ENUM -- Telephone Number Mapping O. Lendl Working Group enum.at Internet-Draft July 8, 2005 Expires: January 9, 2006 ENUM Validation Token Format Definition draft-lendl-enum-validation-token-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Abstract An ENUM domain name is tightly coupled with the underlying E.164 number. The process of verifying whether the Registrant of an ENUM domain name is identical to the Assignee of the corresponding E.164 number is commonly called "validation". This document describes an signed XML data format -- the Validation Token -- with which Validation Entities can convey successful completion of a validation procedure in a secure fashion. Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Digital Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1 Mandatory Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2 Optional Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1 Unsigned token without registrant information . . . . . . 5 5.2 Unsigned token with registrant information . . . . . . . . 6 5.3 Signed token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1 Token Core Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2 Token Data Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Wider applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 16 Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 1. Introduction In most cases, the ENUM [2] domain should only be delegated to the assignee of the corresponding E.164 number. In the role model described in the architecture draft (work in progress) [9] the entity which performs this check is called the Validation Entity (VE). The ENUM Validation Token is a signed XML [4] document with which the VEs can communicate to the registry over an untrusted path (i.e. the Registrar) that the validation issues for a specific delegation request have been taken care of. 2. Data Requirements As the data within the Token is the only communication between the VE and the registry, a Token needs at a minimum contain as much information as the Registry needs to grant the delegation of the requested ENUM domain. The registry itself does not care about the actual validation procedure details, it only needs to know that (a) an accredited VE has (b) recently (c) successfully validated a delegation request for (d) a specific registrar concerning (e) a specific E.164 number for (f) which time-span using (g) a specific approved method. In addition to these necessary information, the Token can also contain data about the registrant which the VE has also ascertained during the validation procedure. This additional data about the number holder/registrant can the be used to simplify the revalidation procedure. For example, if the initial validation consists of the steps "Check the identity of the registrant" and "Check the ownership of a E.164 number" then a revalidation needs only check the second part again. As the Token will be included in XML-based registry/registrar protocols like EPP it is a natural choice to use XML to encode Validation Tokens. 3. Digital Signature There is a trust relationship between the registry and the VE, but no direct, secured communication link. The Token will be submitted to the registry as part of the delegation request by the registrar who is not necessarily trusted by the registry regarding validation issues. It is also possible that a VE does not directly talk with the registrar, but instead only interacts with the registrant and hands Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 the Token to him. Given these untrusted paths, the Token needs to be protected from tampering on its way from the VE to the registry. Furthermore, the registry needs to be sure that the Token was indeed created by the VE noted inside the Token. A digital signature on the token guarantees that o the token was indeed generated by the indicated VE (authenticity) o the token was not tampered with in transit (integrity) o auditing the validation process is possible (non-repudiation). The cryptographic signature on the token follows XML-DSIG [7]. As tokens might be transmitted as part of an already XML based protocol the transform as specified in [8] is used. In order to make the signature an integral part of the token the "enveloped"-signature mode is employed. The actual signature uses the RSA-SHA1 algorithm and relies on X.509 certificates. The signature covers all information contained in the Token. This document does not assume a public key infrastructure. Whether the registry acts as a certificate authority, accepts certs from a public CA, or only accepts pre-registered keys is a local policy choice. Including certificates within the signature is recommended as this makes checking the signature possible without references to external information. 