idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-04.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 19. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 257. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 234. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 241. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 247. ** 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 (January 31, 2005) is 7025 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 98, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'X690' is defined on line 189, 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 (~~), 4 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 NETWORK WORKING GROUP L. Zhu 3 Internet-Draft K. Jaganathan 4 Expires: August 4, 2005 Microsoft Corporation 5 N. Williams 6 Sun Microsystems 7 January 31, 2005 9 OCSP Support for PKINIT 10 draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-04 12 Status of this Memo 14 This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions 15 of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each 16 author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of 17 which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of 18 which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 19 RFC 3668. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 23 other groups may also distribute working documents as 24 Internet-Drafts. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 2005. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 43 Abstract 45 This document defines a mechanism to enable in-band transmission of 46 Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) responses in the Kerberos 47 network authentication protocol. These responses are used to verify 48 the validity of the certificates used in PKINIT - the Kerberos 49 Version 5 extension that provides for the use of public key 50 cryptography. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3. Message Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 7 66 1. Introduction 68 Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC2560] enables 69 applications to obtain timely information regarding the revocation 70 status of a certificate. Because OCSP responses are well-bounded and 71 small in size, constrained clients may wish to use OCSP to check the 72 validity of the certificates for Kerberos Key Distribution Center 73 (KDC) in order to avoid transmission of large Certificate Revocation 74 Lists (CRLs) and therefore save bandwidth on constrained networks 75 [OCSP-PROFILE]. 77 This document defines a pre-authentication type [CLARIFICATIONS], 78 where the client and the KDC MAY piggyback OCSP responses for 79 certificates used in authentication exchanges, as defined in 80 [PKINIT]. 82 By using this OPTIONAL extension, PKINIT clients and the KDC can 83 maximize the reuse of cached OCSP responses. 85 2. Conventions Used in This Document 87 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 88 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 89 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 91 3. Message Definition 93 A pre-authentication type identifier is defined for this mechanism: 95 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE 16 97 The corresponding padata-value field [CLARIFICATIONS] contains the 98 DER [X60] encoding of the following ASN.1 type: 100 PKOcspData ::= SEQUENCE OF OcspResponse 102 OcspResponse ::= OCTET STRING 103 -- contains a complete OCSP response, 104 -- defined in [RFC2560] 106 The client MAY send OCSP responses for certificates used in 107 PA-PK-AS-REQ [PKINIT] via a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE. 109 The KDC that receives a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE then SHOULD send a 110 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE containing OCSP responses for certificates used 111 in the KDC's PA-PK-AS-REP. The client can request a 112 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE by using a PKOcspData containing an empty 113 sequence. 115 The KDC MAY send a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE when it does not receive a 116 PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE from the client. 118 The PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE sent by the KDC contains OCSP responses for 119 certificates used in PA-PK-AS-REP [PKINIT]. 121 Note the lack of integrity protection for the empty or missing OCSP 122 response; lack of an expected OCSP response from the KDC for the 123 KDC's certificates SHOULD be treated as an error by the client, 124 unless it is configured otherwise. 126 When using OCSP, the response is signed by the OCSP server, which is 127 trusted by the receiver. Depending on local policy, further 128 verification of the validity of the OCSP servers may be needed 130 The client and the KDC SHOULD ignore invalid OCSP responses received 131 via this mechanism, and they MAY implement CRL processing logic as a 132 fall-back position, if the OCSP responses received via this mechanism 133 alone are not sufficient for the verification of certificate 134 validity. The client and/or the KDC MAY ignore a valid OCSP response 135 and perform their own revocation status verification independently. 137 4. Security Considerations 139 The pre-authentication data in this document do not actually 140 authenticate any principals, but is designed to be used in 141 conjunction with PKINIT. 143 There is no binding between PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE pre-authentication 144 data and PKINIT pre-authentication data other than a given OCSP 145 response corresponding to a certificate used in a PKINIT 146 pre-authentication data element. Attacks involving removal or 147 replacement of PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE pre-authentication data elements 148 are, at worst, downgrade attacks, where a PKINIT client or KDC would 149 proceed without use of CRLs or OCSP for certificate validation, or 150 denial of service attacks, where a PKINIT client or KDC that cannot 151 validate the other's certificate without an accompanying OCSP 152 response might reject the AS exchange or where they might have to 153 download very large CRLs in order to continue. Kerberos V does not 154 protect against denial-of-service attacks, therefore the 155 denial-of-service aspect of these attacks are acceptable. 157 If a PKINIT client or KDC cannot validate certificates without the 158 aid of a valid PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE then it SHOULD fail the AS 159 exchange, possibly according to local configuration. 161 5. IANA Considerations 163 No IANA actions are required for this document. 165 6. Acknowledgements 167 This document was based on conversations among the authors, Jeffrey 168 Altman, Sam Hartman, Martin Rex and other members of the Kerberos 169 working group. 171 7. References 173 7.1 Normative References 175 [CLARIFICATIONS] 176 RFC-Editor: To be replaced by RFC number for draft-ietf- 177 krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications. Work in Progress. 179 [PKINIT] RFC-Editor: To be replaced by RFC number for draft-ietf- 180 cat-kerberos-pk-init. Work in Progress. 182 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 183 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 185 [RFC2560] Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S. and C. 186 Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online 187 Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999. 189 [X690] ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding 190 Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and 191 Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER), ITU-T Recommendation 192 X.690 (1997) | ISO/IEC International Standard 8825-1:1998. 194 7.2 Informative References 196 [OCSP-PROFILE] 197 RFC-Editor: To be replaced by RFC number for draft-deacon- 198 lightweight-ocsp-profile. Work in Progress. 200 Authors' Addresses 202 Larry Zhu 203 Microsoft Corporation 204 One Microsoft Way 205 Redmond, WA 98052 206 US 208 Email: lzhu@microsoft.com 209 Karthik Jaganathan 210 Microsoft Corporation 211 One Microsoft Way 212 Redmond, WA 98052 213 US 215 Email: karthikj@microsoft.com 217 Nicolas Williams 218 Sun Microsystems 219 5300 Riata Trace Ct 220 Austin, TX 78727 221 US 223 Email: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com 225 Intellectual Property Statement 227 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 228 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 229 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 230 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 231 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 232 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 233 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 234 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 236 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 237 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 238 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 239 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 240 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 241 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 243 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 244 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 245 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 246 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 247 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 249 Disclaimer of Validity 251 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 252 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 253 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 254 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 255 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 256 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 257 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 259 Copyright Statement 261 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 262 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 263 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 265 Acknowledgment 267 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 268 Internet Society.