domain names of application services, but do not rely on representations of those records in PKIX certificates by means of SRV-IDs as defined in .) Does your technology use URIs to identify application services? If so, consider recommending or requiring support for the URI-ID identifier type. (Note that many existing application technologies use URIs to identify application services, but do not rely on representation of those URIs in PKIX certificates by means of URI-IDs.) Does your technology need to use DNS domain names in the Common Name of certificates for the sake of backward compatibility? If so, consider recommending support for the CN-ID identifier type as a fallback. Does your technology need to allow the wildcard character in DNS domain names? If so, consider recommending support for wildcard certificates, and specify exactly where the wildcard character is allowed to occur (e.g., only the complete left-most label of a DNS domain name). Sample text is provided under .

This section provides rules and guidelines for issuers of certificates.

When a certification authority issues a certificate based on the fully-qualified DNS domain name at which the application service provider will provide the relevant application, the following rules apply to the representation of application service identities. The reader needs to be aware that some of these rules are cumulative and can interact in important ways that are illustrated later in this document. The certificate SHOULD include a "DNS-ID" if possible as a baseline for interoperability. If the service using the certificate deploys a technology for which the relevant specification stipulates that certificates ought to include identifiers of type SRV-ID (e.g., this is true of ), then the certificate SHOULD include an SRV-ID. If the service using the certificate deploys a technology for which the relevant specification stipulates that certificates ought to include identifiers of type URI-ID (e.g., this is true of as specified by , but not true of since does not describe usage of a URI-ID for HTTP services), then the certificate SHOULD include a URI-ID. The scheme SHALL be that of the protocol associated with the service type and the "host" component (or its equivalent) SHALL be the fully-qualified DNS domain name of the service. A specification that re-uses this one MUST specify which URI schemes are to be considered acceptable in URI-IDs contained in PKIX certificates used for the application protocol (e.g., "sip" but not "sips" or "tel" for SIP as described in , or perhaps http and https for HTTP as might be described in a future specification). The certificate MAY include other application-specific identifiers for types that were defined before publication of (e.g., XmppAddr for ) or for which service names or URI schemes do not exist; however, such application-specific identifiers are not applicable to all application technologies and therefore are out of scope for this specification. Even though many deployed clients still check for the CN-ID within the certificate subject field, certification authorities are encouraged to migrate away from issuing certificates that represent the server's fully-qualified DNS domain name in a CN-ID. Therefore the certificate SHOULD NOT include a CN-ID unless the certification authority issues the certificate in accordance with a specification that re-uses this one and that explicitly encourages continued support for the CN-ID identifier type in the context of a given application technology. The certificate MAY contain more than one DNS-ID, SRV-ID, or URI-ID but SHOULD NOT contain more than one CN-ID, as further explained under . Unless a specification that re-uses this one allows continued support for the wildcard character '*', the DNS domain name portion of a presented identifier SHOULD NOT contain the wildcard character, whether as the complete left-most label within the identifier (following the definition of "label" from , e.g., "*.example.com") or as a fragment thereof (e.g., *oo.example.com, f*o.example.com, or foo*.example.com). A more detailed discussion of so-called "wildcard certificates" is provided under .

Consider a simple website at "www.example.com", which is not discoverable via DNS SRV lookups. Because HTTP does not specify the use of URIs in server certificates, a certificate for this service might include only a DNS-ID of "www.example.com". It might also include a CN-ID of "www.example.com" for backward compatibility with deployed infrastructure. Consider an IMAP-accessible email server at the host "mail.example.net" servicing email addresses of the form "user@example.net" and discoverable via DNS SRV lookups on the application service name of "example.net". A certificate for this service might include SRV-IDs of "_imap.example.net" and "_imaps.example.net" (see ) along with a DNS-ID of "example.net" and "mail.example.net". It might also include a CN-ID of "example.net" and "mail.example.net" for backward compatibility with deployed infrastructure. Consider a SIP-accessible voice-over-IP (VoIP) server at the host "voice.example.edu" servicing SIP addresses of the form "user@voice.example.edu" and identified by a URI of <sip:voice.example.edu>. A certificate for this service would include a URI-ID of "sip:voice.example.edu" (see ) along with a DNS-ID of "voice.example.edu". It might also include a CN-ID of "voice.example.edu" for backward compatibility with deployed infrastructure. Consider an XMPP-compatible instant messaging (IM) server at the host "im.example.org" servicing IM addresses of the form "user@im.example.org" and discoverable via DNS SRV lookups on the "im.example.org" domain. A certificate for this service might include SRV-IDs of "_xmpp-client.im.example.org" and "_xmpp-server.im.example.org" (see ), a DNS-ID of "im.example.org", and an XMPP-specific "XmppAddr" of "im.example.org" (see ). It might also include a CN-ID of "im.example.org" for backward compatibility with deployed infrastructure.

This section provides rules and guidelines for service providers regarding the information to include in certificate signing requests (CSRs). In general, service providers are encouraged to request certificates that include all of the identifier types that are required or recommended for the application service type that will be secured using the certificate to be issued. If the certificate will be used for only a single application service type, then the service provider is encouraged to request a certificate that includes a DNS-ID and, if appropriate for the service type, an SRV-ID or URI-ID that limits the deployment scope of the certificate to only the defined service type. If the certificate will be used for multiple application service types, then the service provider is discouraged from requesting one certificate with multiple kinds of SRV-IDs or URI-IDs identifying each different application service type. Instead, the service provider is encouraged to request either (a) one certificate per service type or (b) a single certificate that contains only an identifier type of DNS-ID representing the DNS domain name(s) for the provided service(s).

This section provides rules and guidelines for implementers of application client software regarding algorithms for verification of application service identity.

At a high level, the client verifies the application service's identity by performing the actions listed below (which are defined in the following subsections of this document): The client constructs a list of acceptable reference identifiers based on the source domain and, optionally, the type of service to which the client is connecting. The server provides its identifiers in the form of a PKIX certificate. The client checks each of its reference identifiers against the presented identifiers for the purpose of finding a match. When checking a reference identifier against a presented identifier, the client matches the source domain of the identifiers and, optionally, their service type. Naturally, in addition to checking identifiers, a client might complete further checks to ensure that the server is authorized to provide the requested service. However, such checking is not a matter of verifying the application service identity presented in a certificate, and therefore methods for doing so (e.g., consulting local policy information) are out of scope for this document.

