SIP WG                                                        V. Gurbani
Internet-Draft                         Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Updates:  RFC3261                                            S. Lawrence
(if approved)                                      Nortel Networks, Inc.
Intended status:  Standards Track                             A. Jeffrey
Expires:  April 9, 2009                Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
                                                        October 06, 2008

      Domain Certificates in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 9, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).


   This document describes how to interpret certain information in a
   X.509 PKIX-compliant certificate used in a Session Initiation
   Protocol (SIP) over Transport Layer Security (TLS) connection.  More
   specifically, this document describes how to find the right identity
   for authentication in such certificates and how to use that identity

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

   for SIP domain authentication.

Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Key Words  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Problem statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  SIP domain to host resolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  The need for mutual interdomain authentication . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Certificate usage by a SIP service provider  . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Behavior of SIP entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     7.1.  Finding SIP Identities in a Certificate  . . . . . . . . .  7
     7.2.  Comparing SIP Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.3.  Client behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.4.  Server behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.5.  Proxy behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.6.  Registrar behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.7.  Redirect server behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.8.  Virtual SIP Servers and Certificate Content  . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.1.  Connection authentication using Digest . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Appendix A.  Editorial guidance (non-normative)  . . . . . . . . . 15
     A.1.  Additions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     A.2.  Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       A.2.1.  26.3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

1.  Terminology

1.1.  Key Words

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].

   Additional definition(s):

   SIP domain identity:  An identity (e.g., "") contained
      in an X.509 certificate bound to a subject that identifies the
      subject as an authoritative SIP server for a domain.

2.  Introduction

   RFC 4346 [3] Transport Layer Security (TLS) has started to appear in
   an increasing number of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) RFC 3261
   [2] implementations.  In order to use the authentication capabilities
   of TLS, certificates as defined by the Internet X.509 Public Key
   Infrastructure RFC 5280 [4] are required.

   Existing SIP specifications do not sufficiently specify how to use
   certificates for domain (as opposed to host) authentication.  This
   document provides guidance to ensure interoperability and uniform
   conventions for the construction and interpretation of certificates
   used to identify their holders as being authoritative for the domain.

   The discussion in this document is pertinent to an X.509 PKIX-
   compliant certificate used for a TLS connection; this document does
   not define use of such certificates for any other purpose (such as

3.  Problem statement

   TLS uses RFC 5280 [4] X.509 Public Key Infrastructure to bind an
   identity or a set of identities, to the subject of a X.509
   certificate.  While RFC3261 provides adequate guidance on the use of
   X.509 certificates used for S/MIME, it is relatively silent on the
   use of such certificates for TLS.  With respect to certificates for
   TLS, RFC3261 (Section 26.3.1) says:

      "Proxy servers, redirect servers and registrars SHOULD possess a
      site certificate whose subject corresponds to their canonical

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

   The security properties of TLS and S/MIME as used in SIP are
   different:  X.509 certificates for S/MIME are generally used for end-
   to-end authentication and encryption, thus they serve to bind the
   identity of a user to the certificate and RFC3261 is sufficiently
   clear that in certificates used for S/MIME, the subjectAltName field
   will contain the appropriate identity.  On the other hand, X.509
   certificates used for TLS serve to bind the identities of the per-hop
   domain sending or receiving the SIP messages.  However, the lack of
   guidelines in RFC3261 on exactly where to put identities -- in the
   subjectAltName field or carried as a Common Name (CN) in the Subject
   field -- of a X.509 certificates created ambiguities.  Following the
   accepted practice of the time, legacy X.509 certificates were allowed
   to store the identity in the CN field of the certificate instead of
   the currently specified subjectAltName extension.  Lack of further
   guidelines on how to interpret the identities, which identity to
   choose if more than one identity is present in the certificate, the
   behavior when multiple identities with different schemes were present
   in the certificate, etc. lead to ambiguities when attempting to
   interpret the certificate in a uniform manner for TLS use.

