rfc2538xml.txt | draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2538bis.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | |||
2 | Network Working Group S. Josefsson | Network Working Group S. Josefsson | 2 | |
3 | 3 | |||
4 | Expires: March 5, 2005 | Obsoletes: 2538 (if approved) | 4 | |
Expires: September 2, 2006 | 5 | |||
5 | 6 | |||
6 | Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System (DNS) | Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System (DNS) | 7 | |
7 | rfc2538 | draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2538bis-10 | 8 | |
8 | 9 | |||
9 | Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | 10 | |
10 | 11 | |||
11 | By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | 12 | |
12 | applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware | applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware | 13 | |
13 | have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes | have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes | 14 | |
14 | aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. | aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. | 15 | |
15 | 16 | |||
16 | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | 17 | |
17 | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | 18 | |
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 | skipping to change at page 1, line 34 | |||
22 | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | 23 | |
23 | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | 24 | |
24 | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | 25 | |
25 | 26 | |||
26 | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | 27 | |
27 | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | 28 | |
28 | 29 | |||
29 | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | 30 | |
30 | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | 31 | |
31 | 32 | |||
32 | This Internet-Draft will expire on March 5, 2005. | This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2006. | 33 | |
33 | 34 | |||
34 | Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | 35 | |
35 | 36 | |||
36 | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). | 37 | |
37 | 38 | |||
38 | Abstract | Abstract | 39 | |
39 | 40 | |||
40 | Cryptographic public key are frequently published and their | Cryptographic public keys are frequently published, and their | 41 | |
41 | authenticity demonstrated by certificates. A CERT resource record | authenticity is demonstrated by certificates. A CERT resource record | 42 | |
42 | (RR) is defined so that such certificates and related certificate | (RR) is defined so that such certificates and related certificate | 43 | |
43 | revocation lists can be stored in the Domain Name System (DNS). | revocation lists can be stored in the Domain Name System (DNS). | 44 | |
44 | 45 | |||
This document obsoletes RFC 2538. | 46 | |||
47 | ||||
45 | Table of Contents | Table of Contents | 48 | |
46 | 49 | |||
47 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 50 | |
48 | 2. The CERT Resource Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. The CERT Resource Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 51 | |
49 | 2.1. Certificate Type Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.1. Certificate Type Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 52 | |
50 | 2.2. Text Representation of CERT RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.2. Text Representation of CERT RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 53 | |
51 | 2.3. X.509 OIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.3. X.509 OIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 54 | |
52 | 3. Appropriate Owner Names for CERT RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3. Appropriate Owner Names for CERT RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 55 | |
53 | 3.1. X.509 CERT RR Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.1. Content-Based X.509 CERT RR Names . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 56 | |
54 | 3.2. PGP CERT RR Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.2. Purpose-Based X.509 CERT RR Names . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 57 | |
55 | 4. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.3. Content-Based OpenPGP CERT RR Names . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 58 | |
56 | 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.4. Purpose-Based OpenPGP CERT RR Names . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 59 | |
57 | 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.5. Owner Names for IPKIX, ISPKI, IPGP, and IACPKIX . . . . . 10 | 60 | |
58 | 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 61 | |
59 | Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 62 | |
60 | Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 63 | |
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 64 | |||
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 65 | |||
9. Changes since RFC 2538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 66 | |||
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 67 | |||
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 68 | |||
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 69 | |||
Appendix A. Copying Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 70 | |||
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 71 | |||
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 72 | |||
61 | 73 | |||
62 | 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | 74 | |
63 | 75 | |||
64 | Public keys are frequently published in the form of a certificate and | Public keys are frequently published in the form of a certificate, | 76 | |
65 | their authenticity is commonly demonstrated by certificates and | and their authenticity is commonly demonstrated by certificates and | 77 | |
66 | related certificate revocation lists (CRLs). A certificate is a | related certificate revocation lists (CRLs). A certificate is a | 78 | |
67 | binding, through a cryptographic digital signature, of a public key, | binding, through a cryptographic digital signature, of a public key, | 79 | |
68 | a validity interval and/or conditions, and identity, authorization, | a validity interval and/or conditions, and identity, authorization, | 80 | |
69 | or other information. A certificate revocation list is a list of | or other information. A certificate revocation list is a list of | 81 | |
70 | certificates that are revoked, and incidental information, all signed | certificates that are revoked, and of incidental information, all | 82 | |
