home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Group R. Housley
- Request for Comments: 2585 SPYRUS
- Category: Standards Track P. Hoffman
- IMC
- May 1999
-
-
- Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
- Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP
-
- Status of this Memo
-
- This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
- Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
- improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
- Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
- and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
-
- Copyright Notice
-
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
-
- Abstract
-
- The protocol conventions described in this document satisfy some of
- the operational requirements of the Internet Public Key
- Infrastructure (PKI). This document specifies the conventions for
- using the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and the Hypertext Transfer
- Protocol (HTTP) to obtain certificates and certificate revocation
- lists (CRLs) from PKI repositories. Additional mechanisms addressing
- PKIX operational requirements are specified in separate documents.
-
- 1 Introduction
-
- This specification is part of a multi-part standard for the Internet
- Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) using X.509 certificates and
- certificate revocation lists (CRLs). This document specifies the
- conventions for using the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and the
- Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) to obtain certificates and CRLs
- from PKI repositories. Additional mechanisms addressing PKI
- repository access are specified in separate documents.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 1]
-
- RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999
-
-
- 1.1. Model
-
- The following is a simplified view of the architectural model assumed
- by the Internet PKI specifications.
-
- +---+
- | C | +------------+
- | e | <-------------------->| End entity |
- | r | Operational +------------+
- | t | transactions ^
- | | and management | Management
- | / | transactions | transactions
- | | | PKI users
- | C | v
- | R | -------------------+--+-----------+-----------------
- | L | ^ ^
- | | | | PKI management
- | | v | entities
- | R | +------+ |
- | e | <---------------------| RA | <---+ |
- | p | Publish certificate +------+ | |
- | o | | |
- | s | | |
- | I | v v
- | t | +------------+
- | o | <------------------------------| CA |
- | r | Publish certificate +------------+
- | y | Publish CRL ^
- | | |
- +---+ Management |
- transactions |
- v
- +------+
- | CA |
- +------+
-
- The components in this model are:
-
- End Entity: user of PKI certificates and/or end user system that is
- the subject of a certificate;
-
- CA: certification authority;
-
- RA: registration authority, i.e., an optional system to
- which a CA delegates certain management functions;
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 2]
-
- RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999
-
-
- Repository: a system or collection of distributed systems that store
- certificates and CRLs and serves as a means of
- distributing these certificates and CRLs to end
- entities.
-
- 1.2. Certificate and CRL Repository
-
- Some CAs mandate the use of on-line validation services, while others
- distribute CRLs to allow certificate users to perform certificate
- validation themselves. In general, CAs make CRLs available to
- certificate users by publishing them in the Directory. The Directory
- is also the normal distribution mechanism for certificates. However,
- Directory Services are not available in many parts of the Internet
- today. The File Transfer Protocol (FTP) defined in RFC 959 and the
- Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) defined in RFC 2068 offer
- alternate methods for certificate and CRL distribution.
-
- End entities and CAs may retrieve certificates and CRLs from the
- repository using FTP or HTTP. End entities may publish their own
- certificate in the repository using FTP or HTTP, and RAs and CAs may
- publish certificates and CRLs in the repository using FTP or HTTP.
-
- 2 FTP Conventions
-
- Within certificate extensions and CRL extensions, the URI form of
- GeneralName is used to specify the location where issuer certificates
- and CRLs may be obtained. For instance, a URI identifying the
- subject of a certificate may be carried in subjectAltName certificate
- extension. An IA5String describes the use of anonymous FTP to fetch
- certificate or CRL information. For example:
-
- ftp://ftp.netcom.com/sp/spyrus/housley.cer
- ftp://ftp.your.org/pki/id48.cer
- ftp://ftp.your.org/pki/id48.no42.crl
-
- Internet users may publish the URI reference to a file that contains
- their certificate on their business card. This practice is useful
- when there is no Directory entry for that user. FTP is widely
- deployed, and anonymous FTP are accommodated by many firewalls.
- Thus, FTP is an attractive alternative to Directory access protocols
- for certificate and CRL distribution. While this service satisfies
- the requirement to retrieve information related to a certificate
- which is already identified by a URI, it is not intended to satisfy
- the more general problem of finding a certificate for a user about
- whom some other information, such as their electronic mail address or
- corporate affiliation, is known.
-
-
-
-
-
- Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 3]
-
- RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999
-
-
- For convenience, the names of files that contain certificates should
- have a suffix of ".cer". Each ".cer" file contains exactly one
- certificate, encoded in DER format. Likewise, the names of files
- that contain CRLs should have a suffix of ".crl". Each ".crl" file
- contains exactly one CRL, encoded in DER format.
