idnits 2.17.1 draft-melnikov-authentication-results-smime-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 16 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 11, 2013) is 3822 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3501 (Obsoleted by RFC 9051) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7001 (Obsoleted by RFC 7601) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5751 (Obsoleted by RFC 8551) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Melnikov 3 Internet-Draft Isode Ltd 4 Intended status: Standards Track October 11, 2013 5 Expires: April 14, 2014 7 Authentication-Results Registration for S/MIME signature verification 8 draft-melnikov-authentication-results-smime-03 10 Abstract 12 RFC 7001 specifies the Authentication-Results header field for 13 conveying results of message authentication checks. This document 14 defines a new authentication method to be used in the Authentication- 15 Results header field for S/MIME related signature checks. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2014. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Internet-DrafAuthentication-Results Registration for S/MIME October 2013 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 3. "smime" Authentication Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 3.1. S/MIME Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 3.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 1. Introduction 67 [RFC7001] specifies the Authentication-Results header field for 68 conveying results of message authentication checks. As S/MIME 69 signature verification (and alteration) is sometimes implemented in 70 border message transfer agents, guards and gateways (for example see 71 [RFC3183]), there is a need to convey signature verification status 72 to Mail User Agents (MUA) and downstream filters. This document 73 defines a new authentication method to be used in the Authentication- 74 Results header field for S/MIME related signature checks. 76 2. Conventions Used in This Document 78 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 79 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 80 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 82 The formal syntax uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) 83 [RFC5234] notation including the core rules defined in Appendix B of 84 RFC 5234 [RFC5234]. 86 3. "smime" Authentication Method 88 3.1. S/MIME Results 90 The result values used by [RFC5751] are as follows: 92 +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+ 93 | Result code | Meaning | 94 +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+ 95 | none | The message was not signed. | 96 | | | 97 | pass | The message was signed, the signature or signatures | 98 | | were acceptable to the verifier, and the | 100 Internet-DrafAuthentication-Results Registration for S/MIME October 2013 102 | | signature(s) passed verification tests. | 103 | | | 104 | fail | The message was signed and the signature or | 105 | | signatures were acceptable to the verifier, but | 106 | | they failed the verification test(s). | 107 | | | 108 | policy | The message was signed, signature(s) passed | 109 | | verification tests, but the signature or signatures | 110 | | were not acceptable to the verifier. | 111 | | | 112 | neutral | The message was signed but the signature or | 113 | | signatures contained syntax errors or were not | 114 | | otherwise able to be processed. This result SHOULD | 115 | | also be used for other failures not covered | 116 | | elsewhere in this list. | 117 | | | 118 | temperror | The message could not be verified due to some error | 119 | | that is likely transient in nature, such as a | 120 | | temporary inability to retrieve a certificate or | 121 | | CRL. A later attempt may produce a final result. | 122 | | | 123 | permerror | The message could not be verified due to some error | 124 | | that is unrecoverable, such as a required header | 125 | | field being absent or the signer's certificate