idnits 2.17.1 draft-meadors-certificate-exchange-09.txt: -(160): 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-09' == There are 6 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 29 pages 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 (July 2008) is 5757 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 341 == Missing Reference: 'EDIINT-FEATURE' is mentioned on line 423, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'EDIINT FEATURE' is defined on line 1075, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 1078, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2246' is defined on line 1081, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'PROFILE' is defined on line 1102, 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 (~~), 11 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 08.txt Axway, Inc. 5 Expires: January 2009 July 2008 7 Certificate Exchange Messaging for EDIINT 8 draft-meadors-certificate-exchange-09.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...................................29 114 B.7 Updates from Version 06/07................................29 116 1. 117 Introduction 119 1.1 120 Overview 122 The growth and acceptance of EDIINT protocols, AS1, AS2 and AS3, in 123 numerous supply-chains was due in part to the security feature which 124 was provided. The security is not possible without the digital 125 certificates which enable it. To maintain the level of security 126 necessary to transmit business documentation, existing certificates 127 must occasionally be replaced and exchanged with newer ones. The 128 exchanging of digital certificates is unavoidable given how 129 certificates can expire or become compromised. Complicating this is 130 supply-chains which cannot afford to shutdown their business 131 transactions while trading partners laboriously upload new 132 certificates. Certificate exchange must be accomplished in a reliable 133 and seamless format so as not to affect ongoing business 134 transactions. 136 This document describes how EDIINT products may exchange public-key 137 certificates. Since EDIINT is built upon the security provided by 138 public-private key pairs, it is vital that implementers are able to 139 update their trading partners with new certificates as their old 140 certificates expire, become outdated or insecure. Certificate 141 Exchange Messaging (CEM) described here utilizes XML data to exchange 142 the certificate and provide information on its intended usage and 143 acceptance within the trading partner relationship. There are two 144 types of CEM messages. The CEM Request which presents the new 145 certificate to be introduced into the trading partner relationship 146 and the CEM Response which is the recipient�s response to the CEM 147 Request. CE messages can be exchanged through AS1 [AS1], AS2 [AS2] or 148 AS3 [AS3] message transports. However, it is possible to leverage CE 149 messaging through other transport standards besides EDIINT. 151 1.2 152 Terminology and Key Word Convention 154 [RFC2828] provides a glossary of Internet security terms, and several 155 of their definitions are listed here verbatim. However, some 156 definitions required for this document were undefined by [RFC2828] or 157 rewritten to better explain their specific use within CEM. 159 Certificate - A digital certificate contains the owner�s (End 160 Entity�s) name, the issuer�s name, a serial number, expiration date, 161 and a copy of the owner�s Public Key. The Public Key is used for 162 Encrypting messages and Verifying Signatures (verifying a signature 163 is also called Authentication). 165 Certificate Revocation List (CRL) - A data structure that enumerates 166 digital certificates that have been invalidated by their issuer prior 167 to when they were scheduled to expire. [RFC2828] 169 Certification Authority (CA) - An entity that issues digital 170 certificates (especially X.509 certificates) and vouches for the 171 binding between the data items in a certificate. [RFC2828] 173 CA Certificate - A certificate issued by a trusted certification 174 authority. CA certificates are not used to encrypt data but to sign 175 other certificates. CA certificates are signed by themselves, but are 176 not considered self-signed certificates for the purpose of this 177 document. 179 Certification Hierarchy - In this structure, one CA is the top CA, 180 the highest level of the hierarchy. The top CA may issue public-key 181 certificates to one or more additional CAs that form the second 182 highest level. Each of these CAs may issue certificates to more CAs 183 at the third highest level, and so on. The CAs at the second-lowest 184 of the hierarchy issue certificates only to non-CA entities, called 185 "end entities" that form the lowest level. Thus, all certification 186 paths begin at the top CA and descend through zero or more levels of 187 other CAs. All certificate users base path validations on the top 188 CA's public key. [RFC2828] 190 CEM Request - The EDIINT Certificate Exchange Messaging (CEM) Request 191 is one of two possible CEM messages. It presents a certificate to be 192 introduced into the trading partner relationship along with relevant 193 information on how it is to be implemented. 195 CEM Response - The EDIINT Certificate Exchange Messaging (CEM) 196 Response is one of two possible CEM messages. It is the response to 197 the CEM Request indicating whether or not the end entity certificate 198 present in the CEM Request was accepted. 200 End Entity - A system entity that is the subject of a public-key 201 certificate and that is using, or is permitted and able to use, the 202 matching private key only for a purpose or purposes other than 203 signing a digital certificate; i.e., an entity that is not a CA. 204 [RFC2828] 206 End Entity Certificate - A certificate which is used to encrypt data 207 or authenticate a signature. (The private key associated with the 208 certificate is used to decrypt data or sign data). The certificate 209 may be self-signed or issued by a trusted certificate. 