idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-00.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.a on line 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 218. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 195. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 202. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 208. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** 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. ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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 separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. 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 (August 10, 2004) is 7197 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 2560 (Obsoleted by RFC 6960) Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 NETWORK WORKING GROUP L. Zhu 2 Internet-Draft K. Jaganathan 3 Expires: February 8, 2005 Microsoft Corporation 4 N. Williams 5 Sun Microsystems 6 August 10, 2004 8 OCSP Support for PKINIT 9 draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-00 11 Status of this Memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions 14 of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each 15 author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of 16 which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of 17 which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 18 RFC 3668. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 22 other groups may also distribute working documents as 23 Internet-Drafts. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 33 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 8, 2005. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 42 Abstract 44 This document defines a mechanism to enable in-band transmission of 45 OCSP responses. These responses are used to verify the validity of 46 the certificates used in PKINIT - the Kerberos Version 5 extension 47 that provides for the use of public key cryptography. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 3. Message Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 55 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 56 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9 60 1. Introduction 62 Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC2560] enables 63 applications to obtain timely information regarding the revocation 64 status of a certificate. Because OCSP responses are well-bounded and 65 small in size, constrained clients may wish to use OCSP to check the 66 validity of KDC certificates in order to avoid transmission of large 67 Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) and therefore save bandwidth on 68 constrained networks. 70 This document defines a pre-authentication type [CLARIFICATIONS], 71 where the client and the KDC MAY piggyback OCSP responses for 72 certificates used in authentication exchanges, as defined in 73 [PKINIT]. 75 By using this OPTIONAL extension, PKINIT clients and the KDC can 76 maximize the reuse of cached OCSP responses. 78 2. Conventions Used in This Document 80 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 81 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 82 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 84 3. Message Definition 86 A pre-authentication type identifier is defined for this mechanism: 88 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE 16 90 The corresponding pre-authentication field contains OCSP data as 91 follows: 93 PA-PK-OCSP-DATA ::= SEQUENCE OF OcspResponse 95 OcspResponse ::= OCTET STRING 96 -- contains a complete OCSP response, 97 -- defined in [RFC2560] 99 The client MAY send OCSP responses for certificates used in 100 PA-PK-AS-REQ via a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE. 102 The KDC that receives a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE the SHOULD send a 103 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE in response. The client can request a 104 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE by using an empty sequence in its request. 106 Note the lack of integrity protection for the empty or missing OCSP 107 response; lack of an expected OCSP response from the KDC for the 108 KDC's certificates SHOULD be treated as an error by the client, 109 unless it is configured otherwise. 111 When using OCSP, the response is signed by the OCSP server, which is 112 trusted by the receiver. Depending on local policy, further 113 verification of the validity of the OCSP servers MAY need to be done. 115 The client and the KDC SHOULD ignore invalid OCSP responses received 116 via this mechanism, and they MAY implement CRL processing logic as a 117 fall-back position, if the OCSP responses received via this mechanism 118 alone are not sufficient for the verification of certificate 119 validity. The client and/or the KDC MAY ignore a valid OCSP response 120 and perform their own revocation status verification independently. 122 The KDC MAY send a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE when it does not receive a 123 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE from the client. 125 4. Security Considerations 127 The pre-authentication data in this document do not actually 128 authenticate any principals, and MUST be used in conjunction with 129 PKINIT. 131 There is a downgrade attack against clients which want OCSP responses 132 from the KDC for the KDC's certificates. The clients, however, can 133 treat the absence of valid OCSP responses as an error, based on their 134 local configuration. 136 5. IANA Considerations 138 This document defines a new pre-authentication type for use with 139 PKINIT to encode OCSP responses. The official value for this padata 140 identifier need to be acquired from IANA. 142 6 References 144 [CLARIFICATIONS] 145 Neuman, B., Yu, Y., Hartman, S. and K. Raeburn, "The 146 Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", 147 draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications, Work in 148 progress. 150 [PKINIT] Tung, B. and B. Neuman, "Public Key Cryptography for 151 Initial Authentication in Kerberos", 152 draft-ietf-cat-kerberos-pk-init, Work in progress. 154 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 155 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 157 [RFC2560] Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S. and C. 158 Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online 159 Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999. 161 Authors' Addresses 163 Larry Zhu 164 Microsoft Corporation 165 One Microsoft Way 166 Redmond, WA 98052 167 US 169 EMail: lzhu@microsoft.com 171 Karthik Jaganathan 172 Microsoft Corporation 173 One Microsoft Way 174 Redmond, WA 98052 175 US 177 EMail: karthikj@microsoft.com 178 Nicolas Williams 179 Sun Microsystems 180 5300 Riata Trace Ct 181 Austin, TX 78727 182 US 184 EMail: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com 186 Intellectual Property Statement 188 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 189 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 190 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 191 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 192 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 193 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 194 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 195 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 197 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 198 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 199 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 200 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 201 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 202 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 204 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 205 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 206 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 207 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 208 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 210 Disclaimer of Validity 212 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 213 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 214 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 215 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 216 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 217 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 218 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 220 Copyright Statement 222 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 223 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 224 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 226 Acknowledgment 228 This document was based on conversations among the authors, Jeffrey 229 Altman, Sam Hartman, Martin Rex, and other members of the Kerberos 230 working group.