idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-cdni-interfaces-https-delegation-08.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC9115]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (7 March 2022) is 781 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) == Missing Reference: 'CDNI' is mentioned on line 194, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC8739' is defined on line 296, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 CDNI Working Group F. Fieau, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft E. Stephan 4 Intended status: Standards Track Orange 5 Expires: 8 September 2022 S. Mishra 6 Verizon 7 7 March 2022 9 CDNI extensions for HTTPS delegation 10 draft-ietf-cdni-interfaces-https-delegation-08 12 Abstract 14 The delivery of content over HTTPS involving one or more CDNs raises 15 credential management issues. This document defines new CDNI FCI and 16 Metadata objects to support HTTPS delegation, especially the ACME- 17 STAR [RFC9115] method. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 September 2022. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 43 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 44 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 45 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 46 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as 47 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 48 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 3. Delegation metadata for CDNI FCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4. Delegation metadata for CDNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4.1. Usage example related to an HostMatch object . . . . . . 3 57 4.2. AcmeStarDelegationMethod object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 5.1. CDNI MI AcmeStarDelegationMethod Payload Type . . . . . . 6 60 5.2. CDNI FCI SupportedDelegationMethods Payload Type . . . . 6 61 6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 7. Privacy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 1. Introduction 70 Content delivery over HTTPS using one or more CDNs along the path 71 requires credential management. This specifically applies when an 72 entity delegates delivery of encrypted content to another trusted 73 entity. 75 The ACME WG has published ACME STAR [RFC9115] allowing a dCDN to 76 request a x.509 certificate from uCDN. 78 This document proposes the CDNI Metadata interface to setup HTTPS 79 delegation between an upstream CDN (uCDN) and downstream CDN (dCDN) 80 using the ACME STAR proposal. Furthermore, it includes a proposal of 81 IANA registry to enable adding of new methods. 83 Section 2 is about terminology used in this document. Section 3 84 presents delegation methods specified at the IETF. Section 4 85 addresses the extension for handling HTTPS delegation in CDNI. 86 Section 5 describes simple data types. Section 6 addresses IANA 87 registry for delegation methods. Section 7 covers the security 88 issues. Section 8 is about comments and questions. 90 2. Terminology 92 This document uses terminology from CDNI framework documents such as: 93 CDNI framework document [RFC7336], CDNI requirements [RFC7337] and 94 CDNI interface specifications documents: CDNI Metadata interface 95 [RFC8006] and CDNI Control interface / Triggers [RFC8007]. 97 3. Delegation metadata for CDNI FCI 99 The Footprint and Capabilities interface as defined in RFC8008, 100 allows a dCDN to send a FCI capability type object to a uCDN. This 101 draft adds an object named FCI.SupportedDelegationMethods. 103 This object will allow a dCDN to advertise the capabilities regarding 104 the supported delegation methods and their configuration. 106 The following is an example of the supported delegated methods 107 capability object for a CDN supporting STAR delegation method. 109 { 110 "capabilities": [ 111 { 112 "capability-type": "FCI.SupportedDelegationMethods", 113 "capability-value": { 114 "delegation-methods": [ 115 "AcmeStarDelegationDelegationMethod", 116 "... Other delegation methods ..." 117 ] 118 } 119 "footprints": [ 120 121 ] 122 } 123 ] 124 } 126 4. Delegation metadata for CDNI 128 This section defines Delegation metadata using the current Metadata 129 interface model. This allows bootstrapping delegation methods 130 between a uCDN and a delegate dCDN. 132 4.1. Usage example related to an HostMatch object 134 This section presents the use of CDNI Delegation metadata of an 135 HostMatch object, as defined in [RFC8006] as specified in the 136 following sections. 138 The existence of the delegation methods in metadata in a CDNI Object 139 shall enable the use of one of this methods, chosen by the delegating 140 entity. In the case of an HostMatch object, the delegation method 141 will be activated for the set of Host defined in the HostMatch. See 142 Section 4.2 for more details about delegation methods metadata 143 specification. 145 The HostMatch object can reference a host metadata that points at the 146 delegation information. Delegation metadata are added to a Metadata 147 object. 149 Below shows both HostMatch its Metadata related to a host, for 150 example, here is a HostMatch object referencing "video.example.com": 152 HostMatch: 153 { 154 "host": "video.example.com", 155 "host-metadata": { 156 "type": "MI.HostMetadata", 157 "href": "https://metadata.ucdn.example/host1234" 158 } 159 } 161 Following the example above, the metadata can be modeled 162 for ACMEStarDelegationMethod as: 164 "generic-metadata-value": { 165 "acme-delegations": [ 166 "https://acme.ucdn.example/acme/delegation/ogfr8EcolOT", 167 "https://acme.ucdn.example/acme/delegation/wSi5Lbb61E4" 168 ] 169 } 171 This extension allows to explicitly indicate support for a given 172 method. Therefore, the presence (or lack thereof) of an 173 AcmeStarDelegationMethod, and/or further delegation methods, implies 174 support (or lack thereof) for the given method. 