211 Intermediary Certificate - A certificate issued by a CA certificate 212 which itself issues another certificate (either intermediary or end 213 entity). Intermediary certificates are not used to encrypt data but 214 to sign other certificates. 216 Public Key - The publicly-disclosable component of a pair of 217 cryptographic keys used for asymmetric cryptography. [RFC2828] 219 Public Key Certificate - A digital certificate that binds a system 220 entity's identity to a public key value, and possibly to additional 221 data items. [RFC2828] 223 Self-signed Certificate - A certificate which is issued by itself 224 (both issuer and subject are the same) and is an End Entity 225 certificate. 227 1.3 228 Certificate Lifecycle 230 A certificate has five states. 232 1. Pending - Upon receiving a certificate from a trading partner, the 233 certificate is marked as Pending until a decision can be made to 234 trust it or if its validity period has not yet begun. 235 2. Rejected - If a Pending certificate is not trusted, it is 236 considered Rejected. 237 3. Accepted - Once a Pending certificate has been trusted, it is 238 considered Accepted. An Accepted certificate may be used in 239 secure transactions. 240 4. Expired - A certificate which is no longer valid because its 241 expiration date has passed. Expired certificates SHOULD be kept 242 in a certificate storehouse for decrypting and validating past 243 transactions. 245 5. Revoked - A certificate which has been explicitly revoked by its 246 owner or the certificate authority. 248 1.4 249 Certificate Exchange Process 251 This section describes a process whereby a company can distribute 252 certificates to its partners, and the company and its partners can 253 put the certificates into use. Later sections describe the specific 254 CEM protocol, which is an implementation of this process. 256 The exchange process can be used even when CEM is not useable, for 257 example, when the transport protocols or installed software systems 258 do not support CEM. It is RECOMMENDED that this process be followed 259 in distributing certificates. 261 The company that owns the certificates initiates the process. For a 262 certificate that is to be used (by the partners) to encrypt messages, 263 the initiator first prepares his system to decrypt messages that are 264 encrypted with this certificate. The initiator must also be able to 265 decrypt messages using the old certificate. The initiator company 266 distributes the new certificates by some means. The distribution MUST 267 describe the purposes of the certificates and MAY contain a respond 268 by date, the date when the distributor expects to put the 269 certificates in use. The respond by date SHOULD be present for 270 certificates that are used to sign messages or to authenticate 271 TLS/SSL connections. 273 When a partner receives a certificate, the partner should 274 authenticate the distribution message by some means. (CEM provides 275 for automatic authentication. Partners can use manual methods, 276 either with or without CEM.) 278 When a partner receives a certificate for use in encrypting messages 279 and has authenticated the certificate, the partner SHOULD begin 280 using that certificate to encrypt messages. The initiator MUST be 281 prepared to receive messages encrypted with either the old or new 282 certificate. 284 When a partner receives a certificate for use in digitally signing 285 messages or for TLS/SSL authentication and has authenticated the 286 certificate, the partner MUST prepare his system to accept messages 287 that are signed or authenticated with the new certificate. The 288 partner MUST also accept messages signed or authenticated with the 289 old certificate. 291 The partner MAY return a response to the initiator, indicating that 292 the partner has accepted the new certificate and put it in use. The 293 initiator can use these responses to track which partners are ready 294 to use the new certificate. 296 When the partner has sent a response indicating acceptance of the new 297 certificate, or when the respond by date has passed, the initiator 298 can begin using the new certificate to digitally sign messages or 299 authenticate TLS/SSL messages. The initiator MUST NOT sign or 300 authenticate messages with the new certificate until the partner has 301 accepted it or until the respond by date has passed. The initiator 302 MAY wait until the respond by date or until all partners have 303 accepted. The partners MUST accept messages signed or authenticated 304 with either the old or new certificate. 306 When the process is fully automated, it is not necessary to have a 307 specific time when both the initiator and partners switch to the new 308 certificate. 310 The initiator MUST be able to decrypt messages with both the old and 311 new certificates as soon as the new certificates are distributed. 312 The partners MUST be able to accept messages signed or TLS/SSL 313 authenticated with either the old or new certificates after they have 314 accepted the new certificate. The initiator SHOULD allow a 315 reasonable time after distributing a new signing or authenticating 316 certificate before putting it in use, so that partners have time to 317 authenticate the new certificate and prepare their systems for it. 319 For a certificate used to digitally sign messages or authenticate 320 TLS/SSL messages, there must be some way for the initiator to know 321 when partners are ready to receive the certificate. For example, this 322 may be a response from the partners, an explicit respond by date in 323 the initial distribution, an implied respond by date based on partner 324 agreements, or the expiration date of the old certificate. For a 325 certificate used to encrypt messages, the respond by date and 326 responses are less important, but responses may be useful to track 327 partners� acceptances. 329 2. 