The client MUST construct a list of acceptable reference identifiers, and MUST do so independently of the identifiers presented by the service. The inputs used by the client to construct its list of reference identifiers might be a URI that a user has typed into an interface (e.g., an HTTPS URL for a web site), configured account information (e.g., the domain name of a particular host or URI used for retrieving information or connecting to a network, which might be different from the DNS domain name portion of a username), a hyperlink in a web page that triggers a browser to retrieve a media object or script, or some other combination of information that can yield a source domain and a service type. The client might need to extract the source domain and service type from the input(s) it has received. The extracted data MUST include only information that can be securely parsed out of the inputs (e.g., parsing the fully-qualified DNS domain name out of the "host" component (or its equivalent) of a URI or deriving the service type from the scheme of a URI) or information that is derived in a manner not subject to subversion by network attackers (e.g., pulling the data from a delegated domain that is explicitly established via client or system configuration, resolving the data via , or obtaining the data from a third-party domain mapping service in which a human user has explicitly placed trust and with which the client communicates over a connection or association that provides both mutual authentication and integrity checking). These considerations apply only to extraction of the source domain from the inputs; naturally, if the inputs themselves are invalid or corrupt (e.g., a user has clicked a link provided by a malicious entity in a phishing attack), then the client might end up communicating with an unexpected application service. Example: Given an input URI of <sips:alice@example.net>, a client would derive the service type "sip" from the "scheme" and parse the domain name "example.net" from the "host" component (or its equivalent). Each reference identifier in the list SHOULD be based on the source domain and SHOULD NOT be based on a derived domain (e.g., a host name or domain name discovered through DNS resolution of the source domain). This rule is important because only a match between the user inputs and a presented identifier enables the client to be sure that the certificate can legitimately be used to secure the client's communication with the server. There is only one scenario in which it is acceptable for an interactive client to override the recommendation in this rule and therefore communicate with a domain name other than the source domain: because a human user has "pinned" the application service's certificate to the alternative domain name as further discussed under and . In this case, the inputs used by the client to construct its list of reference identifiers might include more than one fully-qualified DNS domain name, i.e., both (a) the source domain and (b) the alternative domain contained in the pinned certificate. Using the combination of fully-qualified DNS domain name(s) and service type, the client constructs a list of reference identifiers in accordance with the following rules: The list MUST include a DNS-ID. A reference identifier of type DNS-ID can be directly constructed from a fully-qualified DNS domain name that is (a) contained in or securely derived from the inputs (i.e., the source domain), or (b) explicitly associated with the source domain by means of user configuration (i.e., a derived domain). If a server for the service type is typically discovered by means of DNS SRV records, then the list SHOULD include an SRV-ID. If a server for the service type is typically associated with a URI for security purposes (i.e., a formal protocol document specifies the use of URIs in server certificates), then the list SHOULD include a URI-ID. The list MAY include a CN-ID, mainly for the sake of backward compatibility with deployed infrastructure. Implementation Note: It is highly likely that implementers of client software will need to support CN-IDs for the foreseeable future, because certificates containing CN-IDs are so widely deployed. Implementers are advised to monitor the state of the art with regard to certificate issuance policies and migrate away from support CN-IDs in the future if possible. Implementation Note: The client does not need to construct the foregoing identifiers in the actual formats found in a certificate (e.g., as ASN.1 types); it only needs to construct the functional equivalent of such identifiers for matching purposes. Security Warning: A client MUST NOT construct a reference identifier corresponding to Relative Distinguished Names (RDNs) other than those of type Common Name and MUST NOT check for RDNs other than those of type Common Name in the presented identifiers.

A web browser that is connecting via HTTPS to the website at "www.example.com" might have two reference identifiers: a DNS-ID of "www.example.com" and, as a fallback, a CN-ID of "www.example.com". A mail user agent that is connecting via IMAP to the email service at "example.net" (resolved as "mail.example.net") might have two reference identifiers: an SRV-ID of "_imaps.example.net" (see ) and a DNS-ID of "example.net". A voice-over-IP (VoIP) user agent that is connecting via SIP to the voice service at "voice.example.edu" might have only one reference identifier: a URI-ID of "sip:voice.example.edu" (see ). An instant messaging (IM) client that is connecting via XMPP to the IM service at "im.example.org" might have three reference identifiers: an SRV-ID of "_xmpp-client.im.example.org" (see ), a DNS-ID of "im.example.org", and an XMPP-specific "XmppAddr" of "im.example.org" (see ).

Once the client has constructed its list of reference identifiers and has received the server's presented identifiers in the form of a PKIX certificate, the client checks its reference identifiers against the presented identifiers for the purpose of finding a match. The search fails if the client exhausts its list of reference identifiers without finding a match. The search succeeds if any presented identifier matches one of the reference identifiers, at which point the client SHOULD stop the search. Implementation Note: A client might be configured to perform multiple searches, i.e., to match more than one reference identifier; although such behavior is not forbidden by this specification, rules for matching multiple reference identifiers are a matter for implementation or future specification. Security Warning: A client MUST NOT seek a match for a reference identifier of CN-ID if the presented identifiers include a DNS-ID, SRV-ID, URI-ID, or any application-specific identifier types supported by the client. Before applying the comparison rules provided in the following sections, the client might need to split the reference identifier into its DNS domain name portion and its service type portion, as follows: A reference identifier of type DNS-ID does not include a service type portion and thus can be used directly as the DNS domain name for comparison purposes. As an example, a DNS-ID of "www.example.com" would result in a DNS domain name portion of "www.example.com". A reference identifier of type CN-ID also does not include a service type portion and thus can be used directly as the DNS domain name for comparison purposes. As previously mentioned, this document specifies that a CN-ID always contains a string whose form matches that of a DNS domain name (thus differentiating a CN-ID from a Common Name containing a human-friendly name). For a reference identifier of type SRV-ID, the DNS domain name portion is the Name and the service type portion is the Service. As an example, an SRV-ID of "_imaps.example.net" would be split into a DNS domain name portion of "example.net" and a service type portion of "imaps" (mapping to an application protocol of IMAP as explained in ). For a reference identifier of type URI-ID, the DNS domain name portion is the "reg-name" part of the "host" component (or its equivalent) and the service type portion is the service type associated with the scheme name matching the "scheme" rule from (not including the ':' separator). As previously mentioned, this document specifies that a URI-ID always contains a "host" component (or its equivalent) containing a "reg-name". (Matching only the "reg-name" rule from limits verification to DNS domain names, thereby differentiating a URI-ID from a uniformResourceIdentifier entry that contains an IP address or a mere host name, or that does not contain a "host" component at all.) Furthermore, note that extraction of the "reg-name" might necessitate normalization of the URI (as explained in ). As an example, a URI-ID of "sip:voice.example.edu" would be split into a DNS domain name portion of "voice.example.edu" and a service type of "sip" (associated with an application protocol of SIP as explained in ). Detailed comparison rules for matching the DNS domain name portion and service type portion of the reference identifier are provided in the following sections.

The client MUST match the DNS domain name portion of a reference identifier according to the following rules (and SHOULD also check the service type as described under ). The rules differ depending on whether the domain to be checked is a "traditional domain name" or an "internationalized domain name" (as defined under ). Furthermore, to meet the needs of clients that support presented identifiers containing the wildcard character '*', we define a supplemental rule for so-called "wildcard certificates". Finally, we also specify the circumstances under which it is acceptable to check the "CN-ID" identifier type.

If the DNS domain name portion of a reference identifier is a "traditional domain name", then matching of the reference identifier against the presented identifier is performed by comparing the set of domain name labels using a case-insensitive ASCII comparison, as clarified by (e.g., "WWW.Example.Com" would be lower-cased to "www.example.com" for comparison purposes). Each label MUST match in order for the names to be considered to match, except as supplemented by the rule about checking of wildcard labels ().

If the DNS domain name portion of a reference identifier is an internationalized domain name, then an implementation MUST convert any U-labels in the domain name to A-labels before checking the domain name. In accordance with , A-labels MUST be compared as case-insensitive ASCII. Each label MUST match in order for the domain names to be considered to match, except as supplemented by the rule about checking of wildcard labels (; but see also regarding wildcards in internationalized domain names).

A client employing this specification's rules MAY match the reference identifier against a presented identifier whose DNS domain name portion contains the wildcard character '*' as part or all of a label (following the definition of "label" from ). For information regarding the security characteristics of wildcard certificates, see . If a client matches the reference identifier against a presented identifier whose DNS domain name portion contains the wildcard character '*', the following rules apply: The client SHOULD NOT attempt to match a presented identifier in which the wildcard character comprises a label other than the left-most label (e.g., do not match bar.*.example.net). If the wildcard character is the only character of the left-most label in the presented identifier, the client SHOULD NOT compare against anything but the left-most label of the reference identifier (e.g., *.example.com would match foo.example.com but not bar.foo.example.com or example.com). The client MAY match a presented identifier in which the wildcard character is not the only character of the label (e.g., baz*.example.net and *baz.example.net and b*z.example.net would be taken to match baz1.example.net and foobaz.example.net and buzz.example.net, respectively). However, the client SHOULD NOT attempt to match a presented identifier where the wildcard character is embedded within an NR-LDH label, A-label, or U-label of an internationalized domain name .

As noted, a client MUST NOT seek a match for a reference identifier of CN-ID if the presented identifiers include a DNS-ID, SRV-ID, URI-ID, or any application-specific identifier types supported by the client. Therefore, if and only if the presented identifiers do not include a DNS-ID, SRV-ID, URI-ID, or any application-specific identifier types supported by the client, then the client MAY as a last resort check for a string whose form matches that of a fully-qualified DNS domain name in a Common Name field of the subject field (i.e., a CN-ID). If the client chooses to compare a reference identifier of type CN-ID against that string, it MUST follow the comparison rules for the DNS domain name portion of an identifier of type DNS-ID, SRV-ID, or URI-ID, as described under , , and .

