idnits 2.17.1 draft-meadors-certificate-exchange-06.txt: -(159): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(633): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(635): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(996): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 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 on line 13. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.5 (updated by RFC 4748) Disclaimer -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 2 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 3 IPR Disclosure Invitation. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing revision: the document name given in the document, 'draft-meadors-certificate-exchange-', does not give the document revision number ~~ Missing draftname component: the document name given in the document, 'draft-meadors-certificate-exchange-', does not seem to contain all the document name components required ('draft' prefix, document source, document name, and revision) -- see https://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines#naming for more information. == Mismatching filename: the document gives the document name as 'draft-meadors-certificate-exchange-', but the file name used is 'draft-meadors-certificate-exchange-06' == There are 33 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document. == 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 IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == Couldn't figure out when the document was first submitted -- there may comments or warnings related to the use of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work that could not be issued because of this. Please check the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info to determine if you need the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. -- The document date (March 2007) is 6251 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3851' on line 340 == Missing Reference: 'EDIINT-FEATURE' is mentioned on line 422, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'EDIINT FEATURE' is defined on line 1076, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 1079, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2246' is defined on line 1082, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'PROFILE' is defined on line 1103, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-ietf-ediint-as3 is -04, but you're referring to -05. ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ediint-as3 (ref. 'AS3') -- No information found for draft-meadors-ediint-feature-header - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'EDIINT FEATURE' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2246 (Obsoleted by RFC 4346) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2253 (Obsoleted by RFC 4510, RFC 4514) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2828 (Obsoleted by RFC 4949) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3023 (Obsoleted by RFC 7303) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3280 (ref. 'PROFILE') (Obsoleted by RFC 5280) Summary: 12 errors (**), 1 flaw (~~), 10 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Private K. Meadors 2 Internet-Draft Drummond Group Inc. 3 Document: draft-meadors-certificate-exchange- D. Moberg 4 06.txt Axway, Inc. 5 Expires: September 2007 March 2007 7 Certificate Exchange Messaging for EDIINT 8 draft-meadors-certificate-exchange-06.doc 10 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 11 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 12 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 13 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 15 Status of this Memo 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.html 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 Any questions, comments, and reports of defects or ambiguities in 33 this specification may be sent to the mailing list for the EDIINT 34 working group of the IETF, using the address . 35 Requests to subscribe to the mailing list should be addressed to 36 . 38 Abstract 40 The EDIINT AS1, AS2 and AS3 message formats do not currently contain 41 any neutral provisions for transporting and exchanging trading 42 partner profiles or digital certificates. EDIINT Certificate Exchange 43 Messaging provides the format and means to effectively exchange 44 certificates for use within trading partner relationships. The 45 messaging consists of two types of messages, Request and Response, 46 which allow trading partners to communicate certificates, their 47 intended usage and their acceptance through XML. Certificates can be 48 specified for use in digital signatures, data encryption or SSL/TLS 49 over HTTP (HTTPS). 51 Conventions used in this document 53 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 54 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 55 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119. 57 Feedback Instructions 59 NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: This section should be removed by the RFC editor 60 prior to publication. 62 If you want to provide feedback on this draft, follow these 63 guidelines: 65 -Send feedback via e-mail to kyle@drummondgroup.com, with 66 "Certificate Exchange" in the Subject field. 68 -Be specific as to what section you are referring to, preferably 69 quoting the portion that needs modification, after which you state 70 your comments. 72 -If you are recommending some text to be replaced with your suggested 73 text, again, quote the section to be replaced, and be clear on the 74 section in question. 76 Table of Contents 78 1. Introduction...................................................3 79 1.1 Overview...................................................3 80 1.2 Terminology and Key Word Convention........................4 81 1.3 Certificate Lifecycle......................................5 82 1.4 Certificate Exchange Process...............................6 83 2. Message Processing.............................................7 84 2.1 Message Structure..........................................7 85 2.2 EDIINT Features Header.....................................9 86 2.3 Certificate Exchanging.....................................9 87 2.4 Certificate Implementation................................10 88 2.5 CEM Response..............................................12 89 3. CEM XML Schema Description....................................13 90 3.1 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest element..................13 91 3.2 EDIINTCertificateExchangeResponse element.................17 92 4. Use Case Scenario.............................................18 93 5. Profile Exchange Messaging....................................20 94 6. Implementation Considerations.................................21 95 7. Future Considerations for CEM I�D.............................21 96 8. Security Considerations.......................................21 97 9. IANA Considerations...........................................22 98 