Using Raw Public Keys in Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-06-26
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-05-07
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-04-24
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-02-18
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-02-17
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-02-10
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-02-07
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-02-07
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-02-07
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-02-06
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-02-06
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-02-06
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2014-02-06
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-02-06
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-02-06
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-01-31
|
11 | Sean Turner | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-01-20
|
11 | Hannes Tschofenig | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-01-20
|
11 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-11.txt |
2013-11-28
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Telechat review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2013-11-21
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2013-11-21
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-11-21
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-11-20
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. |
2013-11-20
|
10 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-11-20
|
10 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-11-19
|
10 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot comment] Section 1: "does not require codepaths for the ASN.1 parser" That's not really true, since you're still using SubjectPublicKeyInfo, right? Likewise, if you … [Ballot comment] Section 1: "does not require codepaths for the ASN.1 parser" That's not really true, since you're still using SubjectPublicKeyInfo, right? Likewise, if you are ultimately going to authenticate the key (as discussed in the Security Considerations), you're going to validate something like a trust chain, e.g., via PKIX or DNSSEC. So I'm not sure you actually get the code size savings you claim. Section 3: "... is represented in a DER encoded ASN.1 format ..." It would be better to say that the subjectPublicKeyInfo value in the Certificate payload MUST contain the DER encoding of the SubjectPublicKeyInfo structure. Just in case someone decides to put BER, XER, etc. in there. Figure 4: Both "select()" statements are missing opening "{" characters. |
2013-11-19
|
10 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-11-19
|
10 | Christer Holmberg | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. |
2013-11-18
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Good to see this getting done. Thanks. - The write-up sez experts to be added by AD. Just noting that in case there's … [Ballot comment] Good to see this getting done. Thanks. - The write-up sez experts to be added by AD. Just noting that in case there's some urgency and a ball-drop, I'm fine if that's done when there's a request to handle. - Section 1, 1st para: I could quibble and say that self-signed certs are just as traditional in TLS. Not as common, but just as traditional. Shouldn't they get some kind of mention? - Figure 1: is 2^24-1 still a good max length? Just checking in case there's a reason now to prefer smaller over same-as-others. - Section 3: definition of SPKI - did you take a look at DANE to see if there's any text there to copy or reference? I'm sure you did, but just in case that's not been done with the final DANE RFC, in which case it'd be worth a quick check now. - Figure 3/algs: Did you think about the curve 25519 equivalent for signatures (ed25519 is it?) - should that use the ECDSA OID or be a new certificate type? Just curious. - 5.1: Be nice if the example made clear that this can work with DH for forward secrecy as well. (As part of a general tendency to want more DH and PFS.) - section 6: "the identity and public key" phrase is a little ickky - wouldn't it be better to talk about identifiers and not identity at least when discussing binding to the public keys? - section 6: what happens if a spec wants to use this but also wants to punt to yet another spec as to how to bind keys/identifiers? (Such as arguably CoAP.) Are you asking that we drag CoAP back to the core wg? I guess not. Maybe that MUST needs some more consideration? I'd suggest s/MUST/need/ |
2013-11-18
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-11-18
|
10 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-11-17
|
10 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-11-17
|
10 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-11-17
|
10 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-11-17
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-11-17
|
10 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Just a few editorial comments on this fine document, all purely at the nit level. Accept or reject as you see fit, and … [Ballot comment] Just a few editorial comments on this fine document, all purely at the nit level. Accept or reject as you see fit, and no need to respond unless you want to. -- Section 1 -- OLD Alternative methods are available that allow a TLS clients/servers to obtain the TLS servers/client public key: NEW Alternative methods are available that allow a TLS client/server to obtain the TLS server/client public key: END Probably also best to change the first bullet to "The TLS client" also, so all is consistent (the other bullets start that way). Some other minor grammar/usage editing, if I may: OLD This document introduces the use of raw public keys in TLS/DTLS. Raw public key thereby means that only a sub-set of the information found in typical certificates is utilized, namely the SubjectPublicKeyInfo structure of a PKIX certificates that carries the parameters necessary to describe the public key. Other parameters also found in a PKIX certificate are omitted. A consequence of omitting various certificate related structures is that the resulting raw public key is fairly small (compared to the original certificate) and does not require codepaths for the ASN.1 parser, for certificate path validation and other PKIX related processing tasks. NEW This document introduces the use of raw public keys in TLS/DTLS. With raw public keys, only a subset of the information found in typical certificates is utilized: namely, the SubjectPublicKeyInfo structure of a PKIX certificates that carries the parameters necessary to describe the public key. Other parameters found in PKIX certificates are omitted. By omitting various certificate-related structures, the resulting raw public key is kept fairly small in comparison to the original certificate, and the code to process the keys does not require paths for an ASN.1 parser, for certificate path validation, and for other PKIX related processing tasks. END The "This document is structured as follows" paragraph oddly omits an explanation of Section 6. If you find the paragraph useful, you should probably add "Section 6 describes security considerations with this approach," or some such. -- Section 6 -- Is the indentation of the third paragraph intentional and significant, and, if so, what does it mean? |
2013-11-17
|
10 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-11-15
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2013-11-15
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2013-11-15
|
10 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-11-14
