Online Certificate Status Protocol - Version 2 (OCSPv2)
draft-pala-ocspv2-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-02-05
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                            M. Pala
Internet-Draft                                                 CableLabs
Intended status: Experimental                           February 5, 2019
Expires: August 9, 2019

        Online Certificate Status Protocol - Version 2 (OCSPv2)
                          draft-pala-ocspv2-00

Abstract

   With the increase number of protocols and applications that rely on
   digital certificates to authenticate either the communication channel
   (TLS) or the data itself (PKIX), the need for providing an efficient
   revocation system is paramount.  Although the Online Certificate
   Status Protocol (OCSP) allows for efficient lookup of the revocation
   status of a certificate, the distribution of this information via
   HTTP (or very rarely) HTTPS is not particularly efficient for high
   volume websites without incurring in high distribution costs (e.g.,
   CDN).

   In particular, this specification defines a new set of messages
   (i.e., OCSPv2 Request and OCSPv2 Response) that address the
   inefficiencies of OCSPv1 by (a) providing range-based responses to
   optimize (reduce) the number of pre-computed responses required by a
   CA, and (b) allowing the inclusion of other (certificate chain)
   responses in the same response for round-trip and caching
   optimization.

   The deployment of OCSPv2 to validate the status of a certificate is
   meant to lower the costs of providing revocation services and
   increase the efficiency of the service, thus allowing for short-lived
   responses (i.e., hours instead of days).

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."

Pala                     Expires August 9, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   OCSPv2                    February 2019

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 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.  Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Limitations of previous versions of OCSPv1  . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  The OCSPv2 Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   6.  The OCSPv2 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   10. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

1.  Requirements notation

   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].

2.  Introduction

   Introduction

3.  Limitations of previous versions of OCSPv1

   Explains the limitations of OCSPv1 when it comes to efficiency.

Pala                     Expires August 9, 2019                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   OCSPv2                    February 2019

4.  Protocol Overview

   Provides a description of the protocol with particular emphasis on
   the different approach (range vs. one-by-one).

5.  The OCSPv2 Request

   The OCSPv2 Request.

6.  The OCSPv2 Response

   The OCSPv2 Response.

7.  IANA Considerations

   No special considerations for IANA.

8.  Security Considerations

   Several security considerations need to be explicitly considered for
   the system administrators and application developers to understand
Show full document text