   This document shows how the certificates are to be used for mutual
   authentication when both the client and server possess appropriate
   certificates, and normative behavior for matching the DNS query
   string with an identity stored in the X.509 certificate.
   Furthermore, a certificate can contain multiple identities for the
   subject in the subjectAltName extension (the "subject" of a
   certificate identifies the entity associated with the public key
   stored in the public key field.)  As such, this document specifies
   appropriate matching rules to encompass various subject identity
   representation options.  And finally, this document also provides
   guidelines to service providers for assigning certificates to SIP

   The rest of this document is organized as follows:  the next section
   provides an overview of the most primitive case of a client using DNS
   to access a SIP server and the resulting authentication steps.
   Section 5 looks at the reason why mutual inter-domain authentication
   is desired in SIP, and the lack of normative text and behavior in
   RFC3261 for doing so.  Section 6 outlines normative guidelines for a
   service provider assigning certificates to SIP servers.  Section 7
   provides normative behavior on the SIP entities (user agent clients,
   user agent servers, registrars, redirect servers, and proxies) that
   need perform authentication based on X.509 certificates.  Section 8
   includes the security considerations.

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

4.  SIP domain to host resolution

   Routing in SIP is performed by having the client execute RFC 3263 [7]
   procedures on a URI, called the "Application Unique String (AUS)
   (c.f.  Section 8 of RFC 3263 [7]).  These procedures take as input a
   SIP AUS (the SIP domain) and return an ordered set containing one or
   more IP addresses, and a port number and transport corresponding to
   each IP address in the set (the "Expected Output") by querying an
   Domain Name Service (DNS).  If the transport indicates the use of
   TLS, then a TLS connection is opened to the server on a specific IP
   address and port.  The server presents an X.509 certificate to the
   client for verification as part of the initial TLS handshake.

   The client extracts identifiers from the Subject and any
   subjectAltName extension in the certificate (see Section 7.1) and
   compares these values to the AUS.  If any identifier match is found,
   the server is considered to be authenticated and subsequent signaling
   can now proceed over the TLS connection.  Matching rules for X.509
   certificates and the normative behavior for clients is specified in
   Section 7.3.

   As an example, consider a request that is to be routed to the SIP
   address "".  This address requires a secure
   connection to the SIP domain "", which becomes the SIP AUS
   value.  Through a series of DNS manipulations, the AUS is mapped to a
   set of host addresses and transports.  The entity attempting to
   create the connection selects an address appropriate for use with TLS
   from this set.  When the connection is established to that server,
   the server presents a certificate asserting the identity "sip:".  Since the domain part of the SIP AUS matches the
   subject of the certificate, the server is authenticated (see
   Section 7.2 for the normative rules that govern this comparison)

      SIPS borrows this pattern of server certificate matching from
      HTTPS.  However, RFC 2818 [8] prefers that the identity be
      conveyed as a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName rather than
      the common practice of conveying the identity in the CN field of
      the Subject field.  Similarly, this document recommends that the
      SIP domain identity be conveyed as a subjectAltName extension of
      type uniformResourceIdentifier (c.f.  Section 6, Section 7.1).

      A domain name in an X.509 certificates is properly interpreted
      only as a sequence of octets to be compared to the URI used to
      reach the host.  No inference can be made based on the DNS name
      hierarchy.  For example, a valid certificate for ""
      does not imply that the owner of that certificate has any
      relationship at all to "".

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

5.  The need for mutual interdomain authentication

   Consider the SIP trapezoid shown in Figure 1. 
        +-------+                    +-------+
        | Proxy |--------------------| Proxy |
        +----+--+                    +---+---+
             |                           |
             |                           |
             |                           |
             |                         +---+
           0---0                       |   |
            /-\                        |___|
           +---+                      /    /

                          Figure 1: SIP Trapezoid

   An user,, invites for a multimedia
   communication session.  Alice's outbound proxy,,
   uses normal RFC 3263 [7] resolution rules to find a proxy -- Proxy- -- in the domain that uses TLS.  Proxy-A
   actively establishes an interdomain TLS connection with Proxy-B and
   each presents a certificate to authenticate that connection.

