ACME Identifiers and Challenges for VoIP Service Providers
draft-barnes-acme-service-provider-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mary Barnes , Chris Wendt | ||
| Last updated | 2017-03-13 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-barnes-acme-service-provider-00
Network Working Group M. Barnes
Internet-Draft MLB@Realtime Communications
Intended status: Informational C. Wendt
Expires: September 14, 2017 Comcast
March 13, 2017
ACME Identifiers and Challenges for VoIP Service Providers
draft-barnes-acme-service-provider-00
Abstract
This document specifies identifiers and challenges required to enable
the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) to issue
certificates for VoIP service providers to support Secure Telephony
Identity (STI).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Barnes & Wendt Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Identifier and Challenges March 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Service Provider Code Identifier Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Challenges for Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Service Provider Identifier Code and Challenges Example . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. ACME Service Provider Code Identifier . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. ACME Service Provider Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-acme-acme] is a mechanism for automating certificate
management on the Internet. It enables administrative entities to
prove effective control over resources like domain names, and
automates the process of generating and issuing certificates.
The STIR problem statement [RFC7340] identifies the need for Internet
credentials that can attest authority for the originator of VoIP
calls in order to detect impersonation, which is currently an enabler
for common attacks associated with illegal robocalling, voicemail
hacking, and swatting. These credentials are used to sign PASSporTs
[I-D.ietf-stir-passport], which can be carried in using protocols
such as SIP [I-D.ietf-stir-rfc4474bis]. Currently, the only defined
credentials for this purpose are the certificates specified in
[I-D.ietf-stir-certificates].
[I-D.ietf-stir-certificates] describes certificate extensions
suitable for associating telephone numbers and service provider codes
with certificates. [I-D.peterson-acme-telephone] specifies the ACME
extensions to enable certification authorities to issue certificates
based on telephone numbers. This specification defines extensions to
ACME to enable certification authorities to issue certificates based
on service provider codes.
2. Overview
The document [SHAKEN_Certificate_Mgmt] provides a framework and model
for using certificates based on service provider codes. In this
model, each service provider requires only a few certificates which
are used in conjunction with a PASSporT that contains additional
information attesting to a service provider's knowledge of the
originator of the call. Further details on the PASSporT extensions
are provided in the SHAKEN Framework [ATIS-1000074].
Barnes & Wendt Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Identifier and Challenges March 2017
In the SHAKEN Certificate Management framework, there is an
administrative entity that is responsible for allocating service
provider codes. This is referred to as the STI Policy Administrator
(STI-PA). This allows a certification authority to validate that the
entity requesting issuance of a certificate is authorized to request
certificates on behalf of the entity that has been assigned a
specific service provider code.
The intent of the challenges in this document is not to establish
that an entity is a valid service provider but rather to provide
evidence that an established governance entity has authorized the
entity to provide VoIP services in the network and thus to request
credentials on behalf of the VoIP users in the network.
3. Service Provider Code Identifier Type
In order to issues certificates for service providers based on
service provider code values, a new ACME identifier type is required
for use in ACME authorization objects. The baseline ACME
specification defines one type of identifier, for a fully-qualified
domain name ("dns"). The document [I-D.peterson-acme-telephone]
defines an ACME identifier type for telephone numbers ("tn"). This
document defines a new ACME identifier type for service provider
codes ("service-provider-code"). The service-provider-code
identifier is the same type that is specified in the TN Authorization
List certificate extension [I-D.ietf-stir-certificates] for service
provider codes. An example is provided in Section 5.
4. Challenges for Service Providers
The new service provider code identifier introduces a slightly
different authorization process. A mechanism is required to allow
the service provider to prove it has the authority to request
certificates on behalf of the entities for whom it is providing VoIP
services.
The STI-PA in the SHAKEN Certificate Management framework has a two-
party OAuth [RFC6749] exchange with the Service Provider in order to
provide a token the Service Provider can use for authorization by the
CA when requesting a certificate. The token is a standard JWT token
[RFC7519] using a JWS defined signature string [RFC7515]. Note that
further details on the CA interface to the STI-PA for the
authorization are provided in [SHAKEN_Certificate_Mgmt].
This document defines a new ACME challenges type of "token" to
support the SHAKEN Certificate Management framework. An example of
the use of the token for ACME is provided in Section 5.