When checking identifiers of type SRV-ID and URI-ID, a client SHOULD also check the service type of the application service with which it communicates (in addition to checking the domain name as described above). This is a best practice because typically a client is not designed to communicate with all kinds of services using all possible application protocols, but instead is designed to communicate with one kind of service, such as websites, email services, VoIP services, or IM services. The service type is verified by means of an SRV-ID or a URI-ID.

The service name portion of an SRV-ID (e.g., "imaps") MUST be matched in a case-insensitive manner, in accordance with . Note that the "_" character is prepended to the service identifier in DNS SRV records and in SRV-IDs (per ), and thus does not need to be included in any comparison.

The scheme name portion of a URI-ID (e.g., "sip") MUST be matched in a case-insensitive manner, in accordance with . Note that the ":" character is a separator between the scheme name and the rest of the URI, and thus does not need to be included in any comparison.

The outcome of the matching procedure is one of the following cases.

If the client has found a presented identifier that matches a reference identifier, then the service identity check has succeeded. In this case, the client MUST use the matched reference identifier as the validated identity of the application service.

If the client does not find a presented identifier matching any of the reference identifiers but the client has previously pinned the application service's certificate to one of the reference identifiers in the list it constructed for this communication attempt (as "pinning" is explained under ), and the presented certificate matches the pinned certificate (including the context as described under ), then the service identity check has succeeded.

If the client does not find a presented identifier matching any of the reference identifiers and the client has not previously pinned the certificate to one of the reference identifiers in the list it constructed for this communication attempt, then the client MUST proceed as described under .

If the client is an interactive client that is directly controlled by a human user, then it SHOULD inform the user of the identity mismatch and automatically terminate the communication attempt with a bad certificate error; this behavior is preferable because it prevents users from inadvertently bypassing security protections in hostile situations. Security Warning: Some interactive clients give advanced users the option of proceeding with acceptance despite the identity mismatch, thereby "pinning" the certificate to one of the reference identifiers in the list constructed by the client for this communication attempt. Although this behavior can be appropriate in certain specialized circumstances, in general it ought to be exposed only to advanced users. Even then it needs to be handled with extreme caution, for example by first encouraging even an advanced user to terminate the communication attempt and, if the advanced user chooses to proceed anyway, by forcing the user to view the entire certification path and only then allowing the user to pin the certificate (on a temporary or permanent basis, at the user's option). Otherwise, if the client is an automated application not directly controlled by a human user, then it SHOULD terminate the communication attempt with a bad certificate error and log the error appropriately. An automated application MAY provide a configuration setting that disables this behavior, but MUST enable the behavior by default.

As defined under , a certificate is said to be "pinned" to a DNS domain name when a user has explicitly chosen to associate a service's certificate with that DNS domain name despite the fact that the certificate contains some other DNS domain name (e.g., the user has explicitly approved "apps.example.net" as a domain associated with a source domain of "example.com"). The cached name association MUST take account of both the certificate presented and the context in which it was accepted or configured (where the "context" includes the chain of certificates from the presented certificate to the trust anchor, the source domain, the service type, the service's derived domain and port number, and any other relevant information provided by the user or associated by the client).

This document states that the wildcard character '*' SHOULD NOT be included in presented identifiers but MAY be checked by application clients (mainly for the sake of backward compatibility with deployed infrastructure); as a result, the rules provided in this document are more restrictive than the rules for many existing application technologies (such as those excerpted under ). Several security considerations justify tightening the rules: Wildcard certificates automatically vouch for any and all host names within their domain. This can be convenient for administrators but also poses the risk of vouching for rogue or buggy hosts. See for example (beginning at slide 91) and (slides 38-40). Specifications for existing application technologies are not clear or consistent about the allowable location of the wildcard character, such as whether it can be: only the complete left-most label (e.g., *.example.com) some fragment of the left-most label (e.g., foo*.example.com, f*o.example.com, or *oo.example.com) all or part of a label other than the left-most label (e.g., www.*.example.com or www.foo*.example.com) all or part of a label that identifies a so-called "public suffix" (e.g., *.co.uk or *.com) included more than once in a given label (e.g., f*b*r.example.com included as all or part of more than one label (e.g., *.*.example.com) These ambiguities might introduce exploitable differences in identity checking behavior among client implementations and necessitate overly complex and inefficient identity checking algorithms. There is no specification that defines how the wildcard character may be embedded within the NR-LDH labels, A-labels, or U-labels of an internationalized domain name [IDNA-PROTO]; as a result, implementations are strongly discouraged from including or attempting to check for the wildcard character emdedded within NR-LDH labels, A-labels, or U-labels of an internationalized domain name (e.g., "xn--kcry6tjko*.example.org"). Note, however, that a presented domain name identifier MAY contain the wildcard character as long as that character occupies the entire left-most label position, where some or all of the remaining labels are NR-LDH labels, A-labels, or U-labels (e.g., "*.xn--kcry6tjko.example.org"). Notwithstanding the foregoing security considerations, specifications that re-use this one can legitimately encourage continued support for the wildcard character if they have good reasons to do so, such as backward compatibility with deployed infrastructure (see, for example, ).

Allowing internationalized domain names can lead to the inclusion of visually similar (so-called "confusable") characters in certificates; for discussion, see for example .

A given application service might be addressed by multiple DNS domain names for a variety of reasons, and a given deployment might service multiple domains (e.g., in so-called "virtual hosting" environments). In the default TLS handshake exchange, the client is not able to indicate the DNS domain name with which it wants to communicate, and the TLS server returns only one certificate for itself. Absent an extension to TLS, a typical workaround used to facilitate mapping an application service to multiple DNS domain names is to embed all of the domain names into a single certificate. A more recent approach, formally specified in , is for the client to use the TLS "Server Name Indication" (SNI) extension when sending the client_hello message, stipulating the DNS domain name it desires or expects of the service. The service can then return the appropriate certificate in its Certificate message, and that certificate can represent a single DNS domain name. To accommodate the workaround that was needed before the development of the SNI extension, this specification allows multiple DNS-IDs, SRV-IDs, or URI-IDs in a certificate; however, it explicitly discourages multiple CN-IDs. Although it would be preferable to forbid multiple CN-IDs entirely, there are several reasons at this time why this specification states that they SHOULD NOT (instead of MUST NOT) be included: At least one significant technology community of interest explicitly allows multiple CN-IDs . At least one significant certification authority is known to issue certificates containing multiple CN-IDs. Many service providers often deem inclusion of multiple CN-IDs necessary in virtual hosting environments because at least one widely-deployed operating system does not yet support the SNI extension. It is hoped that the recommendation regarding multiple CN-IDs can be further tightened in the future.

This document specifies no actions for the IANA.

The following individuals made important contributions to the text of this document: Shumon Huque, RL 'Bob' Morgan, and Kurt Zeilenga.

The editors and contributors wish to thank the following individuals for their feedback and suggestions: Bernard Aboba, Richard Barnes, Uri Blumenthal, Nelson Bolyard, Kaspar Brand, Anthony Bryan, Scott Cantor, Wan-Teh Chang, Bil Corry, Dave Cridland, Dave Crocker, Cyrus Daboo, Charles Gardiner, Philip Guenther, Phillip Hallam-Baker, Bruno Harbulot, Wes Hardaker, David Harrington, Paul Hoffman, Love Hornquist Astrand, Henry Hotz, Russ Housley, Jeffrey Hutzelman, Cullen Jennings, Simon Josefsson, Geoff Keating, John Klensin, Scott Lawrence, Matt McCutchen, Alexey Melnikov, Subramanian Moonesamy, Eddy Nigg, Ludwig Nussel, Joe Orton, Tom Petch, Yngve N. Pettersen, Tim Polk, Robert Relyea, Eric Rescorla, Pete Resnick, Martin Rex, Joe Salowey, Stefan Santesson, Jim Schaad, Rob Stradling, Michael Stroeder, Andrew Sullivan, Peter Sylvester, Martin Thomson, Paul Tiemann, Sean Turner, Nicolas Williams, Dan Wing, Dan Winship, and Stefan Winter. Thanks also to Barry Leiba and Ben Campbell for their reviews on behalf of the Security Directorate and the General Area Review Team, respectively. The responsible Area Director was Alexey Melnikov.

