Certificate Transparency Version 2.0
draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-34
- Versions
- 00
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
- 06
- 07
- 08
- 09
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (trans WG) | |
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Ben Laurie , Adam Langley , Emilia Kasper , Eran Messeri , Rob Stradling | ||
Last updated | 2020-02-25 (latest revision 2019-11-04) | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Intended RFC status | Experimental | ||
Formats | plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
Document shepherd | Paul Wouters | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2017-08-04) | ||
IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date |
Has 2 DISCUSSes. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved. |
||
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Show full document text