idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-07.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors 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 (May 30, 2012) is 4347 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 normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2853 (Obsoleted by RFC 5653) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 NETWORK WORKING GROUP N. Williams 3 Internet-Draft Cryptonector LLC 4 Intended status: Standards Track A. Melnikov 5 Expires: December 1, 2012 Isode Ltd 6 May 30, 2012 8 Namespace Considerations and Registries for GSS-API Extensions 9 draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-07.txt 11 Abstract 13 This document describes the ways in which the GSS-API may be extended 14 and directs the creation of an IANA registry for various GSS-API 15 namespaces. 17 Status of this Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 1, 2012. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3. Extensions to the GSS-API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 4. Generic GSS-API Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 5. Language Binding-Specific GSS-API Namespaces . . . . . . . 4 56 6. Extension-Specific GSS-API Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 7. Registration Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 8.1. Initial Namespace Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 8.2. Registration Maintenance Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 8.2.1. Sub-Namespace Symbol Pattern Matching . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 8.2.2. Expert Reviews of Individual Submissions . . . . . . . . . 8 63 8.2.3. Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 64 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 1. Conventions used in this document 72 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 73 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 74 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 76 2. Introduction 78 There is a need for private-use and mechanism-specific extensions to 79 the Generic Security Services Application Programming Interface (GSS- 80 API). As such extensions are designed and standardized (or not), 81 both at the IETF and elsewhere, there is a non-trivial risk of 82 namespace pollution and conflicts. To avoid this we set out 83 guidelines for extending the GSS-API and direct the creation of an 84 IANA registry for GSS-API namespaces. 86 Registrations of individual items and sub-namespaces are allowed. 87 Each sub-namespace may provide different rules for registration, 88 e.g., for mechanism-specific and private-use extensions. 90 3. Extensions to the GSS-API 92 Extensions to the GSS-API can be categorized as follows: 93 o Abstract API extensions 94 o Implementation-specific 95 o Mechanism-specific 96 o Language binding-specific 98 Extensions to the GSS-API may be purely semantic, without effect on 99 the GSS-API's namespaces. Or they may introduce new functions, 100 constants, types, etc...; these clearly affect the GSS-API 101 namespaces. 103 Extensions that affect the GSS-API namespaces should be registered 104 with the IANA as described herein. 106 4. Generic GSS-API Namespaces 108 The abstract API namespaces for the GSS-API are: 109 o Type names 110 o Function names 111 o Constant names for various types 112 o Constant values for various types 113 o Name types (OID, type name and syntaxes) 114 Additionally we have namespaces associates with the OBJECT IDENTIFIER 115 (OID) type. The IANA already maintains a registry of such OIDs: 116 o Mechanism OIDs 117 o Name Type OIDs 119 5. Language Binding-Specific GSS-API Namespaces 121 Language binding specific namespaces include, among others: 122 o Header/interface module names 123 o Object classes and/or types 124 o Methods and/or functions 125 o Constant names 126 o Constant values 128 6. Extension-Specific GSS-API Namespaces 130 Extensions to the GSS-API may create additional namespaces. See 131 Section 8.2. 133 7. Registration Form 135 Registrations for GSS-API namespaces SHALL take the following form: 137 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 138 | Registration | Possible Values | Description | 139 | Field | | | 140 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 141 | Bindings | 'Generic', | Indicates the name of the | 142 | | 'C-bindings', | programming language that | 143 | | 'Java', 'C#', | this registration involves, | 144 | | | is an entry for the generic | 146 | | | abstract GSS-API (i.e., not | 147 | | | specific to any programming | 148 | | | language). | 149 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 150 | Registration | 'Instance', | Indicates whether this entry | 151 | type | 'Sub-Namespace' | reserves a given symbol name | 152 | | | (and possibly, constant | 153 | | | value), or whether it | 154 | | | reserves an entire | 155 | | | sub-namespace (the name is a | 156 | | | pattern) or constant value | 157 | | | range. | 158 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 159 | Object Type | 'Data-Type', | Indicates the type of the | 160 | | 'Function', | object whose symbolic name | 161 | | 'Method', | or constant value this entry | 162 | | 'Integer', | registers. The possible | 163 | | 'String', 'OID', | values of this field depend | 164 | | 'Context-Flag', | on the programming language | 165 | | 'Name-Type', | in question, therefore they | 166 | | 'Macro', | are not all specified here. | 167 | | 'Header-File-Name', | | 168 | | 'Module-Name', | | 169 | | 'Class', etcetera | | 170 