-
- 3 HTTP Conventions
-
- Within certificate extensions and CRL extensions, the URI form of
- GeneralName is used to specify the location where issuer certificates
- and CRLs may be obtained. For instance, a URI identifying the
- subject of a certificate may be carried in subjectAltName certificate
- extension. An IA5String describes the use of HTTP to fetch
- certificate or CRL information. For example:
-
- http://www.netcom.com/sp/spyrus/housley.cer
- http://www.your.org/pki/id48.cer
- http://www.your.org/pki/id48.no42.crl
-
- Internet users may publish the URI reference to a file that contains
- their certificate on their business card. This practice is useful
- when there is no Directory entry for that user. HTTP is widely
- deployed, and HTTP is accommodated by many firewalls. Thus, HTTP is
- an attractive alternative to Directory access protocols for
- certificate and CRL distribution. While this service satisfies the
- requirement to retrieve information related to a certificate which is
- already identified by a URI, it is not intended to satisfy the more
- general problem of finding a certificate for a user about whom some
- other information, such as their electronic mail address or corporate
- affiliation, is known.
-
- For convenience, the names of files that contain certificates should
- have a suffix of ".cer". Each ".cer" file contains exactly one
- certificate, encoded in DER format. Likewise, the names of files
- that contain CRLs should have a suffix of ".crl". Each ".crl" file
- contains exactly one CRL, encoded in DER format.
-
- 4 MIME registrations
-
- Two MIME types are defined to support the transfer of certificates
- and CRLs. They are:
-
- application/pkix-cert
- application/pkix-crl
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 4]
-
- RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999
-
-
- 4.1. application/pkix-cert
-
- To: ietf-types@iana.org
- Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/pkix-cert
-
- MIME media type name: application
-
- MIME subtype name: pkix-cert
-
- Required parameters: None
-
- Optional parameters: version (default value is "1")
-
- Encoding considerations: will be none for 8-bit transports and most
- likely Base64 for SMTP or other 7-bit transports
-
- Security considerations: Carries a cryptographic certificate
-
- Interoperability considerations: None
-
- Published specification: draft-ietf-pkix-ipki-part1
-
- Applications which use this media type: Any MIME-complaint transport
-
- Additional information:
- Magic number(s): None
- File extension(s): .CER
- Macintosh File Type Code(s): none
-
- Person & email address to contact for further information:
- Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>
-
- Intended usage: COMMON
-
- Author/Change controller:
- Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>
-
- 4.2. application/pkix-crl
-
- To: ietf-types@iana.org
- Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/pkix-crl
-
- MIME media type name: application
-
- MIME subtype name: pkix-crl
-
- Required parameters: None
-
-
-
-
- Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 5]
-
- RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999
-
-
- Optional parameters: version (default value is "1")
-
- Encoding considerations: will be none for 8-bit transports and most
- likely Base64 for SMTP or other 7-bit transports
-
- Security considerations: Carries a cryptographic certificate
- revocation list
-
- Interoperability considerations: None
-
- Published specification: draft-ietf-pkix-ipki-part1
-
- Applications which use this media type: Any MIME-complaint transport
-
- Additional information:
- Magic number(s): None
- File extension(s): .CRL
- Macintosh File Type Code(s): none
-
- Person & email address to contact for further information:
- Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>
-
- Intended usage: COMMON
-
- Author/Change controller:
- Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>
-
- References
-
- [RFC 959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol (FTP)",
- STD 5, RFC 959, October 1985.
-
- [RFC 1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L. and M. McCahill, "Uniform
- Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.
-
- [RFC 2068] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H. and
- T. Berners-Lee; "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
- RFC 2068, January 1997.
-
- Security Considerations
-
- Since certificates and CRLs are digitally signed, no additional
- integrity service is necessary. Neither certificates nor CRLs need
- be kept secret, and anonymous access to certificates and CRLs is
- generally acceptable. Thus, no privacy service is necessary.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 6]
-
- RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999
-
-
- HTTP caching proxies are common on the Internet, and some proxies do
- not check for the latest version of an object correctly. If an HTTP
- request for a certificate or CRL goes through a misconfigured or
- otherwise broken proxy, the proxy may return an out-of-date response.
-
- Operators of FTP sites and World Wide Web servers should authenticate
- end entities who publish certificates as well as CAs and RAs who
- publish certificates and CRLs. However, authentication is not
- necessary to retrieve certificates and CRLs.
-
- Authors' Addresses
-
- Russell Housley
- SPYRUS
- 381 Elden Street, Suite 1120
- Herndon, VA 20170 USA
-
- EMail: housley@spyrus.com
-
-
- Paul Hoffman
- Internet Mail Consortium
- 127 Segre Place
- Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA
-
- EMail: phoffman@imc.org
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 7]
-
- RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999
-
-
- Full Copyright Statement
-
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
-
- This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
- others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
- or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
- and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
- kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
- included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
- document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
- the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
- Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
- developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
- copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
- followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
- English.
-
- The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
- revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
-
- This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
- "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
- TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
-
- Acknowledgement
-
- Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
- Internet Society.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 8]
-
-