Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Subject Alternative Name for Expression of Service Name
RFC 4985
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (August 2007; Errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Stefan Santesson | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized with errata bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 4985 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Tim Polk | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group S. Santesson
Request for Comments: 4985 Microsoft
Category: Standards Track August 2007
Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
Subject Alternative Name for Expression of Service Name
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document defines a new name form for inclusion in the otherName
field of an X.509 Subject Alternative Name extension that allows a
certificate subject to be associated with the service name and domain
name components of a DNS Service Resource Record.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology ................................................2
2. Name Definitions ................................................2
3. Internationalized Domain Names ..................................4
4. Name Constraints Matching Rules .................................5
5. Security Considerations .........................................6
6. Normative References ............................................6
Appendix A. ASN.1 Syntax ...........................................7
Appendix A.1. 1988 ASN.1 Module .................................7
Appendix A.2. 1993 ASN.1 Module .................................8
Santesson Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4985 DNS SRV RR otherName August 2007
1. Introduction
This document specifies a name form for inclusion in X.509
certificates that may be used by a certificate relying party to
verify that a particular host is authorized to provide a specific
service within a domain.
RFC 2782 [N3] defines a DNS RR (Resource Record) for specifying the
location of services (SRV RR), which allows clients to ask for a
specific service/protocol for a specific domain and get back the
names of any available servers.
Existing name forms in X.509 certificates support authentication of a
host name. This is useful when the name of the host is known by the
client prior to authentication.
When a server host name is discovered through DNS RR lookup query
based on service name, the client may need to authenticate the
server's authorization to provide the requested service in addition
to the server's host name.
While DNS servers may have the capacity to provide trusted
information, there may be many other situations where the binding
between the name of the host and the provided service needs to be
supported by additional credentials.
Current dNSName GeneralName Subject Alternative name form only
provides for DNS host names to be expressed in "preferred name
syntax", as specified by RFC 1034 [N4]. This definition is therefore
not broad enough to allow expression of a service related to that
domain.
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 [N1].
2. Name Definitions
This section defines the SRVName name as a form of otherName from the
GeneralName structure in SubjectAltName defined in RFC 3280 [N2].
id-on-dnsSRV OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-on 7 }
SRVName ::= IA5String (SIZE (1..MAX))
Santesson Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4985 DNS SRV RR otherName August 2007
The SRVName, if present, MUST contain a service name and a domain
name in the following form:
_Service.Name
The content of the components of this name form MUST be consistent
with the corresponding definition of these components in an SRV RR
according to RFC 2782 [N3].
The content of these components are:
Service
The symbolic name of the desired service, as defined in
Assigned Numbers [N5] or locally. An underscore (_) is
prepended to the service identifier to avoid collisions with
DNS labels that occur in nature. Some widely used services,
notably POP, don't have a single universal name. If Assigned
Numbers names the service indicated, that name is the only name
that is allowed in the service component of this name form.
The Service is case insensitive.
Name
The DNS domain name of the domain where the specified service
is located.
If the domain name is an Internationalized Domain Name (IDN),
then encoding in ASCII form SHALL be done as defined in section
3.
Even though this name form is based on the service resource record
(SRV RR) definition in RFC 2782 [N3] and may be used to enhance
subsequent authentication of DNS-based service discovery, this
standard does not define any new conditions or requirements regarding
use of SRV RR for service discovery or where and when such use is
appropriate.
The format of a DNS RR, according to RFC 2782, also includes a
protocol component (_Service._Proto.Name). This protocol component
is not included in the SRVName specified in this document. The
purpose of the SRVName is limited to authorization of service
provision within a domain. It is outside the scope of the SRVName to
provide any means to verify that the host is using any intended
protocol. By omitting the protocol component from the SRVName two
important advantages have been achieved:
* One certificate with a single SRVName can be issued to a host that
offers multiple protocol alternatives.
Santesson Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4985 DNS SRV RR otherName August 2007
* Name constraints processing rules (specified in section 4)are
significantly less complex to define without the protocol
component.
A present SRVName in a certificate MUST NOT be used to identify a
host unless one of the following conditions applies:
* Use of this name form is specified by the security protocol being
used and the identified service has a defined service name
according to RFC 2782, or;
* Use of this name form is configured by local policy.
3. Internationalized Domain Names
IA5String is limited to the set of ASCII characters. To accommodate
internationalized domain names in the current structure, conforming
implementations MUST convert internationalized domain names to the
ASCII Compatible Encoding (ACE) format as specified in section 4 of
RFC 3490 [N6] before storage in the Name part of SRVName.
Specifically, conforming implementations MUST perform the conversion
operation specified in section 4 of RFC 3490 [N6], with the following
clarifications:
* in step 1, the domain name SHALL be considered a "stored
string". That is, the AllowUnassigned flag SHALL NOT be set;
* in step 3, set the flag called "UseSTD3ASCIIRules";
* in step 4, process each label with the "ToASCII" operation; and
* in step 5, change all label separators to U+002E (full stop).
When comparing DNS names for equality, conforming implementations
MUST perform a case-insensitive exact match on the entire domain
name. When evaluating name constraints, conforming implementations
MUST perform a case-insensitive exact match on a label-by-label
basis.
Implementations SHOULD convert IDNs to Unicode before display.