not | 126 | | being available. A later attempt is unlikely to | 127 | | produce a final result. | 128 +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+ 130 A signature is "acceptable to the verifier" if it passes local policy 131 checks (or there are no specific local policy checks). For example, 132 a verifier might require that the domain in the rfc822Name 133 subjectAltName in the signing certificate matches the domain in the 134 address of the sender of the message, thus making third-party 135 signatures unacceptable. [RFC5751] advises that if a message fails 136 verification, it should be treated as an unsigned message. A report 137 of "fail" here permits the receiver of the report to decide how to 138 handle the failure. A report of "neutral" or "none" preempts that 139 choice, ensuring the message will be treated as if it had not been 140 signed. 142 3.2. Examples 144 Return-Path: 145 Authentication-Results: example.com; 146 smime=fail (certificate is revoked by CRL) 147 body.smime-identifier=aliceDss@examples.com 148 body.smime-part=2 150 Internet-DrafAuthentication-Results Registration for S/MIME October 2013 152 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) 153 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2875111E81A0; 154 Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:35:14 -0700 (PDT) 155 MIME-Version: 1.0 156 To: User2@examples.com 157 From: aliceDss@examples.com 158 Subject: Example 4.8 159 Message-Id: <020906002550300.249@examples.com> 160 Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:25:21 -0700 161 Content-Type: multipart/signed; 162 micalg=SHA1; 163 boundary="----=_NextBoundry____Fri,_06_Sep_2002_00:25:21"; 164 protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" 166 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. 168 ------=_NextBoundry____Fri,_06_Sep_2002_00:25:21 170 This is some sample content. 171 ------=_NextBoundry____Fri,_06_Sep_2002_00:25:21 172 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s 173 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 174 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s 176 MIIDdwYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIDaDCCA2QCAQExCTAHBgUrDgMCGjALBgkqhkiG9w0BBwGgggL 177 gMIIC3DCCApugAwIBAgICAMgwCQYHKoZIzjgEAzASMRAwDgYDVQQDEwdDYXJsRFNTMB4XDT 178 k5MDgxNzAxMTA0OVoXDTM5MTIzMTIzNTk1OVowEzERMA8GA1UEAxMIQWxpY2VEU1MwggG2M 179 IIBKwYHKoZIzjgEATCCAR4CgYEAgY3N7YPqCp45PsJIKKPkR5PdDteoDuxTxauECE//lOFz 180 SH4M1vNESNH+n6+koYkv4dkwyDbeP5u/t0zcX2mK5HXQNwyRCJWb3qde+fz0ny/dQ6iLVPE 181 /sAcIR01diMPDtbPjVQh11Tl2EMR4vf+dsISXN/LkURu15AmWXPN+W9sCFQDiR6YaRWa4E8 182 baj7g3IStii/eTzQKBgCY40BSJMqo5+z5t2UtZakx2IzkEAjVc8ssaMMMeUF3dm1nizaoFP 183 VjAe6I2uG4Hr32KQiWn9HXPSgheSz6Q+G3qnMkhijt2FOnOLl2jB80jhbgvMAF8bUmJEYk2 184 RL34yJVKU1a14vlz7BphNh8Rf8K97dFQ/5h0wtGBSmA5ujY5A4GEAAKBgFzjuVp1FJYLqXr 185 d4z+p7Kxe3L23ExE0phaJKBEj2TSGZ3V1ExI9Q1tv5VG/+onyohs+JH09B41bY8i7RaWgSu 186 OF1s4GgD/oI34a8iSrUxq4Jw0e7wi/ZhSAXGKsZfoVi/G7NNTSljf2YUeyxDKE8H5BQP1Gp 187 2NOM/Kl4vTyg+W4o4GBMH8wDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBsAwHwYDVR0j 188 BBgwFoAUcEQ+gi5vh95K03XjPSC8QyuT8R8wHQYDVR0OBBYEFL5sobPjwfftQ3CkzhMB4v3 189 jl/7NMB8GA1UdEQQYMBaBFEFsaWNlRFNTQGV4YW1wbGUuY29tMAkGByqGSM44BAMDMAAwLQ 190 IUVQykGR9CK4lxIjONg2q1PWdrv0UCFQCfYVNSVAtcst3a53Yd4hBSW0NevTFjMGECAQEwG 191 DASMRAwDgYDVQQDEwdDYXJsRFNTAgIAyDAHBgUrDgMCGjAJBgcqhkjOOAQDBC4wLAIUM/mG 192 f6gkgp9Z0XtRdGimJeB/BxUCFGFFJqwYRt1WYcIOQoGiaowqGzVI 194 ------=_NextBoundry____Fri,_06_Sep_2002_00:25:21-- 196 4. IANA Considerations 197 Internet-DrafAuthentication-Results Registration for S/MIME October 2013 199 IANA is requested to add the the following entries to the "Email 200 Authentication Methods" subregistry of the "Email Authentication 201 Parameters" registry: 203 +--------+-----------+--------+------------------+------------------+ 204 | Method | Defined | ptype | property | value | 205 +--------+-----------+--------+------------------+------------------+ 206 | smime | [RFC5751] | body | smime-part | The MIME body | 207 | | | | | part reference | 208 | | | | | which contains | 209 | | | | | the signature. | 210 | | | | | See definition | 211 | | | | | of
