idnits 2.17.1 draft-cooper-pkix-rfc5280-clarifications-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5280, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC5280 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC5280, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2005-04-15) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 20, 2009) is 5271 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 INTERNET-DRAFT D. Cooper 3 Intended Status: Proposed Standard NIST 4 Updates: 5280 (if approved) November 20, 2009 5 Expires: May 24, 2010 7 Clarifications to the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure 8 Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile 9 11 Status of this Memo 13 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 14 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as 19 Internet-Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 32 Copyright and License Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the BSD License. 47 Abstract 49 This document updates the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure 50 Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile, which is 51 published in RFC 5280. This document changes the set of acceptable 52 encoding methods for the explicitText field of the user notice policy 53 qualifier and clarifies the rules for converting internationalized 54 domain name labels to ASCII. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2. Update to RFC 5280, Section 4.2.1.4: Certificate Policies . . . 3 61 3. Update to RFC 5280, Section 7.3: Internationalized Domain 62 Names in Distinguished Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 1. Introduction 72 This document updates the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure 73 Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile [RFC5280]. 75 The ASN.1 [X.680] syntax for the user notice certificate policy 76 qualifier allows for the explicitText field to be encoded using one 77 of four possible encoding methods: IA5String, VisibleString, 78 BMPString, and UTF8String. RFC 5280 permits certification 79 authorities (CA) to encode strings in the explicitText field as 80 either UTF8String or IA5String while forbiding the use of 81 VisibleString and BMPString. However, after RFC 5280 was published, 82 an examination of existing certificates found that the VisibleString 83 encoding was commonly used. This document brings the requirements 84 into closer alignment with existing practice by stating that the 85 explicitText field may be encoded in either UTF8String or 86 VisibleString while forbidding the use of IA5String and BMPString. 88 Section 7.3 of RFC 5280 specifies rules for converting 89 internationalized domain name labels that are to appear in a 90 domainComponent attribute to ASCII. The conversion process specified 91 in RFC 5280 did not specify that the "UseSTD3ASCIIRules" flag needed 92 to be set. This document modifies the conversion process specified 93 in Section 7.3 of RFC 5280 to clarify that "UseSTD3ASCIIRules" flag 94 should be set. The result of this is to indicate that the check for 95 conformance to [RFC1123] should be performed. 97 1.1. Terminology 99 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 100 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 101 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 103 2. Update to RFC 5280, Section 4.2.1.4: Certificate Policies 105 RFC 5280, Section 4.2.1.4, the tenth paragraph says: 107 | An explicitText field includes the textual statement directly in 108 | the certificate. The explicitText field is a string with a 109 | maximum size of 200 characters. Conforming CAs SHOULD use the 110 | UTF8String encoding for explicitText, but MAY use IA5String. 111 | Conforming CAs MUST NOT encode explicitText as VisibleString or 112 | BMPString. The explicitText string SHOULD NOT include any control 113 | characters (e.g., U+0000 to U+001F and U+007F to U+009F). When 114 | the UTF8String encoding is used, all character sequences SHOULD be 115 | normalized according to Unicode normalization form C (NFC) [NFC]. 117 This paragraph is replaced with: 119 | An explicitText field includes the textual statement directly in 120 | the certificate. The explicitText field is a string with a 121 | maximum size of 200 characters. Conforming CAs SHOULD use the 122 | UTF8String encoding for explicitText, but MAY use VisibleString. 123 | Conforming CAs MUST NOT encode explicitText as IA5String or 124 | BMPString. The explicitText string SHOULD NOT include any control 125 | characters (e.g., U+0000 to U+001F and U+007F to U+009F). When 126 | the UTF8String encoding is used, all character sequences SHOULD be 127 | normalized according to Unicode normalization form C (NFC) [NFC]. 129 3. Update to RFC 5280, Section 7.3: Internationalized Domain Names in 130 Distinguished Names 132 RFC 5280, Section 7.3, the first paragraph says: 134 | Domain Names may also be represented as distinguished names using 135 | domain components in the subject field, the issuer field, the 136 | subjectAltName extension, or the issuerAltName extension. As with 137 | the dNSName in the GeneralName type, the value of this attribute is 138 | defined as an IA5String. Each domainComponent attribute represents a 139 | single label. To represent a label from an IDN in the distinguished 140 | name, the implementation MUST perform the "ToASCII" label conversion 141 | specified in Section 4.1 of RFC 3490. The label SHALL be considered 142 | a "stored string". That is, the AllowUnassigned flag SHALL NOT be 143 | set. 145 This paragraph is replaced with: 147 | Domain Names may also be represented as distinguished names using 148 | domain components in the subject field, the issuer field, the 149 | subjectAltName extension, or the issuerAltName extension. As with 150 | the dNSName in the GeneralName type, the value of this attribute is 151 | defined as an IA5String. Each domainComponent attribute represents a 152 | single label. To represent a label from an IDN in the distinguished 153 | name, the implementation MUST perform the "ToASCII" label conversion 154 | specified in Section 4.1 of RFC 3490 with the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag 155 | set. The label SHALL be considered a "stored string". That is, the 156 | AllowUnassigned flag SHALL NOT be set. The conversion process is the 157 | same as is performed in step 4 in Section 7.2. 159 4. Security Considerations 161 This document introduces no new security considerations. 163 5. IANA Considerations 165 This document has no actions for IANA. 167 6. References 169 6.1. Normative References 171 [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- 172 Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. 174 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 175 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 177 [RFC5280] Cooper, D., S. Santesson, S. Farrell, S. Boeyen, R. 178 Housley and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key 179 Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation 180 List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008. 182 6.2. Informative References 184 [X.680] ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002, 185 Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One 186 (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation. 188 [NFC] Davis, M. and M. Duerst, "Unicode Standard Annex #15: 189 Unicode Normalization Forms", October 2006, 190 . 192 Author's Address 194 David Cooper 195 National Institute of Standards and Technology 196 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930 197 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930 198 USA 200 EMail: david.cooper@nist.gov