10. References...................................................22 99 10.1 Normative References.....................................22 100 10.2 Informative References...................................23 101 11. Acknowledgments..............................................23 102 Author's Addresses...............................................23 103 Appendix.........................................................24 104 A.1 EDIINT Certificate Exchange XML Schema....................24 105 A.2 Example of EDIINT Certificate Exchange Request XML........27 106 A.3 Example of EDIINT Certificate Exchange Response XML.......28 107 Changes from Previous Versions...................................28 108 B.1 Updates from Version 00...................................28 109 B.2 Updates from Version 01...................................29 110 B.3 Updates from Version 02...................................29 111 B.4 Updates from Version 03...................................29 112 B.5 Updates from Version 04...................................29 113 B.6 Updates from Version 05...................................29 115 1. 116 Introduction 118 1.1 119 Overview 121 The growth and acceptance of EDIINT protocols, AS1, AS2 and AS3, in 122 numerous supply-chains was due in part to the security feature which 123 was provided. The security is not possible without the digital 124 certificates which enable it. To maintain the level of security 125 necessary to transmit business documentation, existing certificates 126 must occasionally be replaced and exchanged with newer ones. The 127 exchanging of digital certificates is unavoidable given how 128 certificates can expire or become compromised. Complicating this is 129 supply-chains which cannot afford to shutdown their business 130 transactions while trading partners laboriously upload new 131 certificates. Certificate exchange must be accomplished in a reliable 132 and seamless format so as not to affect ongoing business 133 transactions. 135 This document describes how EDIINT products may exchange public-key 136 certificates. Since EDIINT is built upon the security provided by 137 public-private key pairs, it is vital that implementers are able to 138 update their trading partners with new certificates as their old 139 certificates expire, become outdated or insecure. Certificate 140 Exchange Messaging (CEM) described here utilizes XML data to exchange 141 the certificate and provide information on its intended usage and 142 acceptance within the trading partner relationship. There are two 143 types of CEM messages. The CEM Request which presents the new 144 certificate to be introduced into the trading partner relationship 145 and the CEM Response which is the recipient�s response to the CEM 146 Request. CE messages can be exchanged through AS1 [AS1], AS2 [AS2] or 147 AS3 [AS3] message transports. However, it is possible to leverage CE 148 messaging through other transport standards besides EDIINT. 150 1.2 151 Terminology and Key Word Convention 153 [RFC2828] provides a glossary of Internet security terms, and several 154 of their definitions are listed here verbatim. However, some 155 definitions required for this document were undefined by [RFC2828] or 156 rewritten to better explain their specific use within CEM. 158 Certificate - A digital certificate contains the owner�s (End 159 Entity�s) name, the issuer�s name, a serial number, expiration date, 160 and a copy of the owner�s Public Key. The Public Key is used for 161 Encrypting messages and Verifying Signatures (verifying a signature 162 is also called Authentication). 164 Certificate Revocation List (CRL) - A data structure that enumerates 165 digital certificates that have been invalidated by their issuer prior 166 to when they were scheduled to expire. [RFC2828] 168 Certification Authority (CA) - An entity that issues digital 169 certificates (especially X.509 certificates) and vouches for the 170 binding between the data items in a certificate. [RFC2828] 172 CA Certificate - A certificate issued by a trusted certification 173 authority. CA certificates are not used to encrypt data but to sign 174 other certificates. CA certificates are signed by themselves, but are 175 not considered self-signed certificates for the purpose of this 176 document. 178 Certification Hierarchy - In this structure, one CA is the top CA, 179 the highest level of the hierarchy. The top CA may issue public-key 180 certificates to one or more additional CAs that form the second 181 highest level. Each of these CAs may issue certificates to more CAs 182 at the third highest level, and so on. The CAs at the second-lowest 183 of the hierarchy issue certificates only to non-CA entities, called 184 "end entities" that form the lowest level. Thus, all certification 185 paths begin at the top CA and descend through zero or more levels of 186 other CAs. All certificate users base path validations on the top 187 CA's public key. [RFC2828] 189 CEM Request - The EDIINT Certificate Exchange Messaging (CEM) Request 190 is one of two possible CEM messages. It presents a certificate to be 191 introduced into the trading partner relationship along with relevant 192 information on how it is to be implemented. 194 CEM Response - The EDIINT Certificate Exchange Messaging (CEM) 195 Response is one of two possible CEM messages. It is the response to 196 the CEM Request indicating whether or not the end entity certificate 197 present in the CEM Request was accepted. 199 End Entity - A system entity that is the subject of a public-key 200 certificate and that is using, or is permitted and able to use, the 201 matching private key only for a purpose or purposes other than 202 signing a digital certificate; i.e., an entity that is not a CA. 203 [RFC2828] 205 End Entity Certificate - A certificate which is used to encrypt data 206 or authenticate a signature. (The private key associated with the 207 certificate is used to decrypt data or sign data). The certificate 208 may be self-signed or issued by a trusted certificate. 210 Intermediary Certificate - A certificate issued by a CA certificate 211 which itself issues another certificate (either intermediary or end 212 entity). Intermediary certificates are not used to encrypt data but 213 to sign other certificates. 215 Public Key - The publicly-disclosable component of a pair of 216 cryptographic keys used for asymmetric cryptography. [RFC2828] 218 Public Key Certificate - A digital certificate that binds a system 219 entity's identity to a public key value, and possibly to additional 220 data items. [RFC2828] 222 Self-signed Certificate - A certificate which is issued by itself 223 (both issuer and subject are the same) and is an End Entity 224 certificate. 226 1.3 227 Certificate Lifecycle 229 A certificate has five states. 231 1. Pending - Upon receiving a certificate from a trading partner, the 232 certificate is marked as Pending until a decision can be made to 233 trust it or if its validity period has not yet begun. 234 2. Rejected - If a Pending certificate is not trusted, it is 235 considered Rejected. 