   RFC 3261 [2] section "Interdomain Requests" states that when
   a TLS connection is created between two proxies:

      "Each side of the connection SHOULD verify and inspect the
      certificate of the other, noting the domain name that appears in
      the certificate for comparison with the header fields of SIP

   However, RFC3261 is silent on whether to use the subjectAltName or CN
   of the certificate to obtain the domain name, and which takes
   precedence when there are multiple names identifying the holder of
   the certificate.

   The authentication problem for Proxy-A is straightforward:  assuming
   a secure DNS infrastructure and no routing attacks, Proxy-A already
   knows that Proxy-B is a valid proxy for the domain.
   Thus, in the certificate Proxy-A receives from Proxy-B, Proxy-A looks
   for the host name ("") or an identity consisting
   of a SIP URI ("") that asserts Proxy-B's authority

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

   over the domain.  Normative behavior for a TLS client
   like Proxy-A is specified in Section 7.3.

   The problem for Proxy-B is slightly more complex since it accepted
   the TLS request passively.  Thus, Proxy-B does not possess an
   equivalent AUS that it can use as an anchor in matching identities
   from Proxy-A's certificate.

      RFC 3261 [2] section only tells Proxy-B to "compare the
      domain asserted by the certificate with the 'domainname' portion
      of the From header field in the INVITE request."  The difficulty
      with that instruction is that the domainname in the From header
      field is not always that of the domain from which the request is

   The normative behavior for a TLS server like Proxy-B that passively
   accepts a TLS connection and requires authentication of the sending
   peer domain is provided in Section 7.4.

6.  Certificate usage by a SIP service provider

   Service providers MAY continue the practice of using existing
   certificates for SIP usage with the identity conveyed in the Subject
   field; however, such usage is NOT RECOMMENDED for new certificates,
   which MUST contain the identity or identities in the subjectAltName
   extension field.

   When assigning certificates to authoritative servers, a SIP service
   provider MUST ensure that the SIP AUS used to reach the server
   appears as an identity in the subjectAltName field, or for
   compatibility with existing certificates, the Subject field of the
   certificate.  In practice, this means that a service provider
   distributes to its users SIP URIs whose domain portion corresponds to
   an identity for which the service provider has been issued a

7.  Behavior of SIP entities

   This section normatively specifies the behavior of SIP entities when
   using X.509 certificates to determine an authenticated SIP domain

7.1.  Finding SIP Identities in a Certificate

   Implementations MUST determine the validity of a certificate by
   following the procedures for constructing a certificate path and

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

   checking revocation status described in RFC 5280 [4].  This document
   adds additional rules for interpreting an X.509 certificate for use
   in SIP.

   As specified by RFC 5280 [4] section, implementations MUST
   check for restrictions on certificate usage declared by any
   extendedKeyUsage extentions in the certificate.  The SIP Extended Key
   Usage (EKU) document [5] defines an extendedKeyUsage for SIP.

   Given an X.509 certificate that the above checks have found to be
   acceptable, the following describes how to determine what SIP domain
   identity or identities the certificate contains.  A single
   certificate can serve more than one purpose - that is, the
   certificate MAY contain identities not acceptable as SIP, domain
   identities and/or MAY contain one or more identities that are
   acceptable for use as SIP domain identities.

   1.  Examine each value in the subjectAltName field.  The
       subjectAltName field and the constraints on its values are
       defined in Section of RFC 5280 [4].  The subjectAltName
       field can be absent or can contain one or more values.  Each
       value in the subjectAltName has a type; the only types acceptable
       for encoding a SIP domain identity SHALL be:

       URI  If the scheme of the URI is not "sip", then the value MUST
          NOT be accepted as a SIP domain identity.

          If the scheme of the URI value is "sip", and the URI value
          that contains a userpart (there is an '@'), the value MUST NOT
          be accpeted as a SIP domain identity (a value with a userpart
          identifies an individual user, not a domain).