71 | by the signer (issuer) of the revoked certificates. Examples are | signed by the signer (issuer) of the revoked certificates. Examples | 83 | |
72 | X.509 certificates/CRLs in the X.500 directory system or PGP | are X.509 certificates/CRLs in the X.500 directory system or OpenPGP | 84 | |
73 | certificates/revocations used by PGP software. | certificates/revocations used by OpenPGP software. | 85 | |
74 | 86 | |||
75 | Section 2 below specifies a CERT resource record (RR) for the storage | Section 2 specifies a CERT resource record (RR) for the storage of | 87 | |
76 | of certificates in the Domain Name System. | certificates in the Domain Name System [1] [2]. | 88 | |
77 | 89 | |||
78 | Section 3 discusses appropriate owner names for CERT RRs. | Section 3 discusses appropriate owner names for CERT RRs. | 90 | |
79 | 91 | |||
80 | Sections 4, 5, and 6 below cover performance, IANA, and security | Sections 4, 7, and 8 cover performance, security, and IANA | 92 | |
81 | considerations, respectively. | considerations, respectively. | 93 | |
82 | 94 | |||
Section 9 explains the changes in this document compared to RFC 2538. | 95 | |||
96 | ||||
83 | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | 97 | |
84 | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | 98 | |
85 | document are to be interpreted as described in [3]. | document are to be interpreted as described in [3]. | 99 | |
86 | 100 | |||
87 | 2. The CERT Resource Record | 2. The CERT Resource Record | 101 | |
88 | 102 | |||
89 | The CERT resource record (RR) has the structure given below. Its RR | The CERT resource record (RR) has the structure given below. Its RR | 103 | |
90 | type code is 37. | type code is 37. | 104 | |
91 | 105 | |||
92 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 | 106 | |
93 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 107 | |
94 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 108 | |
95 | | type | key tag | | | type | key tag | | 109 | |
96 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 110 | |
97 | | algorithm | / | | algorithm | / | 111 | |
98 | +---------------+ certificate or CRL / | +---------------+ certificate or CRL / | 112 | |
99 | / / | / / | 113 | |
100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| | 114 | |
101 | 115 | |||
102 | The type field is the certificate type as define in section 2.1 | The type field is the certificate type as defined in Section 2.1 | 116 | |
103 | below. | below. | 117 | |
104 | 118 | |||
105 | The algorithm field has the same meaning as the algorithm field in | The key tag field is the 16-bit value computed for the key embedded | 119 | |
106 | KEY and SIG RRs [8] except that a zero algorithm field indicates the | in the certificate, using the RRSIG Key Tag algorithm described in | 120 | |
107 | algorithm is unknown to a secure DNS, which may simply be the result | Appendix B of [12]. This field is used as an efficiency measure to | 121 | |
108 | of the algorithm not having been standardized for secure DNS. | pick which CERT RRs may be applicable to a particular key. The key | 122 | |
tag can be calculated for the key in question, and then only CERT RRs | 123 | |||
with the same key tag need to be examined. Note that two different | 124 | |||
keys can have the same key tag. However, the key MUST be transformed | 125 | |||
to the format it would have as the public key portion of a DNSKEY RR | 126 | |||
before the key tag is computed. This is only possible if the key is | 127 | |||
applicable to an algorithm and complies to limits (such as key size) | 128 | |||
defined for DNS security. If it is not, the algorithm field MUST be | 129 | |||
zero and the tag field is meaningless and SHOULD be zero. | 130 | |||
109 | 131 | |||
110 | The key tag field is the 16 bit value computed for the key embedded | The algorithm field has the same meaning as the algorithm field in | 132 | |
111 | in the certificate as specified in the DNSSEC Standard [8]. This | DNSKEY and RRSIG RRs [12], except that a zero algorithm field | 133 | |
112 | field is used as an efficiency measure to pick which CERT RRs may be | indicates that the algorithm is unknown to a secure DNS, which may | 134 | |
113 | applicable to a particular key. The key tag can be calculated for | simply be the result of the algorithm not having been standardized | 135 | |
114 | the key in question and then only CERT RRs with the same key tag need | for DNSSEC [11]. | 136 | |
115 | be examined. However, the key must always be transformed to the | |||
116 | format it would have as the public key portion of a KEY RR before the | |||
117 | key tag is computed. This is only possible if the key is applicable | |||
118 | to an algorithm (and limits such as key size limits) defined for DNS | |||
119 | security. If it is not, the algorithm field MUST BE zero and the tag | |||
120 | field is meaningless and SHOULD BE zero. | |||
121 | 137 | |||
122 | 2.1. Certificate Type Values | 2.1. Certificate Type Values | 138 | |
123 | 139 | |||
124 | The following values are defined or reserved: | The following values are defined or reserved: | 140 | |
125 | 141 | |||
126 | Value Mnemonic Certificate Type | Value Mnemonic Certificate Type | 142 | |
127 | ----- -------- ----------- ---- | ----- -------- ---------------- | 143 | |
128 | 0 reserved | 0 Reserved | 144 | |
129 | 1 PKIX X.509 as per PKIX | 1 PKIX X.509 as per PKIX | 145 | |
130 | 2 SPKI SPKI cert | 2 SPKI SPKI certificate | 146 | |
131 | 3 PGP PGP cert | 3 PGP OpenPGP packet | 147 | |
132 | 4-252 available for IANA assignment | 4 IPKIX The URL of an X.509 data object | 148 | |
5 ISPKI The URL of an SPKI certificate | 149 | |||
6 IPGP The fingerprint and URL of an OpenPGP packet | 150 | |||
7 ACPKIX Attribute Certificate | 151 | |||
8 IACPKIX The URL of an Attribute Certificate | 152 | |||
9-252 Available for IANA assignment | 153 | |||
133 | 253 URI URI private | 253 URI URI private | 154 | |
134 | 254 OID OID private | 254 OID OID private | 155 | |
135 | 255-65534 available for IANA assignment | 255 Reserved | 156 | |
136 | 65535 reserved | 256-65279 Available for IANA assignment | 157 | |
65280-65534 Experimental | 158 | |||
65535 Reserved | 159 | |||
160 | ||||
These values represent the initial content of the IANA registry; see | 161 | |||
Section 8. | 162 | |||
137 | 163 | |||
138 | The PKIX type is reserved to indicate an X.509 certificate conforming | The PKIX type is reserved to indicate an X.509 certificate conforming | 164 | |
139 | to the profile being defined by the IETF PKIX working group. The | to the profile defined by the IETF PKIX working group [8]. The | 165 | |