4. Field Descriptions 4.1 Mandatory Section A token must contain a tag which contains the following: o A single validation "serial" string uniquely identifying a validation token for a certain VE. o A single "e164number" attribute, containing the E.164 number in international format for which validation was carried out. o A single "validator" id, identifying the VE. o A single "method" id, identifying the method used by the VE for validation. o A single "registrar" id, identifying the registrar for which validation was carried out. o A single "createdate" attribute, containing the date of validation, formatted as "full-date" according to RFC3339 [3]. o A single "expiredate" attribute, marking the expiration date of the validation token, formatted as "full-date" according to RFC3339. This is the only optional attribute in this section. A missing expiredate signifies that this ENUM domain does not need to undergo regular revalidation procedures. Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 4.2 Optional Section A token MAY contain a "tokendata" section. The section contains information about the entity whose right-to-use is being asserted. o A single "organization" attribute, containing the full name of the entity. o A single "commercialregisternumber" attribute, containing the entity's registration number. o A single "title" attribute. o A single "firstname" attribute. o A single "lastname" attribute. o A single "address" section, containing the following attributes: * A single mandatory "streetname" attribute * A single optional "streetnumber" attribute * A single optional "apartment" attribute * A single mandatory "postalcode" attribute * A single mandatory "city" attribute * A single optional "state" attribute * A single mandatory "country" attribute o up to 10 "phone" attributes, containing full E.164 numbers o up to 10 "fax" attributes, containing full E.164 numbers o up to 10 "email" attributes Basically, all attributes are optional. In case an address section is used, several components are mandatory for conformance with the E.115 [1] recommendation. The reason for this is that "computerized directory assistance" accessible through the E.115 interface may be a source of validation information. 5. Examples 5.1 Unsigned token without registrant information This is the basic Token without any information about the registrant and without the cryptographic signature. Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 +431987654321 AcmeVE bigITSP 1 2005-07-08 2006-01-01 5.2 Unsigned token with registrant information Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 +431987654321 AcmeVE bigITSP 1 2005-07-08 2006-01-01 Example Corp. Peter Mustermann
Elm Street 3 1010 Wien AT
pm@example.com
5.3 Signed token This example uses an X.509 based signature which includes the certificate of the signing validation entity. Thus the validity of the signature can be verified without the need for a key-server. +431987654321 Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 AcmeVE bigITSP 1 2005-07-08 2006-01-01 Example Corp. Peter Mustermann
Elm Street 3 1010 Wien AT
pm@example.com
gtgIo5RnM5i0fkOKxP8otc0/YrA= WATnADceCRKMQU/b9h4U8efoDe7zInxYj2+5R5aghKNy5pMYsCjV+2M8LxFyBJhk z3fvw8ulheEcXOxj+Ih4qavbrmW9BgRWFPSiTSby+S2fm9zYjdWkCePuvxJUor89 w6lHYylWGt2gCuXHfjv68uI/qD5HssxkSbmqALj9A8k= Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 MIIDZjCCAs+gAwIBAgIBBDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADB0MQswCQYDVQQGEwJBVDEP MA0GA1UEBxMGVmllbm5hMRQwEgYDVQQKEwtCT0ZIIENlcnRzLjEbMBkGA1UEAxMS Q0VSVFMuYm9maC5wcml2LmF0MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJjZXJ0c0Bib2ZoLnBy aXYuYXQwHhcNMDQwNzIwMTMxNTA5WhcNMDUwNzIwMTMxNTA5WjB/MQswCQYDVQQG EwJBVDEKMAgGA1UECBMBLTEPMA0GA1UEBxMGVmllbm5hMR0wGwYDVQQKExRBY21l IEVOVU0gVmFsaWRhdGlvbjEQMA4GA1UEAxMHYWNtZS1WRTEiMCAGCSqGSIb3DQEJ ARYTbm9ib2R5QGVudW0tYWNtZS5hdDCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkC gYEArJPcjMFc54/zwztSdQXGxUtodJT9r1qGI2lQPNjLvtPJg93+7o5SIOsZGSpg zWbztDAV5qc7PHZWUVIyf6MbM5qSgQDVrjNRhTosNtyqmwi23BH52SKkX3P7eGit LmqEkiUZRxZhZ6upRbtcqvKSwmXitvW4zXZhkVHYJZ2HuMcCAwEAAaOB/DCB+TAJ BgNVHRMEAjAAMCwGCWCGSAGG+EIBDQQfFh1PcGVuU1NMIEdlbmVyYXRlZCBDZXJ0 aWZpY2F0ZTAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUyK4otTQtvv6KdSlMBOPT5Ve18JgwgZ4GA1UdIwSB ljCBk4AUvfPadpm0HhmZx2iAVumQTwgnG2eheKR2MHQxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFUMQ8w DQYDVQQHEwZWaWVubmExFDASBgNVBAoTC0JPRkggQ2VydHMuMRswGQYDVQQDExJD RVJUUy5ib2ZoLnByaXYuYXQxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmNlcnRzQGJvZmgucHJp di5hdIIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQCB9CHBnIUhrdic4h5Ar4hdxjHSQkDH sJWd+MYrNcuSrv3TIOsUkUgNpNNhmkZPtiXqfy3388IRdJtJiLWXSOb/XlZHOM9I MvwKYwhcpQ9UdM/w7VpXQqf+CEj0XSyqxGw65UsHIOijgiG/WyhSj+Lzriw7CTge P2iAJkJVC4t2XA==
