Extensions to Automatic Certificate Management Environment for email TLS
draft-ietf-acme-email-tls-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (acme WG)
Author Alexey Melnikov 
Last updated 2018-03-04 (latest revision 2017-11-12)
Replaces draft-melnikov-acme-email-tls
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                        A. Melnikov
Internet-Draft                                                 Isode Ltd
Intended status: Informational                             March 4, 2018
Expires: September 5, 2018

Extensions to Automatic Certificate Management Environment for email TLS
                      draft-ietf-acme-email-tls-03

Abstract

   This document specifies identifiers and challenges required to enable
   the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) to issue
   certificates for use by TLS email services.

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 https://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 5, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://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.

Melnikov                Expires September 5, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         ACME for email TLS services            March 2018

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Use of ACME for use by TLS-protected SMTP and IMAP services .   2
     3.1.  "service" JWS header parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  "port" JWS header parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  DNS challenge for email services  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  CAPABILITY challenge for email services . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   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.

   This document describes extensions to ACME for use by email services.
   Section 3 defines extensions for how email services (such as SMTP,
   IMAP) can get certificates for use with TLS.

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].

3.  Use of ACME for use by TLS-protected SMTP and IMAP services

   SMTP [RFC5321] (including SMTP Submission [RFC6409]) and IMAP
   [RFC3501] servers use TLS [RFC5246] to provide server identity
   authentication, data confidentiality and integrity services.  Such
   TLS protected email services either use STARTTLS command or run on a
   separate TLS-protected port .

   [I-D.ietf-acme-acme] defines several challenge types that can be
   extended for use by email services.  This document also defines some
   new challenge types specific to SMTP and IMAP.

   In order to use these challenges JWS [RFC7515] object used by
   [I-D.ietf-acme-acme] is extended.  The following extra requirements
   are in addition to requirements on JWS objects sent in ACME defined
   in Section 6.2 of [I-D.ietf-acme-acme]:

Melnikov                Expires September 5, 2018               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         ACME for email TLS services            March 2018

   1.  "service" JWS header parameter MUST be included.  See Section 3.1
       for more details.

   2.  "port" JWS header parameter SHOULD be included.  See Section 3.2
       for more details.

   For example, if the ACME client were to respond to the "dns-email-00"
   challenge, it would send the following request:

      POST /acme/authz/asdf/0 HTTP/1.1
      Host: example.com
      Content-Type: application/jose+json

      {
        "protected": base64url({
          "alg": "ES256",
          "kid": "https://example.com/acme/acct/1",
          "nonce": "Q_s3MWoqT05TrdkM2MTDcw",
          "url": "https://example.com/acme/authz/asdf/0",
          "service": "smtp",
          "port": 25
        }),
        "payload": base64url({
          "type": "dns-email-00",
          "keyAuthorization": "IlirfxKKXA...vb29HhjjLPSggQiE"
        }),
        "signature": "7cbg5JO1Gf5YLjjF...SpkUfcdPai9uVYYU"
      }

                                 Figure 1

3.1.  "service" JWS header parameter

   The "service" JWS header parameter specifies the service for which
   TLS server certificate should be issued.  Valid values come from
   "Service Names and Transport Protocol Port Numbers" IANA registry
   <https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-
   names-port-numbers.xhtml>.

   ACME servers compliant with this specification MUST support [RFC7817]
   (in particular see Section 4 of that document).

   [[This parameter might have applicability beyond email services.]]

Melnikov                Expires September 5, 2018               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         ACME for email TLS services            March 2018

3.2.  "port" JWS header parameter

   The "port" JWS header parameter specifies the TCP port number where
   the corresponding service is running.  ACME server MAY check that the
   TCP port corresponds to the requested "service", for example that the
   port is the assigned default port for the service.

   [[This parameter might have applicability beyond email services.]]

3.3.  DNS challenge for email services

   "dns-email-00" is very similar to "dns-01" defined in Section 8.4 of
   [I-D.ietf-acme-acme].