140 | certificate section will start with a one byte unsigned OID length | certificate section will start with a one-octet unsigned OID length | 166 | |
141 | and then an X.500 OID indicating the nature of the remainder of the | and then an X.500 OID indicating the nature of the remainder of the | 167 | |
142 | certificate section (see 2.3 below). (NOTE: X.509 certificates do | certificate section (see Section 2.3, below). (NOTE: X.509 | 168 | |
143 | not include their X.500 directory type designating OID as a prefix.) | certificates do not include their X.500 directory-type-designating | 169 | |
OID as a prefix.) | 170 | |||
144 | 171 | |||
145 | The SPKI type is reserved to indicate a certificate formated as to be | The SPKI and ISPKI types are reserved to indicate the SPKI | 172 | |
146 | specified by the IETF SPKI working group. | certificate format [15], for use when the SPKI documents are moved | 173 | |
from experimental status. The format for these two CERT RR types | 174 | |||
will need to be specified later. | 175 | |||
147 | 176 | |||
148 | The PGP type indicates a Pretty Good Privacy certificate as described | The PGP type indicates an OpenPGP packet as described in [5] and its | 177 | |
149 | in [6] and its extensions and successors. | extensions and successors. This is used to transfer public key | 178 | |
material and revocation signatures. The data is binary and MUST NOT | 179 | |||
be encoded into an ASCII armor. An implementation SHOULD process | 180 | |||
transferable public keys as described in Section 10.1 of [5], but it | 181 | |||
MAY handle additional OpenPGP packets. | 182 | |||
183 | ||||
The ACPKIX type indicates an Attribute Certificate format [9]. | 184 | |||
185 | ||||
The IPKIX and IACPKIX types indicate a URL that will serve the | 186 | |||
content that would have been in the "certificate, CRL, or URL" field | 187 | |||
of the corresponding type (PKIX or ACPKIX, respectively). | 188 | |||
189 | ||||
The IPGP type contains both an OpenPGP fingerprint for the key in | 190 | |||
question, as well as a URL. The certificate portion of the IPGP CERT | 191 | |||
RR is defined as a one-octet fingerprint length, followed by the | 192 | |||
OpenPGP fingerprint, followed by the URL. The OpenPGP fingerprint is | 193 | |||
calculated as defined in RFC 2440 [5]. A zero-length fingerprint or | 194 | |||
a zero-length URL are legal, and indicate URL-only IPGP data or | 195 | |||
fingerprint-only IPGP data, respectively. A zero-length fingerprint | 196 | |||
and a zero-length URL are meaningless and invalid. | 197 | |||
198 | ||||
The IPKIX, ISPKI, IPGP, and IACPKIX types are known as "indirect". | 199 | |||
These types MUST be used when the content is too large to fit in the | 200 | |||
CERT RR and MAY be used at the implementer's discretion. They SHOULD | 201 | |||
NOT be used where the DNS message is 512 octets or smaller and could | 202 | |||
thus be expected to fit a UDP packet. | 203 | |||
150 | 204 | |||
151 | The URI private type indicates a certificate format defined by an | The URI private type indicates a certificate format defined by an | 205 | |
152 | absolute URI. The certificate portion of the CERT RR MUST begin with | absolute URI. The certificate portion of the CERT RR MUST begin with | 206 | |
153 | a null terminated URI [5] and the data after the null is the private | a NUL-terminated URI [10] and the data after the NUL is the private | 207 | |
154 | format certificate itself. The URI SHOULD be such that a retrieval | format certificate itself. The URI SHOULD be such that a retrieval | 208 | |
155 | from it will lead to documentation on the format of the certificate. | from it will lead to documentation on the format of the certificate. | 209 | |
156 | Recognition of private certificate types need not be based on URI | Recognition of private certificate types need not be based on URI | 210 | |
157 | equality but can use various forms of pattern matching so that, for | equality but can use various forms of pattern matching so that, for | 211 | |
158 | example, subtype or version information can also be encoded into the | example, subtype or version information can also be encoded into the | 212 | |
159 | URI. | URI. | 213 | |
160 | 214 | |||
161 | The OID private type indicates a private format certificate specified | The OID private type indicates a private format certificate specified | 215 | |
162 | by a an ISO OID prefix. The certificate section will start with a | by an ISO OID prefix. The certificate section will start with a one- | 216 | |
163 | one byte unsigned OID length and then a BER encoded OID indicating | octet unsigned OID length and then a BER-encoded OID indicating the | 217 | |
164 | the nature of the remainder of the certificate section. This can be | nature of the remainder of the certificate section. This can be an | 218 | |
165 | an X.509 certificate format or some other format. X.509 certificates | X.509 certificate format or some other format. X.509 certificates | 219 | |
166 | that conform to the IETF PKIX profile SHOULD be indicated by the PKIX | that conform to the IETF PKIX profile SHOULD be indicated by the PKIX | 220 | |
167 | type, not the OID private type. Recognition of private certificate | type, not the OID private type. Recognition of private certificate | 221 | |
168 | types need not be based on OID equality but can use various forms of | types need not be based on OID equality but can use various forms of | 222 | |
169 | pattern matching such as OID prefix. | pattern matching such as OID prefix. | 223 | |
170 | 224 | |||
171 | 2.2. Text Representation of CERT RRs | 2.2. Text Representation of CERT RRs | 225 | |
172 | 226 | |||
173 | The RDATA portion of a CERT RR has the type field as an unsigned | The RDATA portion of a CERT RR has the type field as an unsigned | 227 | |
174 | integer or as a mnemonic symbol as listed in section 2.1 above. | decimal integer or as a mnemonic symbol as listed in Section 2.1, | 228 | |
above. | 229 | |||
175 | 230 | |||
176 | The key tag field is represented as an unsigned integer. | The key tag field is represented as an unsigned decimal integer. | 231 | |
177 | 232 | |||
178 | The algorithm field is represented as an unsigned integer or a | The algorithm field is represented as an unsigned decimal integer or | 233 | |
179 | mnemonic symbol as listed in [8]. | a mnemonic symbol as listed in [12]. | 234 | |
180 | 235 | |||
181 | The certificate / CRL portion is represented in base 64 and may be | The certificate/CRL portion is represented in base 64 [16] and may be | 236 | |
182 | divided up into any number of white space separated substrings, down | divided into any number of white-space-separated substrings, down to | 237 | |