330 Message Processing 332 2.1 333 Message Structure 335 CEM messages use the underlying EDIINT transport, such as AS2, to 336 communicate information on the certificate, its intended use and its 337 acceptance. Both digital certificates and the XML data describing 338 their intended use are stored within a multipart/related MIME 339 envelope [RFC2387]. For the CEM Request message, the certificates are 340 stored in certificate chains through SMIME, certs-only MIME envelope 341 [3851], and processing information is XML data which is identified 342 through the MIME content-type of application/ediint-cert- 343 exchange+xml. The format for a CEM Request message is as follows: 345 Various EDIINT headers 346 Disposition-Notification-To: http://10.1.1.1:80/exchange/as2-company 347 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; 348 protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; 349 boundary="--OUTER-BOUNDARY" 351 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY 352 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="application/ediint-cert- 353 exchange+xml"; boundary="--INNER-BOUNDARY" 355 ----INNER-BOUNDARY 356 Content-Type: application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml 357 Content-ID: <20040101-1.alpha@example.org> 359 [CEM XML data] 360 ----INNER-BOUNDARY 361 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=certs-only 362 Content-ID: <20040101-2.alpha@example.org> 364 [digital certificate] 365 ----INNER-BOUNDARY-- 367 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY 368 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature 370 [Digital Signature] 371 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY-- 373 One and only one MIME type of application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml 374 MUST be present in the multipart/related structure, and it MUST be 375 the root element. Multiple certs-only media types may be included, 376 but at least one MUST be present. A unique content-id header MUST be 377 present within each of the multipart structures. 379 For the CEM Response message, a multipart/related MIME structure is 380 also used. However, no certificates are present in a CEM Response, 381 and the multipart/related structure only contains one MIME type of 382 application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml. The format for a CEM Request 383 message is as follows: 385 Various EDIINT headers 386 Disposition-Notification-To: http://10.1.1.1:80/exchange/as2-company 387 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; 388 protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; 389 boundary="--OUTER-BOUNDARY" 391 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY 392 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="application/ediint-cert- 393 exchange+xml"; boundary="--INNER-BOUNDARY" 395 ----INNER-BOUNDARY 396 Content-Type: application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml 397 Content-ID: <20040201-1.alpha@example.org> 399 [CEM XML data] 400 ----INNER-BOUNDARY-- 402 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY 403 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature 405 [Digital Signature] 406 ----OUTER-BOUNDARY-- 408 If possible, both the CEM Request and CEM Response message SHOULD be 409 signed. Applying digital signatures will allow for automatic exchange 410 based on a previous trust relationship. However, it may not be 411 possible in the initial exchange of a new trading partner. If a CEM 412 message is signed, the signing certificate MUST be included in the 413 digital signature. Extra security such as applying data encryption or 414 compression is OPTIONAL. Also, CEM messages SHOULD request a MDN and 415 SHOULD request a signed MDN. The MDN can be either synchronous or 416 asynchronous. All necessary headers MUST be applied to the message 417 per the underlying transport standard. 419 2.2 420 EDIINT Features Header 422 To indicate support for CEM, an EDIINT application MUST use the 423 EDIINT Features header [EDIINT-FEATURE]. The Feature Header indicates 424 the instance application can support various features, such as 425 certification exchange. The header is present in all messages from 426 the instance application, not just those which feature certification 427 exchange. 429 For applications implementing certification exchange, the CEM- 430 Feature-Name MUST be used within the EDIINT Features header: 432 CEM-Feature-Name = "CEM" 434 An example of the EDIINT Features header in a CEM Message: 436 EDIINT-Features: CEM 438 2.3 439 Certificate Exchanging 440 After obtaining the desired certificate, the initiator of the 441 certificate exchange transmits the end-entity certificate in the CEM 442 Request message. If the end-entity certificate is not self-signed, 443 then the CA certificate and any other certificates needed to create 444 the chain of trust for the end-entity certificate MUST be included in 445 the CEM Request message. Multiple end-entity certificates MAY also be 446 present. 448 The entire certificate trust chain is stored in a BER encoded P7C 449 format [REFERENCE LIKELY NEEDED] and placed within the SMIME certs- 450 only MIME envelope which is then stored in a single part of the 451 multipart/related structure. Each P7C trust chain MUST include a 452 single end-entity certificate and its trust authorities. No other 453 certificates are to be part of this chain. The number of P7C trust 454 chains in a CEM Request message MUST be equal to the number of end- 455 entity certificates being communicated in the CEM XML document. 456 If different end-entity certificates have common trust authorities� 457 certificates, each P7C cert chain still MUST include each certificate 458 necessary to create a trust anchor. Thus, if a recipient can not 459 create a trust relationship from the P7C cert chain, it MAY reject 460 the end-entity certificate in the CEM Request. 462 End-entity certificates are referenced and identified in the XML data 463 by their content-id used in the multipart/related structure. 464 Information on how the certificate is to be used, or certificate 465 usage, by the receiving user agent and other related information is 466 found in the XML data. A certificate can be used for a single 467 function, like digital signatures, or used for multiple functions, 468 such as both digital signatures and data encryption. If a certificate 469 is intended for multiple usages, such as for both digital signatures 470 and data encryption, the certificate MUST be listed only once in the 471 CEM Request message and its multiple usage listed through the 472 CertUsage XML element. 