          If the scheme of the URI value is "sip", and there is no
          userinfo component in the URI (there is no '@'), then the
          hostpart MUST be accepted as a SIP domain identity.

          Note:  URI scheme tokens are always case insensitive

       DNS  A domain name system identifier MUST be accepted as a SIP
          domain identity if and only if no other identity is found that
          matches the "sip" URI type described above.

   2.  If and only if the subjectAltName does not appear in the
       certificate, the client MAY examine the CN field of the
       certificate.  If a valid DNS name is found there, the
       implementation MAY accept this value as a SIP domain identity.

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

   3.  Accepting a DNS name in the CN value is allowed for backward
       compatibility, but constructing new certificates with the
       identity as a DNS name in the CN value is NOT RECOMMENDED; see
       Section 6.

   The above procedure yields a set containing zero or more identities
   from the certificate.  A client uses these identities to authenticate
   a server (see Section 7.3) and a server uses them to authenticate a
   client (see Section 7.4).

7.2.  Comparing SIP Identities

   When comparing two values as SIP domain identities:

      Implementations MUST compare only the DNS name component of each
      SIP domain identifier; any scheme or parameters in an identifier
      MUST NOT be used in the comparison.

      The values MUST be compared as DNS names, which means that the
      comparison is case insensitive as specified by RFC 4343 [6].
      Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) MUST be handled in
      accordance with Section 7.2 of RFC 5280 [4] .

      The values being compared MUST match in their entirety:

         A suffix match is not a match.  For example, ""
         does not match "".

         Any form of wildcard, such as a leading "." or "*.", MUST NOT
         be considered a match for any other DNS label or sequence of
         labels.  For example, "*" matches only
         "*" but not "".  Similarly,
         "" matches only "", and does not match

            RFC 2818 [8] (HTTP over TLS) allows the dNSName component to
            contain a wildcard; e.g., "DNS:*".  RFC 5280
            [4], while not disallowing this explicitly, leaves the
            interpretation of wildcards to the individual specification.
            RFC 3261 [2] does not provide any guidelines on the presence
            of wildcards in certificates.  Through the rule above, this
            document prohibits such wildcards in certificates for SIP

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

7.3.  Client behavior

   A client uses the domain portion of the SIP AUS to query a (possibly
   untrusted) DNS to obtain a result set, which is one or more SRV and A
   records identifying the server for the domain (see Section 4 for an

   The SIP server, when establishing a TLS connection, presents its
   certificate to the client for authentication.  The client MUST
   determine the SIP domain identities in the server certificate using
   the procedure in Section 7.1.  Then, the client MUST compare the
   original domain portion of the SIP AUS used as input to the RFC 3263
   [7] server location procedures to the SIP domain identities obtained
   from the certificate.

   o  If there were no identities found in the server certificate, the
      server is not authenticated.

   o  If the AUS matches any SIP domain identity obtained from the
      certificate when compared as described in section Section 7.2, the
      server is authenticated for the domain.

   If the server is not authenticated, the client MUST close the
   connection immediately.

7.4.  Server behavior

   When a server accepts a TLS connection, the server presents its own
   X.509 certificate to the client.  To authenticate the client, the
   server asks the client for a certificate.  If the client possesses a
   certificate, that certificate is presented to the server.  If the
   client does not present a certificate, the client MUST NOT be
   considered authenticated.

      Whether or not to close a connection if the client does not
      present a certificate is a matter of local policy, and depends on
      the authentication needs of the server for the connection.  Some
      currently deployed servers use Digest authentication to
      authenticate individual requests on the connection, and choose to
      treat the connection as authenticated by those requests for some
      purposes (but see Section 8.1).

      If the server requires client authentication for some local
      purpose, then the server MAY implement a policy of allowing the
      connection only if the client is authenticated.  For example, if
      the server is an inbound proxy that has peering relationships with
      the outbound proxies of other specific domains, the server might
      allow only connections authenticated as coming from those domains.