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 171 | Symbol | | symbol sub-namespace being | 173 | | | registered. See | 174 | | | Section 8.2.1 | 175 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 176 | Binding of | | the abstract API element of | 180 | | | which it is a binding | 181 | | | (OPTIONAL). | 182 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 183 | Constant | or | The value of the constant | 184 | Value/Range | | Name/Prefix>. This field is | 186 | | | present only for Instance | 187 | | | and Sub-namespace | 188 | | | registrations of Constant | 189 | | | object types. | 190 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 191 | Description | | Description of the | 192 | | | registration. Multiple | 193 | | | instances of this field may | 194 | | | result (see Section 8.2.3). | 195 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 196 | Registration | Values from | Describes the rules for | 197 | Rules | [RFC5226], such as | allocation of items that | 198 | | 'IESG Approval', | fall in this sub-namespace, | 199 | | 'Expert Review', | for entries with | 200 | | 'First Come First | Registration Type of | 201 | | Served', 'Private | Sub-namespace (OPTIONAL). | 202 | | Use', etcetera. | For private use | 203 | | | sub-namespaces the submitter | 204 | | | MUST provide the e-mail | 205 | | | address of a responsible | 206 | | | contact. If this field is | 207 | | | not specified for a | 208 | | | sub-namespace, the default | 209 | | | registration rules specified | 210 | | | in Section 8.2 apply. | 211 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 212 | Reference | | Reference to document that | 213 | | | describes the registration, | 214 | | | if any (OPTIONAL). Multiple | 215 | | | instances of this field are | 216 | | | allowed, with one reference | 217 | | | each. | 218 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 219 | Expert | | field are allowed, with one | 222 | | | expert reviewer | 223 | | | per-instance. Leave this | 224 | | | field blank when requesting | 225 | | | a registration. It will be | 226 | | | filled in by the Expert who | 227 | | | reviews the registration. | 228 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 229 | Expert | | that some comments be | 231 | | | included with the | 232 | | | registration, e.g., | 233 | | | regarding security | 234 | | | considerations of the | 235 | | | registered extension. | 236 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 237 | Status | 'Registered' or | Status of the registration. | 238 | | 'Obsoleted' | | 239 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 240 | Obsoleting | | Reference to document, if | 241 | Reference | | any, that obsoletes this | 242 | | | registration. Multiple | 243 | | | instances of this field are | 244 | | | allowed, with one reference | 245 | | | each. (OPTIONAL) | 246 +--------------+---------------------+------------------------------+ 248 The IANA should create a single GSS-API namespace registry, or 249 multiple registries, one for symbolic names and one for constant 250 values, and/or it may create a registry per-programming language, at 251 its convenience. 253 Entries in these registries should consist of all the fields from 254 their corresponding registration entries. 256 Entries should be sorted by: programming language, registration type, 257 object type, and symbol name/pattern. 259 8. IANA Considerations 261 This document deals with IANA considerations throughout. 262 Specifically it creates a single registry of various kinds of things, 263 though the IANA may instead create multiple registries each for one 264 of those kinds of things. Of particular interest may be that IANA 265 will now be the registration authority for the GSS-API name type OID 266 space. 268 8.1. Initial Namespace Registrations 270 Initial registry content corresponding to the items defined in 271 [RFC2743], [RFC2744], [RFC2853], [RFC1964] and [RFC4121] and others 272 will be supplied during the IANA review portion of the RFC publishing 273 process. [[Note to RFC Editor: Delete the following sentence before 274 publication:]] The KITTEN WG chairs MUST indicate that such content 275 has been reviewed by the WG and that there is WG consensus that the 276 entries are in agreement with those RFCs. 278 8.2. Registration Maintenance Guidelines 280 Standards-Track RFCs can create new items with any non-conflicting 281 Symbol Name/Prefix value for this registry by virtue of IESG approval 282 to publish as a Standards-Track RFC -- that is, without additional 283 expert review. 285 Standards-Track RFCs can mark existing entries as obsolete, and can 286 even create conflicting entries if explicitly stated (the IESG, of 287 course, should review conflicts carefully, and may reject them). 289 IANA shall also consider submissions from individuals, and via 290 Informational and Experimental RFCs, subject to Expert Review. IANA 291 SHALL allow such registrations if a) they are not conflicting, b) 292 provided that the registration is for object types other than 293 Context-Flags, and c) subject to expert review. Guidelines for 294 expert reviews are given below. 296 8.2.1. Sub-Namespace Symbol Pattern Matching 298 Sub-namespace registrations must provide a pattern for matching 299 symbols for which the sub-namespace's registration rules apply. The 300 pattern consists of a string with the following special tokens: 301 o '*', meaning "match any string." 302 o "%m", meaning "match any mechanism family short-hand name." 303 o "%i", meaning "match any implementor vanity short-hand name." 305 For example, "GSS_%m_*" matches "GSS_krb5_foo" since "krb5" is a 306 common short-hand for the Kerberos V GSS-API mechanism [RFC1964]. 