236 3. Accepted - Once a Pending certificate has been trusted, it is 237 considered Accepted. An Accepted certificate may be used in 238 secure transactions. 239 4. Expired - A certificate which is no longer valid because its 240 expiration date has passed. Expired certificates SHOULD be kept 241 in a certificate storehouse for decrypting and validating past 242 transactions. 244 5. Revoked - A certificate which has been explicitly revoked by its 245 owner or the certificate authority. 247 1.4 248 Certificate Exchange Process 250 This section describes a process whereby a company can distribute 251 certificates to its partners, and the company and its partners can 252 put the certificates into use. Later sections describe the specific 253 CEM protocol, which is an implementation of this process. 255 The exchange process can be used even when CEM is not useable, for 256 example, when the transport protocols or installed software systems 257 do not support CEM. It is RECOMMENDED that this process be followed 258 in distributing certificates. 260 The company that owns the certificates initiates the process. For a 261 certificate that is to be used (by the partners) to encrypt messages, 262 the initiator first prepares his system to decrypt messages that are 263 encrypted with this certificate. The initiator must also be able to 264 decrypt messages using the old certificate. The initiator company 265 distributes the new certificates by some means. The distribution MUST 266 describe the purposes of the certificates and MAY contain a respond 267 by date, the date when the distributor expects to put the 268 certificates in use. The respond by date SHOULD be present for 269 certificates that are used to sign messages or to authenticate 270 TLS/SSL connections. 272 When a partner receives a certificate, the partner should 273 authenticate the distribution message by some means. (CEM provides 274 for automatic authentication. Partners can use manual methods, 275 either with or without CEM.) 277 When a partner receives a certificate for use in encrypting messages 278 and has authenticated the certificate, the partner SHOULD begin 279 using that certificate to encrypt messages. The initiator MUST be 280 prepared to receive messages encrypted with either the old or new 281 certificate. 283 When a partner receives a certificate for use in digitally signing 284 messages or for TLS/SSL authentication and has authenticated the 285 certificate, the partner MUST prepare his system to accept messages 286 that are signed or authenticated with the new certificate. The 287 partner MUST also accept messages signed or authenticated with the 288 old certificate. 290 The partner MAY return a response to the initiator, indicating that 291 the partner has accepted the new certificate and put it in use. The 292 initiator can use these responses to track which partners are ready 293 to use the new certificate. 295 When the partner has sent a response indicating acceptance of the new 296 certificate, or when the respond by date has passed, the initiator 297 can begin using the new certificate to digitally sign messages or 298 authenticate TLS/SSL messages. The initiator MUST NOT sign or 299 authenticate messages with the new certificate until the partner has 300 accepted it or until the respond by date has passed. The initiator 301 MAY wait until the respond by date or until all partners have 302 accepted. The partners MUST accept messages signed or authenticated 303 with either the old or new certificate. 305 When the process is fully automated, it is not necessary to have a 306 specific time when both the initiator and partners switch to the new 307 certificate. 309 The initiator MUST be able to decrypt messages with both the old and 310 new certificates as soon as the new certificates are distributed. 311 The partners MUST be able to accept messages signed or TLS/SSL 312 authenticated with either the old or new certificates after they have 313 accepted the new certificate. The initiator SHOULD allow a 314 reasonable time after distributing a new signing or authenticating 315 certificate before putting it in use, so that partners have time to 316 authenticate the new certificate and prepare their systems for it. 318 For a certificate used to digitally sign messages or authenticate 319 TLS/SSL messages, there must be some way for the initiator to know 320 when partners are ready to receive the certificate. For example, this 321 may be a response from the partners, an explicit respond by date in 322 the initial distribution, an implied respond by date based on partner 323 agreements, or the expiration date of the old certificate. For a 324 certificate used to encrypt messages, the respond by date and 325 responses are less important, but responses may be useful to track 326 partners� acceptances. 328 2. 329 Message Processing 331 2.1 332 Message Structure 334 CEM messages use the underlying EDIINT transport, such as AS2, to 335 communicate information on the certificate, its intended use and its 336 acceptance. Both digital certificates and the XML data describing 337 their intended use are stored within a multipart/related MIME 338 envelope [RFC2387]. For the CEM Request message, the certificates are 339 stored in certificate chains through SMIME, certs-only MIME envelope 340 [3851], and processing information is XML data which is identified 341 through the MIME content-type of application/ediint-cert- 342 exchange+xml. The format for a CEM Request message is as follows: 344 Various EDIINT headers 345 Disposition-Notification-To: http://10.1.1.1:80/exchange/as2-company 346 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; 347 protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; 348 boundary="--OUTER-BOUNDARY" 350 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY 351 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="application/ediint-cert- 352 exchange+xml"; boundary="--INNER-BOUNDARY" 354 ----INNER-BOUNDARY 355 Content-Type: application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml 356 Content-ID: <20040101-1.alpha@example.org> 358 [CEM XML data] 359 ----INNER-BOUNDARY 360 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=certs-only 361 Content-ID: <20040101-2.alpha@example.org> 363 [digital certificate] 364 ----INNER-BOUNDARY-- 366 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY 367 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature 369 [Digital Signature] 370 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY-- 372 One and only one MIME type of application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml 373 MUST be present in the multipart/related structure, and it MUST be 374 the root element. Multiple certs-only media types may be included, 375 but at least one MUST be present. A unique content-id header MUST be 376 present within each of the multipart structures. 