idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana-registries-01.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (February 25, 2013) is 4072 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: 'RFC2253' is mentioned on line 196, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 2253 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4514) == Unused Reference: 'RFC3961' is defined on line 305, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1510 (Obsoleted by RFC 4120, RFC 6649) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group T. Yu 3 Internet-Draft MIT Kerberos Consortium 4 Updates: rfc4120 (if approved) February 25, 2013 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: August 29, 2013 8 Move Kerberos protocol parameter registries to IANA 9 draft-ietf-kitten-kerberos-iana-registries-01 11 Abstract 13 The Keberos 5 network authentication protocol has several numeric 14 protocol parameters. Most of these parameters are not currently 15 under IANA maintenance. This document requests that IANA take over 16 the maintenance of the remainder of these Kerberos parameters. 18 Status of this Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2013. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 1. Introduction 52 The Keberos 5 network authentication protocol[RFC4120][RFC1510] has 53 several numeric protocol parameters. This document requests that 54 IANA take over the maintenance of the Kerberos protocol parameters 55 that are not currently under IANA maintenance. Several instances of 56 number conflicts in Kerberos implementations could have been 57 prevented by having IANA registries for those numbers. This document 58 updates [RFC4120]. 60 2. General registry format 62 Unless otherwise specified, each Kerberos protocol number registry 63 will have the following fields: "number", "name", "reference", and 64 "comments". 66 The name must begin with a lowercase letter, and must consist of 67 ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens. Two or more hyphens must not 68 appear directly adjacent to each other. A hyphen must not appear at 69 the end of a name. It is preferred that words in a name be separated 70 by hyphens, and that all of the letters be lowercase. 72 (These rules are consistent with the lexical rules for an ASN.1 73 valuereference or identifier. Where the constraints are stricter 74 than the ASN.1 lexical rules, they make it easier to systematically 75 transform the names for use in implementation languages.) 77 Names for numeric parameter values have no inherent meaning in the 78 Kerberos protocol, but they can guide choices for internal 79 implementation symbol names and for user-visible non-numeric 80 representations. When written in English prose in specifications, or 81 when used as symbolic constants in implementation languages (e.g., C 82 preprocessor macros), it is common to transform the name into all 83 uppercase letters, and possibly to replace hyphens with underscores. 85 3. General registration procedure 87 This document requests that the IESG establish a pool of Kerberos 88 experts who will manage the Kerberos registries using these 89 guidelines. The IESG may wish to consider including the set of 90 designated IANA experts for existing Kerberos IANA registries as 91 candidates for this pool. 93 IANA will select an expert from this pool for each registration 94 request. The expert will review the registration request and may 95 approve the registration, decline the registration with comments, or 96 recommend that the registration request should follow a specific 97 alternative process. The alternative processes that the expert may 98 recommend are the IETF review process and the standards action 99 process. 101 Initially, the experts reviewers will use a permissive process, 102 generally approving registrations that are architecturally consistent 103 with Kerberos and the protocol parameter in question. Over time, 104 with input from the community, the experts may refine the 105 requirements that registrations are expected to meet. The experts 106 will maintain a current version of these guidelines in a manner that 107 is generally accessible to the entire community. As the guidelines 108 evolve, experts may consider the technical quality of specifications, 109 security impacts of the registrations, architectural consistency, and 110 interoperability impact. Experts may require a publicly available 111 specification in order to make certain registrations. 113 [ For the individual registries, include "Registrations in this 114 registry are managed by the expert review process [RFC5226] or in 115 exceptional cases by IESG approval. See section x for guidelines for 116 the experts to be used with this registry." ] 118 4. Integer assignments 120 Names for integer assignments must be unique across all Kerberos 121 integer parameter registries. This is normally accomplished by 122 including a name prefix that identifies the registry. 124 Assignments for integers parameters will follow the general 125 registration procedure outlined above, except as otherwise noted in 126 the section that contains the description of the parameter. Kerberos 127 integer parameters take on signed 32-bit values (-2147483648 to 128 2147483647). Negative values are for private or local use. 130 4.1. Address types 132 Registry name: Address types 133 Assignment policy: General registration procedure 134 Valid values: Signed 32-bit integers 136 Address types historically align with numeric constants used in the 137 Berkeley sockets API. Future address type assignments should conform 138 to this historical practice when possible. The name prefix for 139 address types is "addrtype-". 141 4.2. Authorization data types 143 Registry name: Authorization data types 144 Assignment policy: General registration procedure 145 Valid values: Signed 32-bit integers 147 The name prefix for authorization data types is "ad-". 