307 But "GSS_%m_*" does not match "GSS_foo_bar" unless "foo" is asserted 308 to be a short-hand for some mechanism. 310 8.2.2. Expert Reviews of Individual Submissions 312 Expert review selection SHALL be done as follows. If, at the time 313 that the IANA receives an individual submission for registration in 314 this registry, there is are any IETF Working Groups chartered to 315 produce GSS-API-related documents, then the IANA SHALL ask the chairs 316 of such WGs to be expert reviewers or to name one. If there are no 317 such WGs at that time, then the IANA SHALL ask past chairs of the 318 KITTEN WG and the author/editor of this RFC to act as expert 319 reviewers or name an alternate. 321 Expert reviewers of individual registration submissions with 322 Registration Type == Sub-namespace should check that the registration 323 request has a suitable description (which doesn't need to be 324 sufficiently detailed for others to implement) and that the Symbol 325 Name/Prefix is sufficiently descriptive of the purpose of the sub- 326 namespace or reflective of the name of the submitter or associated 327 company. 329 Expert reviewers of individual registration submissions with 330 Registration Type == Instance should check that the Symbol Name falls 331 under a sub-namespace controlled by the submitter. Registration of 332 such entries which do not fall under such a sub-namespace may be 333 allowed provided that they correspond to long existing non-standard 334 extensions to the GSS-API and this can be easily checked or 335 demonstrated, otherwise IESG Protocol Action is REQUIRED (see 336 previous section). Also, reviewers should check that any 337 registration of constant values have a detailed description that is 338 suitable for other implementors to reproduce, and that they don't 339 conflict with other usages or are otherwise dangerous in the 340 reviewers estimation. 342 Expert reviewers should review impact on mechanisms, security and 343 interoperability, and may reject or annotate registrations which can 344 have mechanism impact that requires IESG protocol action. Consider, 345 for example, new versions of GSS_Init_sec_context() and/or 346 GSS_Accept_sec_context which have new input and/or output parameters 347 which imply changes on the wire or in behaviour that may result in 348 interoperability issues. A reviewer could choose to add notes to the 349 registration describing such issues, or the reviewer might conclude 350 that the danger to Internet interoperability is sufficient to warrant 351 rejecting the registration. 353 8.2.3. Change Control 355 Registered entries may be marked obsoleted using the same expert 356 review process as for registering new entries. Obsoleted entries are 357 not, however, to be deleted, but merely marked having Obsoleted 358 Status. Note that entries may be created as obsoleted to record the 359 fact that the given symbol(s) have been used before, even though 360 continued use of them is discouraged. 362 Registered entries may also be updated in two other ways: additional 363 references, obsoleting references, and descriptions may be added. 365 All changes are subject to expert review. The submitter of a change 366 request need not be the same as the original submitter. 368 Registrations may be modified by addition, but under no circumstance 369 may any fields be modified except for the Status field or Contact 370 Address, or to correct for transcription errors in filing or 371 processing registration requests. 373 The IANA SHALL add a field describing the date that a an addition or 374 modification was made, and a description of the change. 376 9. Security Considerations 378 General security considerations relating to IANA registration 379 services apply; see [RFC5226]. 381 Also, expert reviewers should look for and may document security 382 related issues with submitters' GSS-API extensions, to the best of 383 the reviewers' ability given the information furnished by the 384 submitter. Reviewers may add comments regarding their limited 385 ability to review a submission for security problems if the submitter 386 is unwilling to provide sufficient documentation. 388 10. References 390 10.1. Normative References 392 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 393 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 395 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 396 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 397 May 2008. 399 10.2. Informative References 401 [RFC1964] Linn, J., "The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism", 402 RFC 1964, June 1996. 404 [RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program 405 Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000. 407 [RFC2744] Wray, J., "Generic Security Service API Version 2 : 408 C-bindings", RFC 2744, January 2000. 410 [RFC2853] Kabat, J. and M. Upadhyay, "Generic Security Service API 411 Version 2 : Java Bindings", RFC 2853, June 2000. 413 [RFC4121] Zhu, L., Jaganathan, K., and S. Hartman, "The Kerberos 414 Version 5 Generic Security Service Application Program 415 Interface (GSS-API) Mechanism: Version 2", RFC 4121, 416 July 2005. 418 Authors' Addresses 420 Nicolas Williams 421 Cryptonector LLC 423 Email: nico@cryptonector.com 425 Alexey Melnikov 426 Isode Ltd 427 5 Castle Business Village 428 36 Station Road 429 Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX 430 UK 432 Email: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com