USC/ISI

4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey CA 90291 US +1 213 822 1511

Information Sciences Institute (ISI) Troll Tech

Waldemar Thranes gate 98B Oslo N-0175 NO +47 22 806390 +47 22 806380 arnt@troll.no

Internet Software Consortium

950 Charter Street Redwood City CA 94063 US +1 650 779 7001

Microsoft Corporation

One Microsoft Way Redmond WA 98052 US levone@microsoft.com

This document describes a DNS RR which specifies the location of the server(s) for a specific protocol and domain. This document is one of a collection that, together, describe the protocol and usage context for a revision of Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA), superseding the earlier version. It describes the document collection and provides definitions and other material that are common to the set. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is the revised protocol definition for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). The rationale for changes, the relationship to the older specification, and important terminology are provided in other documents. This document specifies the protocol mechanism, called Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA), for registering and looking up IDNs in a way that does not require changes to the DNS itself. IDNA is only meant for processing domain names, not free text. [STANDARDS TRACK] Harvard University

1350 Mass. Ave. Cambridge MA 02138 - +1 617 495 3864 sob@harvard.edu

General keyword 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. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: 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 RFC 2119. Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement level of the document in which they are used. The X.500 Directory uses distinguished names (DNs) as primary keys to entries in the directory. This document defines the string representation used in the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) to transfer distinguished names. The string representation is designed to give a clean representation of commonly used distinguished names, while being able to represent any distinguished name. [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 defines a new name form for inclusion in the otherName field of an X.509 Subject Alternative Name extension that allows a certificate subject to be associated with the service name and domain name components of a DNS Service Resource Record. [STANDARDS TRACK] World Wide Web Consortium

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02139 USA +1-617-253-5702 +1-617-258-5999 timbl@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/

Day Software

5251 California Ave., Suite 110 Irvine CA 92617 USA +1-949-679-2960 +1-949-679-2972 fielding@gbiv.com http://roy.gbiv.com/

Adobe Systems Incorporated

345 Park Ave San Jose CA 95110 USA +1-408-536-3024 LMM@acm.org http://larry.masinter.net/

Applications uniform resource identifier URI URL URN WWW resource A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of characters that identifies an abstract or physical resource. This specification defines the generic URI syntax and a process for resolving URI references that might be in relative form, along with guidelines and security considerations for the use of URIs on the Internet. The URI syntax defines a grammar that is a superset of all valid URIs, allowing an implementation to parse the common components of a URI reference without knowing the scheme-specific requirements of every possible identifier. This specification does not define a generative grammar for URIs; that task is performed by the individual specifications of each URI scheme. Internet technical specifications often need to define a formal syntax. Over the years, a modified version of Backus-Naur Form (BNF), called Augmented BNF (ABNF), has been popular among many Internet specifications. The current specification documents ABNF. It balances compactness and simplicity with reasonable representational power. The differences between standard BNF and ABNF involve naming rules, repetition, alternatives, order-independence, and value ranges. This specification also supplies additional rule definitions and encoding for a core lexical analyzer of the type common to several Internet specifications. [STANDARDS TRACK] SecTheory Ltd. SecTheory Ltd. Domain Name System (DNS) names are "case insensitive". This document explains exactly what that means and provides a clear specification of the rules. This clarification updates RFCs 1034, 1035, and 2181. [STANDARDS TRACK] The Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) add data origin authentication and data integrity to the Domain Name System. This document introduces these extensions and describes their capabilities and limitations. This document also discusses the services that the DNS security extensions do and do not provide. Last, this document describes the interrelationships between the documents that collectively describe DNSSEC. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document specifies Version 1.0 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. [STANDARDS TRACK] This specification describes how SRV records can be used to locate email services. CA/Browser Forum This document specifies protocol stacks for the routing and transport of per-flow signalling messages along the path taken by that flow through the network. The design uses existing transport and security protocols under a common messaging layer, the General Internet Signalling Transport (GIST), which provides a common service for diverse signalling applications. GIST does not handle signalling application state itself, but manages its own internal state and the configuration of the underlying transport and security protocols to enable the transfer of messages in both directions along the flow path. The combination of GIST and the lower layer transport and security protocols provides a solution for the base protocol component of the "Next Steps in Signalling" (NSIS) framework. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. Department of Information and Computer Science

University of California, Irvine Irvine CA 92697-3425 +1(949)824-1715 fielding@ics.uci.edu

World Wide Web Consortium

MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, NE43-356 545 Technology Square Cambridge MA 02139 +1(617)258-8682 jg@w3.org

Compaq Computer Corporation

Western Research Laboratory 250 University Avenue Palo Alto CA 94305 mogul@wrl.dec.com

World Wide Web Consortium

MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, NE43-356 545 Technology Square Cambridge MA 02139 +1(617)258-8682 frystyk@w3.org

Xerox Corporation

MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, NE43-356 3333 Coyote Hill Road Palo Alto CA 94034 masinter@parc.xerox.com

Microsoft Corporation

1 Microsoft Way Redmond WA 98052 paulle@microsoft.com

World Wide Web Consortium

MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, NE43-356 545 Technology Square Cambridge MA 02139 +1(617)258-8682 timbl@w3.org

The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. It is a generic, stateless, protocol which can be used for many tasks beyond its use for hypertext, such as name servers and distributed object management systems, through extension of its request methods, error codes and headers . A feature of HTTP is the typing and negotiation of data representation, allowing systems to be built independently of the data being transferred. HTTP has been in use by the World-Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This specification defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1", and is an update to RFC 2068 . This memo describes how to use Transport Layer Security (TLS) to secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) connections over the Internet. This memo provides information for the Internet community. University of Southern California (USC)/Information Sciences Institute

4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey CA 90291 US

Cisco Systems, Inc.

170 West Tasman Drive San Jose CA 95134-1706 USA +1 408 527 8213 +1 408 527 8254 deering@cisco.com

Nokia

232 Java Drive Sunnyvale CA 94089 USA +1 408 990 2004 +1 408 743 5677 hinden@iprg.nokia.com

Internet internet protocol version 6 IPv6 This document specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6), also sometimes referred to as IP Next Generation or IPng. This document describes an updated version of the "Security Architecture for IP", which is designed to provide security services for traffic at the IP layer. This document obsoletes RFC 2401 (November 1998). [STANDARDS TRACK] This document describes the protocol elements, along with their semantics and encodings, of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). LDAP provides access to distributed directory services that act in accordance with X.500 data and service models. These protocol elements are based on those described in the X.500 Directory Access Protocol (DAP). [STANDARDS TRACK] This document describes authentication methods and security mechanisms of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). This document details establishment of Transport Layer Security (TLS) using the StartTLS operation.</t><t> This document details the simple Bind authentication method including anonymous, unauthenticated, and name/password mechanisms and the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Bind authentication method including the EXTERNAL mechanism.</t><t> This document discusses various authentication and authorization states through which a session to an LDAP server may pass and the actions that trigger these state changes.</t><t> This document, together with other documents in the LDAP Technical Specification (see Section 1 of the specification's road map), obsoletes RFC 2251, RFC 2829, and RFC 2830. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is an integral part of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) technical specification. It provides a technical specification of attribute types and object classes intended for use by LDAP directory clients for many directory services, such as White Pages. These objects are widely used as a basis for the schema in many LDAP directories. This document does not cover attributes used for the administration of directory servers, nor does it include directory objects defined for specific uses in other documents. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document defines the "Start Transport Layer Security (TLS) Operation" for LDAP. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document describes a Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Database using the Domain Name System (DNS) as a distributed database of Rules. The Keys are domain-names and the Rules are encoded using the Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) Resource Record (RR). Since this document obsoletes RFC 2915, it is the official specification for the NAPTR DNS Resource Record. It is also part of a series that is completely specified in "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS" (RFC 3401). It is very important to note that it is impossible to read and understand any document in this series without reading the others. [STANDARDS TRACK] The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) defined in this document provides mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices. It uses an Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based data encoding for the configuration data as well as the protocol messages. The NETCONF protocol operations are realized on top of a simple Remote Procedure Call (RPC) layer. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document describes a method for invoking and running the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) within a Secure Shell (SSH) session as an SSH subsystem. [STANDARDS TRACK] The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) provides mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices. This document describes how to use the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to secure NETCONF exchanges. [STANDARDS TRACK] The Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) has been in use in the Internet for a decade, and remains one of the most popular protocols (by volume) in use today. This document is a replacement for RFC 977, and officially updates the protocol specification. It clarifies some vagueness in RFC 977, includes some new base functionality, and provides a specific mechanism to add standardized extensions to NNTP. [STANDARDS TRACK] This memo defines an extension to the Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) that allows an NNTP client and server to use Transport Layer Security (TLS). The primary goal is to provide encryption for single-link confidentiality purposes, but data integrity, (optional) certificate-based peer entity authentication, and (optional) data compression are also possible. [STANDARDS TRACK] VeriSign, Inc.