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2013-11-14
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2013-11-12
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-11-08
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2013-11-08
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2013-11-07
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2013-11-05
|
10 | Sean Turner | Ballot has been issued |
2013-11-05
|
10 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-11-05
|
10 | Sean Turner | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-11-05
|
10 | Sean Turner | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-11-05
|
10 | Sean Turner | Changed document writeup |
2013-11-05
|
10 | Sean Turner | State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation |
2013-11-05
|
10 | Sean Turner | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-11-21 |
2013-11-05
|
10 | Sean Turner | State changed to AD Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2013-11-05
|
10 | Sean Turner | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-19
|
10 | Hannes Tschofenig | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-10-19
|
10 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-10.txt |
2013-09-12
|
09 | Sean Turner | Document shepherd changed to Joseph A. Salowey |
2013-08-16
|
09 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2013-08-13
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-08-13
|
09 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here]. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here]. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: Upon approval of this document there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, in the TLS Certificate Types subregistry of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml a new TLS Certificate Type will be registered as follows: Value: 2 Description: Raw Public Key Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the ExtensionType Values subregistry of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml two new ExtensionType Values are to be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Extension Name: client_certificate_type Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Extension Name: server_certificate_type Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] We understand that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2013-08-08
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer. |
2013-08-06
|
09 | Christer Holmberg | Request for Early review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Out-of-Band Public Key Validation for … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Out-of-Band Public Key Validation for Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to consider the following document: - 'Out-of-Band Public Key Validation for Transport Layer Security (TLS)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-08-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies a new certificate type and two TLS extensions, one for the client and one for the server, for exchanging raw public keys in Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for use with out-of-band public key validation. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Sean Turner | Last call was requested |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Sean Turner | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Sean Turner | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Sean Turner | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2013-08-02
|
09 | Sean Turner | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-07-31
|
09 | Sean Turner | State changed to AD Evaluation from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2013-07-30
|
09 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-09.txt |
2013-07-19
|
08 | Sean Turner | State changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-07-15
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-07-15
|
08 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-08.txt |
2013-04-24
|
07 | Sean Turner | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2013-04-24
|
07 | Sean Turner | State changed to AD Evaluation from AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed |
2013-04-16
|
07 | Sean Turner | Here's a link to my AD review: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg09526.html |
2013-04-16
|
07 | Sean Turner | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2013-03-20
|
07 | Sean Turner | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-03-18
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? A Proposed Standard RFC is being requested and is indicated on the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document specifies Version 1.2 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. Working Group Summary: In general the consensus around the document is strong. THe main area of contention was in the reuse of the certificate type registry. This has been satisfactorily resolved. Document Quality: THere are a number of implementations of the protocol in progress. This document has had review by members of the DANE working group and the LWIG working group. Personnel: Joe Salowey is the Document Shepherd. Sean Turner is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has reviewed the document for readability, technical content and ID nits. The document shepherd believes this document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document has had significant review from the TLS working group. In addition, members of the DANE working group and LWIG working group, which are consumers of this work, have reviewed it. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Specific concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Each author has confirmed that any IPR has been disclosed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No disclosure has been filed on this document., (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? THere was strong consensus in the working group for this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. THere is an out of date reference to an ID that can be updated and one line length issue that can be addressed by the RFC editor. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? Normative references are in a clear state. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. THis document odes not change the status of other RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). THe referenced registries are clearly identified. THere are no newly created registries. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. THere are no new registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not applicable. |
2013-03-18
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'Joe Salowey (jsalowey@cisco.com) is the Document Shepherd' |
2013-03-18
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2013-03-18
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-03-18
|
07 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-wouters-tls-oob-pubkey |
2013-02-14
|
07 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-07.txt |
2012-10-22
|
06 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-06.txt |
2012-10-22
|
05 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-05.txt |
2012-07-16
|
04 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-04.txt |
2012-04-25
|
03 | Paul Wouters | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-03.txt |
2012-03-11
|
02 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-02.txt |
2012-01-20
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-01.txt |
2012-01-07
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-00.txt |