474 Upon receipt of the CEM Request, the recipient trading partner 475 processes the transport message as normal and returns the MDN. The 476 recipient MAY parse the CEM XML data prior to returning the MDN. If 477 the XML is not well-formed and can not be interpreted, the UA MAY 478 return the MDN with the error disposition modifier of "error: 479 unexpected-processing-error". The returned MDN does not provide 480 information on the acceptance of the certificate(s) being exchanged. 481 An UA who receives an MDN with an error disposition modifier MUST 482 consider the CEM Message was not understood and needs to be corrected 483 and retransmitted. 485 2.4 486 Certificate Implementation 487 The new certificate is considered to be in the Pending state for the 488 recipient who MUST decide whether to accept the certificate as 489 trustworthy. This decision is arbitrary and left to each individual 490 trading partner. Upon accepting the certificate, it is to be 491 considered an Accepted certificate within the trading partner 492 relationship. If the certificate is not accepted, it is considered 493 Rejected. 495 When a certificate is intended for use in data encryption, the 496 initiator MUST consider the certificate to be Accepted and be 497 prepared for its trading partner to begin using the certificate upon 498 generating the CEM Request message. After a recipient generates a 499 positive CEM Response message for a certificate, the recipient MUST 500 immediately begin using the certificate in trading with the initiator 501 of the request. The recipient MAY apply encryption to the CEM 502 Response message using the new Accepted certificate or MAY apply 503 encryption to the CEM Response message using the previously Accepted 504 encryption certificate. 506 When a certificate is intended for use in digital signatures or 507 TLS/SSL authentication, the initiator MUST NOT use the certificate 508 until the recipient trading partner generates a CEM Response 509 accepting the certificate or the respond by date, which is listed in 510 the RespondByDate XML element. The initiator MAY use the certificate 511 after the respond by date, regardless of whether the partner has 512 accepted it or not. The certificate used for the digital signature of 513 the CEM Request message MUST be the one which is currently Accepted 514 within the trading partner relationship. 516 Since implementers of EDIINT often use the same certificate with 517 multiple trading partners, implementers of CEM MUST be able to keep 518 both the old and new certificates as Accepted. If the initiator has 519 generated a CEM Request and exchanged a new encryption certificate to 520 multiple trading partners, it MUST be able to accept encrypted data 521 which uses either the older, existing encryption certificate or the 522 newly exchanged encryption certificate. Likewise, a recipient of a 523 CEM Request MUST be able to authenticate digital signatures using 524 either the new or old certificates, since the initiator may not be 525 able to switch certificates until all trading partners accept the new 526 certificate. Similar provisions MUST be made for certificates 527 intended for TLS/SSL server and client authentication. Revoking a 528 certificate MUST be done outside of CEM. 530 If a CEM Request message contains a certificate which is currently 531 Accepted and has the identical usage for the certificate that has 532 been Accepted, the recipient MUST NOT reject the duplicate 533 certificate but MUST respond with a CEM Response message indicating 534 the certificate has been accepted. For example, if Certificate A is 535 currently Accepted as the encryption certificate for a user agent, 536 any CEM Request message containing Certificate A with the usage as 537 encryption only MUST be accepted by an existing trading partner. This 538 situation may be necessary for an implementation intending to verify 539 its current trading partner certificate. 541 If two trading partners utilize multiple EDIINT protocols for 542 trading, such as AS2 for a primary transport and AS1 as the backup 543 transport, it is dependent upon implementation and trading partner 544 agreement how CEM messages are sent and which transports the 545 exchanged certificates affect. 547 2.5 548 CEM Response 550 The CEM Response message is a multipart/related envelope which 551 contains the CEM XML under the MIME type of application/ediint-cert- 552 exchange+xml. If a requestId is used in a CEM Request, then the 553 requestId MUST be present in the CEM Response with the same value. 554 The requestId allows for the CEM Response to be matched to the CEM 555 Request. If the CEM Request contains multiple TrustRequest elements 556 and the corresponding TrustResponse elements are returned in multiple 557 CEM Response messages, each CEM Response message MUST use the same 558 requestId from the originating CEM Request message. This is critical 559 when multiple CEM Requests are sent with the same certificate and the 560 CEM Response can not be matched solely through the TrustResponse 561 elements. 563 A TrustResponse XML element provides information needed to match the 564 end-entity certificate sent in an earlier CEM Request and indicate if 565 the certificate was accepted or rejected by the recipient. The 566 CertificateReference in a TrustResponse matches the 567 CertificateIdentifier value for the end-entity certificate in the CEM 568 Request. CertStatus indicates if the certificate was accepted or 569 rejected. If a CEM Request is received, the recipient MUST respond 570 with a CEM Response message indicating if the certificate is Accepted 571 or Rejected. More information about the XML attributes and value for 572 CEM Response can be found in 3.2. 574 If the certificate in the CEM Request message contains multiple 575 usages, such as for both digital signature and data encryption, only 576 a single TrustResponse is needed for that certificate. The CertStatus 577 value in the TrustResponse is the response for both usages of the 578 certificate. A recipient MUST NOT choose to accept the certificate 579 for one specified use and not the other. 