1350 Charleston Road Mountain View CA 94043 US mmyers@verisign.com

CertCo, LLC

13506 King Charles Dr. Chantilly VA 20151 US rankney@erols.com

ValiCert, Inc.

1215 Terra Bella Avenue Mountain View CA 94043 US +1 650 567 5457 ambarish@valicert.com

My CFO, Inc.

1945 Charleston Road Mountain View CA 94043 US galperin@mycfo.com

Entrust Technologies

750 Heron Road Suite E08 Ottawa Ontario K1V 1A7 CA cadams@entrust.com

This document specifies a protocol useful in determining the current status of a digital certificate without requiring CRLs. Additional mechanisms addressing PKIX operational requirements are specified in separate documents. An overview of the protocol is provided in section 2. Functional requirements are specified in section 4. Details of the protocol are in section 5. We cover security issues with the protocol in section 6. Appendix A defines OCSP over HTTP, appendix B accumulates ASN.1 syntactic elements and appendix C specifies the mime types for the messages. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document (in uppercase, as shown) are to be interpreted as described in. This document is maintained in order to publish all necessary information needed to develop interoperable applications based on the OpenPGP format. It is not a step-by-step cookbook for writing an application. It describes only the format and methods needed to read, check, generate, and write conforming packets crossing any network. It does not deal with storage and implementation questions. It does, however, discuss implementation issues necessary to avoid security flaws.</t><t> OpenPGP software uses a combination of strong public-key and symmetric cryptography to provide security services for electronic communications and data storage. These services include confidentiality, key management, authentication, and digital signatures. This document specifies the message formats used in OpenPGP. [STANDARDS TRACK] Carnegie-Mellon University

5000 Forbes Ave Pittsburgh PA 15213 US jgm+@cmu.edu

Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.

420 Whisman Court Mountain View CA 94043-2186 US mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us

Cisco systems

170 West Tasman Drive San Jose CA 95134-1706 US +1 914 528 0090 +1 408 526 4952 yakov@cisco.com

Chrysler Corporation

25999 Lawrence Ave Center Line MI 48015 US +1 810 758 8212 +1 810 758 8173 rgm3@is.chrysler.com

RIPE Network Coordination Centre

Kruislaan 409 Amsterdam 1098 SJ NL +31 20 5925065 +31 20 5925090 Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net

RIPE Network Coordination Centre

Kruislaan 409 Amsterdam 1098 SJ NL +31 20 5925065 +31 20 5925090 GeertJan.deGroot@ripe.net

Silicon Graphics, Inc.

2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mail Stop 15-730 Mountain View CA 94043-1389 US +1 415 960 1980 +1 415 961 9584 lear@sgi.com

SPYRUS

381 Elden Street Suite 1120 Herndon VA 20170 US housley@spyrus.com

VeriSign, Inc.

One Alewife Center Cambridge MA 02140 US wford@verisign.com

NIST

Gaithersburg MD 20899 US wpolk@nist.gov

Citicorp

666 Fifth Ave 3rd Floor New York NY 10103 US david.solo@citicorp.com

This memo profiles the X.509 v3 certificate and X.509 v2 CRL for use in the Internet. An overview of the approach and model are provided as an introduction. The .509 v3 certificate format is described in detail, with additional information regarding the format and semantics of Internet name forms (e.g., IP addresses). Standard certificate extensions are described and one new Internet-specific extension is defined. A required set of certificate extensions is specified. The X.509 v2 CRL format is described and a required extension set is defined as well. An algorithm for X.509 certificate path validation is described. Supplemental information is provided describing the format of public keys and digital signatures in X.509 certificates for common Internet public key encryption algorithms (i.e., RSA, DSA, and Diffie-Hellman). ASN.1 modules and examples are provided in the appendices. 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 RFC 2119. Please send comments on this document to the ietf-pkix@imc.org mail list. This memo defines a generalized mechanism for application service naming that allows service location without relying on rigid domain naming conventions (so-called name hacks). The proposal defines a Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application to map domain name, application service name, and application protocol dynamically to target server and port. [STANDARDS TRACK] This Glossary provides definitions, abbreviations, and explanations of terminology for information system security. The 334 pages of entries offer recommendations to improve the comprehensibility of written material that is generated in the Internet Standards Process (RFC 2026). The recommendations follow the principles that such writing should (a) use the same term or definition whenever the same concept is mentioned; (b) use terms in their plainest, dictionary sense; (c) use terms that are already well-established in open publications; and (d) avoid terms that either favor a particular vendor or favor a particular technology or mechanism over other, competing techniques that already exist or could be developed. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This document describes Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), an application-layer control (signaling) protocol for creating, modifying, and terminating sessions with one or more participants. These sessions include Internet telephone calls, multimedia distribution, and multimedia conferences. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document describes how to construct and interpret certain information in a PKIX-compliant (Public Key Infrastructure using X.509) certificate for use in a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) over Transport Layer Security (TLS) connection. More specifically, this document describes how to encode and extract the identity of a SIP domain in a certificate and how to use that identity for SIP domain authentication. As such, this document is relevant both to implementors of SIP and to issuers of certificates. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document provides clarifications and guidelines concerning the use of the SIPS URI scheme in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). It also makes normative changes to SIP. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a specification of the basic protocol for Internet electronic mail transport. It consolidates, updates, and clarifies several previous documents, making all or parts of most of them obsolete. It covers the SMTP extension mechanisms and best practices for the contemporary Internet, but does not provide details about particular extensions. Although SMTP was designed as a mail transport and delivery protocol, this specification also contains information that is important to its use as a "mail submission" protocol for "split-UA" (User Agent) mail reading systems and mobile environments. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document defines a Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP) extension whereby an SMTP client may indicate an authentication mechanism to the server, perform an authentication protocol exchange, and optionally negotiate a security layer for subsequent protocol interactions during this session. This extension includes a profile of the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) for SMTP.</t><t> This document obsoletes RFC 2554. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document describes an extension to the SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) service that allows an SMTP server and client to use TLS (Transport Layer Security) to provide private, authenticated communication over the Internet. This gives SMTP agents the ability to protect some or all of their communications from eavesdroppers and attackers. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document describes an architecture for describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks. The architecture is designed to be modular to allow the evolution of the SNMP protocol standards over time. The major portions of the architecture are an SNMP engine containing a Message Processing Subsystem, a Security Subsystem and an Access Control Subsystem, and possibly multiple SNMP applications which provide specific functional processing of management data. This document obsoletes RFC 2571. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document describes a Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), that uses either the Transport Layer Security protocol or the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. The TLS and DTLS protocols provide authentication and privacy services for SNMP applications. This document describes how the TLS Transport Model (TLSTM) implements the needed features of a SNMP Transport Subsystem to make this protection possible in an interoperable way.</t><t> This Transport Model is designed to meet the security and operational needs of network administrators. It supports the sending of SNMP messages over TLS/TCP and DTLS/UDP. The TLS mode can make use of TCP's improved support for larger packet sizes and the DTLS mode provides potentially superior operation in environments where a connectionless (e.g., UDP) transport is preferred. Both TLS and DTLS integrate well into existing public keying infrastructures.</t><t> This document also defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it defines objects for managing the TLS Transport Model for SNMP. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document describes the syslog protocol, which is used to convey event notification messages. This protocol utilizes a layered architecture, which allows the use of any number of transport protocols for transmission of syslog messages. It also provides a message format that allows vendor-specific extensions to be provided in a structured way.</t><t> This document has been written with the original design goals for traditional syslog in mind. The need for a new layered specification has arisen because standardization efforts for reliable and secure syslog extensions suffer from the lack of a Standards-Track and transport-independent RFC. Without this document, each other standard needs to define its own syslog packet format and transport mechanism, which over time will introduce subtle compatibility issues. This document tries to provide a foundation that syslog extensions can build on. This layered architecture approach also provides a solid basis that allows code to be written once for each syslog feature rather than once for each transport. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document describes the transport of syslog messages over the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. It provides a secure transport for syslog messages in cases where a connectionless transport is desired. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure connection for the transport of syslog messages. This document describes the security threats to syslog and how TLS can be used to counter such threats. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document specifies Version 1.2 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. [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. American National Standards Institute Innosoft International, Inc.