183 | to single base 64 digits, which are concatenated to obtain the full | single base-64 digits, which are concatenated to obtain the full | 238 | |
184 | signature. These substrings can span lines using the standard | signature. These substrings can span lines using the standard | 239 | |
185 | parenthesis. | parenthesis. | 240 | |
186 | 241 | |||
187 | Note that the certificate / CRL portion may have internal sub-fields | Note that the certificate / CRL portion may have internal sub-fields, | 242 | |
188 | but these do not appear in the master file representation. For | but these do not appear in the master file representation. For | 243 | |
189 | example, with type 254, there will be an OID size, an OID, and then | example, with type 254, there will be an OID size, an OID, and then | 244 | |
190 | the certificate / CRL proper. But only a single logical base 64 | the certificate/CRL proper. However, only a single logical base-64 | 245 | |
191 | string will appear in the text representation. | string will appear in the text representation. | 246 | |
192 | 247 | |||
193 | 2.3. X.509 OIDs | 2.3. X.509 OIDs | 248 | |
194 | 249 | |||
195 | OIDs have been defined in connection with the X.500 directory for | OIDs have been defined in connection with the X.500 directory for | 250 | |
196 | user certificates, certification authority certificates, revocations | user certificates, certification authority certificates, revocations | 251 | |
197 | of certification authority, and revocations of user certificates. | of certification authority, and revocations of user certificates. | 252 | |
198 | The following table lists the OIDs, their BER encoding, and their | The following table lists the OIDs, their BER encoding, and their | 253 | |
199 | length prefixed hex format for use in CERT RRs: | length-prefixed hex format for use in CERT RRs: | 254 | |
200 | 255 | |||
201 | id-at-userCertificate | id-at-userCertificate | 256 | |
202 | = { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 36 } | = { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 36 } | 257 | |
203 | == 0x 03 55 04 24 | == 0x 03 55 04 24 | 258 | |
204 | id-at-cACertificate | id-at-cACertificate | 259 | |
205 | = { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 37 } | = { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 37 } | 260 | |
206 | == 0x 03 55 04 25 | == 0x 03 55 04 25 | 261 | |
207 | id-at-authorityRevocationList | id-at-authorityRevocationList | 262 | |
208 | = { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 38 } | = { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 38 } | 263 | |
209 | == 0x 03 55 04 26 | == 0x 03 55 04 26 | 264 | |
skipping to change at page 6, line 26 | skipping to change at page 7, line 26 | |||
212 | == 0x 03 55 04 27 | == 0x 03 55 04 27 | 267 | |
213 | 268 | |||
214 | 3. Appropriate Owner Names for CERT RRs | 3. Appropriate Owner Names for CERT RRs | 269 | |
215 | 270 | |||
216 | It is recommended that certificate CERT RRs be stored under a domain | It is recommended that certificate CERT RRs be stored under a domain | 271 | |
217 | name related to their subject, i.e., the name of the entity intended | name related to their subject, i.e., the name of the entity intended | 272 | |
218 | to control the private key corresponding to the public key being | to control the private key corresponding to the public key being | 273 | |
219 | certified. It is recommended that certificate revocation list CERT | certified. It is recommended that certificate revocation list CERT | 274 | |
220 | RRs be stored under a domain name related to their issuer. | RRs be stored under a domain name related to their issuer. | 275 | |
221 | 276 | |||
222 | Following some of the guidelines below may result in the use in DNS | Following some of the guidelines below may result in DNS names with | 277 | |
223 | names of characters that require DNS quoting which is to use a | characters that require DNS quoting as per Section 5.1 of RFC 1035 | 278 | |
224 | backslash followed by the octal representation of the ASCII code for | [2]. | 279 | |
225 | the character such as \000 for NULL. | |||
226 | 280 | |||
227 | 3.1. X.509 CERT RR Names | The choice of name under which CERT RRs are stored is important to | 281 | |
clients that perform CERT queries. In some situations, the clients | 282 | |||
may not know all information about the CERT RR object it wishes to | 283 | |||
retrieve. For example, a client may not know the subject name of an | 284 | |||
X.509 certificate, or the email address of the owner of an OpenPGP | 285 | |||
key. Further, the client might only know the hostname of a service | 286 | |||
that uses X.509 certificates or the Key ID of an OpenPGP key. | 287 | |||
228 | 288 | |||
229 | Some X.509 versions permit multiple names to be associated with | Therefore, two owner name guidelines are defined: content-based owner | 289 | |
230 | subjects and issuers under "Subject Alternate Name" and "Issuer | names and purpose-based owner names. A content-based owner name is | 290 | |
231 | Alternate Name". For example, x.509v3 has such Alternate Names with | derived from the content of the CERT RR data; for example, the | 291 | |
232 | an ASN.1 specification as follows: | Subject field in an X.509 certificate or the User ID field in OpenPGP | 292 | |
keys. A purpose-based owner name is a name that a client retrieving | 293 | |||
CERT RRs ought to know already; for example, the host name of an | 294 | |||
X.509 protected service or the Key ID of an OpenPGP key. The | 295 | |||
content-based and purpose-based owner name may be the same; for | 296 | |||
example, when a client looks up a key based on the From: address of | 297 | |||
an incoming email. | 298 | |||
299 | ||||
Implementations SHOULD use the purpose-based owner name guidelines | 300 | |||
described in this document and MAY use CNAME RRs at content-based | 301 | |||
owner names (or other names), pointing to the purpose-based owner | 302 | |||
name. | 303 | |||
304 | ||||
Note that this section describes an application-based mapping from | 305 | |||
the name space used in a certificate to the name space used by DNS. | 306 | |||
The DNS does not infer any relationship amongst CERT resource records | 307 | |||
based on similarities or differences of the DNS owner name(s) of CERT | 308 | |||
resource records. For example, if multiple labels are used when | 309 | |||
mapping from a CERT identifier to a domain name, then care must be | 310 | |||
taken in understanding wildcard record synthesis. | 311 | |||
312 | ||||
3.1. Content-Based X.509 CERT RR Names | 313 | |||
314 | ||||
