idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names-02.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 14. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 215. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 192. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 199. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 205. ** 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) 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.) -- The document date (June 26, 2006) is 6514 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) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2222 (Obsoleted by RFC 4422, RFC 4752) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3377 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 NETWORK WORKING GROUP N. Williams 3 Internet-Draft Sun 4 Expires: December 28, 2006 June 26, 2006 6 GSS-API Domain-Based Service Names and Name Type 7 draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names-02.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 12 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 13 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 14 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 Internet- 19 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 28, 2006. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 38 Abstract 40 This document describes domainname-based service principal names and 41 the corresponding name type for the Generic Security Service 42 Application Programming Interface (GSS-API). 44 Domain-based service names are similar to host-based service names, 45 but using a domain name (not necessarily an Internet domain name) 46 instead of or in addition to a hostname. The primary purpose of 47 domain-based service names is to provide a way to name clustered 48 services after the domain which they service, thereby allowing their 49 clients to authorize the service's servers based on authentication of 50 their names. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 3. Name Type OID and Symbolic Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 4. Query and Display Syntaxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 60 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 61 7.1. Normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 62 7.2. Informative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 64 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 11 66 1. Conventions used in this document 68 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 69 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 70 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 72 2. Introduction 74 The use of hostbased principal names for domain-wide services 75 presents the problem of how to distinguish between an instance of a 76 hostbased service that is authorized to respond for a domain and one 77 that isn't. 79 Consider LDAP. LDAP [RFC3377] with SASL [RFC2222] and the Kerberos V 80 mechanism [RFC1964] for the GSS-API [RFC2743] uses a hostbased 81 principal with a service name of "ldap", a reasonable approach, 82 provided there is only one logical LDAP directory in a Kerberos 83 realm's domain, and that all ldap servers in that realm serve that 84 one LDAP directory. An network might have multiple, distinct LDAP 85 services, but only one LDAP "name service"; if so then clients could 86 not tell which LDAP service principals are authorized to serve which 87 directory, not without assuming a secure method for finding LDAP 88 servers (e.g., DNSSEC). This is a significant, and oft-unstated 89 restriction on users of LDAP. 91 Domain based names can eliminate this problem: the use of domain- 92 based names should imply that the given host is a server for the 93 official LDAP name service of the given domain. 95 Notwithstanding the LDAP example the use of domain-based principal 96 names for LDAP is not actually specified here and will be specified 97 in a separate document. 99 A domain-based name consists of three required elements: 101 o a service name 103 o a domain name 105 o a hostname 107 3. Name Type OID and Symbolic Name 109 The new name type has an OID of 111 [NOTE: OID assignment to be made with IANA.] 113 {iso(1) org(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) nametypes(6) gss- 114 domain-based(5)} 116 The recommended symbolic name for this GSS-API name type is 117 "GSS_C_NT_DOMAINBASED_SERVICE". 119 4. Query and Display Syntaxes 121 There is a single name syntax for domain-based names. 123 The syntax is: 125 domain-based-name := 127 | '@' '@' 129 Note that for Internet domain names the trailing '.' is not and MUST 130 NOT be included in the domain name (or hostname) parts of the display 131 form GSS-API domain-based MNs. 133 5. Examples 135 o ldap@example.tld@ds1.example.tld 137 o kadmin@example.tld@kdc1.example.tld 139 6. Security Considerations 141 Use of GSS-API domain-based names may not be negotiable by some GSS- 142 API mechanisms, and some acceptors may not support GSS-API domain- 143 based names. In such cases initiators are left to fallback on the 144 use of hostbased names, in which case the initiators MUST also verify 145 that the acceptor's hostbased name is authorized to provide the given 146 service for the domain that the initiator had wanted. 148 The above security consideration also applies to all GSS-API 149 initiators who lack support for domain-based service names. 151 7. References 153 7.1. Normative 155 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 156 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 158 [RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program 159 Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000. 161 7.2. Informative 163 [RFC1964] Linn, J., "The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism", 164 RFC 1964, June 1996. 166 [RFC2222] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer 167 (SASL)", RFC 2222, October 1997. 169 [RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access 170 Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377, 171 September 2002. 173 Author's Address 175 Nicolas Williams 176 Sun Microsystems 177 5300 Riata Trace Ct 178 Austin, TX 78727 179 US 181 Email: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com 183 Intellectual Property Statement 185 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 186 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 187 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 188 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 189 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 190 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 191 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 192 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 194 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 195 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 196 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 197 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 198 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 199 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 201 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 202 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 203 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 204 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 205 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 207 Disclaimer of Validity 209 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 210 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 211 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 212 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 213 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 214 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 215 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 217 Copyright Statement 219 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject 220 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 221 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 223 Acknowledgment 225 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 226 Internet Society.