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

   To authenticate the client, the server MUST obtain the set of SIP
   domain identities from the client certificate as described in
   Section 7.1.  Because the server accepted the TLS connection
   passively, unlike a client, the server does not possess an AUS for
   comparison.  Nonetheless, server policies can use the set of SIP
   domain identities gathered from the certificate in Section 7.1 to
   make authorization decisions.

   For example, a very open policy could be to accept a X.509
   certificate and validate the certificate using the procedures in RFC
   5280 [4] .  If the certificate is valid, the identity set is logged.

   Alternatively, the server could have a list of all SIP domains the
   server is allowed to accept connections from; when a client presents
   its certificate, for each identity in the client certificate, the
   server searches for the identity in the list of acceptable domains to
   decide whether or not to accept the connection.  Other policies that
   make finer distinctions are possible.

   The decision of whether or not the authenticated connection to the
   client is appropriate for use to route new requests to the client
   domain is independent of whether or not the connection is
   authenticated; the connect-reuse [11] draft discusses this aspect in
   more detail.

7.5.  Proxy behavior

   A proxy MUST use the procedures defined for a User Agent Server (UAS)
   in Section 7.4 when authenticating a connection from a client.

   A proxy MUST use the procedures defined for a User Agent Client (UAC)
   in Section 7.3 when requesting an authenticated connection to a UAS.

   If a proxy adds a Record-Route when forwarding a request with the
   expectation that the route is to use secure connections, the proxy
   MUST insert into the Record-Route header a URI that corresponds to an
   identity for which the proxy has a certificate; if the proxy does not
   insert such a URI, then creation of a secure connection using the
   value from the Record-Route as the AUS will be impossible.

7.6.  Registrar behavior

   A SIP registrar, acting as a server, follows the normative behavior
   of Section 7.4.  When the SIP registrar accepts a TLS connection from
   the client, the SIP registrar presents its certificate.  Depending on
   the registrar policies, the SIP registrar can challenge the client
   with HTTP Digest.

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

7.7.  Redirect server behavior

   A SIP redirect server follows the normative behavior of a UAS as
   specified in Section 7.4.

7.8.  Virtual SIP Servers and Certificate Content

   In the "virtual hosting" cases where multiple domains are managed by
   a single application, a certificate can contain multiple subjects by
   having distinct identities in the subjectAltName field as specified
   in RFC 4474 [10].  Clients seeking to authenticate a server on such a
   virtual host can still follow the directions in Section 7.3 to find
   the identity matching the SIP AUS used to query DNS.

   Alternatively, if the TLS client hello extension as defined in RFC
   4366 [9] is supported, the client SHOULD use that extension to
   request a certificate corresponding to the specific domain (the SIP
   AUS) that the client is seeking to establish a connection with.

8.  Security Considerations

   The goals of TLS (when used with X.509 certificates) include the
   following security guarantees at the transport layer:

   Confidentiality:  packets tunneled through TLS can be read only by
      the sender and receiver.

   Integrity:  packets tunneled through TLS cannot be undetectably
      modified on the connection between the sender and receiver.

   Authentication:  each principal is authenticated to the other as
      possessing a private key for which a certificate has been issued.
      Moreover, this certificate has not been revoked, and is verifiable
      by a certificate chain leading to a (locally configured) trust

   We expect appropriate processing of domain certificates to provide
   the following security guarantees at the application level:

   Confidentiality:  SIPS messages from to can be read only by,, and SIP proxies issued with domain certificates
      for or

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

   Integrity:  SIPS messages from to
      cannot be undetectably modified on the links between,, and SIP proxies issued with
      domain certificates for or

   Authentication: and are mutually
      authenticated; moreover is authenticated to as an authoritative proxy for domain  Similar mutual authentication guarantees are given
      between and and between and  As a result, is transitively mutually authenticated to (assuming trust in the authoritative proxies for and

8.1.  Connection authentication using Digest

   Digest authentication in SIP provides for authentication of the
   message sender to the challenging UAS.  As commonly deployed, digest
   authentication provides only very limited integrity protection of the
   authenticated message.  Many existing deployments have chosen to use
   the Digest authentication of one or more messages on a particular
   connection as a way to authenticate the connection itself - and by
   implication, authenticating other (unchallenged) messages on that
   connection.  Some even choose to similarly authenticate a UDP source
   address and port based on the digest authentication of a message
   received from that address and port.  This use of digest goes beyond
   the assurances that digest authentication was designed to provide,
   and is NOT RECOMMENDED.  Authentication of the domain at the other
   end of a connection SHOULD be accomplished using TLS and the
   certificate validation rules described by this specification instead.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This memo does not contain any considerations for IANA.