1050 Lakes Drive West Covina CA 91790 US chris.newman@innosoft.com

International Telecommunications Union International Telecommunications Union International Telecommunications Union International Telecommunications Union International Telecommunications Union This document defines the core features of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), a technology for streaming Extensible Markup Language (XML) elements for the purpose of exchanging structured information in close to real time between any two or more network-aware entities. XMPP provides a generalized, extensible framework for incrementally exchanging XML data, upon which a variety of applications can be built. The framework includes methods for stream setup and teardown, channel encryption, authentication of a client to a server and of one server to another server, and primitives for push-style messages, publication of network availability information ("presence"), and request-response interactions. This document also specifies the format for XMPP addresses, which are fully internationalizable. This document obsoletes RFC 3920. Jabber Software Foundation

stpeter@jabber.org

Applications XMPP Working Group RFC Request for Comments I-D Internet-Draft XMPP Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol Jabber IM Instant Messaging Presence XML Extensible Markup Language This memo defines the core features of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), a protocol for streaming Extensible Markup Language (XML) elements in order to exchange structured information in close to real time between any two network endpoints. While XMPP provides a generalized, extensible framework for exchanging XML data, it is used mainly for the purpose of building instant messaging and presence applications that meet the requirements of RFC 2779.

At the time of this writing, two application technologies re-use the recommendations in this specfication: email and XMPP . Here we include the text from to illustrate the thought process that might be followed by protocol designers for other application technologies. Specifically, because XMPP uses DNS SRV records for resolution of the DNS domain names for application services, the XMPP specification recommends the use of SRV-IDs. The text regarding certificate issuance is as follows: ###### In a PKIX certificate to be presented by an XMPP server (i.e., a "server certificate"), the certificate MUST include one or more XMPP addresses (i.e., domainparts) associated with XMPP services hosted at the server. The rules and guidelines defined in [this specification] apply to XMPP server certificates, with the following XMPP-specific considerations: Support for the DNS-ID identifier type is REQUIRED in XMPP client and server software implementations. Certification authorities that issue XMPP-specific certificates MUST support the DNS-ID identifier type. XMPP service providers SHOULD include the DNS-ID identifier type in certificate requests. Support for the SRV-ID identifier type is REQUIRED for XMPP client and server software implementations (for verification purposes XMPP client implementations need to support only the "_xmpp-client" service type, whereas XMPP server implementations need to support both the "_xmpp-client" and "_xmpp-server" service types). Certification authorities that issue XMPP-specific certificates SHOULD support the SRV-ID identifier type. XMPP service providers SHOULD include the SRV-ID identifier type in certificate requests. Support for the XmppAddr identifier type is encouraged in XMPP client and server software implementations for the sake of backward-compatibility, but is no longer encouraged in certificates issued by certification authorities or requested by XMPP service providers. DNS domain names in server certificates MAY contain the wildcard character '*' as the complete left-most label within the identifier. ###### The text regarding certificate verification is as follows: ###### For server certificates, the rules and guidelines defined in [this specification] apply, with the proviso that the XmppAddr identifier is allowed as a reference identifier. The identities to be checked are set as follows: The initiating entity sets its reference identifier to the 'to' address it communicates in the initial stream header; i.e., this is the identity it expects the receiving entity to provide in a PKIX certificate. The receiving entity sets its reference identifier to the 'from' address communicated by the initiating entity in the initial stream header; i.e., this is the identity that the initiating entity is trying to assert. ######

(This section is non-normative.) The recommendations in this document are an abstraction from recommendations in specifications for a wide range of application protocols. For the purpose of comparison and to delineate the history of thinking about application service identity verification within the IETF, this informative section gathers together prior art by including the exact text from various RFCs (the only modifications are changes to the names of several references to maintain coherence with the main body of this document, and the elision of irrelevant text as marked by the characters "[...]").

In 1999, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in IMAP, POP3, and ACAP: ###### 2.4. Server Identity Check During the TLS negotiation, the client MUST check its understanding of the server hostname against the server's identity as presented in the server Certificate message, in order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks. Matching is performed according to these rules: The client MUST use the server hostname it used to open the connection as the value to compare against the server name as expressed in the server certificate. The client MUST NOT use any form of the server hostname derived from an insecure remote source (e.g., insecure DNS lookup). CNAME canonicalization is not done. If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present in the certificate, it SHOULD be used as the source of the server's identity. Matching is case-insensitive. A "*" wildcard character MAY be used as the left-most name component in the certificate. For example, *.example.com would match a.example.com, foo.example.com, etc. but would not match example.com. If the certificate contains multiple names (e.g. more than one dNSName field), then a match with any one of the fields is considered acceptable. If the match fails, the client SHOULD either ask for explicit user confirmation, or terminate the connection and indicate the server's identity is suspect. ######

In 2000, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in HTTP: ###### 3.1. Server Identity In general, HTTP/TLS requests are generated by dereferencing a URI. As a consequence, the hostname for the server is known to the client. If the hostname is available, the client MUST check it against the server's identity as presented in the server's Certificate message, in order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks. If the client has external information as to the expected identity of the server, the hostname check MAY be omitted. (For instance, a client may be connecting to a machine whose address and hostname are dynamic but the client knows the certificate that the server will present.) In such cases, it is important to narrow the scope of acceptable certificates as much as possible in order to prevent man in the middle attacks. In special cases, it may be appropriate for the client to simply ignore the server's identity, but it must be understood that this leaves the connection open to active attack. If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present, that MUST be used as the identity. Otherwise, the (most specific) Common Name field in the Subject field of the certificate MUST be used. Although the use of the Common Name is existing practice, it is deprecated and Certification Authorities are encouraged to use the dNSName instead. Matching is performed using the matching rules specified by . If more than one identity of a given type is present in the certificate (e.g., more than one dNSName name, a match in any one of the set is considered acceptable.) Names may contain the wildcard character * which is considered to match any single domain name component or component fragment. E.g., *.a.com matches foo.a.com but not bar.foo.a.com. f*.com matches foo.com but not bar.com. In some cases, the URI is specified as an IP address rather than a hostname. In this case, the iPAddress subjectAltName must be present in the certificate and must exactly match the IP in the URI. If the hostname does not match the identity in the certificate, user oriented clients MUST either notify the user (clients MAY give the user the opportunity to continue with the connection in any case) or terminate the connection with a bad certificate error. Automated clients MUST log the error to an appropriate audit log (if available) and SHOULD terminate the connection (with a bad certificate error). Automated clients MAY provide a configuration setting that disables this check, but MUST provide a setting which enables it. Note that in many cases the URI itself comes from an untrusted source. The above-described check provides no protection against attacks where this source is compromised. For example, if the URI was obtained by clicking on an HTML page which was itself obtained without using HTTP/TLS, a man in the middle could have replaced the URI. In order to prevent this form of attack, users should carefully examine the certificate presented by the server to determine if it meets their expectations. ######

