idnits 2.17.1 draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 649. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 658. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 665. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 671. ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978, Section 5.4, paragraph 1 (on line 627), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 2026, Section 10.4C, paragraph 1 text on line 35. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack 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.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'ChangeCipherSpec' is mentioned on line 550, but not defined -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '20' on line 361 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '32' on line 362 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3281 (ref. 'ATTRCERT') (Obsoleted by RFC 5755) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3280 (ref. 'PKIX1') (Obsoleted by RFC 5280) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3546 (ref. 'TLSEXT') (Obsoleted by RFC 4366) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SHA1' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SHA2' Summary: 8 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 11 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet-Draft M. Brown 3 April 2006 RedPhone Security 4 Expires: October 2006 R. Housley 5 Vigil Security 7 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions 8 10 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 13 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 14 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 15 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). All Rights Reserved. 37 Abstract 39 This document specifies authorization extensions to the Transport 40 Layer Security (TLS) Handshake Protocol. Extensions carried in the 41 client and server hello messages to confirm that both parties support 42 the desired authorization data types. Then, if supported by both the 43 client and the server, authorization information is exchanged in the 44 supplemental data handshake message. 46 1. Introduction 48 Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol [TLS1.0][TLS1.1] is being 49 used in an increasing variety of operational environments, including 50 ones that were not envisioned at the time of the original design for 51 TLS. The extensions introduced in this document are designed to 52 enable TLS to operate in environments where authorization information 53 needs to be exchanged between the client and the server before any 54 protected data is exchanged. 56 The use of these TLS authorization extensions is especially 57 attractive when more than one application protocol can make use of 58 the same authorization information. Straightforward binding of 59 identification, authentication, and authorization information is 60 possible when all of these are handled within TLS. If each 61 application requires unique authorization information, then it might 62 best be carried within the TLS-protected application protocol. 63 However, care must be taken to ensure appropriate bindings when 64 identification, authentication, and authorization information are 65 handled at different protocol layers. 67 This document describes authorization extensions for the TLS 68 Handshake Protocol in both TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1. These extensions 69 observe the conventions defined for TLS Extensions [TLSEXT] that make 70 use of the general extension mechanisms for the client hello message 71 and the server hello message. The extensions described in this 72 document confirm that both the client and the server support the 73 desired authorization data types. Then, if supported, authorization 74 information is exchanged in the supplemental data handshake message 75 [TLSSUPP]. 77 The authorization extensions may be used in conjunction with TLS 1.0 78 and TLS 1.1. The extensions are designed to be backwards compatible, 79 meaning that the Handshake Protocol Supplemental Data messages will 80 only contain authorization information of a particular type if the 81 client indicates support for them in the client hello message and the 82 server indicates support for them in the server hello message. 84 Clients typically know the context of the TLS session that is being 85 setup, thus the client can use the authorization extensions when they 86 are needed. Servers must accept extended client hello messages, even 87 if the server does not "understand" the all of the listed extensions. 88 However, the server will not indicate support for these "not 89 understood" extensions. Then, clients may reject communications with 90 servers that do not support the authorization extensions. 92 1.1. Conventions 94 The syntax for the authorization messages is defined using the TLS 95 Presentation Language, which is specified in Section 4 of [TLS1.0]. 97 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 98 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 99 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [STDWORDS]. 