idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-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.a on line 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 234. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 211. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 218. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 224. ** 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 (November 20, 2004) is 7069 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: May 21, 2005 Microsoft Corporation 4 N. Williams 5 Sun Microsystems 6 November 20, 2004 8 OCSP Support for PKINIT 9 draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-02 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 May 21, 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. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 57 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 58 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 59 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 10 61 1. Introduction 63 Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC2560] enables 64 applications to obtain timely information regarding the revocation 65 status of a certificate. Because OCSP responses are well-bounded and 66 small in size, constrained clients may wish to use OCSP to check the 67 validity of KDC certificates in order to avoid transmission of large 68 Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) and therefore save bandwidth on 69 constrained networks [OCSP-PROFILE]. 71 This document defines a pre-authentication type [CLARIFICATIONS], 72 where the client and the KDC MAY piggyback OCSP responses for 73 certificates used in authentication exchanges, as defined in 74 [PKINIT]. 76 By using this OPTIONAL extension, PKINIT clients and the KDC can 77 maximize the reuse of cached OCSP responses. 79 2. Conventions Used in This Document 81 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 82 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 83 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 85 3. Message Definition 87 A pre-authentication type identifier is defined for this mechanism: 89 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE 16 91 The corresponding pre-authentication field contains OCSP data as 92 follows: 94 PA-PK-OCSP-DATA ::= SEQUENCE OF OcspResponse 96 OcspResponse ::= OCTET STRING 97 -- contains a complete OCSP response, 98 -- defined in [RFC2560] 100 The client MAY send OCSP responses for certificates used in 101 PA-PK-AS-REQ [PKINIT] via a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE. 103 The KDC that receives a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE the SHOULD send a 104 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE in response. The client can request a 105 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE by using an empty sequence in its request. 107 The KDC MAY send a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE when it does not receive a 108 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE from the client. 110 The PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE sent by the KDC contains OCSP responses for 111 certificates used in PA-PK-AS-REP [PKINIT]. 113 Note the lack of integrity protection for the empty or missing OCSP 114 response; lack of an expected OCSP response from the KDC for the 115 KDC's certificates SHOULD be treated as an error by the client, 116 unless it is configured otherwise. 118 When using OCSP, the response is signed by the OCSP server, which is 119 trusted by the receiver. Depending on local policy, further 120 verification of the validity of the OCSP servers MAY need to be done. 122 The client and the KDC SHOULD ignore invalid OCSP responses received 123 via this mechanism, and they MAY implement CRL processing logic as a 124 fall-back position, if the OCSP responses received via this mechanism 125 alone are not sufficient for the verification of certificate 126 validity. The client and/or the KDC MAY ignore a valid OCSP response 127 and perform their own revocation status verification independently. 129 4. Security Considerations 131 The pre-authentication data in this document do not actually 132 authenticate any principals, and MUST be used in conjunction with 133 PKINIT. 135 There is a downgrade attack against clients which want OCSP responses 136 from the KDC for the KDC's certificates. The clients, however, can 137 treat the absence of valid OCSP responses as an error, based on their 138 local configuration. 140 5. IANA Considerations 142 This document defines a new pre-authentication type for use with 143 PKINIT to encode OCSP responses. The official value for this padata 144 identifier need to be acquired from IANA. 146 6. Acknowledgements 148 This document was based on conversations among the authors, Jeffrey 149 Altman, Sam Hartman, Martin Rex and other members of the Kerberos 150 working group. 152 7 References 154 [CLARIFICATIONS] 155 Neuman, B., Yu, Y., Hartman, S. and K. Raeburn, "The 156 Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", 157 draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications, Work in 158 progress. 160 [OCSP-PROFILE] 161 Deacon, A. and R. Hurst, "Lightweight OCSP Profile for 162 High Volume Environments", 163 draft-ietf-pkix-lightweight-ocsp-profile, Work in 164 progress. 166 [PKINIT] Tung, B., Neuman, B. and S. Medvinsky, "Public Key 167 Cryptography for Initial Authentication in Kerberos", 168 draft-ietf-cat-kerberos-pk-init, Work in progress. 170 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 171 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 173 [RFC2560] Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S. and C. 174 Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online 175 Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999. 177 Authors' Addresses 179 Larry Zhu 180 Microsoft Corporation 181 One Microsoft Way 182 Redmond, WA 98052 183 US 185 EMail: lzhu@microsoft.com 187 Karthik Jaganathan 188 Microsoft Corporation 189 One Microsoft Way 190 Redmond, WA 98052 191 US 193 EMail: karthikj@microsoft.com 194 Nicolas Williams 195 Sun Microsystems 196 5300 Riata Trace Ct 197 Austin, TX 78727 198 US 200 EMail: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com 202 Intellectual Property Statement 204 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 205 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 206 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 207 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 208 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 209 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 210 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 211 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 213 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 214 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 215 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 216 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 217 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 218 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 220 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 221 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 222 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 223 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 224 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 226 Disclaimer of Validity 228 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 229 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 230 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 231 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 232 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 233 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 234 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 236 Copyright Statement 238 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 239 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 240 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 242 Acknowledgment 244 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 245 Internet Society.