Some X.509 versions, such as the PKIX profile of X.509 [8], permit | 315 | |||
multiple names to be associated with subjects and issuers under | 316 | |||
"Subject Alternative Name" and "Issuer Alternative Name". For | 317 | |||
example, the PKIX profile has such Alternate Names with an ASN.1 | 318 | |||
specification as follows: | 319 | |||
233 | 320 | |||
234 | GeneralName ::= CHOICE { | GeneralName ::= CHOICE { | 321 | |
235 | otherName [0] INSTANCE OF OTHER-NAME, | otherName [0] OtherName, | 322 | |
236 | rfc822Name [1] IA5String, | rfc822Name [1] IA5String, | 323 | |
237 | dNSName [2] IA5String, | dNSName [2] IA5String, | 324 | |
238 | x400Address [3] EXPLICIT OR-ADDRESS.&Type, | x400Address [3] ORAddress, | 325 | |
239 | directoryName [4] EXPLICIT Name, | directoryName [4] Name, | 326 | |
240 | ediPartyName [5] EDIPartyName, | ediPartyName [5] EDIPartyName, | 327 | |
241 | uniformResourceIdentifier [6] IA5String, | uniformResourceIdentifier [6] IA5String, | 328 | |
242 | iPAddress [7] OCTET STRING, | iPAddress [7] OCTET STRING, | 329 | |
243 | registeredID [8] OBJECT IDENTIFIER | registeredID [8] OBJECT IDENTIFIER } | 330 | |
244 | } | |||
245 | 331 | |||
246 | The recommended locations of CERT storage are as follows, in priority | The recommended locations of CERT storage are as follows, in priority | 332 | |
247 | order: | order: | 333 | |
248 | ||||
249 | 1. If a domain name is included in the identification in the | 1. If a domain name is included in the identification in the | 334 | |
250 | certificate or CRL, that should be used. | certificate or CRL, that ought to be used. | 335 | |
251 | 2. If a domain name is not included but an IP address is included, | 2. If a domain name is not included but an IP address is included, | 336 | |
252 | then the translation of that IP address into the appropriate | then the translation of that IP address into the appropriate | 337 | |
253 | inverse domain name should be used. | inverse domain name ought to be used. | 338 | |
254 | 3. If neither of the above it used but a URI containing a domain | 3. If neither of the above is used, but a URI containing a domain | 339 | |
255 | name is present, that domain name should be used. | name is present, that domain name ought to be used. | 340 | |
256 | 4. If none of the above is included but a character string name is | 4. If none of the above is included but a character string name is | 341 | |
257 | included, then it should be treated as described for PGP names in | included, then it ought to be treated as described below for | 342 | |
258 | 3.2 below. | OpenPGP names. | 343 | |
259 | 5. If none of the above apply, then the distinguished name (DN) | 5. If none of the above apply, then the distinguished name (DN) | 344 | |
260 | should be mapped into a domain name as specified in [4]. | ought to be mapped into a domain name as specified in [4]. | 345 | |
261 | 346 | |||
262 | Example 1: Assume that an X.509v3 certificate is issued to /CN=John | Example 1: An X.509v3 certificate is issued to /CN=John Doe /DC=Doe/ | 347 | |
263 | Doe/DC=Doe/DC=com/DC=xy/O=Doe Inc/C=XY/ with Subject Alternative | DC=com/DC=xy/O=Doe Inc/C=XY/ with Subject Alternative Names of (a) | 348 | |
264 | names of (a) string "John (the Man) Doe", (b) domain name john- | string "John (the Man) Doe", (b) domain name john-doe.com, and (c) | 349 | |
265 | doe.com, and (c) uri <https://www.secure.john-doe.com:8080/>. Then | URI <https://www.secure.john-doe.com:8080/>. The storage locations | 350 | |
266 | the storage locations recommended, in priority order, would be | recommended, in priority order, would be | 351 | |
267 | 1. john-doe.com, | 1. john-doe.com, | 352 | |
268 | 2. www.secure.john-doe.com, and | 2. www.secure.john-doe.com, and | 353 | |
269 | 3. Doe.com.xy. | 3. Doe.com.xy. | 354 | |
270 | 355 | |||
271 | Example 2: Assume that an X.509v3 certificate is issued to /CN=James | Example 2: An X.509v3 certificate is issued to /CN=James Hacker/ | 356 | |
272 | Hacker/L=Basingstoke/O=Widget Inc/C=GB/ with Subject Alternate names | L=Basingstoke/O=Widget Inc/C=GB/ with Subject Alternate names of (a) | 357 | |
273 | of (a) domain name widget.foo.example, (b) IPv4 address | domain name widget.foo.example, (b) IPv4 address 10.251.13.201, and | 358 | |
274 | 10.251.13.201, and (c) string "James Hacker | (c) string "James Hacker <[email protected]>". The | 359 | |
275 | <[email protected]>". Then the storage locations | storage locations recommended, in priority order, would be | 360 | |
276 | recommended, in priority order, would be | |||
277 | 1. widget.foo.example, | 1. widget.foo.example, | 361 | |
278 | 2. 201.13.251.10.in-addr.arpa, and | 2. 201.13.251.10.in-addr.arpa, and | 362 | |
279 | 3. hacker.mail.widget.foo.example. | 3. hacker.mail.widget.foo.example. | 363 | |
280 | 364 | |||
281 | 3.2. PGP CERT RR Names | 3.2. Purpose-Based X.509 CERT RR Names | 365 | |
282 | 366 | |||
283 | PGP signed keys (certificates) use a general character string User ID | Due to the difficulty for clients that do not already possess a | 367 | |
284 | [6]. However, it is recommended by PGP that such names include the | certificate to reconstruct the content-based owner name, purpose- | 368 | |
285 | RFC 822 email address of the party, as in "Leslie Example | based owner names are recommended in this section. Recommendations | 369 | |
286 | <[email protected]>". If such a format is used, the CERT should be | for purpose-based owner names vary per scenario. The following table | 370 | |
287 | under the standard translation of the email address into a domain | summarizes the purpose-based X.509 CERT RR owner name guidelines for | 371 | |
288 | name, which would be leslie.host.example in this case. If no RFC 822 | use with S/MIME [17], SSL/TLS [13], and IPsec [14]: | 372 | |
289 | name can be extracted from the string name no specific domain name is | 373 | ||
290 | recommended. | Scenario Owner name | 374 | |
------------------ ---------------------------------------------- | 375 | |||
S/MIME Certificate Standard translation of an RFC 2822 email | 376 | |||
address. Example: An S/MIME certificate for | 377 | |||
"[email protected]" will use a standard | 378 | |||
hostname translation of the owner name, | 379 | |||
"postmaster.example.org". | 380 | |||
381 | ||||
TLS Certificate Hostname of the TLS server. | 382 | |||
383 | ||||
IPsec Certificate Hostname of the IPsec machine and/or, for IPv4 | 384 | |||
or IPv6 addresses, the fully qualified domain | 385 | |||
name in the appropriate reverse domain. | 386 | |||
387 | ||||
An alternate approach for IPsec is to store raw public keys [18]. | 388 | |||
389 | ||||