101 1.2. Overview 103 Figure 1 illustrates the placement of the authorization extensions 104 and supplemental data messages in the full TLS handshake. 106 Client Server 108 ClientHello (w/ extensions) --------> 110 ServerHello (w/ extensions) 111 SupplementalData* 112 Certificate* 113 ServerKeyExchange* 114 CertificateRequest* 115 <-------- ServerHelloDone 116 SupplementalData* 117 Certificate* 118 ClientKeyExchange 119 CertificateVerify* 120 [ChangeCipherSpec] 121 Finished --------> 122 [ChangeCipherSpec] 123 <-------- Finished 124 Application Data <-------> Application Data 126 * Indicates optional or situation-dependent messages that 127 are not always sent. 129 [] Indicates that ChangeCipherSpec is an independent TLS 130 Protocol content type; it is not actually a TLS 131 handshake message. 133 Figure 1. Authorization data exchange in full TLS handshake 135 The ClientHello message includes an indication of the client 136 authorization data formats that are supported and an indication of 137 the server authorization data formats that are supported. The 138 ServerHello message contains similar indications, but any 139 authorization data formats that are not supported by the server are 140 not included. Both the client and the server MUST indicate support 141 for the authorization data types. If the list of mutually supported 142 authorization data formats is empty, then the ServerHello message 143 MUST NOT carry the affected extension at all. 145 2. Authorization Extension Types 147 The general extension mechanisms enable clients and servers to 148 negotiate whether to use specific extensions, and how to use specific 149 extensions. As specified in [TLSEXT], the extension format used in 150 the extended client hello message and extended server hello message 151 is repeated here for convenience: 153 struct { 154 ExtensionType extension_type; 155 opaque extension_data<0..2^16-1>; 156 } Extension; 158 The extension_type identifies a particular extension type, and the 159 extension_data contains information specific to the particular 160 extension type. 162 As specified in [TLSEXT], for all extension types, the extension type 163 MUST NOT appear in the extended server hello message unless the same 164 extension type appeared in the corresponding client hello message. 165 Clients MUST abort the handshake if they receive an extension type in 166 the extended server hello message that they did not request in the 167 associated extended client hello message. 169 When multiple extensions of different types are present in the 170 extended client hello message or the extended server hello message, 171 the extensions can appear in any order, but there MUST NOT be more 172 than one extension of the same type. 174 This document specifies the use of two new extension types: 175 client_authz and server_authz. These extension types are described 176 in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2, respectively. This specification 177 adds two new types to ExtensionType: 179 enum { 180 client_authz(TBD), server_authz(TBD), (65535) 181 } ExtensionType; 183 The authorization extensions are relevant when a session is initiated 184 and any subsequent session resumption. However, a client that 185 requests resumption of a session does not know whether the server 186 will have all of the context necessary to accept this request, and 187 therefore the client SHOULD send an extended client hello message 188 that includes the extension types associated with the authorization 189 extensions. This way, if the resumption request is denied, then the 190 authorization extensions will be negotiated as normal. 192 2.1. The client_authz Extension Type 194 Clients MUST include the client_authz extension type in the extended 195 client hello message to indicate their desire to send authorization 196 data to the server. The extension_data field indicates the format of 197 the authorization data that will be sent in the supplemental data 198 handshake message. The syntax of the client_authz extension_data 199 field is described in Section 2.3. 201 Servers that receive an extended client hello message containing the 202 client_authz extension MUST respond with the same client_authz 203 extension in the extended server hello message if the server is 204 willing to receive authorization data in the indicated format. Any 205 unacceptable formats must be removed from the list provided by the 206 client. The client_authz extension MUST be omitted from the extended 207 server hello message if the server is not willing to receive 208 authorization data in any of the indicated formats. 210 2.2. The server_authz Extension Type 212 Clients MUST include the server_authz extension type in the extended 213 client hello message to indicate their desire to receive 214 authorization data from the server. The extension_data field 215 indicates the format of the authorization data that will be sent in 216 the supplemental data handshake message. The syntax of the 217 server_authz extension_data field as described in Section 2.3. 