378 For the CEM Response message, a multipart/related MIME structure is 379 also used. However, no certificates are present in a CEM Response, 380 and the multipart/related structure only contains one MIME type of 381 application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml. The format for a CEM Request 382 message is as follows: 384 Various EDIINT headers 385 Disposition-Notification-To: http://10.1.1.1:80/exchange/as2-company 386 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; 387 protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; 388 boundary="--OUTER-BOUNDARY" 390 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY 391 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="application/ediint-cert- 392 exchange+xml"; boundary="--INNER-BOUNDARY" 394 ----INNER-BOUNDARY 395 Content-Type: application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml 396 Content-ID: <20040201-1.alpha@example.org> 398 [CEM XML data] 399 ----INNER-BOUNDARY-- 401 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY 402 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature 404 [Digital Signature] 405 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY-- 407 If possible, both the CEM Request and CEM Response message SHOULD be 408 signed. Applying digital signatures will allow for automatic exchange 409 based on a previous trust relationship. However, it may not be 410 possible in the initial exchange of a new trading partner. If a CEM 411 message is signed, the signing certificate MUST be included in the 412 digital signature. Extra security such as applying data encryption or 413 compression is OPTIONAL. Also, CEM messages SHOULD request a MDN and 414 SHOULD request a signed MDN. The MDN can be either synchronous or 415 asynchronous. All necessary headers MUST be applied to the message 416 per the underlying transport standard. 418 2.2 419 EDIINT Features Header 421 To indicate support for CEM, an EDIINT application MUST use the 422 EDIINT Features header [EDIINT-FEATURE]. The Feature Header indicates 423 the instance application can support various features, such as 424 certification exchange. The header is present in all messages from 425 the instance application, not just those which feature certification 426 exchange. 428 For applications implementing certification exchange, the CEM- 429 Feature-Name MUST be used within the EDIINT Features header: 431 CEM-Feature-Name = "CEM" 433 An example of the EDIINT Features header in a CEM Message: 435 EDIINT�Features: CEM 437 2.3 438 Certificate Exchanging 439 After obtaining the desired certificate, the initiator of the 440 certificate exchange transmits the end-entity certificate in the CEM 441 Request message. If the end-entity certificate is not self-signed, 442 then the CA certificate and any other certificates needed to create 443 the chain of trust for the end-entity certificate MUST be included in 444 the CEM Request message. Multiple end-entity certificates MAY also be 445 present. 447 The entire certificate trust chain is stored in a BER encoded P7C 448 format [REFERENCE LIKELY NEEDED] and placed within the SMIME certs- 449 only MIME envelope which is then stored in a single part of the 450 multipart/related structure. Each P7C trust chain MUST include a 451 single end-entity certificate and its trust authorities. No other 452 certificates are to be part of this chain. The number of P7C trust 453 chains in a CEM Request message MUST be equal to the number of end- 454 entity certificates being communicated in the CEM XML document. 455 If different end-entity certificates have common trust authorities� 456 certificates, each P7C cert chain still MUST include each certificate 457 necessary to create a trust anchor. Thus, if a recipient can not 458 create a trust relationship from the P7C cert chain, it MAY reject 459 the end-entity certificate in the CEM Request. 461 End-entity certificates are referenced and identified in the XML data 462 by their content-id used in the multipart/related structure. 463 Information on how the certificate is to be used, or certificate 464 usage, by the receiving user agent and other related information is 465 found in the XML data. A certificate can be used for a single 466 function, like digital signatures, or used for multiple functions, 467 such as both digital signatures and data encryption. If a certificate 468 is intended for multiple usages, such as for both digital signatures 469 and data encryption, the certificate MUST be listed only once in the 470 CEM Request message and its multiple usage listed through the 471 CertUsage XML element. 473 Upon receipt of the CEM Request, the recipient trading partner 474 processes the transport message as normal and returns the MDN. The 475 recipient MAY parse the CEM XML data prior to returning the MDN. If 476 the XML is not well�formed and can not be interpreted, the UA MAY 477 return the MDN with the error disposition modifier of "error: 478 unexpected-processing-error". The returned MDN does not provide 479 information on the acceptance of the certificate(s) being exchanged. 480 An UA who receives an MDN with an error disposition modifier MUST 481 consider the CEM Message was not understood and needs to be corrected 482 and retransmitted. 484 2.4 485 Certificate Implementation 486 The new certificate is considered to be in the Pending state for the 487 recipient who MUST decide whether to accept the certificate as 488 trustworthy. This decision is arbitrary and left to each individual 489 trading partner. Upon accepting the certificate, it is to be 490 considered an Accepted certificate within the trading partner 491 relationship. If the certificate is not accepted, it is considered 492 Rejected. 494 When a certificate is intended for use in data encryption, the 495 initiator MUST consider the certificate to be Accepted and be 496 prepared for its trading partner to begin using the certificate upon 497 generating the CEM Request message. After a recipient generates a 498 positive CEM Response message for a certificate, the recipient MUST 499 immediately begin using the certificate in trading with the initiator 500 of the request. The recipient MAY apply encryption to the CEM 501 Response message using the new Accepted certificate or MAY apply 502 encryption to the CEM Response message using the previously Accepted 503 encryption certificate. 505 When a certificate is intended for use in digital signatures or 506 TLS/SSL authentication, the initiator MUST NOT use the certificate 507 until the recipient trading partner generates a CEM Response 508 accepting the certificate or the respond by date, which is listed in 509 the RespondByDate XML element. The initiator MAY use the certificate 510 after the respond by date, regardless of whether the partner has 511 accepted it or not. The certificate used for the digital signature of 512 the CEM Request message MUST be the one which is currently Accepted 513 within the trading partner relationship. 