3.3. Content-Based OpenPGP CERT RR Names | 390 | |||
391 | ||||
OpenPGP signed keys (certificates) use a general character string | 392 | |||
User ID [5]. However, it is recommended by OpenPGP that such names | 393 | |||
include the RFC 2822 [7] email address of the party, as in "Leslie | 394 | |||
Example <[email protected]>". If such a format is used, the CERT | 395 | |||
ought to be under the standard translation of the email address into | 396 | |||
a domain name, which would be leslie.host.example in this case. If | 397 | |||
no RFC 2822 name can be extracted from the string name, no specific | 398 | |||
domain name is recommended. | 399 | |||
400 | ||||
If a user has more than one email address, the CNAME type can be used | 401 | |||
to reduce the amount of data stored in the DNS. For example: | 402 | |||
403 | ||||
$ORIGIN example.org. | 404 | |||
smith IN CERT PGP 0 0 <OpenPGP binary> | 405 | |||
john.smith IN CNAME smith | 406 | |||
js IN CNAME smith | 407 | |||
408 | ||||
3.4. Purpose-Based OpenPGP CERT RR Names | 409 | |||
410 | ||||
Applications that receive an OpenPGP packet containing encrypted or | 411 | |||
signed data but do not know the email address of the sender will have | 412 | |||
difficulties constructing the correct owner name and cannot use the | 413 | |||
content-based owner name guidelines. However, these clients commonly | 414 | |||
know the key fingerprint or the Key ID. The key ID is found in | 415 | |||
OpenPGP packets, and the key fingerprint is commonly found in | 416 | |||
auxiliary data that may be available. In this case, use of an owner | 417 | |||
name identical to the key fingerprint and the key ID expressed in | 418 | |||
hexadecimal [16] is recommended. For example: | 419 | |||
420 | ||||
$ORIGIN example.org. | 421 | |||
0424D4EE81A0E3D119C6F835EDA21E94B565716F IN CERT PGP ... | 422 | |||
F835EDA21E94B565716F IN CERT PGP ... | 423 | |||
B565716F IN CERT PGP ... | 424 | |||
425 | ||||
If the same key material is stored for several owner names, the use | 426 | |||
of CNAME may help avoid data duplication. Note that CNAME is not | 427 | |||
always applicable, because it maps one owner name to the other for | 428 | |||
all purposes, which may be sub-optimal when two keys with the same | 429 | |||
Key ID are stored. | 430 | |||
431 | ||||
3.5. Owner Names for IPKIX, ISPKI, IPGP, and IACPKIX | 432 | |||
433 | ||||
These types are stored under the same owner names, both purpose- and | 434 | |||
content-based, as the PKIX, SPKI, PGP, and ACPKIX types. | 435 | |||
291 | 436 | |||
292 | 4. Performance Considerations | 4. Performance Considerations | 437 | |
293 | 438 | |||
294 | Current Domain Name System (DNS) implementations are optimized for | The Domain Name System (DNS) protocol was designed for small | 439 | |
295 | small transfers, typically not more than 512 bytes including | transfers, typically below 512 octets. While larger transfers will | 440 | |
296 | overhead. While larger transfers will perform correctly and work is | perform correctly and work is underway to make larger transfers more | 441 | |
297 | underway to make larger transfers more efficient, it is still | efficient, it is still advisable at this time that every reasonable | 442 | |
298 | advisable at this time to make every reasonable effort to minimize | effort be made to minimize the size of certificates stored within the | 443 | |
299 | the size of certificates stored within the DNS. Steps that can be | DNS. Steps that can be taken may include using the fewest possible | 444 | |
300 | taken may include using the fewest possible optional or extensions | optional or extension fields and using short field values for | 445 | |
301 | fields and using short field values for variable length fields that | necessary variable-length fields. | 446 | |
302 | must be included. | |||
303 | 447 | |||
304 | 5. IANA Considerations | The RDATA field in the DNS protocol may only hold data of size 65535 | 448 | |
octets (64kb) or less. This means that each CERT RR MUST NOT contain | 449 | |||
more than 64kb of payload, even if the corresponding certificate or | 450 | |||
certificate revocation list is larger. This document addresses this | 451 | |||
by defining "indirect" data types for each normal type. | 452 | |||
305 | 453 | |||
306 | Certificate types 0x0000 through 0x00FF and 0xFF00 through 0xFFFF can | Deploying CERT RRs to support digitally signed email changes the | 454 | |
307 | only be assigned by an IETF standards action [7] (and this document | access patterns of DNS lookups from per-domain to per-user. If | 455 | |
308 | assigns 0x0001 through 0x0003 and 0x00FD and 0x00FE). Certificate | digitally signed email and a key/certificate lookup based on CERT RRs | 456 | |
309 | types 0x0100 through 0xFEFF are assigned through IETF Consensus [7] | are deployed on a wide scale, this may lead to an increased DNS load, | 457 | |
310 | based on RFC documentation of the certificate type. The availability | with potential performance and cache effectiveness consequences. | 458 | |
311 | of private types under 0x00FD and 0x00FE should satisfy most | Whether or not this load increase will be noticeable is not known. | 459 | |
312 | requirements for proprietary or private types. | |||
313 | 460 | |||
314 | 6. Security Considerations | 5. Contributors | 461 | |
462 | ||||
The majority of this document is copied verbatim from RFC 2538, by | 463 | |||
Donald Eastlake 3rd and Olafur Gudmundsson. | 464 | |||
465 | ||||
6. Acknowledgements | 466 | |||
467 | ||||
Thanks to David Shaw and Michael Graff for their contributions to | 468 | |||
earlier works that motivated, and served as inspiration for, this | 469 | |||
document. | 470 | |||
471 | ||||
This document was improved by suggestions and comments from Olivier | 472 | |||
Dubuisson, Scott Hollenbeck, Russ Housley, Peter Koch, Olaf M. | 473 | |||
Kolkman, Ben Laurie, Edward Lewis, John Loughney, Allison Mankin, | 474 | |||
Douglas Otis, Marcos Sanz, Pekka Savola, Jason Sloderbeck, Samuel | 475 | |||
Weiler, Florian Weimer, and the IANA. No doubt the list is | 476 | |||
incomplete. We apologize to anyone we left out. | 477 | |||
478 | ||||
7. Security Considerations | 479 | |||
315 | 480 | |||
316 | By definition, certificates contain their own authenticating | By definition, certificates contain their own authenticating | 481 | |
317 | signature. Thus it is reasonable to store certificates in non-secure | signatures. Thus, it is reasonable to store certificates in non- | 482 | |
318 | DNS zones or to retrieve certificates from DNS with DNS security | secure DNS zones or to retrieve certificates from DNS with DNS | 483 | |