219 Servers that receive an extended client hello message containing the 220 server_authz extension MUST respond with the same server_authz 221 extension in the extended server hello message if the server is 222 willing to provide authorization data in the requested format. Any 223 unacceptable formats must be removed from the list provided by the 224 client. The server_authz extension MUST be omitted from the extended 225 server hello message if the server is not able to provide 226 authorization data in any of the indicated formats. 228 2.3. AuthzDataFormat Type 230 The AuthzDataFormat type is used in both the client_authz and the 231 server_authz extensions. It indicates the format of the 232 authorization data that will be transferred. The 233 AuthorizationDataFormats type definition is: 235 enum { 236 x509_attr_cert(0), saml_assertion(1), x509_attr_cert_url(2), 237 saml_assertion_url(3), (255) 238 } AuthzDataFormat; 240 AuthorizationDataFormats authz_format_list<1..2^8-1>; 242 When the x509_attr_cert value is present, the authorization data is 243 an X.509 Attribute Certificate (AC) that conforms to the profile in 244 RFC 3281 [ATTRCERT]. 246 When the saml_assertion value is present, the authorization data is 247 an assertion composed using the Security Assertion Markup Language 248 (SAML) [SAML1.1][SAML2.0]. 250 When the x509_attr_cert_url value is present, the authorization data 251 is an X.509 AC that conforms to the profile in RFC 3281 [ATTRCERT]; 252 however, the AC is fetched with the supplied URL. A one-way hash 253 value is provided to ensure that the intended AC is obtained. 255 When the saml_assertion_url value is present, the authorization data 256 is a SAML Assertion; however, the SAML Assertion is fetched with the 257 supplied URL. A one-way hash value is provided to ensure that the 258 intended SAML Assertion is obtained. 260 3. Supplemental Data Handshake Message Usage 262 As shown in Figure 1, supplemental data can be exchanges in two 263 places in the handshake protocol. The client_authz extension 264 determines what authorization data formats are acceptable for 265 transfer from the client to the server, and the server_authz 266 extension determines what authorization data formats are acceptable 267 for transfer from the server to the client. In both cases, the 268 syntax specified in [TLSSUPP] is used along with the authz_data type 269 defined in this document. 271 enum { 272 authz_data(TBD), (65535) 273 } SupplementalDataType; 275 struct { 276 SupplementalDataType supplemental_data_type; 277 select(SupplementalDataType) { 278 case authz_data: AuthorizationData; 279 } 280 } SupplementalData; 282 3.1. Client Authorization Data 284 The SupplementalData message sent from the client to the server 285 contains authorization data associated with the TLS client. 286 Following the principle of least privilege, the client ought to send 287 the minimal set of authorization information necessary to accomplish 288 the task at hand. That is, only those authorizations that are 289 expected to be required by the server in order to gain access to the 290 needed server resources ought to be included. The format of the 291 authorization data depends on the format negotiated in the 292 client_authz hello message extension. The AuthorizationData 293 structure is described in Section 3.3. 295 In some systems, clients present authorization information to the 296 server, and then the server provides new authorization information. 297 This type of transaction is not supported by SupplementalData 298 messages. In cases where the client intends to request the TLS 299 server to perform authorization translation or expansion services, 300 such translation services ought to occur within the ApplicationData 301 messages, not within the TLS Handshake protocol. 303 3.2. Server Authorization Data 305 The SupplementalData message sent from the server to the client 306 contains authorization data associated with the TLS server. This 307 authorization information is expected to include statements about the 308 server's qualifications, reputation, accreditation, and so on. 309 Wherever possible, authorizations that can be misappropriated for 310 fraudulent use ought to be avoided. The format of the authorization 311 data depends on the format negotiated in the server_authz hello 312 message extensions. The AuthorizationData structure is described in 313 Section 3.3. 315 3.3. AuthorizationData Type 317 The AuthorizationData structure carried authorization information for 318 either the client or the server. The AuthzDataFormat specified in 319 Section 2.3 for use in the hello extensions is also used in this 320 structure. 322 All of the entries in the authz_data_list MUST employ authorization 323 data formats that were negotiated in the relevant hello message 324 extension. 