515 Since implementers of EDIINT often use the same certificate with 516 multiple trading partners, implementers of CEM MUST be able to keep 517 both the old and new certificates as Accepted. If the initiator has 518 generated a CEM Request and exchanged a new encryption certificate to 519 multiple trading partners, it MUST be able to accept encrypted data 520 which uses either the older, existing encryption certificate or the 521 newly exchanged encryption certificate. Likewise, a recipient of a 522 CEM Request MUST be able to authenticate digital signatures using 523 either the new or old certificates, since the initiator may not be 524 able to switch certificates until all trading partners accept the new 525 certificate. Similar provisions MUST be made for certificates 526 intended for TLS/SSL server and client authentication. Revoking a 527 certificate MUST be done outside of CEM. 529 If a CEM Request message contains a certificate which is currently 530 Accepted and has the identical usage for the certificate that has 531 been Accepted, the recipient MUST NOT reject the duplicate 532 certificate but MUST respond with a CEM Response message indicating 533 the certificate has been accepted. For example, if Certificate A is 534 currently Accepted as the encryption certificate for a user agent, 535 any CEM Request message containing Certificate A with the usage as 536 encryption only MUST be accepted by an existing trading partner. This 537 situation may be necessary for an implementation intending to verify 538 its current trading partner certificate. 540 If two trading partners utilize multiple EDIINT protocols for 541 trading, such as AS2 for a primary transport and AS1 as the backup 542 transport, it is dependent upon implementation and trading partner 543 agreement how CEM messages are sent and which transports the 544 exchanged certificates affect. 546 2.5 547 CEM Response 549 The CEM Response message is a multipart/related envelope which 550 contains the CEM XML under the MIME type of application/ediint-cert- 551 exchange+xml. If a requestId is used in a CEM Request, then the 552 requestId MUST be present in the CEM Response with the same value. 553 The requestId allows for the CEM Response to be matched to the CEM 554 Request. If the CEM Request contains multiple TrustRequest elements 555 and the corresponding TrustResponse elements are returned in multiple 556 CEM Response messages, each CEM Response message MUST use the same 557 requestId from the originating CEM Request message. This is critical 558 when multiple CEM Requests are sent with the same certificate and the 559 CEM Response can not be matched solely through the TrustResponse 560 elements. 562 A TrustResponse XML element provides information needed to match the 563 end-entity certificate sent in an earlier CEM Request and indicate if 564 the certificate was accepted or rejected by the recipient. The 565 CertificateReference in a TrustResponse matches the 566 CertificateIdentifier value for the end-entity certificate in the CEM 567 Request. CertStatus indicates if the certificate was accepted or 568 rejected. If a CEM Request is received, the recipient MUST respond 569 with a CEM Response message indicating if the certificate is Accepted 570 or Rejected. More information about the XML attributes and value for 571 CEM Response can be found in 3.2. 573 If the certificate in the CEM Request message contains multiple 574 usages, such as for both digital signature and data encryption, only 575 a single TrustResponse is needed for that certificate. The CertStatus 576 value in the TrustResponse is the response for both usages of the 577 certificate. A recipient MUST NOT choose to accept the certificate 578 for one specified use and not the other. 580 If multiple end-entity certificates were included within the CEM 581 Request, the recipient MAY generate individual CEM Response messages 582 for each certificate or the recipient MAY consolidate the 583 TrustResponse for multiple certificates into one CEM Response 584 message. A CEM Response may contain multiple TrustResponse elements 585 for different certificates but MUST NOT contain two or more 586 TrustResponses for the same certificate. 588 If a second TrustResponse is received in a different message matching 589 the same certificate as that of an earlier TrustRespnse but the 590 CertStatus has a different value than the other, the originator MAY 591 accept the CertStatus value in the most recent TrustResponse but MAY 592 choose to ignore it. If the CertStatus in both TrustResponses are the 593 same, the originator should disregard the second TrustResponse. 595 If the originator receives a CEM Response message which violates the 596 rules listed above or is invalid in any way, the originator MAY 597 reject the message entirely but MUST return an MDN if requested. 599 3. 600 CEM XML Schema Description 602 The CEM schema has two top-level elements, 603 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest and 604 EDIINTCertificateExchangeResponse. The 605 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest element is present only in the CEM 606 Request message, and the EDIINTCertificateExchangeResponse is present 607 only in the CEM Response message. All other elements nest directly or 608 indirectly from these. CEM XML data must be well�formed and valid 609 relative to the CEM XML Schema. Please refer to the appendix for the 610 actual schema document. 612 3.1 613 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest element 615 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest contains element TradingPartnerInfo, 616 which can only appear once, and TrustRequest, which may be present 617 multiple times. TrustRequest contains information on a certificate 618 and its intended usage. TradingPartnerInfo exists to provide 619 information on the publication of the CEM Request message since 620 processing of the XML data may occur apart from the handling of the 621 accompanying transport message, for example the AS2 request. 623 624 625 626 627 630 632 633 635 636 637 639 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest also contains the attribute 640 requestId. RequestId uniquely identifies each CEM Request message. 641 Its value MUST be between 1 and 255 characters. The requestId is 642 returned in the CEM Response message to assist the UA in matching the 643 CEM Response with the CEM Request. 645 646 647 648 649 650 652 An optional Extension element is also present along with the 653 anyAttribute attribute. They exist to provide future extendibility 654 for new features which may be developed but not yet defined within 655 CEM. They are present in several locations in the schema for this 656 future extendibility. 658 659 660 661 663 664 665 667 TradingPartnerInfo identifies the entity that created the CEM message 668 through the nested Name element. Both the qualifier attribute and the 669 element value of Name follow mandatory naming conventions. The 670 qualifier attribute is to be the transport standard utilized. For 671 example, "AS1", "AS2" or "AS3". The value of the Name element is the 672 same value in the From header utilized by the transport. For AS2 and 673 AS3, this is the value in the AS2�From and AS3�From headers, 674 respectively. For AS1, this is the value of the From header. If other 675 transports besides AS1, AS2, AS3 are used, the same naming convention 676 SHOULD be followed. 