176 Those metadata can apply to other MI objects such as PathMatch object 177 metadata. 179 4.2. AcmeStarDelegationMethod object 181 This section defines the AcmeStarDelegationMethod object which 182 describes metadata related to the use of ACME/STAR API presented in 183 [RFC9115] 185 As expressed in [RFC9115], when an origin has set a delegation to a 186 specific domain (i.e. dCDN), the dCDN should present to the end-user 187 client, a short-term certificate bound to the master certificate. 189 dCDN uCDN Content Provider CA 190 | ACME/STAR proxy ACME/STAR client ACME/STAR srv 191 | | | | 192 | 1. GET Metadata incl. Delegation Method object with CSR template| 193 +-------------------->| | | 194 | 200 OK + Metadata incl. CSR template [CDNI] | 195 |<--------------------+ | | 196 | 2. Request delegation: video.dcdn.example + dCDN public key | 197 +-------------------->| | | 198 | | 3. Request STAR Cert + dCDN public key | 199 | +-------------------->| 4. Request STAR cert| 200 | | | + Pubkey | 201 | | |-------------------->| 202 | | | 5. STAR certificate | 203 | | 6. STAR certificate |<--------------------| 204 | 7. STAR certificate |<--------------------+ | 205 +<--------------------| | | 206 | | | | 207 | 8. Retrieve STAR certificate (credential-location-uri) | 208 +---------------------------------------------------------------->| 209 | | | 9. renew +--| 210 | | | cert | | 211 | 10. Star certificate | +->| 212 |<----------------------------------------------------------------+ 213 | ... | | | 215 Figure 1: Example call-flow of STAR delegation in CDNI showing 2 levels 216 of delegation 218 Property: acme-delegations 220 Description: an array of delegation objects associated with the 221 dCDN account on the uCDN ACME server (see Section 2.3.1 of 222 [RFC9115] for the details). 224 Type: Objects 226 Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes 228 5. IANA considerations 230 This document requests the registration of the following entries 231 under the "CDNI Payload Types" registry hosted by IANA regarding 232 "CDNI delegation": 234 +-------------------------------+---------------+ 235 | Payload Type | Specification | 236 +-------------------------------+---------------+ 237 | MI.AcmeStarDelegationMethod | RFCthis | 238 +-------------------------------+---------------+ 239 | FCI.SupportedDelegationMethods| RFCthis | 240 +-------------------------------+---------------+ 242 [RFC Editor: Please replace RFCthis with the published RFC number for 243 this document.] 245 5.1. CDNI MI AcmeStarDelegationMethod Payload Type 247 Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to distinguish 248 AcmeStarDelegationMethod MI objects (and any associated capability 249 advertisement) 251 Interface: MI 253 Encoding: see Section 5 255 5.2. CDNI FCI SupportedDelegationMethods Payload Type 257 Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to distinguish 258 SupportedDelegationMethods FCI objects (and any associated capability 259 advertisement) 261 Interface: FCI 263 Encoding: see Section 4 265 6. Security considerations 267 Extensions proposed here do not alter nor change Security 268 Considerations as outlined in the CDNI Metadata and Footprint and 269 Capabilities RFCs [RFC8006]. 271 However there are still some security questions that should be 272 addressed such as: Are there concerns about using this incorrectly or 273 limitations on how this can safely be used? 275 7. Privacy considerations 277 Some privacy questions are still pending: Are there any concerns with 278 sharing the information that is in the metadata? Is the metadata 279 safe to redistribute, or is it something that is only valid between 280 adjacent CDNs? 282 8. References 284 8.1. Normative References 286 [RFC8006] Niven-Jenkins, B., Murray, R., Caulfield, M., and K. Ma, 287 "Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) 288 Metadata", RFC 8006, DOI 10.17487/RFC8006, December 2016, 289 . 291 [RFC8007] Murray, R. and B. Niven-Jenkins, "Content Delivery Network 292 Interconnection (CDNI) Control Interface / Triggers", 293 RFC 8007, DOI 10.17487/RFC8007, December 2016, 294 . 296 [RFC8739] Sheffer, Y., Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Pastor 297 Perales, A., and T. Fossati, "Support for Short-Term, 298 Automatically Renewed (STAR) Certificates in the Automated 299 Certificate Management Environment (ACME)", RFC 8739, 300 DOI 10.17487/RFC8739, March 2020, 301 . 303 [RFC9115] Sheffer, Y., López, D., Pastor Perales, A., and T. 304 Fossati, "An Automatic Certificate Management Environment 305 (ACME) Profile for Generating Delegated Certificates", 306 RFC 9115, DOI 10.17487/RFC9115, September 2021, 307 . 309 8.2. Informative References 311 [RFC7336] Peterson, L., Davie, B., and R. van Brandenburg, Ed., 312 "Framework for Content Distribution Network 313 Interconnection (CDNI)", RFC 7336, DOI 10.17487/RFC7336, 314 August 2014, . 316 [RFC7337] Leung, K., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Content Distribution 317 Network Interconnection (CDNI) Requirements", RFC 7337, 318 DOI 10.17487/RFC7337, August 2014, 319 . 321 Authors' Addresses 322 Frederic Fieau (editor) 323 Orange 324 40-48, avenue de la Republique 325 92320 Chatillon 326 France 327 Email: frederic.fieau@orange.com 329 Emile Stephan 330 Orange 331 2, avenue Pierre Marzin 332 22300 Lannion 333 France 334 Email: emile.stephan@orange.com 336 Sanjay Mishra 337 Verizon 338 13100 Columbia Pike 339 Silver Spring, MD 20904 340 United States of America 341 Email: sanjay.mishra@verizon.com