326 struct{ 327 AuthorizationDataEntry authz_data_list<1..2^16-1>; 328 } AuthorizationData; 330 struct { 331 AuthzDataFormat authz_format; 332 select (AuthzDataFormat) { 333 case x509_attr_cert: X509AttrCert; 334 case saml_assertion: SAMLAssertion; 335 case x509_attr_cert_url: URLandHash; 336 case saml_assertion_url: URLandHash; 337 } 338 } AuthorizationDataEntry; 340 enum { 341 x509_attr_cert(0), saml_assertion(1), x509_attr_cert_url(2), 342 saml_assertion_url(3), (255) 343 } AuthzDataFormat; 345 opaque X509AttrCert<1..2^16-1>; 346 opaque SAMLAssertion<1..2^16-1>; 348 struct { 349 opaque url<1..2^16-1>; 350 HashType hash_type; 351 select (hash_type) { 352 case sha1: SHA1Hash; 353 case sha256: SHA256Hash; 354 } hash; 355 } URLandHash; 357 enum { 358 sha1(0), sha256(1), (255) 359 } HashType; 361 opaque SHA1Hash[20]; 362 opaque SHA256Hash[32]; 364 3.3.1. X.509 Attribute Certificate 366 When X509AttrCert is used, the field contains an ASN.1 DER-encoded 367 X.509 Attribute Certificate (AC) that follows the profile in RFC 3281 368 [ATTRCERT]. An AC is a structure similar to a public key certificate 369 (PKC) [PKIX1]; the main difference being that the AC contains no 370 public key. An AC may contain attributes that specify group 371 membership, role, security clearance, or other authorization 372 information associated with the AC holder. 374 When making an authorization decision based on an AC, proper linkage 375 between the AC holder and the public key certificate that is 376 transferred in the TLS Certificate message is needed. The AC holder 377 field provides this linkage. The holder field is a SEQUENCE allowing 378 three different (optional) syntaxes: baseCertificateID, entityName 379 and objectDigestInfo. In the TLS authorization context, the holder 380 field MUST use the either baseCertificateID or entityName. In the 381 baseCertificateID case, the baseCertificateID field MUST match the 382 issuer and serialNumber fields in the certificate. In the entityName 383 case, the entityName MUST be the same as the subject field in the 384 certificate or one of the subjectAltName extension values in the 385 certificate. Note that [PKIX1] mandates that the subjectAltName 386 extension be present if the subject field contains an empty 387 distinguished name. 389 3.3.2. SAML Assertion 391 When SAMLAssertion is used, the field contains XML constructs with a 392 nested structure defined in [SAML1.1][SAML2.0]. SAML is an XML-based 393 framework for exchanging security information. This security 394 information is expressed in the form of assertions about subjects, 395 where a subject is either human or computer with an identity. In 396 this context, the SAML assertions are most likely to convey 397 authentication or attribute statements to be used as input to 398 authorization policy governing whether subjects are allowed to access 399 certain resources. Assertions are issued by SAML authorities. 401 When making an authorization decision based on a SAML assertion, 402 proper linkage between the SAML assertion and the public key 403 certificate that is transferred in the TLS Certificate message may be 404 needed. A "Holder of Key" subject confirmation method in the SAML 405 assertion can provide this linkage. In other scenarios, it may be 406 acceptable to use alternate confirmation methods that do not provide 407 a strong binding, such as a bearer mechanism. SAML assertion 408 recipients MUST decide which subject confirmation methods are 409 acceptable; such decisions MAY be specific to the SAML assertion 410 contents and the TLS session context. 412 There is no general requirement that the subject of the SAML 413 assertion correspond directly to the subject of the certificate. 414 They may represent the same or different entities. When they are 415 different, SAML also provides a mechanism by which the certificate 416 subject can be identified separately from the subject in the SAML 417 assertion subject confirmation method. 419 Since the SAML assertion is being provided at a part of the TLS 420 Handshake that is unencrypted, an eavesdropper could replay the same 421 SAML assertion when they establish their own TLS session. This is 422 especially important when a bearer mechanism is employed, the 423 recipient of the SAML assertion assumes that the sender is an 424 acceptable attesting entity for the SAML assertion. Some constraints 425 may be included to limit the context where the bearer mechanism will 426 be accepted. For example, the period of time that the SAML assertion 427 can be short-lived (often minutes), the source address can be 428 constrained, or the destination endpoint can be identified. Also, 429 bearer assertions are often checked against a cache of SAML assertion 430 unique identifiers that were recently received in order to detect 431 replay. This is an appropriate countermeasure if the bearer 432 assertion is intended to be used just once. Section 5 provides a way 433 to protect authorization information when necessary. 