Update to Verifying TLS Server Identities with X.509 Certificates
draft-ietf-uta-use-san-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (uta WG)
Author Rich Salz 
Last updated 2021-04-01
Replaces draft-rsalz-use-san
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized (tools) 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)
UTA                                                              R. Salz
Internet-Draft                                       Akamai Technologies
Updates: 6125 (if approved)                                 1 April 2021
Intended status: Standards Track                                        
Expires: 3 October 2021

   Update to Verifying TLS Server Identities with X.509 Certificates
                       draft-ietf-uta-use-san-00

Abstract

   In the decade since [RFC6125] was published, the
   subjectAlternativeName extension (SAN), as defined in [RFC5280] has
   become ubiquitous.  This document updates [RFC6125] to specify that
   the fall-back techniques of using the commonName attribute to
   identify the service must not be used.  This document also places
   some limitations on the use of wildcards in SAN fields.

   The original context of [RFC6125] using X.509 certificates for server
   identity with Transport Layer Security (TLS), is not changed.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   This draft is discussed in the UTA working group,
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/uta/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/richsalz/draft-rsalz-use-san.

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 3 October 2021.

Salz                     Expires 3 October 2021                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  Update to Verifying TLS Server Identitie      April 2021

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The New Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Designing Application Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Representing Server Identity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.3.  Verifying Service Identity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Constraints on Wildcards  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   In the decade since [RFC6125] was published, the
   subjectAlternativeName extension (SAN), as defined in [RFC5280] has
   become ubiquitous.  This document updates [RFC6125] to specify that
   the fall-back techniques of using the commonName attribute to
   identify the service must not be used.  This document also places
   some limitations on the use of wildcards in SAN fields.

   The original context of [RFC6125] using X.509 certificates for server
   identity with Transport Layer Security (TLS), is not changed.  In
   addition to the examples in that document, the Baseline Requirements
   of the CA/Browser Forum, [CABBR], might also be useful.

Salz                     Expires 3 October 2021                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft  Update to Verifying TLS Server Identitie      April 2021

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   The terminology from [RFC6125] is used here.  Specifically, the
Show full document text