319 | checking not implemented or deferred for efficiency. The results MAY | security checking not implemented or deferred for efficiency. The | 484 | |
320 | be trusted if the certificate chain is verified back to a known | results may be trusted if the certificate chain is verified back to a | 485 | |
321 | trusted key and this conforms with the user's security policy. | known trusted key and this conforms with the user's security policy. | 486 | |
322 | 487 | |||
323 | Alternatively, if certificates are retrieved from a secure DNS zone | Alternatively, if certificates are retrieved from a secure DNS zone | 488 | |
324 | with DNS security checking enabled and are verified by DNS security, | with DNS security checking enabled and are verified by DNS security, | 489 | |
325 | the key within the retrieved certificate MAY be trusted without | the key within the retrieved certificate may be trusted without | 490 | |
326 | verifying the certificate chain if this conforms with the user's | verifying the certificate chain if this conforms with the user's | 491 | |
327 | security policy. | security policy. | 492 | |
328 | 493 | |||
329 | CERT RRs are not used in connection with securing the DNS security | If an organization chooses to issue certificates for its employees, | 494 | |
330 | additions so there are no security considerations related to CERT RRs | placing CERT RR's in the DNS by owner name, and if DNSSEC (with NSEC) | 495 | |
331 | and securing the DNS itself. | is in use, it is possible for someone to enumerate all employees of | 496 | |
the organization. This is usually not considered desirable, for the | 497 | |||
same reason that enterprise phone listings are not often publicly | 498 | |||
published and are even marked confidential. | 499 | |||
332 | 500 | |||
333 | 7. References | Using the URI type introduces another level of indirection that may | 501 | |
open a new vulnerability. One method of securing that indirection is | 502 | |||
to include a hash of the certificate in the URI itself. | 503 | |||
504 | ||||
If DNSSEC is used, then the non-existence of a CERT RR and, | 505 | |||
consequently, certificates or revocation lists can be securely | 506 | |||
asserted. Without DNSSEC, this is not possible. | 507 | |||
508 | ||||
8. IANA Considerations | 509 | |||
510 | ||||
The IANA has created a new registry for CERT RR: certificate types. | 511 | |||
The initial contents of this registry is: | 512 | |||
513 | ||||
Decimal Type Meaning Reference | 514 | |||
------- ---- ------- --------- | 515 | |||
0 Reserved RFC 4398 | 516 | |||
1 PKIX X.509 as per PKIX RFC 4398 | 517 | |||
2 SPKI SPKI certificate RFC 4398 | 518 | |||
3 PGP OpenPGP packet RFC 4398 | 519 | |||
4 IPKIX The URL of an X.509 data object RFC 4398 | 520 | |||
5 ISPKI The URL of an SPKI certificate RFC 4398 | 521 | |||
6 IPGP The fingerprint and URL RFC 4398 | 522 | |||
of an OpenPGP packet | 523 | |||
7 ACPKIX Attribute Certificate RFC 4398 | 524 | |||
8 IACPKIX The URL of an Attribute RFC 4398 | 525 | |||
Certificate | 526 | |||
9-252 Available for IANA assignment | 527 | |||
by IETF Standards action | 528 | |||
253 URI URI private RFC 4398 | 529 | |||
254 OID OID private RFC 4398 | 530 | |||
255 Reserved RFC 4398 | 531 | |||
256-65279 Available for IANA assignment | 532 | |||
by IETF Consensus | 533 | |||
65280-65534 Experimental RFC 4398 | 534 | |||
65535 Reserved RFC 4398 | 535 | |||
536 | ||||
Certificate types 0x0000 through 0x00FF (255) and 0xFF00 (65280) | 537 | |||
through 0xFFFF (65535) can only be assigned by an IETF standards | 538 | |||
action [6]. This document assigns 0x0001 through 0x0008 and 0x00FD | 539 | |||
(253) and 0x00FE (254). Certificate types 0x0100 (256) through | 540 | |||
0xFEFF (65279) are assigned through IETF Consensus [6] based on RFC | 541 | |||
documentation of the certificate type. The availability of private | 542 | |||
types under 0x00FD (253) and 0x00FE (254) ought to satisfy most | 543 | |||
requirements for proprietary or private types. | 544 | |||
545 | ||||
The CERT RR reuses the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers registry. In | 546 | |||
particular, the CERT RR requires that algorithm number 0 remain | 547 | |||
reserved, as described in Section 2. The IANA will reference the | 548 | |||
CERT RR as a user of this registry and value 0, in particular. | 549 | |||
550 | ||||
9. Changes since RFC 2538 | 551 | |||
552 | ||||
1. Editorial changes to conform with new document requirements, | 553 | |||
including splitting reference section into two parts and | 554 | |||
updating the references to point at latest versions, and to add | 555 | |||
some additional references. | 556 | |||
2. Improve terminology. For example replace "PGP" with "OpenPGP", | 557 | |||
to align with RFC 2440. | 558 | |||
3. In Section 2.1, clarify that OpenPGP public key data are binary, | 559 | |||
not the ASCII armored format, and reference 10.1 in RFC 2440 on | 560 | |||
how to deal with OpenPGP keys, and acknowledge that | 561 | |||
implementations may handle additional packet types. | 562 | |||
4. Clarify that integers in the representation format are decimal. | 563 | |||
5. Replace KEY/SIG with DNSKEY/RRSIG etc, to align with DNSSECbis | 564 | |||
terminology. Improve reference for Key Tag Algorithm | 565 | |||
calculations. | 566 | |||
6. Add examples that suggest use of CNAME to reduce bandwidth. | 567 | |||
7. In Section 3, appended the last paragraphs that discuss | 568 | |||
"content-based" vs "purpose-based" owner names. Add Section 3.2 | 569 | |||
for purpose-based X.509 CERT owner names, and Section 3.4 for | 570 | |||
purpose-based OpenPGP CERT owner names. | 571 | |||
8. Added size considerations. | 572 | |||
9. The SPKI types has been reserved, until RFC 2692/2693 is moved | 573 | |||
from the experimental status. | 574 | |||
10. Added indirect types IPKIX, ISPKI, IPGP, and IACPKIX. | 575 | |||
11. An IANA registry of CERT type values was created. | 576 | |||
577 | ||||
10. References | 578 | |||
579 | ||||
10.1. Normative References | 580 | |||
334 | 581 | |||
335 | [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", | [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", | 582 | |
336 | STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. | STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. | 583 | |
337 | 584 | |||
338 | [2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and | [2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and | 585 | |
339 | specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. | specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. | 586 | |
340 | 587 | |||