435 3.3.3. URL and Hash 437 Since the X.509 AC and SAML assertion can be large, alternatives 438 provide a URL to obtain the ASN.1 DER-encoded X.509 AC or SAML 439 Assertion. To ensure that the intended object is obtained, a one-way 440 hash value of the object is also included. Integrity of this one-way 441 hash value is provided by the TLS Finished message. 443 Implementations that support either x509_attr_cert_url or 444 saml_assertion_url MUST support URLs that employ the http scheme. 445 Other schemes may also be supported; however, to avoid circular 446 dependencies, supported schemes SHOULD NOT themselves make use of 447 TLS, such as the https scheme. 449 Implementations that support either x509_attr_cert_url or 450 saml_assertion_url MUST support both SHA-1 [SHA1] and SHA-256 [SHA2] 451 as one-way hash functions. Other one-way hash functions may also be 452 supported. Additional one-way hash functions can be registered in 453 the future using the procedures in section 3. 455 4. IANA Considerations 457 This document defines a two TLS extensions: client_authz(TBD) and 458 server_authz(TBD). These extension type values are assigned from the 459 TLS Extension Type registry defined in [TLSEXT]. 461 This document defines one TLS supplemental data type: 462 authz_data(TBD). This supplemental data type is assigned from the 463 TLS Supplemental Data Type registry defined in [TLSSUPP]. 465 This document establishes a new registry, to be maintained by IANA, 466 for TLS Authorization Data Formats. The first four entries in the 467 registry are x509_attr_cert(0), saml_assertion(1), 468 x509_attr_cert_url(2), and saml_assertion_url(3). TLS Authorization 469 Data Format identifiers with values in the inclusive range 0-63 470 (decimal) are assigned via RFC 2434 [IANA] Standards Action. Values 471 from the inclusive range 64-223 (decimal) are assigned via RFC 2434 472 Specification Required. Values from the inclusive range 224-255 473 (decimal) are reserved for RFC 2434 Private Use. 475 This document establishes a new registry, to be maintained by IANA, 476 for TLS Hash Types. The first two entries in the registry are 477 sha1(0) and sha256(1). TLS Hash Type identifiers with values in the 478 inclusive range 0-158 (decimal) are assigned via RFC 2434 [IANA] 479 Standards Action. Values from the inclusive range 159-223 (decimal) 480 are assigned via RFC 2434 Specification Required. Values from the 481 inclusive range 224-255 (decimal) are reserved for RFC 2434 Private 482 Use. 484 5. Security Considerations 486 A TLS server can support more than one application, and each 487 application may include several features, each of which requires 488 separate authorization checks. This is the reason that more than one 489 piece of authorization information can be provided. 491 A TLS server that requires different authorization information for 492 different applications or different application features may find 493 that a client has provided sufficient authorization information to 494 grant access to a subset of these offerings. In this situation the 495 TLS Handshake protocol will complete successfully; however, the 496 server must ensure that the client will only be able to use the 497 appropriate applications and application features. That is, the TLS 498 server must deny access to the applications and application features 499 for which authorization has not been confirmed. 501 In many cases, the authorization information is itself sensitive. 502 The double handshake technique can be used to provide protection for 503 the authorization information. Figure 2 illustrates the double 504 handshake, where the initial handshake does not include any 505 authorization extensions, but it does result in protected 506 communications. Then, a second handshake that includes the 507 authorization information is performed using the protected 508 communications. In Figure 2, the number on the right side indicates 509 the amount of protection for the TLS message on that line. A zero 510 (0) indicates that there is no communication protection; a one (1) 511 indicates that protection is provided by the first TLS session; and a 512 two (2) indicates that protection is provided by both TLS sessions. 514 The placement of the SupplementalData message in the TLS Handshake 515 results in the server providing its authorization information before 516 the client is authenticated. In many situations, servers will not 517 want to provide authorization information until the client is 518 authenticated. The double handshake illustrated in Figure 2 provides 519 a technique to ensure that the parties are mutually authenticated 520 before either party provides authorization information. 