678 MessageOriginated is included in TradingPartnerInfo to identify the 679 time and date the message was created. The MessageOriginated date and 680 time values MUST follow XML standard dateTime type syntax and be 681 listed to at least the nearest second and expressed in local time 682 with UTC offset. For example, a message originating from the US 683 Eastern Standard timezone would use 2005-03-01T14:05:00-05:00. 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 694 695 696 697 698 699 701 702 703 704 706 The TrustRequest element contains the EndEntity, CertUsage, 707 RespondByDate and ResponseURL elements. The required EndEntity 708 element is found only once in a TrustRequest element and contains the 709 content-id reference to the end-entity certificate being exchanged. 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 719 720 721 723 EndEntity contains the nested elements of CertificateIdentifier and 724 CertificateContentID. CertificateContentID is a string element which 725 references the content-id of the multipart/related structure where 726 the certificate is stored. CertificateIdentifier comes from the XML 727 Signature schema namespace [XML-DSIG]. 729 730 731 734 735 737 738 739 741 CertificateIdentifier contains the string element X509IssuerName and 742 the integer element X509SerialNumber. X509SerialNumber is the 743 assigned serial number of the end entity certificate as it is listed. 744 X509IssuerName contains the issuer name information of the end-entity 745 certificate, such as common name, organization, etc. This information 746 MUST be described in a string format per the rules of RFC 2253 747 [RFC2253]. This results in the attributes within the Issuer Name to 748 be listed with their attribute type followed by an "=" and the 749 attribute value. Each attribute type and value are separated by a "," 750 and any escape characters in the value are preceded by a "\". Refer 751 to the appendix and the sample CEM Request message for an example of 752 the X509IssuerName. 754 755 756 757 758 759 761 CertUsage is an unbounded element which contains enumerated values on 762 how the exchanged certificate is to be used. There are enumerated 763 values for SMIME digital signatures (digitalSignature), SMIME data 764 encryption (keyEncipherment), the server certificate used in TLS 765 transport encryption (tlsServer) and the client certificate used in 766 TLS transport encryption (tlsClient). While the element is unbounded, 767 CertUsage only has a potential number of four occurrences due to the 768 limit of the enumerated values. 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 780 RespondByDate is a required element of the XML standard dateTime type 781 expressed in local time with UTC offset, which provides information 782 on when the certificate should be trusted, inserted into the trading 783 partner relationship and responded to by a CEM Response message. If 784 the certificate can not be trusted or inserted into the trading 785 partner relationship, the CEM Response message should still be 786 returned by the date indicated. 788 790 ResponseURL is an element which indicates where the CEM Response 791 message should be sent. This value takes precedence over the existing 792 inbound URL of the current trading partner relationship. The Response 793 MUST use the same transport protocol (AS1, AS2, or AS3) as the 794 Request. 795 797 3.2 798 EDIINTCertificateExchangeResponse element 800 EDIINTCertificateExchangeResponse contains the two elements 801 TradingPartnerInfo and TrustResponse and the attribute requestId. 802 TradingPartnerInfo, which is also found in 803 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest, describes the trading partner 804 generating this response message. TrustResponse provides information 805 on the acceptance of a previously sent end entity certificate. There 806 can be multiple TrustResponse elements within an 807 EDIINTCertificateExchangeResponse. The requestId is the same value 808 from a previously sent CEM Request message. The requestId from the 809 CEM Response is matched up with the CEM Request. 811 812 813 814 815 818 820 821 823 824 825 827 828 829 830 831 834 836 837 838 840 A TrustResponse element identifies a certificate which has been 841 previously exchanged within the trading partner relationship through 842 a CEM Request and now has been either accepted or rejected by the 843 partner. The CertificateReference element is of the same type as the 844 CertificateIdentifier element. A CertificateReference element in a 845 CEM Response MUST be identical to its CertificateIdentifier 846 counterpart in the associated CEM Request since they identify the 847 same certificate in question. 849 The required element CertStatus has the enumerated values of 850 "Accepted" or "Rejected". "Accepted" indicates the certificate was 851 trusted by the trading partner and is now ready for use within the 852 trading partner relationship, and "Rejected" indicates the 853 certificate is not trusted by the trading partner nor can it be 854 currently used with the trading partner relationship. If the value of 855 "Rejected" is chosen, the optional string element ReasonForRejection 856 may be included. If present, ReasonForRejection should contain a 857 brief description of why the certificate was not accepted. Since the 858 value for this element is not enumerated but open, it MUST be 859 interpreted through human means. 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 870 4. 871 Use Case Scenario 873 This scenario illustrates how the CEM Request and CEM Response 874 messages described in Section 2 and 3 can be used to exchange 875 certificates. The scenario is only illustrative and any differences 876 between it and the rules above should defer to the rules in Section 2 877 and 3. 879 Two trading partners, Alpha Arrows and Bravo Bows, have an 880 established trading partner relationship using AS2. Alpha Arrows is 881 using a single certificate, CertA, for both digital signatures and 882 data encryption. Alpha Arrows wants to issue a new certificate, 883 CertB, for digital signatures but keep CertA for data encryption. 885 Bravo Bows is using one certificate, Cert1, for digital signatures 886 and another certificate, Cert2, for data encryption. Bravo Bows wants 887 to introduce a new certificate, Cert3, for digital signature and a 888 new certificate, Cert4, for data encryption. 890 1. Alpha Arrows sends a CEM Request to Bravo Bows containing only 891 CertB. The CertUsage has a value of "digitalSignature". Bravo Bows 892 immediately returns the MDN but must make an internal security 893 decision before accepting CertB. 895 2. While waiting for a CEM Response, Alpha Arrows continues to send 896 AS2 messages to Bravo Bows which have been signed using CertA. The 897 messages originating from Bravo Bows are encrypted using CertA. 