Internationalization Updates to RFC 5280
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-04

Versions: (draft-housley-rfc5280-i18n-update) 00         Standards Track
          01 02 03 04                                                   
INTERNET-DRAFT
Internet Engineering Task Force                               R. Housley
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                        Vigil Security
Updates: 5280 (once approved)
Expires: 4 March 2018                                   4 September 2017


                Internationalization Updates to RFC 5280
                draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-03


Abstract

   These updates to RFC 5280 provide clarity on the handling of
   Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Internationalized Email
   Addresses in X.509 Certificates.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.









Housley                   Expires 4 March 2018                  [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT          I18n Updates to RFC 5280          September 2017


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

1.  Introduction

   This document updates RFC 5280 [RFC5280].  The Introduction in
   Section 1, the Name Constraints certificate extension discussion in
   Section 4.2.1.10, and the Processing Rules for Internationalized
   Names in Section 7 are updated to provide clarity on the handling of
   Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Internationalized Email
   Addresses in X.509 Certificates.

   An IDN in Unicode (native character) form contains at least one
   U-label [RFC5890].  With one exception, IDNs are carried in
   certificates in ACE-encoded form.  That is, all U-labels within an
   IDN are converted to A-labels.  Conversion of an U-label to an
   A-label is described in [RFC5891].

   The GeneralName structure supports many different names forms,
   including otherName for extensibility.  [ID.lamps-eai-addresses]
   specifies the SmtpUTF8Mailbox for Internationalized Email addresses,
   which include IDNs with U-labels.

   Note that Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
   specifications published in 2003 (IDNA2003) [RFC3490] and 2008
   (IDNA2008) [RFC5890] both refer to the Punycode Algorithm for
   conversion [RFC3492].





Housley                   Expires 4 March 2018                  [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT          I18n Updates to RFC 5280          September 2017


1.1.  Terminology

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Updates

   This section provides updates to several paragraphs of RFC 5280
   [RFC5280].  For clarity, if the entire section is not replaced, then
   the original text and the replacement text are shown.

2.1.  Update in Section 1, Introduction

   This update provides references for IDNA2008.

OLD

      * Enhanced support for internationalized names is specified in
        Section 7, with rules for encoding and comparing
        Internationalized Domain Names, Internationalized Resource
        Identifiers (IRIs), and distinguished names.  These rules are
        aligned with comparison rules established in current RFCs,
        including [RFC3490], [RFC3987], and [RFC4518].

NEW

      * Enhanced support for internationalized names is specified in
        Section 7, with rules for encoding and comparing
        Internationalized Domain Names, Internationalized Resource
        Identifiers (IRIs), and distinguished names.  These rules are
        aligned with comparison rules established in current RFCs,
        including [RFC3987], [RFC4518], [RFC5890], and [RFC5891].

2.2.  Update in Section 4.2.1.10, Name Constraints

   This update removes the ability to include constraints for a
   particular mailbox.  This capability was not used, and removing it
   allows name constraints to apply to email addresses in rfc822Name and
   SmtpUTF8Mailbox [ID.lamps-eai-addresses] within otherName.

OLD

   A name constraint for Internet mail addresses MAY specify a
   particular mailbox, all addresses at a particular host, or all
   mailboxes in a domain.  To indicate a particular mailbox, the
   constraint is the complete mail address.  For example,
   "root@example.com" indicates the root mailbox on the host



Housley                   Expires 4 March 2018                  [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT          I18n Updates to RFC 5280          September 2017


   "example.com".  To indicate all Internet mail addresses on a
   particular host, the constraint is specified as the host name.  For
   example, the constraint "example.com" is satisfied by any mail
   address at the host "example.com".  To specify any address within a
   domain, the constraint is specified with a leading period (as with
   URIs).  For example, ".example.com" indicates all the Internet mail
   addresses in the domain "example.com", but not Internet mail
   addresses on the host "example.com".