In 2000, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in LDAP: ###### 3.6. Server Identity Check The client MUST check its understanding of the server's hostname against the server's identity as presented in the server's Certificate message, in order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks. Matching is performed according to these rules: The client MUST use the server hostname it used to open the LDAP connection as the value to compare against the server name as expressed in the server's certificate. The client MUST NOT use the server's canonical DNS name or any other derived form of name. If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present in the certificate, it SHOULD be used as the source of the server's identity. Matching is case-insensitive. The "*" wildcard character is allowed. If present, it applies only to the left-most name component. E.g. *.bar.com would match a.bar.com, b.bar.com, etc. but not bar.com. If more than one identity of a given type is present in the certificate (e.g. more than one dNSName name), a match in any one of the set is considered acceptable. If the hostname does not match the dNSName-based identity in the certificate per the above check, user-oriented clients SHOULD either notify the user (clients MAY give the user the opportunity to continue with the connection in any case) or terminate the connection and indicate that the server's identity is suspect. Automated clients SHOULD close the connection, returning and/or logging an error indicating that the server's identity is suspect. Beyond the server identity checks described in this section, clients SHOULD be prepared to do further checking to ensure that the server is authorized to provide the service it is observed to provide. The client MAY need to make use of local policy information. ###### In 2006, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in LDAP: ###### 3.1.3. Server Identity Check In order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks, the client MUST verify the server's identity (as presented in the server's Certificate message). In this section, the client's understanding of the server's identity (typically the identity used to establish the transport connection) is called the "reference identity". The client determines the type (e.g., DNS name or IP address) of the reference identity and performs a comparison between the reference identity and each subjectAltName value of the corresponding type until a match is produced. Once a match is produced, the server's identity has been verified, and the server identity check is complete. Different subjectAltName types are matched in different ways. Sections 3.1.3.1 - 3.1.3.3 explain how to compare values of various subjectAltName types. The client may map the reference identity to a different type prior to performing a comparison. Mappings may be performed for all available subjectAltName types to which the reference identity can be mapped; however, the reference identity should only be mapped to types for which the mapping is either inherently secure (e.g., extracting the DNS name from a URI to compare with a subjectAltName of type dNSName) or for which the mapping is performed in a secure manner (e.g., using , or using user- or admin-configured host-to-address/address-to-host lookup tables). The server's identity may also be verified by comparing the reference identity to the Common Name (CN) value in the last Relative Distinguished Name (RDN) of the subject field of the server's certificate (where "last" refers to the DER-encoded order, not the order of presentation in a string representation of DER-encoded data). This comparison is performed using the rules for comparison of DNS names in Section 3.1.3.1, below, with the exception that no wildcard matching is allowed. Although the use of the Common Name value is existing practice, it is deprecated, and Certification Authorities are encouraged to provide subjectAltName values instead. Note that the TLS implementation may represent DNs in certificates according to X.500 or other conventions. For example, some X.500 implementations order the RDNs in a DN using a left-to-right (most significant to least significant) convention instead of LDAP's right-to-left convention. If the server identity check fails, user-oriented clients SHOULD either notify the user (clients may give the user the opportunity to continue with the LDAP session in this case) or close the transport connection and indicate that the server's identity is suspect. Automated clients SHOULD close the transport connection and then return or log an error indicating that the server's identity is suspect or both. Beyond the server identity check described in this section, clients should be prepared to do further checking to ensure that the server is authorized to provide the service it is requested to provide. The client may need to make use of local policy information in making this determination. 3.1.3.1. Comparison of DNS Names If the reference identity is an internationalized domain name, conforming implementations MUST convert it to the ASCII Compatible Encoding (ACE) format as specified in Section 4 of RFC 3490 before comparison with subjectAltName values of type dNSName. Specifically, conforming implementations MUST perform the conversion operation specified in Section 4 of RFC 3490 as follows: in step 1, the domain name SHALL be considered a "stored string"; in step 3, set the flag called "UseSTD3ASCIIRules"; in step 4, process each label with the "ToASCII" operation; and in step 5, change all label separators to U+002E (full stop). After performing the "to-ASCII" conversion, the DNS labels and names MUST be compared for equality according to the rules specified in Section 3 of RFC3490. The '*' (ASCII 42) wildcard character is allowed in subjectAltName values of type dNSName, and then only as the left-most (least significant) DNS label in that value. This wildcard matches any left-most DNS label in the server name. That is, the subject *.example.com matches the server names a.example.com and b.example.com, but does not match example.com or a.b.example.com. 3.1.3.2. Comparison of IP Addresses When the reference identity is an IP address, the identity MUST be converted to the "network byte order" octet string representation . For IP Version 4, as specified in RFC 791, the octet string will contain exactly four octets. For IP Version 6, as specified in RFC 2460, the octet string will contain exactly sixteen octets. This octet string is then compared against subjectAltName values of type iPAddress. A match occurs if the reference identity octet string and value octet strings are identical. 3.1.3.3. Comparison of Other subjectName Types Client implementations MAY support matching against subjectAltName values of other types as described in other documents. ######

In 2002, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in SMTP: ###### 4.1 Processing After the STARTTLS Command [...] The decision of whether or not to believe the authenticity of the other party in a TLS negotiation is a local matter. However, some general rules for the decisions are: A SMTP client would probably only want to authenticate an SMTP server whose server certificate has a domain name that is the domain name that the client thought it was connecting to. [...] ###### In 2006, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in SMTP: ###### 14. Additional Requirements When Using SASL PLAIN over TLS [...] After a successful negotiation, the client MUST check its understanding of the server hostname against the server's identity as presented in the server Certificate message, in order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks. If the match fails, the client MUST NOT attempt to authenticate using the SASL PLAIN mechanism. Matching is performed according to the following rules: The client MUST use the server hostname it used to open the connection as the value to compare against the server name as expressed in the server certificate. The client MUST NOT use any form of the server hostname derived from an insecure remote source (e.g., insecure DNS lookup). CNAME canonicalization is not done. If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present in the certificate, it SHOULD be used as the source of the server's identity. Matching is case-insensitive. A "*" wildcard character MAY be used as the leftmost name component in the certificate. For example, *.example.com would match a.example.com, foo.example.com, etc., but would not match example.com. If the certificate contains multiple names (e.g., more than one dNSName field), then a match with any one of the fields is considered acceptable. ######

In 2004, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in XMPP: ###### 14.2. Certificate Validation When an XMPP peer communicates with another peer securely, it MUST validate the peer's certificate. There are three possible cases: The peer contains an End Entity certificate which appears to be certified by a certification path terminating in a trust anchor (as described in Section 6.1 of ). The peer certificate is certified by a Certificate Authority not known to the validating peer. The peer certificate is self-signed. In Case #1, the validating peer MUST do one of two things: Verify the peer certificate according to the rules of . The certificate SHOULD then be checked against the expected identity of the peer following the rules described in , except that a subjectAltName extension of type "xmpp" MUST be used as the identity if present. If one of these checks fails, user-oriented clients MUST either notify the user (clients MAY give the user the opportunity to continue with the connection in any case) or terminate the connection with a bad certificate error. Automated clients SHOULD terminate the connection (with a bad certificate error) and log the error to an appropriate audit log. Automated clients MAY provide a configuration setting that disables this check, but MUST provide a setting that enables it. The peer SHOULD show the certificate to a user for approval, including the entire certification path. The peer MUST cache the certificate (or some non-forgeable representation such as a hash). In future connections, the peer MUST verify that the same certificate was presented and MUST notify the user if it has changed. In Case #2 and Case #3, implementations SHOULD act as in (2) above. ###### Although defined its own rules, re-uses the rules in this document regarding application service identity verification in XMPP.