522 Client Server 524 ClientHello (no extensions) --------> |0 525 ServerHello (no extensions) |0 526 Certificate* |0 527 ServerKeyExchange* |0 528 CertificateRequest* |0 529 <-------- ServerHelloDone |0 530 Certificate* |0 531 ClientKeyExchange |0 532 CertificateVerify* |0 533 [ChangeCipherSpec] |0 534 Finished --------> |1 535 [ChangeCipherSpec] |0 536 <-------- Finished |1 537 ClientHello (w/ extensions) --------> |1 538 ServerHello (w/ extensions) |1 539 SupplementalData (w/ authz data)* |1 540 Certificate* |1 541 ServerKeyExchange* |1 542 CertificateRequest* |1 543 <-------- ServerHelloDone |1 544 SupplementalData (w/ authz data)* |1 545 Certificate* |1 546 ClientKeyExchange |1 547 CertificateVerify* |1 548 [ChangeCipherSpec] |1 549 Finished --------> |2 550 [ChangeCipherSpec] |1 551 <-------- Finished |2 552 Application Data <-------> Application Data |2 554 Figure 2. Double Handshake to Protect Authorization Data 556 6. Acknowledgement 558 The authors thank Scott Cantor for his assistance with the SAML 559 Assertion portion of the document. 561 7. Normative References 563 [ATTRCERT] Farrell, S., and R. Housley, "An Internet Attribute 564 Certificate Profile for Authorization", RFC 3281, 565 April 2002. 567 [IANA] Narten, T., and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing 568 an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 3434, 569 October 1998. 571 [PKIX1] Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W. and D. Solo, "Internet 572 X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and 573 Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280, 574 April 2002. 576 [TLS1.0] Dierks, T., and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol, Version 1.0", 577 RFC 2246, January 1999. 579 [TLS1.1] Dierks, T., and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 580 (TLS) Protocol, Version 1.1", RFC 4346, February 2006. 582 [TLSEXT] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J., 583 and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions", 584 RFC 3546, June 2003. 586 [TLSSUPP] Santesson, S., " TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental 587 Data", work in progress: draft-santesson-tls-supp, 588 March 2006. 590 [SAML1.1] OASIS Security Services Technical Committee, "Security 591 Assertion Markup Language (SAML) Version 1.1 592 Specification Set", September 2003. 594 [SAML2.0] OASIS Security Services Technical Committee, "Security 595 Assertion Markup Language (SAML) Version 2.0 596 Specification Set", March2005. 598 [SHA1] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 599 FIPS PUB 180-1, Secure Hash Standard, 17 April 1995. 601 [SHA2] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 602 FIPS PUB 180-2: Secure Hash Standard, 1 August 2002. 604 [STDWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 605 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 607 Author's Address 609 Mark Brown 610 RedPhone Security 611 2019 Palace Avenue 612 Saint Paul, MN 55105 613 USA 614 mark redphonesecurity com 616 Russell Housley 617 Vigil Security, LLC 618 918 Spring Knoll Drive 619 Herndon, VA 20170 620 USA 621 housley vigilsec com 623 Full Copyright Statement 625 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject 626 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 627 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 629 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 630 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 631 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 632 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 633 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 634 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 635 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 636 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 637 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 638 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 639 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 640 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 641 English. 643 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 644 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 645 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 646 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 647 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 648 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 649 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 651 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 652 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 653 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 654 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 655 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 656 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 657 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 658 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 660 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 661 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 662 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 663 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 664 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 665 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 667 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 668 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 669 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 670 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 671 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.