581 If multiple end-entity certificates were included within the CEM 582 Request, the recipient MAY generate individual CEM Response messages 583 for each certificate or the recipient MAY consolidate the 584 TrustResponse for multiple certificates into one CEM Response 585 message. A CEM Response may contain multiple TrustResponse elements 586 for different certificates but MUST NOT contain two or more 587 TrustResponses for the same certificate. 589 If a second TrustResponse is received in a different message matching 590 the same certificate as that of an earlier TrustRespnse but the 591 CertStatus has a different value than the other, the originator MAY 592 accept the CertStatus value in the most recent TrustResponse but MAY 593 choose to ignore it. If the CertStatus in both TrustResponses are the 594 same, the originator should disregard the second TrustResponse. 596 If the originator receives a CEM Response message which violates the 597 rules listed above or is invalid in any way, the originator MAY 598 reject the message entirely but MUST return an MDN if requested. 600 3. 601 CEM XML Schema Description 603 The CEM schema has two top-level elements, 604 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest and 605 EDIINTCertificateExchangeResponse. The 606 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest element is present only in the CEM 607 Request message, and the EDIINTCertificateExchangeResponse is present 608 only in the CEM Response message. All other elements nest directly or 609 indirectly from these. CEM XML data must be well-formed and valid 610 relative to the CEM XML Schema. Please refer to the appendix for the 611 actual schema document. 613 3.1 614 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest element 616 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest contains element TradingPartnerInfo, 617 which can only appear once, and TrustRequest, which may be present 618 multiple times. TrustRequest contains information on a certificate 619 and its intended usage. TradingPartnerInfo exists to provide 620 information on the publication of the CEM Request message since 621 processing of the XML data may occur apart from the handling of the 622 accompanying transport message, for example the AS2 request. 624 625 626 627 628 631 633 634 636 637 638 640 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest also contains the attribute 641 requestId. RequestId uniquely identifies each CEM Request message. 642 Its value MUST be between 1 and 255 characters. The requestId is 643 returned in the CEM Response message to assist the UA in matching the 644 CEM Response with the CEM Request. 646 647 648 649 650 651 653 An optional Extension element is also present along with the 654 anyAttribute attribute. They exist to provide future extendibility 655 for new features which may be developed but not yet defined within 656 CEM. They are present in several locations in the schema for this 657 future extendibility. 659 660 661 662 664 665 666 668 TradingPartnerInfo identifies the entity that created the CEM message 669 through the nested Name element. Both the qualifier attribute and the 670 element value of Name follow mandatory naming conventions. The 671 qualifier attribute is to be the transport standard utilized. For 672 example, "AS1", "AS2" or "AS3". The value of the Name element is the 673 same value in the From header utilized by the transport. For AS2 and 674 AS3, this is the value in the AS2-From and AS3-From headers, 675 respectively. For AS1, this is the value of the From header. If other 676 transports besides AS1, AS2, AS3 are used, the same naming convention 677 SHOULD be followed. 679 MessageOriginated is included in TradingPartnerInfo to identify the 680 time and date the message was created. The MessageOriginated date and 681 time values MUST follow XML standard dateTime type syntax and be 682 listed to at least the nearest second and expressed in local time 683 with UTC offset. For example, a message originating from the US 684 Eastern Standard timezone would use 2005-03-01T14:05:00-05:00. 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 695 696 697 698 699 700 702 703 704 705 707 The TrustRequest element contains the EndEntity, CertUsage, 708 RespondByDate and ResponseURL elements. The required EndEntity 709 element is found only once in a TrustRequest element and contains the 710 content-id reference to the end-entity certificate being exchanged. 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 720 721 722 724 EndEntity contains the nested elements of CertificateIdentifier and 725 CertificateContentID. CertificateContentID is a string element which 726 references the content-id of the multipart/related structure where 727 the certificate is stored. CertificateIdentifier comes from the XML 728 Signature schema namespace [XML-DSIG]. 730 731 732 735 736 738 739 740 742 CertificateIdentifier contains the string element X509IssuerName and 743 the integer element X509SerialNumber. X509SerialNumber is the 744 assigned serial number of the end entity certificate as it is listed. 745 X509IssuerName contains the issuer name information of the end-entity 746 certificate, such as common name, organization, etc. This information 747 MUST be described in a string format per the rules of RFC 2253 748 [RFC2253]. This results in the attributes within the Issuer Name to 749 be listed with their attribute type followed by an "=" and the 750 attribute value. Each attribute type and value are separated by a "," 751 and any escape characters in the value are preceded by a "\". Refer 752 to the appendix and the sample CEM Request message for an example of 753 the X509IssuerName. 755 756 757 758 759 760 762 CertUsage is an unbounded element which contains enumerated values on 763 how the exchanged certificate is to be used. There are enumerated 764 values for SMIME digital signatures (digitalSignature), SMIME data 765 encryption (keyEncipherment), the server certificate used in TLS 766 transport encryption (tlsServer) and the client certificate used in 767 TLS transport encryption (tlsClient). While the element is unbounded, 768 CertUsage only has a potential number of four occurrences due to the 769 limit of the enumerated values. 