899 3. Eventually, Bravo Bows returns a CEM Response with the CertStatus 900 of "Accepted" for CertB. Upon receipt, an MDN is returned which is 901 signed using CertA. Bravo Bows MUST be able to accept the MDN if it 902 has a digital signature from either CertA or CertB as Alpha Arrows 903 may not be able to switch certificates simply upon receipt of the CEM 904 Response message without parsing the XML payload. Also, Alpha Arrows 905 may need to wait for CEM Responses from other trading partners before 906 switching to the new CertB. However, as soon as possible, Alpha 907 Arrows should use CertB exclusively for digital signatures. 909 4. Bravo Bows sends a CEM Request to Alpha Arrows containing both 910 Cert3 and Cert4. The CertUsage for Cert3 and Cert4 are 911 "digitalSignature" and "keyEncipherment", respectively. Alpha Arrows 912 returns an MDN immediately. Bravo Bows is now prepared to receive any 913 inbound messages encrypted by either Cert2 or Cert4, but all its 914 digital signatures are still done through Cert1. 916 5. Eventually, Alpha Arrows returns a single CEM Response message. It 917 contains two TrustResponse elements: one for Cert3 and another for 918 Cert4. The CertStatus for Cert3 is "Rejected" with the 919 ReasonForRejection field present and populated with the string 920 "KeyUsage value was incorrect". CertStatus for Cert4 was "Accepted." 921 Bravo Bows returns the MDN signed through Cert1. 923 6. Immediately after this, an AS2 message is received from Alpha 924 Arrows which is encrypted using Cert4, and Bravo Bows is able to 925 decrypt the message successfully. Because Alpha Arrows rejected 926 Cert3, Bravo Bows is only using Cert1 for digital signatures and 927 returns the MDN signed with Cert1. 929 7. After creating a new certificate, Cert5, which corrects the 930 previous keyUsage problem, Bravo Bows sends Cert5 in a CEM Request. 932 8. Shortly after this, Alpha Arrows sends a CEM Response message for 933 Cert5. It contains a CertStatus of "Accepted". This CEM Response 934 message was encrypted using Cert4, but Bravo Bows was prepared for 935 encryption from either Cert2 or Cert4. The message is processed and a 936 good MDN is returned signed with Cert1. While, Bravo Bows can now 937 sign messages to Alpha Arrows with either Cert1 or Cert5, Bravo Bows 938 should use Cert5 exclusively as soon as possible. 940 5. 941 Profile Exchange Messaging 943 CEM provides the means to exchange certificates among trading 944 partners. However, other profile information, such as URLs and 945 preferred security settings, is needed to create a trading partner 946 relationship. A future standard is needed to describe profile 947 descriptions and how they will be exchanged. The format for this 948 profile attachment is not defined in this specification but is 949 planned for a future document. It will build upon the existing CEM 950 protocol with profile information stored with XML data. Both 951 certificate and profile description information will be placed into a 952 multipart/related [RFC2387] body part entity. A possible format for a 953 profile description message is as follows: 955 Various EDIINT headers 956 EDIINT�Features: profile-exchange 957 Disposition-Notification-To: http://10.1.1.1:80/exchange/as2_company 958 Disposition-Notification-Options: signed-receipt-protocol=optional, 959 pkcs7-signature; signed-receipt-micalg=optional, sha1 960 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; 961 protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; boundary="--BOUNDARY1" 963 ----BOUNDARY1 964 Content-Type: multipart/related; 965 start=""; 966 type="application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml"; 967 boundary="--BOUNDARY2" 969 ----BOUNDARY2 970 Content-Type: application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml 971 Content-ID: 973 [CEM XML data] 974 ----BOUNDARY2 975 [Profile information attachment] 976 ----BOUNDARY2-- 977 ----BOUNDARY1 979 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature 981 [Digital Signature] 982 ----BOUNDARY1-- 984 6. 985 Implementation Considerations 987 This section contains various points to explain practical 988 implementation considerations. 990 � If the EDIINT transport message carrying a CEM Request or CEM 991 Response fails resulting in a negative MDN, the CEM message, its 992 contents and instructions are to be ignored. The User Agent receiving 993 the negative MDN is to consider the CEM message to be ignored and 994 retransmit as needed. 996 � While a single end�entity certificate can be only be used once in a 997 single CEM Request message, the same certificate can be sent multiple 998 times in multiple CEM Request messages. The requestId is used for 999 matching the CEM Request and CEM Response messages. 1001 � Certificate usage is cumulative. Thus, if a User Agent receives a 1002 valid CEM Request message with Certificate A with certUsage set to 1003 digitalSignature and then a second valid CEM Request message with 1004 Certificate A with certUsage set to keyEncipherment, then the User 1005 Agent MUST configure the certificate to be used both for 1006 digitalSignature and keyEncipherment. As well, if at a later time a 1007 valid CEM Request message is received with Certificate A with 1008 certUsage set only to digitalSignature, Certificate A is still valid 1009 for keyEncipherment. 1011 7. 1012 Future Considerations for CEM I�D 1013 This section contains ideas for consideration in future versions of 1014 CEM and addressed in the future. If deemed necessary, they will be 1015 added into the I�D else they will be removed. This section will be 1016 removed prior to RFC submission. 1018 � 1020 8. 1021 Security Considerations 1023 Certificate exchange is safe for transmitting. However, implementers 1024 SHOULD verify the received certificate to determine if it is truly 1025 from the stated originator through out-of-band means or whenever the 1026 request is not signed. 1028 9. 1029 IANA Considerations 1031 MIME Media type name: Application 1033 MIME subtype name: EDIINT-cert-exchange+xml 1035 Required parameters: None 1037 Optional parameters: This parameter has identical semantics to the 1038 charset parameter of the "application/xml" media type as specified 1039 in [RFC3023]. 1041 Encoding considerations: Identical to those of "application/xml" as 1042 described in [RFC3023], section 3.2. 1044 Security considerations: See section 6. 1046 Interoperability Considerations: See section 2.2 1048 Published specification: This document. 1050 Applications which use this media type: EDIINT applications, such as 1051 AS1, AS2 and AS3 implementations. 1053 Additional Information: None 1055 Intended Usage: Common 1057 Author/Change controller: See Author's section of this document. 1059 10. 1060 References 1061 10.1 1062 Normative References 1064 [AS1] RFC3335 "MIME-based Secure Peer-to-Peer Business Data 1065 Interchange over the Internet using SMTP", T. Harding, R. 1066 Drummond, C. Shih, 2002. 