HTTPS delegation in CDNI
draft-fieau-cdni-https-delegation-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-03-13
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                      F. Fieau, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                E. Stephan
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Orange
Expires: September 14, 2017                                    S. Mishra
                                                                 Verizon
                                                          March 13, 2017

                        HTTPS delegation in CDNI
                  draft-fieau-cdni-https-delegation-01

Abstract

   This document examines probable solutions for delegating encrypted
   content delivery within the context of CDN interconnection.  The
   HTTPS delegation also expects delivering content without compromising
   security, integrity and user privacy.

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

Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          HTTPS delegation in CDNI              March 2017

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  LURK for CDNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  uCDN Key Server (CDNI framework)  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  CSP Key server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Out-of-Band for CDNI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  OOB overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  OOB applied to CDNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Sub-certificates and Short-lived Certificates for CDNI  . . .   7
     5.1.  Short-lived certs use case for CDNI - ACME  . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  LURK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  OOB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.3.  Subcerts and SLC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.4.  HTTPS delegation requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.5.  Implementation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.6.  E2E HTTPS delegation for CDNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   Currently, sixty percent of the HTTP traffic on the internet is
   encrypted, that is, it is transported over TLS [RFC5246].  At the
   same time, HTTP traffic served by CDNs is on the rise as well.  The
   traffic on CDNs is estimated to raise to seventy-five percent in year
   2020 [ciscotraffic].

   This document discusses viability of and solution for addressing
   delegation of HTTP over TLS [RFC2818] traffic within the context of
   CDN interconnection.  HTTPS delegation allows delivering party, e.g.
   a CDN, to deliver content for and on-behalf of an origin server.

   This draft considers three approaches for delegating HTTPS traffic in
   a CDNI context.  These include Limited Use of Remote Keys (LURK),
Show full document text