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 781 RespondByDate is a required element of the XML standard dateTime type 782 expressed in local time with UTC offset, which provides information 783 on when the certificate should be trusted, inserted into the trading 784 partner relationship and responded to by a CEM Response message. If 785 the certificate can not be trusted or inserted into the trading 786 partner relationship, the CEM Response message should still be 787 returned by the date indicated. 789 791 ResponseURL is an element which indicates where the CEM Response 792 message should be sent. This value takes precedence over the existing 793 inbound URL of the current trading partner relationship. The Response 794 MUST use the same transport protocol (AS1, AS2, or AS3) as the 795 Request. 796 798 3.2 799 EDIINTCertificateExchangeResponse element 801 EDIINTCertificateExchangeResponse contains the two elements 802 TradingPartnerInfo and TrustResponse and the attribute requestId. 803 TradingPartnerInfo, which is also found in 804 EDIINTCertificateExchangeRequest, describes the trading partner 805 generating this response message. TrustResponse provides information 806 on the acceptance of a previously sent end entity certificate. There 807 can be multiple TrustResponse elements within an 808 EDIINTCertificateExchangeResponse. The requestId is the same value 809 from a previously sent CEM Request message. The requestId from the 810 CEM Response is matched up with the CEM Request. 812 813 814 815 816 819 821 822 824 825 826 828 829 830 831 832 835 837 838 839 841 A TrustResponse element identifies a certificate which has been 842 previously exchanged within the trading partner relationship through 843 a CEM Request and now has been either accepted or rejected by the 844 partner. The CertificateReference element is of the same type as the 845 CertificateIdentifier element. A CertificateReference element in a 846 CEM Response MUST be identical to its CertificateIdentifier 847 counterpart in the associated CEM Request since they identify the 848 same certificate in question. 850 The required element CertStatus has the enumerated values of 851 "Accepted" or "Rejected". "Accepted" indicates the certificate was 852 trusted by the trading partner and is now ready for use within the 853 trading partner relationship, and "Rejected" indicates the 854 certificate is not trusted by the trading partner nor can it be 855 currently used with the trading partner relationship. If the value of 856 "Rejected" is chosen, the optional string element ReasonForRejection 857 may be included. If present, ReasonForRejection should contain a 858 brief description of why the certificate was not accepted. Since the 859 value for this element is not enumerated but open, it MUST be 860 interpreted through human means. 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 871 4. 872 Use Case Scenario 874 This scenario illustrates how the CEM Request and CEM Response 875 messages described in Section 2 and 3 can be used to exchange 876 certificates. The scenario is only illustrative and any differences 877 between it and the rules above should defer to the rules in Section 2 878 and 3. 880 Two trading partners, Alpha Arrows and Bravo Bows, have an 881 established trading partner relationship using AS2. Alpha Arrows is 882 using a single certificate, CertA, for both digital signatures and 883 data encryption. Alpha Arrows wants to issue a new certificate, 884 CertB, for digital signatures but keep CertA for data encryption. 886 Bravo Bows is using one certificate, Cert1, for digital signatures 887 and another certificate, Cert2, for data encryption. Bravo Bows wants 888 to introduce a new certificate, Cert3, for digital signature and a 889 new certificate, Cert4, for data encryption. 891 1. Alpha Arrows sends a CEM Request to Bravo Bows containing only 892 CertB. The CertUsage has a value of "digitalSignature". Bravo Bows 893 immediately returns the MDN but must make an internal security 894 decision before accepting CertB. 896 2. While waiting for a CEM Response, Alpha Arrows continues to send 897 AS2 messages to Bravo Bows which have been signed using CertA. The 898 messages originating from Bravo Bows are encrypted using CertA. 900 3. Eventually, Bravo Bows returns a CEM Response with the CertStatus 901 of "Accepted" for CertB. Upon receipt, an MDN is returned which is 902 signed using CertA. Bravo Bows MUST be able to accept the MDN if it 903 has a digital signature from either CertA or CertB as Alpha Arrows 904 may not be able to switch certificates simply upon receipt of the CEM 905 Response message without parsing the XML payload. Also, Alpha Arrows 906 may need to wait for CEM Responses from other trading partners before 907 switching to the new CertB. However, as soon as possible, Alpha 908 Arrows should use CertB exclusively for digital signatures. 910 4. Bravo Bows sends a CEM Request to Alpha Arrows containing both 911 Cert3 and Cert4. The CertUsage for Cert3 and Cert4 are 912 "digitalSignature" and "keyEncipherment", respectively. Alpha Arrows 913 returns an MDN immediately. Bravo Bows is now prepared to receive any 914 inbound messages encrypted by either Cert2 or Cert4, but all its 915 digital signatures are still done through Cert1. 917 5. Eventually, Alpha Arrows returns a single CEM Response message. It 918 contains two TrustResponse elements: one for Cert3 and another for 919 Cert4. The CertStatus for Cert3 is "Rejected" with the 920 ReasonForRejection field present and populated with the string 921 "KeyUsage value was incorrect". CertStatus for Cert4 was "Accepted." 922 Bravo Bows returns the MDN signed through Cert1. 924 6. Immediately after this, an AS2 message is received from Alpha 925 Arrows which is encrypted using Cert4, and Bravo Bows is able to 926 decrypt the message successfully. Because Alpha Arrows rejected 927 Cert3, Bravo Bows is only using Cert1 for digital signatures and 928 returns the MDN signed with Cert1. 