summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-01.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-01.txt')
-rw-r--r--third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-01.txt566
1 files changed, 566 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-01.txt b/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-01.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..a4927feee70
--- /dev/null
+++ b/third_party/heimdal/doc/standardisation/draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-01.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,566 @@
+
+NETWORK WORKING GROUP L. Zhu
+Internet-Draft K. Jaganathan
+Expires: February 8, 2005 Microsoft Corporation
+ N. Williams
+ Sun Microsystems
+ August 10, 2004
+
+
+
+ OCSP Support for PKINIT
+ draft-ietf-krb-wg-ocsp-for-pkinit-01
+
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+
+ This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
+ of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
+ author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
+ which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
+ which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
+ RFC 3668.
+
+
+ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
+ Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
+ other groups may also distribute working documents as
+ Internet-Drafts.
+
+
+ Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
+ and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
+ time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
+ material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
+
+
+ The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
+
+
+ The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
+
+
+ This Internet-Draft will expire on February 8, 2005.
+
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
+
+
+Abstract
+
+
+ This document defines a mechanism to enable in-band transmission of
+ OCSP responses. These responses are used to verify the validity of
+ the certificates used in PKINIT - the Kerberos Version 5 extension
+ that provides for the use of public key cryptography.
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires February 8, 2005 [Page 1]
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT August 2004
+
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+
+ 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 3. Message Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires February 8, 2005 [Page 2]
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT August 2004
+
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+
+ Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC2560] enables
+ applications to obtain timely information regarding the revocation
+ status of a certificate. Because OCSP responses are well-bounded and
+ small in size, constrained clients may wish to use OCSP to check the
+ validity of KDC certificates in order to avoid transmission of large
+ Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) and therefore save bandwidth on
+ constrained networks.
+
+
+ This document defines a pre-authentication type [CLARIFICATIONS],
+ where the client and the KDC MAY piggyback OCSP responses for
+ certificates used in authentication exchanges, as defined in
+ [PKINIT].
+
+
+ By using this OPTIONAL extension, PKINIT clients and the KDC can
+ maximize the reuse of cached OCSP responses.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires February 8, 2005 [Page 3]
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT August 2004
+
+
+
+2. Conventions Used in This Document
+
+
+ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+ document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires February 8, 2005 [Page 4]
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT August 2004
+
+
+
+3. Message Definition
+
+
+ A pre-authentication type identifier is defined for this mechanism:
+
+
+ PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE 16
+
+
+ The corresponding pre-authentication field contains OCSP data as
+ follows:
+
+
+ PA-PK-OCSP-DATA ::= SEQUENCE OF OcspResponse
+
+
+ OcspResponse ::= OCTET STRING
+ -- contains a complete OCSP response,
+ -- defined in [RFC2560]
+
+
+ The client MAY send OCSP responses for certificates used in
+ PA-PK-AS-REQ [PKINIT] via a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE.
+
+
+ The KDC that receives a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE the SHOULD send a
+ PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE in response. The client can request a
+ PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE by using an empty sequence in its request.
+
+
+ The KDC MAY send a PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE when it does not receive a
+ PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE from the client.
+
+
+ The PA-PK-OCSP-RESPONSE sent by the KDC contains OCSP responses for
+ certificates used in PA-PK-AS-REP [PKINIT].
+
+
+ Note the lack of integrity protection for the empty or missing OCSP
+ response; lack of an expected OCSP response from the KDC for the
+ KDC's certificates SHOULD be treated as an error by the client,
+ unless it is configured otherwise.
+
+
+ When using OCSP, the response is signed by the OCSP server, which is
+ trusted by the receiver. Depending on local policy, further
+ verification of the validity of the OCSP servers MAY need to be done.
+
+
+ The client and the KDC SHOULD ignore invalid OCSP responses received
+ via this mechanism, and they MAY implement CRL processing logic as a
+ fall-back position, if the OCSP responses received via this mechanism
+ alone are not sufficient for the verification of certificate
+ validity. The client and/or the KDC MAY ignore a valid OCSP response
+ and perform their own revocation status verification independently.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires February 8, 2005 [Page 5]
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT August 2004
+
+
+
+4. Security Considerations
+
+
+ The pre-authentication data in this document do not actually
+ authenticate any principals, and MUST be used in conjunction with
+ PKINIT.
+
+
+ There is a downgrade attack against clients which want OCSP responses
+ from the KDC for the KDC's certificates. The clients, however, can
+ treat the absence of valid OCSP responses as an error, based on their
+ local configuration.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires February 8, 2005 [Page 6]
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT August 2004
+
+
+
+5. IANA Considerations
+
+
+ This document defines a new pre-authentication type for use with
+ PKINIT to encode OCSP responses. The official value for this padata
+ identifier need to be acquired from IANA.
+
+
+6 References
+
+
+ [CLARIFICATIONS]
+ Neuman, B., Yu, Y., Hartman, S. and K. Raeburn, "The
+ Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)",
+ draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications, Work in
+ progress.
+
+
+ [PKINIT] Tung, B. and B. Neuman, "Public Key Cryptography for
+ Initial Authentication in Kerberos",
+ draft-ietf-cat-kerberos-pk-init, Work in progress.
+
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+
+ [RFC2560] Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S. and C.
+ Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
+ Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999.
+
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+
+ Larry Zhu
+ Microsoft Corporation
+ One Microsoft Way
+ Redmond, WA 98052
+ US
+
+
+ EMail: lzhu@microsoft.com
+
+
+
+ Karthik Jaganathan
+ Microsoft Corporation
+ One Microsoft Way
+ Redmond, WA 98052
+ US
+
+
+ EMail: karthikj@microsoft.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires February 8, 2005 [Page 7]
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT August 2004
+
+
+
+ Nicolas Williams
+ Sun Microsystems
+ 5300 Riata Trace Ct
+ Austin, TX 78727
+ US
+
+
+ EMail: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires February 8, 2005 [Page 8]
+Internet-Draft OCSP Support for PKINIT August 2004
+
+
+
+Intellectual Property Statement
+
+
+ The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+ Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+ pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+ this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+ might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+ made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
+ on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+ found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+
+ Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+ assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+ attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+ such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+ specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+
+ The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+ copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+ rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+ this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
+ ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+
+
+Disclaimer of Validity
+
+
+ This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+ "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+ OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
+ ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
+ INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
+ INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+ WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+
+
+Copyright Statement
+
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
+ to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
+ except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
+
+
+
+Acknowledgment
+
+
+ This document was based on conversations among the authors, Jeffrey
+ Altman, Sam Hartman, Martin Rex, and other members of the Kerberos
+ working group.
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu, et al. Expires February 8, 2005 [Page 9] \ No newline at end of file
View Lorry Controller Status