6. Formal Syntax The formal syntax of the validation token is specified using XML schema notation [5] [6]. Two schemas are defined: The "token core schema" contains mandatory attribute definitions, the "token data schema" defines the format of the optional "tokendata" section. 6.1 Token Core Schema Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 9] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 enum.at Validation Token core schema Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 10] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 6.2 Token Data Schema enum.at Validation Token tokendata schema. Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 11] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 12] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 7. Wider applicability The basic idea of this validation token can be helpful to other registries where any request for a delegation must be accompanied by a proof of ownership. One example are all the specialized TLDs with strict rules on who qualifies for registering a domain under that TLD. Even liberal TLDs could make use of validation tokens during a sunrise phase, where only applicants with a prior right to a name are allowed to register a domain. Moving away from a the domain business, the telephone number portability verification needs to solve roughly the same validation problem as the ENUM domain delegation. A formalized system based on signed tokens could replace the manual process used in many countries. 8. Security Considerations The security of this Tokens depends on the security of the underlying XML DSIG algorithms. As such, all the security considerations from [7] apply here as well. Two points from there need special attention: Transforms can be used to select the relevant data for signing and to discard irrelevant information (e.g. pretty-printing and name-space local names). They need to be selected with care. The element and attribute combined with the Id="TOKEN" attribute in specifies that the signature should cover the complete token. Moving the Id="TOKEN" attribute to e.g. the tag would make the signature worthless. It is thus critical that the registry does not only check whether the Token passes a generic XML-SEC signature check, but also that the signature uses approved transforms and references the tag as well as that the certificate belongs to an accredited VE. Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 13] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 The Token is not encrypted. If local policy dictates that the information contained within the token should be protected then this has to be handled via other means. When processing a delegation request the registry needs to make sure that the information within the Token matches the delegation request. To avert replay attacks, local policy has to specify how long after "createdate" the Token remains valid. 9. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the following persons for their valuable suggestions and contributions: Michael Haberler, Alexander Mayrhofer, Michael Braunoeder 10. References [1] ITU-T, "Computerized Directory Assistance", Recommendation E.115, February 1995. [2] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004. [3] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002. [4] Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Bray, T., and E. Maler, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", W3C FirstEdition REC-xml-20001006, October 2000. [5] Maloney, M., Beech, D., Mendelsohn, N., and H. Thompson, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C REC REC-xmlschema-1-20010502, May 2001. [6] Malhotra, A. and P. Biron, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C REC REC-xmlschema-2-20010502, May 2001. [7] Solo, D., Reagle, J., and D. Eastlake, "XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", W3C REC REC-xmldsig-core-20020212, February 2002. [8] 3rd, D., Boyer, J., and J. Reagle, "Exclusive XML Canonicalization Version 1.0", W3C REC REC-xml-exc-c14n- 20020718, July 2002. [9] Mayrhofer and Hoeneisen, "ENUM Validation Architecture", Internet drafts (draft-mayrhofer-enum-validation-architecture-00.txt), Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 14] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 July 2005. Author's Address Otmar Lendl enum.at GmbH Karlsplatz 1/9 Wien A-1010 Austria Phone: +43 1 5056416 33 Email: otmar.lendl@enum.at URI: http://www.enum.at/ Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 15] Internet-Draft ENUM Validation Token July 2005 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Lendl Expires January 9, 2006 [Page 16]