Certificate Transparency Version 2.0
draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-34

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (trans WG)
Last updated 2019-11-04
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Experimental
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG, Other - see Comment Log
Document shepherd Paul Wouters
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2017-08-04)
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Needs a YES. Has 3 DISCUSSes.
Responsible AD Roman Danyliw
Send notices to "Paul Wouters" <paul@nohats.ca>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
TRANS (Public Notary Transparency)                             B. Laurie
Internet-Draft                                                A. Langley
Obsoletes: 6962 (if approved)                                  E. Kasper
Intended status: Experimental                                 E. Messeri
Expires: May 7, 2020                                              Google
                                                            R. Stradling
                                                                 Sectigo
                                                       November 04, 2019

                  Certificate Transparency Version 2.0
                    draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-34

Abstract

   This document describes version 2.0 of the Certificate Transparency
   (CT) protocol for publicly logging the existence of Transport Layer
   Security (TLS) server certificates as they are issued or observed, in
   a manner that allows anyone to audit certification authority (CA)
   activity and notice the issuance of suspect certificates as well as
   to audit the certificate logs themselves.  The intent is that
   eventually clients would refuse to honor certificates that do not
   appear in a log, effectively forcing CAs to add all issued
   certificates to the logs.

   This document obsoletes RFC 6962.  It also specifies a new TLS
   extension that is used to send various CT log artifacts.

   Logs are network services that implement the protocol operations for
   submissions and queries that are defined in this document.

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 May 7, 2020.

Laurie, et al.             Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Certificate Transparency Version 2.0     November 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  Major Differences from CT 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Cryptographic Components  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.1.  Merkle Hash Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.1.  Definition of the Merkle Tree . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.2.  Verifying a Tree Head Given Entries . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.3.  Merkle Inclusion Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.1.4.  Merkle Consistency Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.1.5.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.2.  Signatures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   3.  Submitters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.1.  Certificates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.2.  Precertificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.2.1.  Binding Intent to Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   4.  Log Format and Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.1.  Log Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     4.2.  Evaluating Submissions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       4.2.1.  Minimum Acceptance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       4.2.2.  Discretionary Acceptance Criteria . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.3.  Log Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.4.  Log ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.5.  TransItem Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.6.  Log Artifact Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     4.7.  Merkle Tree Leaves  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
Show full document text