idnits 2.17.1 draft-pala-eap-cprom-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (February 4, 2019) is 1879 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Pala 3 Internet-Draft CableLabs 4 Intended status: Experimental February 4, 2019 5 Expires: August 8, 2019 7 Credentials Provisioning and Management via EAP (EAP-CPROM) 8 draft-pala-eap-cprom-00 10 Abstract 12 With the increase number of devices, protocols, and applications that 13 rely on strong credentials (e.g., digital certificates, keys, or 14 tokens) for network access, the need for a standard credentials 15 provisioning layer is paramount. In particular, since EAP is 16 deployed for authentication needs, the authors extend this use-case 17 by including support for provisioning and management of credentials. 19 In particular, this specification defines how to support the 20 provisioning of strong credentials to users and/or devices without 21 the need for providing IP connectivity. The use of EAP not only for 22 provisiong but also for managing network credentials provides a 23 general conduit that can be exploited in different environments 24 (e.g., Wired and WiFi networks credentials management). 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 8, 2019. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 3. Overview of existing solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 4. Scope Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 5. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 1. Requirements notation 73 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 74 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 75 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 77 2. Introduction 79 Because of the increasing number of highly available and highly 80 utilized websites that require secure communications to protect the 81 flow of information from the server to the client and the raising 82 number of devices (IoT) that require strong authentication 83 capabilities, the need for a low-cost and efficient approach to 84 network credentials management is evident. 86 This specification addresses the problem of providing a simple-to-use 87 and simple-to-deploy system for credentials management by extending 88 the EAP protocol to support credentials provisioning and management 89 functionality. 91 3. Overview of existing solutions 93 Currently there are many protocols that address the lifecycle of 94 credentials. In particular, when it comes to digital certificates, 95 some of the most deployed management protocols are: 97 o Automated Certificate Management Environment 99 o Certificate Management over CMS (CMC) [RFC5272] [RFC6402] 101 o Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) [RFC7030] 103 4. Scope Statement 105 This document focuses only on the definition of 107 5. Protocol Overview 109 Protocol Overview 111 6. IANA Considerations 113 This document uses a new DEAP type, CPROM, whose value (TBD) MUST be 114 allocated by IANA from the EAP TYPEs subregistry of the RADIUS 115 registry. 117 7. Security Considerations 119 Several security considerations need to be explicitly considered for 120 the system administrators and application developers to understand 121 the weaknesses of the overall architecture. 123 8. Acknowledgments 125 The authors would like to thank everybody who provided insightful 126 comments and helped in the definition of the deployment 127 considerations. 129 9. Normative References 131 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 132 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 133 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 134 . 136 [RFC5272] Schaad, J. and M. Myers, "Certificate Management over CMS 137 (CMC)", RFC 5272, DOI 10.17487/RFC5272, June 2008, 138 . 140 [RFC6402] Schaad, J., "Certificate Management over CMS (CMC) 141 Updates", RFC 6402, DOI 10.17487/RFC6402, November 2011, 142 . 144 [RFC7030] Pritikin, M., Ed., Yee, P., Ed., and D. Harkins, Ed., 145 "Enrollment over Secure Transport", RFC 7030, 146 DOI 10.17487/RFC7030, October 2013, 147 . 149 Author's Address 151 Massimiliano Pala 152 CableLabs 153 858 Coal Creek Cir 154 Louisville, CO 80027 155 US 157 Email: m.pala@openca.org 158 URI: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mpala