in | 212 | | | | | Section 6.4.5 of | 213 | | | | | [RFC3501] | 214 | | | | | | 215 | smime | [RFC5751] | body | smime-identifier | The email | 216 | | | | | address | 217 | | | | | [RFC5322] | 218 | | | | | associated with | 219 | | | | | the S/MIME | 220 | | | | | signature. Note | 221 | | | | | that this email | 222 | | | | | address can | 223 | | | | | correspond to a | 224 | | | | | counter | 225 | | | | | signature. | 226 +--------+-----------+--------+------------------+------------------+ 228 IANA is requested to add the the following entries to the "Email 229 Authentication Result Names" subregistry of the "Email Authentication 230 Parameters" registry: 232 +-------------+--------------+------------+---------------+---------+ 233 | Code | Defined | Auth | Meaning | Status | 234 | | | Method | | | 235 +-------------+--------------+------------+---------------+---------+ 236 | none | this | smime | [this memo] | active | 237 | | document | | Section 3.1 | | 238 | | | | | | 239 | pass | this | smime | [this memo] | active | 240 | | document | | Section 3.1 | | 241 | | | | | | 242 | fail | this | smime | [this memo] | active | 243 | | document | | Section 3.1 | | 244 | | | | | | 245 | policy | this | smime | [this memo] | active | 247 Internet-DrafAuthentication-Results Registration for S/MIME October 2013 249 | | document | | Section 3.1 | | 250 | | | | | | 251 | neutral | this | smime | [this memo] | active | 252 | | document | | Section 3.1 | | 253 | | | | | | 254 | temperror | this | smime | [this memo] | active | 255 | | document | | Section 3.1 | | 256 | | | | | | 257 | permerror | this | smime | [this memo] | active | 258 | | document | | Section 3.1 | | 259 +-------------+--------------+------------+---------------+---------+ 261 5. Security Considerations 263 This document doesn't add new security considerations not already 264 covered by [RFC7001] and [RFC5751]. In particular security 265 considerations related to use of weak cryptography over plaintext, 266 weakening and breaking of cryptographic algorithms over time, as well 267 as changing the behavior of message processing based on presence of a 268 signature specified in [RFC5751] are relevant to this document. 269 Similarly, the following security considerations specified in 270 [RFC7001] are particularly relevant to this document: Forged Header 271 Fields, Misleading Results, Internal MTA Lists and Compromised 272 Internal Hosts. 274 6. References 276 6.1. Normative References 278 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 279 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 281 [RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 282 4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003. 284 [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 285 Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. 287 [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, 288 October 2008. 290 [RFC7001] Kucherawy, M., "Message Header Field for Indicating 291 Message Authentication Status", RFC 7001, September 2013. 293 [RFC5751] Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet 294 Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message 295 Specification", RFC 5751, January 2010. 297 Internet-DrafAuthentication-Results Registration for S/MIME October 2013 299 6.2. Informative References 301 [RFC3183] Dean, T. and W. Ottaway, "Domain Security Services using S 302 /MIME", RFC 3183, October 2001. 304 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 306 Thank you to Murray S. Kucherawy, David Wilson and Steve Kille for 307 comments and corrections on this document. 309 Author's Address 311 Alexey Melnikov 312 Isode Ltd 313 5 Castle Business Village 314 36 Station Road 315 Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX 316 UK 318 EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com