Barnes & Wendt Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Identifier and Challenges March 2017
5. Service Provider Identifier Code and Challenges Example
The section provides examples of the use of the service provider code
identifier as a challenge mechanism.
The following is the response that the ACME client receives when it
sends a GET for the challenges:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Link: <https://example.com/acme/some-directory>;rel="directory"
{
"status": "pending",
"identifier": {
"type": "service-provider-code",
"value": "505-555-1234-0111"
},
"challenges": [
{
"type": "token",
"url": "https://sti-ca.com/authz/asdf/0"
}
],
}
Barnes & Wendt Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Identifier and Challenges March 2017
The following is the response to the challenge sent by the ACME
client:
POST /acme/authz/asdf/0 HTTP/1.1
Host: sti-ca.com
Content-Type: application/jose+json
{
"protected": base64url({
"alg": "ES256",
"kid": "https://sti-ca.com/acme/reg/asdf",
"nonce": "Q_s3MWoqT05TrdkM2MTDcw",
"url": "https://sti-ca.com/acme/authz/asdf/0"
}),
"payload": base64url({
"type": "token",
"keyAuthorization": "IlirfxKKXA...vb29HhjjLPSggwiE"
}),
"signature": "9cbg5JO1Gf5YLjjz...SpkUfcdPai9uVYYQ"
}
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new ACME Identifier type and ACME Challenge
type to be registered.
[[ RFC EDITOR: Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number assigned
to this document ]]
6.1. ACME Service Provider Code Identifier
This document defines the "service-provider-code" ACME Challenge type
in the ACME Identifier Type registry as follows:
+-----------------------+-----------+
| Identifier Type | Reference |
+-----------------------+-----------+
| service-provider-code | RFC XXXX |
+-----------------------+-----------+
Barnes & Wendt Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Identifier and Challenges March 2017
6.2. ACME Service Provider Challenge
This document defines the "token" ACME Challenge type in the ACME
Challenge Types registry as follows:
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+
| Label | Identifier Type | Reference |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+
| token | service-provider-code | RFC XXXX |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+
7. Security Considerations
This document relies on the security considerations established for
the ACME protocol per [I-D.ietf-acme-acme]. The new service provider
identifier and token validation challenges introduce a slightly
different authorization process. Although, the challenges still have
a binding between the account private key and the validation query
made by the server, via the key authorization.
The token is initially obtained through an OAUTH [RFC6749] exchange
between the service provider and the entity in the network that is
responsible for determining what entities can operate as VoIP service
providers (the STI Policy Administrator). Further details on this
are provided in [SHAKEN_Certificate_Mgmt].
8. Informative References
[ATIS-1000074]
ATIS/SIP Forum NNI Task Group, "Signature-based Handling
of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN)", January
2017.
[I-D.ietf-acme-acme]
Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., and J. Kasten, "Automatic
Certificate Management Environment (ACME)", draft-ietf-
acme-acme-05 (work in progress), February 2017.
[I-D.ietf-stir-certificates]
Peterson, J. and S. Turner, "Secure Telephone Identity
Credentials: Certificates", draft-ietf-stir-
certificates-11 (work in progress), October 2016.
Barnes & Wendt Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Identifier and Challenges March 2017
[I-D.ietf-stir-passport]
Wendt, C. and J. Peterson, "Personal Assertion Token
(PASSporT)", draft-ietf-stir-passport-11 (work in
progress), February 2017.
[I-D.ietf-stir-rfc4474bis]
Peterson, J., Jennings, C., Rescorla, E., and C. Wendt,
"Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-16
(work in progress), February 2017.
[I-D.peterson-acme-telephone]
Peterson, J. and R. Barnes, "ACME Identifiers and
Challenges for Telephone Numbers", draft-peterson-acme-
telephone-00 (work in progress), October 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[RFC7340] Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and H. Tschofenig, "Secure
Telephone Identity Problem Statement and Requirements",
RFC 7340, DOI 10.17487/RFC7340, September 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7340>.
[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[SHAKEN_Certificate_Mgmt]
ATIS/SIP Forum NNI Task Group, "Signature-based Handling
of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN): Governance
Model and Certificate Management", February 2017.
Authors' Addresses
Barnes & Wendt Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Identifier and Challenges March 2017
Mary Barnes
MLB@Realtime Communications
Email: mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com
Chris Wendt
Comcast
One Comcast Center
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
Email: chris-ietf@chriswendt.net
Barnes & Wendt Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 8]