10.  Acknowledgments

   The following IETF contributors provided substantive input to this
   document:  Jeroen van Bemmel, Michael Hammer, Cullen Jennings, Paul
   Kyzivat, Derek MacDonald, Dave Oran, Jon Peterson, Eric Rescorla,
   Jonathan Rosenberg, Russ Housley.  Special acknowledgement goes to
   Stephen Kent for extensively reviewing draft versions and suggesting
   invaluable feedback, edits, and comments.

   Paul Hoffman, Eric Rescorla and Robert Sparks provided much valuable

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

   WGLC comments.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]   Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
         Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
         Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [3]   Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.1",
         RFC 4346, April 2006.

   [4]   Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boyen, S., Housley, R.,
         and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
         Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile",
         RFC 5280, May 2008.

   [5]   Lawrence, S. and V. Gurbani, "Using Extended Key Usage (EKU)
         for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) X.509 Certificates",
         draft-ietf-sip-eku-01.txt (work in progress), February 2008.

   [6]   Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity
         Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.

11.2.  Informative References

   [7]   Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol
         (SIP): Location SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002.

   [8]   Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

   [9]   Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J., and
         T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions",
         RFC 4366, April 2006.

   [10]  Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated
         Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
         RFC 4474, August 2006.

   [11]  Mahy, R., Gurbani, V., and B. Tate, "Connection Reuse in the
         Session Initiation Protocol",
         draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-08.txt (work in progress),
         October 2007.

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

   [12]  Drage, K., "A Process for Handling Essential Corrections to the
         Session Initiation  Protocol (SIP)",
         draft-drage-sip-essential-correction-02.txt (work in progress),
         November 2007.

Appendix A.  Editorial guidance (non-normative)

   This document is intended to update RFC 3261 in accordance with the
   SIP Working Group procedures described in [12] or its successor.

   This appendix provides guidance to the editor of the next
   comprehensive update to RFC 3261 [2] on how to incorporate the
   changes provided by this document.

A.1.  Additions

   The content of sections Section 4 through Section 7 inclusive can be
   incorporated as subsections within a section that describes SIP
   domain authentication.

   The contents of Section 8.1 can be incorporated into the Security
   Considerations section of the new document.

   All normative references from this document can be carried forward to
   the successor document.

A.2.  Changes

   The following subsections describe changes in specific sections of
   RFC 3261 [2] that need to be modified in the successor document to
   align them with the content of this document.  In each of the
   following, the token <domain-authentication> is a reference to the
   section added as described in Appendix A.1.

A.2.1.  26.3.1

   The current text says:

      Proxy servers, redirect servers and registrars SHOULD possess a
      site certificate whose subject corresponds to their canonical

   The suggested replacement for the above is:

      Proxy servers, redirect servers, registrars, and any other server
      that is authoritative for some SIP purpose in a given domain
      SHOULD possess a certificate whose subject is a SIP domain as

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

      described in <domain-authentication>.

Authors' Addresses

   Vijay K. Gurbani
   Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
   1960 Lucent Lane
   Room 9C-533
   Naperville, IL  60566

   Phone:  +1 630 224-0216

   Scott Lawrence
   Nortel Networks, Inc.
   600 Technology Park
   Billerica, MA  01821

   Phone:  +1 978 248 5508

   Alan S.A. Jeffrey
   Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
   1960 Lucent Lane
   Room 9C-533
   Naperville, IL  60566


Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                Domain Certs                  October 2008

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Gurbani, et al.           Expires April 9, 2009                [Page 17]