930 7. After creating a new certificate, Cert5, which corrects the 931 previous keyUsage problem, Bravo Bows sends Cert5 in a CEM Request. 933 8. Shortly after this, Alpha Arrows sends a CEM Response message for 934 Cert5. It contains a CertStatus of "Accepted". This CEM Response 935 message was encrypted using Cert4, but Bravo Bows was prepared for 936 encryption from either Cert2 or Cert4. The message is processed and a 937 good MDN is returned signed with Cert1. While, Bravo Bows can now 938 sign messages to Alpha Arrows with either Cert1 or Cert5, Bravo Bows 939 should use Cert5 exclusively as soon as possible. 941 5. 942 Profile Exchange Messaging 944 CEM provides the means to exchange certificates among trading 945 partners. However, other profile information, such as URLs and 946 preferred security settings, is needed to create a trading partner 947 relationship. A future standard is needed to describe profile 948 descriptions and how they will be exchanged. The format for this 949 profile attachment is not defined in this specification but is 950 planned for a future document. It will build upon the existing CEM 951 protocol with profile information stored with XML data. Both 952 certificate and profile description information will be placed into a 953 multipart/related [RFC2387] body part entity. A possible format for a 954 profile description message is as follows: 956 Various EDIINT headers 957 EDIINT-Features: profile-exchange 958 Disposition-Notification-To: http://10.1.1.1:80/exchange/as2_company 959 Disposition-Notification-Options: signed-receipt-protocol=optional, 960 pkcs7-signature; signed-receipt-micalg=optional, sha1 961 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; 962 protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; boundary="--BOUNDARY1" 964 ----BOUNDARY1 965 Content-Type: multipart/related; 966 start=""; 967 type="application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml"; 968 boundary="--BOUNDARY2" 970 ----BOUNDARY2 971 Content-Type: application/ediint-cert-exchange+xml 972 Content-ID: 974 [CEM XML data] 975 ----BOUNDARY2 976 [Profile information attachment] 977 ----BOUNDARY2-- 978 ----BOUNDARY1 980 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature 982 [Digital Signature] 983 ----BOUNDARY1-- 985 6. 986 Implementation Considerations 988 This section contains various points to explain practical 989 implementation considerations. 991 * If the EDIINT transport message carrying a CEM Request or CEM 992 Response fails resulting in a negative MDN, the CEM message, its 993 contents and instructions are to be ignored. The User Agent receiving 994 the negative MDN is to consider the CEM message to be ignored and 995 retransmit as needed. 997 * While a single end-entity certificate can be only be used once in a 998 single CEM Request message, the same certificate can be sent multiple 999 times in multiple CEM Request messages. The requestId is used for 1000 matching the CEM Request and CEM Response messages. 1002 * Certificate usage is cumulative. Thus, if a User Agent receives a 1003 valid CEM Request message with Certificate A with certUsage set to 1004 digitalSignature and then a second valid CEM Request message with 1005 Certificate A with certUsage set to keyEncipherment, then the User 1006 Agent MUST configure the certificate to be used both for 1007 digitalSignature and keyEncipherment. As well, if at a later time a 1008 valid CEM Request message is received with Certificate A with 1009 certUsage set only to digitalSignature, Certificate A is still valid 1010 for keyEncipherment. 1012 7. 1013 Future Considerations for CEM I-D 1014 This section contains ideas for consideration in future versions of 1015 CEM and addressed in the future. If deemed necessary, they will be 1016 added into the I-D else they will be removed. This section will be 1017 removed prior to RFC submission. 1019 8. 1020 Security Considerations 1022 Certificate exchange is safe for transmitting. However, implementers 1023 SHOULD verify the received certificate to determine if it is truly 1024 from the stated originator through out-of-band means or whenever the 1025 request is not signed. 1027 9. 1028 IANA Considerations 1030 MIME Media type name: Application 1032 MIME subtype name: EDIINT-cert-exchange+xml 1034 Required parameters: None 1036 Optional parameters: This parameter has identical semantics to the 1037 charset parameter of the "application/xml" media type as specified 1038 in [RFC3023]. 1040 Encoding considerations: Identical to those of "application/xml" as 1041 described in [RFC3023], section 3.2. 1043 Security considerations: See section 6. 1045 Interoperability Considerations: See section 2.2 1047 Published specification: This document. 1049 Applications which use this media type: EDIINT applications, such as 1050 AS1, AS2 and AS3 implementations. 1052 Additional Information: None 1054 Intended Usage: Common 1056 Author/Change controller: See Author's section of this document. 1058 10. 1059 References 1060 10.1 1061 Normative References 1063 [AS1] RFC3335 "MIME-based Secure Peer-to-Peer Business Data 1064 Interchange over the Internet using SMTP", T. Harding, R. 1065 Drummond, C. Shih, 2002. 1067 [AS2] RFC4130 "MIME-based Secure Peer-to-Peer Business Data 1068 Interchange over the Internet using HTTP", D. Moberg, R. 1069 Drummond, 2005. 1071 [AS3] draft-ietf-ediint-as3-05.txt "MIME-based Secure Peer-to-Peer 1072 Business Data Interchange over the Internet using FTP", T. 1073 Harding, R. Scott, 2003. 1075 [EDIINT FEATURE] draft-meadors-ediint-feature-header-01.txt "Feature 1076 Header for EDI-INT", K. Meadors, 2006. 1078 [RFC2119] RFC2119 "Key Words for Use in RFC's to Indicate Requirement 1079 Levels", S.Bradner, March 1997. 1081 [RFC2246] RFC2246 "The TLS Protocol", Dierks, T. and C. Allen, 1082 January 1999. 1084 [RFC2253] RFC2253 "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 1085 String Representation of Distinguished Names", M. Wahl, S. Kille 1086 and T. Howes, Decemeber 1997. 1088 [RFC2387] RFC2387 "The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type", E. 1089 Levinson, August 1998. 