In 2006, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in NNTP: ###### 5. Security Considerations [...] During the TLS negotiation, the client MUST check its understanding of the server hostname against the server's identity as presented in the server Certificate message, in order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks. Matching is performed according to these rules: The client MUST use the server hostname it used to open the connection (or the hostname specified in TLS "server_name" extension ) as the value to compare against the server name as expressed in the server certificate. The client MUST NOT use any form of the server hostname derived from an insecure remote source (e.g., insecure DNS lookup). CNAME canonicalization is not done. If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present in the certificate, it SHOULD be used as the source of the server's identity. Matching is case-insensitive. A "*" wildcard character MAY be used as the left-most name component in the certificate. For example, *.example.com would match a.example.com, foo.example.com, etc., but would not match example.com. If the certificate contains multiple names (e.g., more than one dNSName field), then a match with any one of the fields is considered acceptable. If the match fails, the client SHOULD either ask for explicit user confirmation or terminate the connection with a QUIT command and indicate the server's identity is suspect. Additionally, clients MUST verify the binding between the identity of the servers to which they connect and the public keys presented by those servers. Clients SHOULD implement the algorithm in Section 6 of for general certificate validation, but MAY supplement that algorithm with other validation methods that achieve equivalent levels of verification (such as comparing the server certificate against a local store of already-verified certificates and identity bindings). ######

In 2006, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in NETCONF: ###### 6. Security Considerations The identity of the server MUST be verified and authenticated by the client according to local policy before password-based authentication data or any configuration or state data is sent to or received from the server. The identity of the client MUST also be verified and authenticated by the server according to local policy to ensure that the incoming client request is legitimate before any configuration or state data is sent to or received from the client. Neither side should establish a NETCONF over SSH connection with an unknown, unexpected, or incorrect identity on the opposite side. ###### In 2009, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in NETCONF: ###### 3.1. Server Identity During the TLS negotiation, the client MUST carefully examine the certificate presented by the server to determine if it meets the client's expectations. Particularly, the client MUST check its understanding of the server hostname against the server's identity as presented in the server Certificate message, in order to prevent man- in-the-middle attacks. Matching is performed according to the rules below (following the example of ): The client MUST use the server hostname it used to open the connection (or the hostname specified in the TLS "server_name" extension ) as the value to compare against the server name as expressed in the server certificate. The client MUST NOT use any form of the server hostname derived from an insecure remote source (e.g., insecure DNS lookup). CNAME canonicalization is not done. If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present in the certificate, it MUST be used as the source of the server's identity. Matching is case-insensitive. A "*" wildcard character MAY be used as the leftmost name component in the certificate. For example, *.example.com would match a.example.com, foo.example.com, etc., but would not match example.com. If the certificate contains multiple names (e.g., more than one dNSName field), then a match with any one of the fields is considered acceptable. If the match fails, the client MUST either ask for explicit user confirmation or terminate the connection and indicate the server's identity is suspect. Additionally, clients MUST verify the binding between the identity of the servers to which they connect and the public keys presented by those servers. Clients SHOULD implement the algorithm in Section 6 of for general certificate validation, but MAY supplement that algorithm with other validation methods that achieve equivalent levels of verification (such as comparing the server certificate against a local store of already-verified certificates and identity bindings). If the client has external information as to the expected identity of the server, the hostname check MAY be omitted. ######

In 2009, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in Syslog: ###### 5.2. Subject Name Authorization Implementations MUST support certification path validation . In addition, they MUST support specifying the authorized peers using locally configured host names and matching the name against the certificate as follows. Implementations MUST support matching the locally configured host name against a dNSName in the subjectAltName extension field and SHOULD support checking the name against the common name portion of the subject distinguished name. The '*' (ASCII 42) wildcard character is allowed in the dNSName of the subjectAltName extension (and in common name, if used to store the host name), but only as the left-most (least significant) DNS label in that value. This wildcard matches any left-most DNS label in the server name. That is, the subject *.example.com matches the server names a.example.com and b.example.com, but does not match example.com or a.b.example.com. Implementations MUST support wildcards in certificates as specified above, but MAY provide a configuration option to disable them. Locally configured names MAY contain the wildcard character to match a range of values. The types of wildcards supported MAY be more flexible than those allowed in subject names, making it possible to support various policies for different environments. For example, a policy could allow for a trust-root-based authorization where all credentials issued by a particular CA trust root are authorized. If the locally configured name is an internationalized domain name, conforming implementations MUST convert it to the ASCII Compatible Encoding (ACE) format for performing comparisons, as specified in Section 7 of . Implementations MAY support matching a locally configured IP address against an iPAddress stored in the subjectAltName extension. In this case, the locally configured IP address is converted to an octet string as specified in , Section 4.2.1.6. A match occurs if this octet string is equal to the value of iPAddress in the subjectAltName extension. ######

In 2010, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in SIP: ###### 7.2. Comparing SIP Identities When an implementation (either client or server) compares two values as SIP domain identities: Implementations MUST compare only the DNS name component of each SIP domain identifier; an implementation MUST NOT use any scheme or parameters in the comparison. Implementations MUST compare the values as DNS names, which means that the comparison is case insensitive as specified by . Implementations MUST handle Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in accordance with Section 7.2 of . Implementations MUST match the values in their entirety: Implementations MUST NOT match suffixes. For example, "foo.example.com" does not match "example.com". Implemenations MUST NOT match any form of wildcard, such as a leading "." or "*." with any other DNS label or sequence of labels. For example, "*.example.com" matches only "*.example.com" but not "foo.example.com". Similarly, ".example.com" matches only ".example.com", and does not match "foo.example.com." allows the dNSName component to contain a wildcard; e.g., "DNS:*.example.com". , while not disallowing this explicitly, leaves the interpretation of wildcards to the individual specification. does not provide any guidelines on the presence of wildcards in certificates. Through the rule above, this document prohibits such wildcards in certificates for SIP domains. ######

In 2010, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in SNMP: ###### If the server's presented certificate has passed certification path validation to a configured trust anchor, and an active row exists with a zero-length snmpTlstmAddrServerFingerprint value, then the snmpTlstmAddrServerIdentity column contains the expected host name. This expected host name is then compared against the server's certificate as follows: Implementations MUST support matching the expected host name against a dNSName in the subjectAltName extension field and MAY support checking the name against the CommonName portion of the subject distinguished name. The '*' (ASCII 0x2a) wildcard character is allowed in the dNSName of the subjectAltName extension (and in common name, if used to store the host name), but only as the left-most (least significant) DNS label in that value. This wildcard matches any left-most DNS label in the server name. That is, the subject *.example.com matches the server names a.example.com and b.example.com, but does not match example.com or a.b.example.com. Implementations MUST support wildcards in certificates as specified above, but MAY provide a configuration option to disable them. If the locally configured name is an internationalized domain name, conforming implementations MUST convert it to the ASCII Compatible Encoding (ACE) format for performing comparisons, as specified in Section 7 of . If the expected host name fails these conditions then the connection MUST be closed. ######

In 2010, specified the following text regarding application service identity verification in the General Internet Signalling Transport: ###### 5.7.3.1. Identity Checking in TLS After TLS authentication, a node MUST check the identity presented by the peer in order to avoid man-in-the-middle attacks, and verify that the peer is authorised to take part in signalling at the GIST layer. The authorisation check is carried out by comparing the presented identity with each Authorised Peer Database (APD) entry in turn, as discussed in Section 4.4.2. This section defines the identity comparison algorithm for a single APD entry. For TLS authentication with X.509 certificates, an identity from the DNS namespace MUST be checked against each subjectAltName extension of type dNSName present in the certificate. If no such extension is present, then the identity MUST be compared to the (most specific) Common Name in the Subject field of the certificate. When matching DNS names against dNSName or Common Name fields, matching is case- insensitive. Also, a "*" wildcard character MAY be used as the left- most name component in the certificate or identity in the APD. For example, *.example.com in the APD would match certificates for a.example.com, foo.example.com, *.example.com, etc., but would not match example.com. Similarly, a certificate for *.example.com would be valid for APD identities of a.example.com, foo.example.com, *.example.com, etc., but not example.com. Additionally, a node MUST verify the binding between the identity of the peer to which it connects and the public key presented by that peer. Nodes SHOULD implement the algorithm in Section 6 of [PKIX] for general certificate validation, but MAY supplement that algorithm with other validation methods that achieve equivalent levels of verification (such as comparing the server certificate against a local store of already-verified certificates and identity bindings). For TLS authentication with pre-shared keys, the identity in the psk_identity_hint (for the server identity, i.e. the Responding node) or psk_identity (for the client identity, i.e. the Querying node) MUST be compared to the identities in the APD. ######