Specifically, conforming implementations SHOULD perform the
conversion operation specified in section 4 of RFC 3490 [N6], with
the following clarifications:
* in step 1, the domain name SHALL be considered a "stored
string". That is, the AllowUnassigned flag SHALL NOT be set;
* in step 3, set the flag called "UseSTD3ASCIIRules";
Santesson Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4985 DNS SRV RR otherName August 2007
* in step 4, process each label with the "ToUnicode" operation;
and
* skip step 5.
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.
4. Name Constraints Matching Rules
Name constraining, as specified in RFC 3280, MAY be applied to the
SRVName by adding name restriction in the name constraints extension
in the form of an SRVName.
SRVName restrictions are expressed as a complete SRVName
(_mail.example.com), just a service name (_mail), or just as a DNS
name (example.com). The name restriction of the service name part
and the DNS name part of SRVName are handled separately.
If a service name is included in the restriction, then that
restriction can only be satisfied by an SRVName that includes a
corresponding service name. If the restriction has an absent service
name, then that restriction is satisfied by any SRVName that matches
the domain part of the restriction.
DNS name restrictions are expressed as host.example.com. Any DNS
name that can be constructed by simply adding subdomains to the
left-hand side of the name satisfies the DNS name part of the name
constraint. For example, www.host.example.com would satisfy the
constraint (host.example.com) but 1host.example.com would not.
Examples:
Name Constraints
SRVName restriction Matching SRVName non-matching SRVName
=================== ================ ====================
example.com _mail.example.com _mail.1example.com
_ntp.example.com
_mail.1.example.com
_mail _mail.example.com _ntp.example.com
_mail.1example.com
_mail.example.com _mail.example.com _mail.1example.com
_mail.1.example.com _ntp.example.com
Santesson Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4985 DNS SRV RR otherName August 2007
5. Security Considerations
Assignment of services to hosts may be subject to change.
Implementers should be aware of the need to revoke old certificates
that no longer reflect the current assignment of services and thus
make sure that all issued certificates are up to date.
When X.509 certificates enhanced with the name form specified in this
standard is used to enhance authentication of service discovery based
on an SRV RR query to a DNS server, all security considerations of
RFC 2782 applies.
6. Normative References
[N1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[N2] Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W., and D. Solo, "Internet X.509
Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate
Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280, April 2002.
[N3] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000.
[N4] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES", STD
13, RFC 1034, November 1987
[N5] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by an
On-line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002.
[N6] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC
3490, March 2003.
Santesson Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4985 DNS SRV RR otherName August 2007
Appendix A. ASN.1 Syntax
As in RFC 2459, ASN.1 modules are supplied in two different variants
of the ASN.1 syntax.
This section describes data objects used by conforming Public Key
Infrastructure (PKI) components in an "ASN.1-like" syntax. This
syntax is a hybrid of the 1988 and 1993 ASN.1 syntaxes. The 1988
ASN.1 syntax is augmented with the 1993 UNIVERSAL Type UTF8String.
The ASN.1 syntax does not permit the inclusion of type statements in
the ASN.1 module, and the 1993 ASN.1 standard does not permit use of
the new UNIVERSAL types in modules using the 1988 syntax. As a
result, this module does not conform to either version of the ASN.1
standard.
Appendix A.1 may be parsed by an 1988 ASN.1-parser by replacing the
definitions for the UNIVERSAL Types with the 1988 catch-all "ANY".
Appendix A.2 may be parsed "as is" by a 1997-compliant ASN.1 parser.
In case of discrepancies between these modules, the 1988 module is
the normative one.
Appendix A.1. 1988 ASN.1 Module
PKIXServiceNameSAN88 {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-mod-dns-srv-name-88(39) }
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
-- EXPORTS ALL --
IMPORTS
-- UTF8String, / move hyphens before slash if UTF8String does not
-- resolve with your compiler
id-pkix
FROM PKIX1Explicit88 { iso(1) identified-organization(3)
dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)
id-mod(0) id-pkix1-explicit(18) } ;
-- from RFC3280 [N2]
Santesson Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4985 DNS SRV RR otherName August 2007
-- Service Name Object Identifier and Syntax
-- id-pkix OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {1 3 6 1 5 5 7}
id-on OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 8 }
id-on-dnsSRV OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-on 7 }
SRVName ::= IA5String (SIZE (1..MAX))
END
Appendix A.2. 1993 ASN.1 Module
PKIXServiceNameSAN93 {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-mod-dns-srv-name-93(40) }
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
-- EXPORTS ALL --
IMPORTS
id-pkix
FROM PKIX1Explicit88 { iso(1) identified-organization(3)
dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)
id-mod(0) id-pkix1-explicit(18) } ;
-- from RFC 3280 [N2]
-- In the GeneralName definition using the 1993 ASN.1 syntax
-- includes:
OTHER-NAME ::= TYPE-IDENTIFIER
-- Service Name Object Identifier
id-on OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 8 }
id-on-dnsSRV OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-on 7 }
Santesson Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4985 DNS SRV RR otherName August 2007
-- Service Name
srvName OTHER-NAME ::= { SRVName IDENTIFIED BY { id-on-dnsSRV }}
SRVName ::= IA5String (SIZE (1..MAX))
END
Author's Address
Stefan Santesson
Microsoft
Tuborg Boulevard 12
2900 Hellerup
Denmark
EMail: stefans@microsoft.com
Santesson Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4985 DNS SRV RR otherName August 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
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
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Santesson Standards Track [Page 10]