1091 [RFC2828] RFC2828 "Internet Security Glossary", R. Shirley, May 2000. 1093 [RFC3023] RFC3023 "XML Media Types", M. Murata, January 2001. 1095 [XML-DSIG] RFC3275 "XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", D. 1096 Eastlake, March 2002. 1098 [X.520] ITU-T Recommendation X.520: Information Technology - Open 1099 Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Selected Attribute 1100 Types, 1993. 1102 [PROFILE] Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W. and D. Solo, "Internet 1103 X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Certificate and CRL Profile", 1104 RFC 3280, April 2002. 1106 10.2 1107 Informative References 1109 11. 1110 Acknowledgments 1112 The authors wish to extend gratitude to the ecGIF sub-committee 1113 within the GS1 organization from which this effort began. Many have 1114 contributed to the development of this specification, but some 1115 deserve special recognition. John Duker who chaired the sub-committee 1116 and provided valuable editing. John Koehring with his work on the 1117 reference ID and shared important insights on implementation. Aaron 1118 Gomez in the coordinating of vendors testing CEM. Richard Bigelow who 1119 greatly assisted development of the ideas presented, and Debra Petta 1120 for her review and comments. 1122 Author's Addresses 1124 Kyle Meadors 1125 Drummond Group Inc. 1126 4700 Bryant Irvin Court, Suite 303 1127 Fort Worth, TX 76107 USA 1128 Email: kyle@drummondgroup.com 1129 Dale Moberg 1130 Axway, Inc. 1131 8388 E. Hartford Drive, Suite 100 1132 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 USA 1133 Email: dmoberg@us.axway.com 1135 Copyright Notice 1136 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 1138 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 1139 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 1140 retain all their rights. 1142 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 1143 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 1144 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 1145 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 1146 OR IMPLIED,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 1147 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 1148 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1150 Appendix 1152 A.1 EDIINT Certificate Exchange XML Schema 1154 1155 1161 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1169 1171 1172 1174 1175 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1184 1186 1187 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1242 1243 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1265 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1275 1277 1278 1279 1281 A.2 Example of EDIINT Certificate Exchange Request XML 1283 1284 1289 1290 DGI_Test_CEM 1291 1292 2005-08-30T00:30:00-05:00 1293 1294 1295 keyEncipherment 1296 digitalSignature 1297 2005-09-30T12:00:00-05:00 1298 http://10.1.1.1/as2 1299 1300 1301 CN=Cleo- 1302 SP,E=as2selfpacedsupport@drummondgroup.com,O=DGI,OU=DGI,L=Ft. 1303 Worth,S=Texas,C=US 1304 9659684611094873474886 1305 1306 1307 SignEncCert-Example_vs02@example.org 1308 1309 1310 1311 tlsServer 1312 2005-09-30T12:00:00-05:00 1313 http://10.1.1.1/as2 1314 1315 1316 CN=VeriSign Class 1 CA Individual 1317 Subscriber-Persona Not Validated,OU=www.verisign.com/repository/RPA 1318 Incorp. By Ref.\,LIAB.LTD(c)98,OU=VeriSign Trust Network,O=VeriSign\, 1319 Inc. 1320 2673611014597817669550861744279966682 1322 1323 1324 SSLCert-Example_vs02@example.org 1325 1327 1328 1330 A.3 Example of EDIINT Certificate Exchange Response XML 1332 1333 1338 1339 DGI_Test_CEM_Trading_Partner 1340 1341 2005-08-31T00:21:00-05:00 1342 1343 1344 Accepted 1345 1346 CN=Cleo- 1347 SP,E=as2selfpacedsupport@drummondgroup.com,O=DGI,OU=DGI,L=Ft. 1348 Worth,S=Texas,C=US 1349 9659684611094873474886 1350 1351 1352 1353 Accepted 1354 1355 CN=VeriSign Class 1 CA Individual 1356 Subscriber-Persona Not Validated,OU=www.verisign.com/repository/RPA 1357 Incorp. By Ref.\,LIAB.LTD(c)98,OU=VeriSign Trust Network,O=VeriSign\, 1358 Inc. 1359 2673611014597817669550861744279966682 1361 1362 1363 1365 Changes from Previous Versions 1367 B.1 Updates from Version 00 1369 . Updated security requirements in section 2.1, specifically in 1370 regards to digital signatures. 1371 . The XML element responseURL is now required. Modified section 1372 3.1 and example messages in appendix accordingly. 1373 . Certificates are exchanged within a full P7C cert chain. Section 1374 2.3 reflects this. 1376 . The XML element TrustChain is not longer necessary since the 1377 entire cert chain is stored. Removed references in schema and 1378 document. 1379 . Added statement in 2.5 that multiple CEM Responses SHOULD NOT be 1380 sent and that if this occurs, the action of the CEM Request 1381 initiator is not defined. 1382 . Updated the examples in Appendix B to reflect the current usage. 1384 B.2 Updates from Version 01 1386 . Added information for handling different scenarios with CEM 1387 Response message. 1388 . Rewrote use case scenarios. 1389 . Added the EDIINT Features header information. 1391 B.3 Updates from Version 02 1393 . Modified use of SSL certificates to match real-world needs. 1394 . Modified schema in changing namespace value and removed schema 1395 location. 1396 . Added statement that CEM XML must be well-formed and valid to 1397 schema. 1398 . Modified Use Case to correct an error and improve clarity. 1399 . Added section 1.4 to describe CEM process. 1401 B.4 Updates from Version 03 1402 . None. Update done because vs03 expired. 1404 B.5 Updates from Version 04 1405 . Clarified requirement of using multipart/related for CEM 1406 Response. 1407 . Added sections on Implementation Considerations and Future 1408 Implementation. 1409 . Modified schema to allow future extensions. 1410 . Changed requirements on qualifier attribute in the Name 1411 element. 1412 . Changed functionality to allow error MDN to be returned when 1413 CEM XML can not be parsed. 1415 B.6 Updates from Version 05 1416 . Added requestId to CEM. 1417 . Removed normative reference to RFC 3821. 1419 B.7 Updates from Version 06/07 1420 . None. Updated for 6-month I-D expiration.