NEW

   A name constraint for Internet mail addresses MAY specify all
   addresses at a particular host or all mailboxes in a domain.  To
   indicate all Internet mail addresses on a particular host, the
   constraint is specified as the host name.  For example, the
   constraint "example.com" is satisfied by any mail address at the
   host "example.com".  To specify any address within a domain, the
   constraint is specified with a leading period (as with URIs).  For
   example, ".example.com" indicates all the Internet mail addresses
   in the domain "example.com", but not Internet mail addresses on
   the host "example.com".

2.3.  Update in Section 7.2, IDNs in GeneralName

   This update aligns with IDNA2008.  Since all of Section 7.2 is
   replaced, the OLD text is not provided.

NEW

   Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) may be included in certificates
   and CRLs in the subjectAltName and issuerAltName extensions, name
   constraints extension, authority information access extension,
   subject information access extension, CRL distribution points
   extension, and issuing distribution point extension.  Each of these
   extensions uses the GeneralName type; one choice in GeneralName is
   the dNSName field, which is defined as type IA5String.

   IA5String is limited to the set of ASCII characters.  To accommodate
   internationalized domain names U-labels are converted to A-labels.
   The A-label is the encoding of the U-label according to the Punycode
   algorithm [RFC3492] with the ACE prefix "xn--" added at the beginning
   of the string.

   When comparing DNS names for equality, conforming implementations
   MUST perform a case-insensitive exact match on the entire DNS name.
   When evaluating name constraints, conforming implementations MUST
   perform a case-insensitive exact match on a label-by-label basis.  As
   noted in Section 4.2.1.10, any DNS name that may be constructed by



Housley                   Expires 4 March 2018                  [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT          I18n Updates to RFC 5280          September 2017


   adding labels to the left-hand side of the domain name given as the
   constraint is considered to fall within the indicated subtree.

   Implementations should convert IDNs to Unicode before display.
   Specifically, conforming implementations should convert A-labels to
   U-labels for display.

   Note:  Implementations MUST allow for increased space requirements
   for IDNs.  An IDN ACE label will begin with the four additional
   characters "xn--" and may require as many as five ASCII characters to
   specify a single international character.

2.3.  Update in Section 7.3, IDNs in Distinguished Names

   This update aligns with IDNA2008.

OLD

   Domain Names may also be represented as distinguished names using
   domain components in the subject field, the issuer field, the
   subjectAltName extension, or the issuerAltName extension.  As with
   the dNSName in the GeneralName type, the value of this attribute is
   defined as an IA5String.  Each domainComponent attribute represents a
   single label.  To represent a label from an IDN in the distinguished
   name, the implementation MUST perform the "ToASCII" label conversion
   specified in Section 4.1 of RFC 3490.  The label SHALL be considered
   a "stored string".  That is, the AllowUnassigned flag SHALL NOT be
   set.

NEW

   Domain Names may also be represented as distinguished names using
   domain components in the subject field, the issuer field, the
   subjectAltName extension, or the issuerAltName extension.  As with
   the dNSName in the GeneralName type, the value of this attribute is
   defined as an IA5String.  Each domainComponent attribute represents a
   single label.  To represent a label from an IDN in the distinguished
   name, the implementation MUST convert all U-labels to A-labels.

2.4.  Update in Section 7.5, Internationalized Electronic Mail Addresses

   This update aligns with IDNA2008 and [ID.lamps-eai-addresses].  Since
   all of Section 7.5 is replaced, the OLD text is not provided.

NEW

   Electronic Mail addresses may be included in certificates and CRLs in
   the subjectAltName and issuerAltName extensions, name constraints



Housley                   Expires 4 March 2018                  [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT          I18n Updates to RFC 5280          September 2017


   extension, authority information access extension, subject
   information access extension, issuing distribution point extension,
   or CRL distribution points extension.  Each of these extensions uses
   the GeneralName construct.  If the email address includes an IDN but
   the local-part of the email address can be represented in ASCII, then
   the email address is placed in the rfc822Name choice of GeneralName,
   which is defined as type IA5String.  If the local-part of the
   internationalized email address cannot be represented in ASCII, then
   the internationalized email address is placed in the otherName choice
   of GeneralName using the conventions in [ID.lamps-eai-addresses].