1068 [AS2] RFC4130 "MIME-based Secure Peer-to-Peer Business Data 1069 Interchange over the Internet using HTTP", D. Moberg, R. 1070 Drummond, 2005. 1072 [AS3] draft-ietf-ediint-as3-05.txt "MIME-based Secure Peer-to-Peer 1073 Business Data Interchange over the Internet using FTP", T. 1074 Harding, R. Scott, 2003. 1076 [EDIINT FEATURE] draft-meadors-ediint-feature-header-01.txt "Feature 1077 Header for EDI-INT", K. Meadors, 2006. 1079 [RFC2119] RFC2119 "Key Words for Use in RFC's to Indicate Requirement 1080 Levels", S.Bradner, March 1997. 1082 [RFC2246] RFC2246 "The TLS Protocol", Dierks, T. and C. Allen, 1083 January 1999. 1085 [RFC2253] RFC2253 "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 1086 String Representation of Distinguished Names", M. Wahl, S. Kille 1087 and T. Howes, Decemeber 1997. 1089 [RFC2387] RFC2387 "The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type", E. 1090 Levinson, August 1998. 1092 [RFC2828] RFC2828 "Internet Security Glossary", R. Shirley, May 2000. 1094 [RFC3023] RFC3023 "XML Media Types", M. Murata, January 2001. 1096 [XML-DSIG] RFC3275 "XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", D. 1097 Eastlake, March 2002. 1099 [X.520] ITU-T Recommendation X.520: Information Technology - Open 1100 Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Selected Attribute 1101 Types, 1993. 1103 [PROFILE] Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W. and D. Solo, "Internet 1104 X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Certificate and CRL Profile", 1105 RFC 3280, April 2002. 1107 10.2 1108 Informative References 1110 11. 1111 Acknowledgments 1113 The authors wish to extend gratitude to the ecGIF sub-committee 1114 within the GS1 organization from which this effort began. Many have 1115 contributed to the development of this specification, but some 1116 deserve special recognition. John Duker who chaired the sub-committee 1117 and provided valuable editing. John Koehring with his work on the 1118 reference ID and shared important insights on implementation. Aaron 1119 Gomez in the coordinating of vendors testing CEM. Richard Bigelow who 1120 greatly assisted development of the ideas presented, and Debra Petta 1121 for her review and comments. 1123 Author's Addresses 1125 Kyle Meadors 1126 Drummond Group Inc. 1127 4700 Bryant Irvin Court, Suite 303 1128 Fort Worth, TX 76107 USA 1129 Email: kyle@drummondgroup.com 1130 Dale Moberg 1131 Axway, Inc. 1132 8388 E. Hartford Drive, Suite 100 1133 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 USA 1134 Email: dmoberg@us.axway.com 1136 Copyright Notice 1137 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 1139 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 1140 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 1141 retain all their rights. 1143 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 1144 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 1145 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 1146 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 1147 OR IMPLIED,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 1148 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 1149 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1151 Appendix 1153 A.1 EDIINT Certificate Exchange XML Schema 1155 1156 1162 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1170 1172 1173 1175 1176 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1185 1187 1188 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1243 1244 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1266 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1276 1278 1279 1280 1282 A.2 Example of EDIINT Certificate Exchange Request XML 1284 1285 1290 1291 DGI_Test_CEM 1292 1293 2005-08-30T00:30:00-05:00 1294 1295 1296 keyEncipherment 1297 digitalSignature 1298 2005-09-30T12:00:00-05:00 1299 http://10.1.1.1/as2 1300 1301 1302 CN=Cleo- 1303 SP,E=as2selfpacedsupport@drummondgroup.com,O=DGI,OU=DGI,L=Ft. 1304 Worth,S=Texas,C=US 1305 9659684611094873474886 1306 1307 1308 SignEncCert-Example_vs02@example.org 1309 1310 1311 1312 tlsServer 1313 2005-09-30T12:00:00-05:00 1314 http://10.1.1.1/as2 1315 1316 1317 CN=VeriSign Class 1 CA Individual 1318 Subscriber-Persona Not Validated,OU=www.verisign.com/repository/RPA 1319 Incorp. By Ref.\,LIAB.LTD(c)98,OU=VeriSign Trust Network,O=VeriSign\, 1320 Inc. 1321 2673611014597817669550861744279966682 1323 1324 1325 SSLCert-Example_vs02@example.org 1326 1328 1329 1331 A.3 Example of EDIINT Certificate Exchange Response XML 1333 1334 1339 1340 DGI_Test_CEM_Trading_Partner 1341 1342 2005-08-31T00:21:00-05:00 1343 1344 1345 Accepted 1346 1347 CN=Cleo- 1348 SP,E=as2selfpacedsupport@drummondgroup.com,O=DGI,OU=DGI,L=Ft. 1349 Worth,S=Texas,C=US 1350 9659684611094873474886 1351 1352 1353 1354 Accepted 1355 1356 CN=VeriSign Class 1 CA Individual 1357 Subscriber-Persona Not Validated,OU=www.verisign.com/repository/RPA 1358 Incorp. By Ref.\,LIAB.LTD(c)98,OU=VeriSign Trust Network,O=VeriSign\, 1359 Inc. 1360 2673611014597817669550861744279966682 1362 1363 1364 1366 Changes from Previous Versions 1368 B.1 Updates from Version 00 1370 . Updated security requirements in section 2.1, specifically in 1371 regards to digital signatures. 1372 . The XML element responseURL is now required. Modified section 1373 3.1 and example messages in appendix accordingly. 1374 . Certificates are exchanged within a full P7C cert chain. Section 1375 2.3 reflects this. 1377 . The XML element TrustChain is not longer necessary since the 1378 entire cert chain is stored. Removed references in schema and 1379 document. 1380 . Added statement in 2.5 that multiple CEM Responses SHOULD NOT be 1381 sent and that if this occurs, the action of the CEM Request 1382 initiator is not defined. 1383 . Updated the examples in Appendix B to reflect the current usage. 1385 B.2 Updates from Version 01 1387 . Added information for handling different scenarios with CEM 1388 Response message. 1389 . Rewrote use case scenarios. 1390 . Added the EDIINT Features header information. 1392 B.3 Updates from Version 02 1394 . Modified use of SSL certificates to match real�world needs. 1395 . Modified schema in changing namespace value and removed schema 1396 location. 1397 . Added statement that CEM XML must be well�formed and valid to 1398 schema. 1399 . Modified Use Case to correct an error and improve clarity. 1400 . Added section 1.4 to describe CEM process. 1402 B.4 Updates from Version 03 1403 . None. Update done because vs03 expired. 1405 B.5 Updates from Version 04 1406 . Clarified requirement of using multipart/related for CEM 1407 Response. 1408 . Added sections on Implementation Considerations and Future 1409 Implementation. 1410 . Modified schema to allow future extensions. 1411 . Changed requirements on qualifier attribute in the Name 1412 element. 1413 . Changed functionality to allow error MDN to be returned when 1414 CEM XML can not be parsed. 1416 B.6 Updates from Version 05 1417 . Added requestId to CEM. 1418 . Removed normative reference to RFC 3821.