idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-03.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 246. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 223. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 230. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 236. ** 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 == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 9) being 61 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 (December 3, 2004) is 7077 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: 'X60' is mentioned on line 97, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'X690' is defined on line 178, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2560 (Obsoleted by RFC 6960) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'X690' Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 8 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: June 3, 2005 Microsoft Corporation 4 N. Williams 5 Sun Microsystems 6 December 3, 2004 8 OCSP Support for PKINIT 9 draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-03 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 June 3, 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 Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) responses in the Kerberos 46 network authentication protocol. These responses are used to verify 47 the validity of the certificates used in PKINIT - the Kerberos 48 Version 5 extension that provides for the use of public key 49 cryptography. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 3. Message Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 57 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 59 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 60 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 61 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 62 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 11 65 1. Introduction 67 Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC2560] enables 68 applications to obtain timely information regarding the revocation 69 status of a certificate. Because OCSP responses are well-bounded and 70 small in size, constrained clients may wish to use OCSP to check the 71 validity of the certificates for Kerberos Key Distribution Center 72 (KDC) in order to avoid transmission of large Certificate Revocation 73 Lists (CRLs) and therefore save bandwidth on constrained networks 74 [OCSP-PROFILE]. 76 This document defines a pre-authentication type [CLARIFICATIONS], 77 where the client and the KDC MAY piggyback OCSP responses for 78 certificates used in authentication exchanges, as defined in 79 [PKINIT]. 81 By using this OPTIONAL extension, PKINIT clients and the KDC can 82 maximize the reuse of cached OCSP responses. 84 2. Conventions Used in This Document 86 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 87 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 88 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 90 3. Message Definition 92 A pre-authentication type identifier is defined for this mechanism: 94 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE 16 96 The corresponding padata-value field [CLARIFICATIONS] contains the 97 DER [X60] encoding of the following ASN.1 type: 99 PKOcspData ::= SEQUENCE OF OcspResponse 101 OcspResponse ::= OCTET STRING 102 -- contains a complete OCSP response, 103 -- defined in [RFC2560] 105 The client MAY send OCSP responses for certificates used in 106 PA-PK-AS-REQ [PKINIT] via a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE. 108 The KDC that receives a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE then SHOULD send a 109 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE containing OCSP responses for certificates used 110 in the KDC's PA-PK-AS-REP. The client can request a 111 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE by using a PKOcspData containing an empty 112 sequence. 114 The KDC MAY send a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE when it does not receive a 115 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE from the client. 117 The PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE sent by the KDC contains OCSP responses for 118 certificates used in PA-PK-AS-REP [PKINIT]. 120 Note the lack of integrity protection for the empty or missing OCSP 121 response; lack of an expected OCSP response from the KDC for the 122 KDC's certificates SHOULD be treated as an error by the client, 123 unless it is configured otherwise. 125 When using OCSP, the response is signed by the OCSP server, which is 126 trusted by the receiver. Depending on local policy, further 127 verification of the validity of the OCSP servers may be needed 129 The client and the KDC SHOULD ignore invalid OCSP responses received 130 via this mechanism, and they MAY implement CRL processing logic as a 131 fall-back position, if the OCSP responses received via this mechanism 132 alone are not sufficient for the verification of certificate 133 validity. The client and/or the KDC MAY ignore a valid OCSP response 134 and perform their own revocation status verification independently. 136 4. Security Considerations 138 The pre-authentication data in this document do not actually 139 authenticate any principals, and it is designed to be used in 140 conjunction with PKINIT. 142 There is a downgrade attack against clients which want OCSP responses 143 from the KDC for the KDC's certificates. The clients, however, can 144 treat the absence of valid OCSP responses as an error, based on their 145 local configuration. 147 5. IANA Considerations 149 No IANA actions are required for this document. 151 6. Acknowledgements 153 This document was based on conversations among the authors, Jeffrey 154 Altman, Sam Hartman, Martin Rex and other members of the Kerberos 155 working group. 157 7. References 159 7.1 Normative References 161 [CLARIFICATIONS] 162 Neuman, B., Yu, Y., Hartman, S. and K. Raeburn, "The 163 Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", 164 draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications, work in 165 progress. 167 [PKINIT] Tung, B., Neuman, B. and S. Medvinsky, "Public Key 168 Cryptography for Initial Authentication in Kerberos", 169 draft-ietf-cat-kerberos-pk-init, work in progress. 171 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 172 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 174 [RFC2560] Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S. and C. 175 Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online 176 Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999. 178 [X690] ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding 179 Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and 180 Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER), ITU-T Recommendation 181 X.690 (1997) | ISO/IEC International Standard 8825-1:1998. 183 7.2 Informative References 185 [OCSP-PROFILE] 186 Deacon, A. and R. Hurst, "Lightweight OCSP Profile for 187 High Volume Environments", August 2004. 189 Authors' Addresses 191 Larry Zhu 192 Microsoft Corporation 193 One Microsoft Way 194 Redmond, WA 98052 195 US 197 EMail: lzhu@microsoft.com 199 Karthik Jaganathan 200 Microsoft Corporation 201 One Microsoft Way 202 Redmond, WA 98052 203 US 205 EMail: karthikj@microsoft.com 206 Nicolas Williams 207 Sun Microsystems 208 5300 Riata Trace Ct 209 Austin, TX 78727 210 US 212 EMail: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com 214 Intellectual Property Statement 216 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 217 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 218 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 219 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 220 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 221 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 222 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 223 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 225 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 226 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 227 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 228 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 229 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 230 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 232 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 233 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 234 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 235 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 236 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 238 Disclaimer of Validity 240 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 241 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 242 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 243 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 244 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 245 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 246 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 248 Copyright Statement 250 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 251 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 252 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 254 Acknowledgment 256 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 257 Internet Society.