   7.5.1.  Local-part Contains Only ASCII Characters

   Where the host-part contains an IDN, conforming implementations MUST
   convert all U-labels to A-labels.

   Two email addresses are considered to match if:

      1)  the local-part of each name is an exact match, AND

      2)  the host-part of each name matches using a case-insensitive
          ASCII comparison.

   Implementations should convert the host-part of internationalized
   email addresses specified in these extensions to Unicode before
   display.  Specifically, conforming implementations should convert
   A-labels to U-labels for display.

   7.5.2.  Local-part Contains Non-ASCII Characters

   When the local-part contains non-ASCII character, conforming
   implementations MUST place the internationalized email address in the
   SmtpUTF8Mailbox within the otherName choice of GeneralName as
   specified in Section 3 of [ID.lamps-eai-addresses].  Note that the
   UTF8 encoding of the internationalized email address MUST NOT contain
   a Byte-Order-Mark (BOM) [RFC3629] to aid comparison.

   The comparison of two internationalized email addresses is specified
   in Section 5 of [ID.lamps-eai-addresses].

   Implementations should convert the local-part and the host-part of
   internationalized email addresses placed in these extensions to
   Unicode before display.

3.  Security Considerations

   Conforming CAs SHOULD ensure that IDNs are valid.  This can be done
   by validating all code points according to IDNA2008 [RFC5892].



Housley                   Expires 4 March 2018                  [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT          I18n Updates to RFC 5280          September 2017


   Failure to use valid A-labels and valid U-labels may yield a domain
   name that cannot be correctly represented in the Domain Name System
   (DNS).  In addition, the CA/Browser Forum offers some guidance
   regarding internal server names in certificates [CABF].

4.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA registries are changed by this update.

5.  Normative References

   [ID.lamps-eai-addresses]
              Melnikov, A.  (Ed.) and W.  Chuang (Ed.),
              "Internationalized Email Addresses in X.509 certificates",
              September 2017, <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lamps-
              eai-addresses>, work-in-progress.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI
              10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3987]  Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
              Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, DOI 10.17487/RFC3987,
              January 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987>.

   [RFC4518]  Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Internationalized String Preparation", RFC 4518,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4518, June 2006, <http://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc4518>.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.

   [RFC5891]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, DOI
              10.17487/RFC5891, August 2010, <http://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc5891>.





Housley                   Expires 4 March 2018                  [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT          I18n Updates to RFC 5280          September 2017


   [RFC5892]  Faltstrom, P., Ed., "The Unicode Code Points and
              Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 5892, DOI 10.17487/RFC5892, August 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5892>.


6.  Informative References

   [CABF]     CA/Browser Forum, "Internal Server Names and IP Address
              Requirements for SSL", Version 1.0, June 2012,
              <https://cabforum.org/internal-names/>

   [RFC3490]  Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
              "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 3490, DOI 10.17487/RFC3490, March 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3490>.

   [RFC3492]  Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
              for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
              (IDNA)", RFC 3492, DOI 10.17487/RFC3492, March 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3492>.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
              2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Alexey Melnikov for the encouragement to write this update.
   Thanks to John Klensin and Patrik Falstrom for confirming many of the
   details in this update.  Thanks to Wei Chuang, Phillip Hallam-Baker,
   Alexey Melnikov, Tim Ruehsen, and Sean Turner for their careful
   review and comments.

Authors' Address

   Russ Housley
   Vigil Security, LLC
   918 Spring Knoll Drive
   Herndon, VA 20170
   USA

   EMail: housley@vigilsec.com








Housley                   Expires 4 March 2018                  [Page 8]