149 4.3. Error codes 151 Registry name: Error codes 152 Assignment policy: Standards action 153 Valid values: Signed 32-bit integers 155 Assignments for error codes require standards action due to their 156 scarcity: assigning error codes greater than 127 could require 157 significant changes to certain implementations. The name prefixes 158 for error codes are "kdc-err-", "krb-err-", and "krb-ap-err-". 160 4.4. Key usages 162 Registry name: Key usages 163 Assignment policy: General registration procedure 164 Valid values: Unsigned 32-bit integers 166 Key usages are unsigned 32-bit integers (0 to 4294967295). Zero is 167 reserved and may not be assigned. 169 The name prefix for key usages is "ku-". 171 4.5. Name types 173 Registry name: Name types 174 Assignment policy: General registration procedure 175 Valid values: Signed 32-bit integers 177 The name prefix for name types is "nt-". 179 +--------+-------------------+-----------+--------------------------+ 180 | number | name | reference | comment | 181 +--------+-------------------+-----------+--------------------------+ 182 | 0 | nt-unknown | RFC4120 | Name type not known | 183 | 1 | nt-principal | RFC4120 | Just the name of the | 184 | | | | principal as in DCE, or | 185 | | | | for users | 186 | 2 | nt-srv-inst | RFC4120 | Service and other unique | 187 | | | | instance (krbtgt) | 188 | 3 | nt-srv-hst | RFC4120 | Service with host name | 189 | | | | as instance (telnet, | 190 | | | | rcommands) | 191 | 4 | nt-srv-xhst | RFC4120 | Service with host as | 192 | | | | remaining components | 193 | 5 | nt-uid | RFC4120 | Unique ID | 194 | 6 | nt-x500-principal | RFC4120 | Encoded X.509 | 195 | | | | Distinguished name | 196 | | | | [RFC2253] | 197 | 7 | nt-smtp-name | RFC4120 | Name in form of SMTP | 198 | | | | email name (e.g., | 199 | | | | user@example.com) | 200 | 10 | nt-enterprise | RFC4120 | Enterprise name - may be | 201 | | | | mapped to principal name | 202 | 11 | nt-wellknown | RFC6111 | Well-known principal | 203 | | | | name | 204 | 12 | nt-srv-hst-domain | RFC5179 | Domain-based names | 205 +--------+-------------------+-----------+--------------------------+ 207 4.6. Pre-authentication and typed data 209 Registry name: Pre-authentication and typed data 210 Assignment policy: General registration procedure 211 Valid values: Signed 32-bit integers 213 This document requests that IANA modify the existing Kerberos Pre- 214 authentication and typed data registry to be consistent with the 215 procedures in this document. 217 The name prefix for pre-authentication type numbers is "pa-". The 218 name prefix for typed data numbers is "td-". Pre-authentication and 219 typed data numbers are in the same registry, but a pre-authentication 220 number may be also be assigned to a related typed data number. 222 5. Named bit assignments 224 Assignments for named bits require standards action, due to their 225 scarcity: assigning bit numbers greater than 31 could require 226 significant changes to implementations. Names for named bit 227 assignments must be unique within a given named bit registry, and 228 typically do not have name prefixes that identify which registry they 229 belong to. 231 5.1. AP-REQ options 233 Registry name: AP-REQ options 234 Assignment policy: Standards action 235 Valid values: ASN.1 bit numbers 0 through 31 237 5.2. KDC-REQ options 239 Registry name: KDC-REQ options 240 Assignment policy: Standards action 241 Valid values: ASN.1 bit numbers 0 through 31 243 5.3. Ticket flags 245 Registry name: Ticket flags 246 Assignment policy: Standards action 247 Valid values: ASN.1 bit numbers 0 through 31 249 6. Contributors 251 Sam Hartman proposed the text of the expert review guidelines. Love 252 Hornquist Astrand wrote a previous document 253 (draft-lha-krb-wg-some-numbers-to-iana-00) with the same goals as 254 this document. 256 7. Acknowledgments 258 Thanks to Tom Petch for providing useful feedback on previous 259 versions of this document. 261 8. Security Considerations 263 Assignments of new Keberos protocol parameter values can have 264 security implications. In cases where the assignment policy calls 265 for expert review, the reviewer is responsible for evaluating whether 266 adequate documentation exists concerning the security considerations 267 for the requested assignment. For assignments that require IETF 268 review or standards action, the normal IETF processes ensure adequate 269 treatment of security considerations. 271 9. IANA Considerations 273 This document requests that IANA create several registries for 274 Kebreros protocol parameters: 275 o Address types 276 o Authorization data types 277 o Error codes 278 o Key usages 279 o Name types 280 o AP-REQ options 281 o KDC-REQ options 282 o Ticket flags 284 This document requests that IANA modify the existing "Pre- 285 authentication data and typed data" registry to contain an additional 286 reference to this document, and to transform existing names in that 287 registry to the lowercase-and-hyphens style. 289 10. Open issues 291 Do we make a registry for application tag numbers (equal to message 292 type numbers)? We've said that we would replace the entire ASN.1 293 module in that case, but Nico's recent proposal doesn't do that, and 294 if we want to accommodate that sort of proposal, it would probably be 295 best to establish a registry. (It should require standards action 296 for registrations.) 298 Do transited encodings need a registry? They would probably require 299 standards action, even if there were a registry. 301 11. References 303 11.1. Normative References 305 [RFC3961] Raeburn, K., "Encryption and Checksum Specifications for 306 Kerberos 5", RFC 3961, February 2005. 308 [RFC4120] Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The 309 Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120, 310 July 2005. 312 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 313 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 314 May 2008. 316 11.2. Informative References 318 [RFC1510] Kohl, J. and B. Neuman, "The Kerberos Network 319 Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 1510, September 1993. 321 Author's Address 323 Tom Yu 324 MIT Kerberos Consortium 325 77 Massachusetts Ave 326 Cambridge, Massachusetts 327 USA 329 Email: tlyu@mit.edu