   The difference between processing of "dns-email-00" and "dns-01" are
   listed below:

   1.  The TXT record used to validate this challenge is
       _<port>._<service>._acme-challenge.<domain>.  For example, for
       domain "example.com" and IMAP service running on port 993, the
       TXT record name is _993._imaps._acme-challenge.example.com.  For
       domain "example.net" and IMAP service running on port 143, the
       TXT record name is _143._imap._acme-challenge.example.next.

   2.  [[TODO: Make sure that both service name and port number are
       incorporated into the hash]]

3.4.  CAPABILITY challenge for email services

   For "capability-smtp-00" challenge, ACME client (== SMTP server)
   constructs a key authorization from the "token" value provided in the
   challenge and the client's account key.  The client then computes the
   SHA-256 digest [FIPS180-4] of the key authorization.  SMTP server
   than returns the base64url encoding of this digest as a value of the
   "ACME" EHLO capability.  For example:

Melnikov                Expires September 5, 2018               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         ACME for email TLS services            March 2018

   250-smtp.example.com
   250-SIZE
   250-8BITMIME
   250-BINARYMIME
   250-PIPELINING
   250-HELP
   250-DSN
   250-CHUNKING
   250-AUTH SCRAM-SHA-1
   250-AUTH=SCRAM-SHA-1
   250-STARTTLS
   250-ACME gfj9Xq...Rg85nM
   250-MT-PRIORITY
   250 ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES

   Note that in the above example only presence of the ACME is relevant
   as far as this document is concerned.

                                 Figure 2

   Similarly, "capability-imap-00" challenge, ACME client (== IMAP
   server) constructs a key authorization from the "token" value
   provided in the challenge and the client's account key.  The client
   then computes the SHA-256 digest [FIPS180-4] of the key
   authorization.  IMAP server than returns the base64url encoding of
   this digest as a value of the "ACME" capability:

* OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 LOGINDISABLED LITERAL+ ENABLE STARTTLS ACME=gfj9Xq...Rg85nM] Example IMAP4rev1 server ready

 or

* CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 LOGINDISABLED LITERAL+ ENABLE STARTTLS ACME=gfj9Xq...Rg85nM

   Note that in the above example only presence of the ACME capability
   token is relevant as far as this document is concerned.

                                 Figure 3

   [[TODO: Add support for POP3 as per John Levine]]

4.  Open Issues

   [[This section should be empty before publication]]

   1.  Should the same certificate be allowed to be used on both IMAP
       (143) and IMAPS (993) ports?  (These ports have different service
       names associated with them.  Is 1 service/port per ACME
       certificate a restriction imposed by this document?)  Maybe if

Melnikov                Expires September 5, 2018               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         ACME for email TLS services            March 2018

       the ACME server sees a request for port 143 (or 993), it can
       include SRV-ID for the other port, if it can verify that both are
       running?  (How can this be done reliably?)  Many email servers
       don't allow different certificates to be configured for different
       ports they are listening on.

   2.  Add support for LMTP (RFC 2033)?

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to register the following ACME challenge types that
   are used with Identifier Type "dns": "dns-email", "capability-smtp"
   and "capability-imap".  The reference for all of them is this
   document.

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

7.  Normative References

   [FIPS180-4]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
              Hash Standard (SHS)", FIPS PUB 180-4, August 2015,
              <https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/fips/180/4/
              final>.

   [I-D.ietf-acme-acme]
              Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., and J. Kasten, "Automatic
              Certificate Management Environment (ACME)", draft-ietf-
              acme-acme-06 (work in progress), March 2017.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3501]  Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
              4rev1", RFC 3501, DOI 10.17487/RFC3501, March 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3501>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

Melnikov                Expires September 5, 2018               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         ACME for email TLS services            March 2018

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.

   [RFC6125]  Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
              Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
              within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
              (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.

   [RFC6409]  Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
              STD 72, RFC 6409, DOI 10.17487/RFC6409, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6409>.

   [RFC7515]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
              Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.

   [RFC7817]  Melnikov, A., "Updated Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Server Identity Check Procedure for Email-Related
              Protocols", RFC 7817, DOI 10.17487/RFC7817, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7817>.

Author's Address

   Alexey Melnikov
   Isode Ltd
   14 Castle Mews
   Hampton, Middlesex  TW12 2NP
   UK

   EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com

Melnikov                Expires September 5, 2018               [Page 7]