341 | [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement | [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement | 588 | |
342 | Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | 589 | |
343 | 590 | |||
344 | [4] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R., and S. Sataluri, | [4] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R., and S. Sataluri, | 591 | |
345 | "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished Names", RFC 2247, | "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished Names", RFC 2247, | 592 | |
346 | January 1998. | January 1998. | 593 | |
347 | 594 | |||
348 | [5] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform | [5] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., and R. Thayer, | 595 | |
349 | Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, | "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 2440, November 1998. | 596 | |
350 | August 1998. | |||
351 | 597 | |||
352 | [6] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., and R. Thayer, "OpenPGP | [6] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA | 598 | |
353 | Message Format", RFC 2440, November 1998. | Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, | 599 | |
October 1998. | 600 | |||
354 | 601 | |||
355 | [7] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA | [7] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001. | 602 | |
356 | Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. | |||
357 | 603 | |||
358 | [8] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", | [8] Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W., and D. Solo, "Internet X.509 | 604 | |
359 | RFC 2535, March 1999. | Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate | 605 | |
Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280, April 2002. | 606 | |||
360 | 607 | |||
361 | [9] Housley, R., Ford, W., Polk, T., and D. Solo, "Internet X.509 | [9] Farrell, S. and R. Housley, "An Internet Attribute Certificate | 608 | |
362 | Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile", | Profile for Authorization", RFC 3281, April 2002. | 609 | |
363 | RFC 2459, January 1999. | 610 | ||
[10] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform | 611 | |||
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, | 612 | |||
January 2005. | 613 | |||
614 | ||||
[11] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, | 615 | |||
"DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, | 616 | |||
March 2005. | 617 | |||
618 | ||||
[12] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, | 619 | |||
"Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, | 620 | |||
March 2005. | 621 | |||
622 | ||||
10.2. Informative References | 623 | |||
624 | ||||
[13] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", | 625 | |||
RFC 2246, January 1999. | 626 | |||
627 | ||||
[14] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet | 628 | |||
Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. | 629 | |||
630 | ||||
[15] Ellison, C., Frantz, B., Lampson, B., Rivest, R., Thomas, B., | 631 | |||
and T. Ylonen, "SPKI Certificate Theory", RFC 2693, | 632 | |||
September 1999. | 633 | |||
634 | ||||
[16] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", | 635 | |||
RFC 3548, July 2003. | 636 | |||
637 | ||||
[17] Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions | 638 | |||
(S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification", RFC 3851, | 639 | |||
July 2004. | 640 | |||
641 | ||||
[18] Richardson, M., "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying Material in | 642 | |||
DNS", RFC 4025, March 2005. | 643 | |||
644 | ||||
Appendix A. Copying Conditions | 645 | |||
646 | ||||
Regarding the portion of this document that was written by Simon | 647 | |||
Josefsson ("the author", for the remainder of this section), the | 648 | |||
author makes no guarantees and is not responsible for any damage | 649 | |||
resulting from its use. The author grants irrevocable permission to | 650 | |||
anyone to use, modify, and distribute it in any way that does not | 651 | |||
diminish the rights of anyone else to use, modify, and distribute it, | 652 | |||
provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain | 653 | |||
misleading author or version information. Derivative works need not | 654 | |||
be licensed under similar terms. | 655 | |||
364 | 656 | |||
365 | Author's Address | Author's Address | 657 | |
366 | 658 | |||
367 | Simon Josefsson | Simon Josefsson | 659 | |
368 | 660 | |||
369 | Email: [email protected] | Email: [email protected] | 661 | |
370 | 662 | |||
371 | Intellectual Property Statement | Intellectual Property Statement | 663 | |
372 | 664 | |||
373 | The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | 665 | |
skipping to change at page 11, line 41 | skipping to change at page 17, line 41 | |||
397 | This document and the information contained herein are provided on an | This document and the information contained herein are provided on an | 689 | |
398 | "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS | "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS | 690 | |
399 | OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET | OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET | 691 | |
400 | ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, | ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, | 692 | |
401 | INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE | INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE | 693 | |
402 | INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED | INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED | 694 | |
403 | WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | 695 | |
404 | 696 | |||
405 | Copyright Statement | Copyright Statement | 697 | |
406 | 698 | |||
407 | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject | 699 | |
408 | to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and | to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and | 700 | |
409 | except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. | except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. | 701 | |
410 | 702 | |||
411 | Acknowledgment | Acknowledgment | 703 | |
412 | 704 | |||
413 | Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the | Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the | 705 | |
414 | Internet Society. | Internet Society. | 706 | |
End of changes. 60 change blocks. | ||||
155 lines changed or deleted | 447 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.29, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/ |