[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                      F. Fieau, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                E. Stephan
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Orange
Expires: September 14, 2017                                    S. Mishra
                                                                 Verizon
                                                          March 13, 2017


              CDNI interfaces update for HTTPS delegation
            draft-fieau-cdni-interfaces-https-delegation-00

Abstract

   Content delivery includes one or more CDNs and in many instances
   involves cascaded delegation when handling encrypted data.  The
   delivery of such content over HTTPS though raises credential
   management issues.  Two models of HTTPS delegation can be considered:
   direct delegation, and "cascaded" delegation.  While the first model
   of delegation is addressed by most of the work at the IETF, in the
   latter case, it is up to downstream CDN(s) delivering the content to
   an end-user to present legacy credentials of either the origin or of
   the upstream CDN which delegated the delivery to the aforementioned
   dCDN.  This document presents updates needed in CDNI Control and
   Metadata interfaces to setup HTTPS delegation between an uCDN and
   dCDN.

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 http://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 September 14, 2017.

Copyright Notice

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




Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      CDNI update for HTTPS delegation          March 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  HTTPS Delegation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Known delegation methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Delegation definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Credentials management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Handling delegation expiration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Logging delegation related data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   In most cases, content is delivered over HTTP or HTTPS using one and
   more CDNs along the delivery path in the direction of end-user.  The
   delivery of the content over HTTPS raises credential management
   issues.  This document presents updates needed in CDNI Control and
   Metadata interfaces to setup HTTPS delegation between an uCDN and
   dCDN.

   It is up to the downstream CDN which delivers the content to the end-
   user to present credentials of either the origin or of the upstream
   CDN which delegated the delivery to the aforementioned dCDN.  The
   domain of the certificate presented to the end-user must match the
   domain delivering content.  However, in a model when an entity other
   than the origin has been delegated to serve secured content on behalf
   of the certificate owner, then in such case of "cascaded" delegation,
   an end-user (UA) may not know (or have the ability to know) if the
   domain of the just authenticated entity delivering the content is the
   same as the origin domain.  Current IETF work on credential
   delegations do not yet include solutions for cascaded delegation that




Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      CDNI update for HTTPS delegation          March 2017


   would allow an UA validate whether content is delivered by origin
   domain or by a delegated entity on behalf of the origin domain.

   CDNi framework supports implicit cascade delegation whereas, HTTPS
   delegation requires explicit transitive delegation to carry the
   credentials from the origin to dCDN passing through all intermediate
   CDNs.

   Several delegation methods are currently proposed within several IETF
   working groups.  The specifications of the provisioning of their
   credentials (how key is transported and stored) are out of the scope
   of the document.  The intent of the document is to identify update to
   the CDNI interfaces, namely CDNI control / Triggers and Metadata
   interfaces to support multiple levels of delegation in CDNI for
   HTTPS.

   Section 2 is about terminology used in this document.  Section 3
   shows the delegation models in delivery architectures.  Section 4
   presents delegation methods specified at the IETF.  Section 5
   introduces delegation metadata for CDNI.  Section 6 discusses the
   management of credentials in delegation.  Section 7 is about an IANA
   registry for delegation methods.  Section 8 discussed how to address
   the expiration of a delegation.  Section 9 is about logging
   delegation data.  Section 10 shows security issues.

2.  Terminology

   This document uses terminology from CDNI framework documents such as
   CDNi framework document [RFC7336], CDNI requirements [RFC7337] and
   CDNI interface specifications documents: CDNI Metadata interface
   [RFC8006], CDNI Control interface / Triggers [RFC8007] and Logging
   interface [RFC7937].

3.  HTTPS Delegation Models

   This document considers two models for HTTPS delegation and their
   applicability to CDN interconnection.

   - Direct HTTPS delegation

   A uCDN delegates HTTPS delivery to dCDN.  The dCDN can deliver
   contents to the UA on behalf of the uCDN: the uCDN domain stays
   visible in the UA, the UA accepts a (sub) certificate bound to the
   uCDN.  Only one level of delegation is considered here.







Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      CDNI update for HTTPS delegation          March 2017


+------------+  delivery   +---------+  delegation  +--------+              +--------+
| TLS Client | <---------- |  dCDN   | <----------> |  uCDN  | <----------> | origin |
+------------+             +---------+              +--------+              +--------+

Figure 1: Direct HTTPS delegation in CDNI


   - Cascaded HTTPS delegation:

   An origin delegates HTTPS delivery to uCDN which in turn delegates
   delivery to dCDNs.  The dCDN can deliver contents to the UA on behalf
   of the Origin: the origin domain stays visible to the UA, the UA
   accepts a (sub) certificate bound to the origin.  N levels of cascade
   might be considered here.

   -- sub-case 1: delivery with origin domain


+------------+  delivery   +---------+  delegation  +--------+  delegation  +--------+
| TLS Client | <---------- |  dCDN   | <----------> |  uCDN  | <----------> | origin |
+------------+             +---------+              +--------+              +--------+

Figure 2: cascaded HTTPS delegation in CDNI


   -- sub-case 2: delivery with uCDN domain


+------------+  delivery   +---------+  delegation  +--------+  delegation  +--------+
| TLS Client | <---------- |  dCDN2  | <----------> |  dCDN1 | <----------> | uCDN   |
+------------+             +---------+              +--------+              +--------+

 Figure 3: cascaded HTTPS delegation in CDNI


   In both models, a uCDN could give its private keys to one or more
   dCDNs.  Some virtual hosting providers have required this method of
   credentials sharing, such as private keys and certificates.  However,
   this is not desirable for the assignee of the credentials, as it
   significantly degrades the security of the entire architecture.

4.  Known delegation methods

   A few methods are currently being proposed at the IETF to handle
   delegation of HTTPS delivery between entities respecting those
   constraints.  Note that these methods are still an ongoing work at
   the IETF within specific WG.  We however anticipate the need to
   handle delegation in interconnected CDNs and a need to address within



Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      CDNI update for HTTPS delegation          March 2017


   the CDNI WG.  Despite the types of delegation methods, we might need
   a common framework in CDNI that would provide new requirements on the
   CDNI interfaces.

   This document considers three methods supporting HTTPS delegation and
   may be used between two or more CDNs with applicable interface
   support following the CDNI framework, such as the CI/Triggers and
   Metadata Interface:

   - Sub-certificates and short-term certificates

   In sub-certs [I-D.rescorla-tls-subcerts], a dCDN might be able to
   present a "delegated_credentials" to UA, containing a cryptographic
   assertion that it is an authorized delegate of the uCDN.  This
   solution requires changes in the UA.  A Delegated credentials has a
   validity period (no longer than 7 days) and a public key.

   Short-term certificates [I-D.sheffer-lurk-cert-delegation] are
   standard certificates with a short period of validity, which can be
   renewed as long as the delegation is true.  Unlike the subcerts, this
   solution does not require any changes in the UA.  In both cases
   however, periodic certificates provisioning on the CDNs is required.

   - Keyless SSL / LURK [I-D.mglt-lurk-tls]

   KeyLess SSL approaches (e.g.  LURK) might allow a dCDN get
   credentials when the UA requests a TLS session establishment.  The
   main objective of keyless SSL is to keep the uCDN (or the origin)
   private keys stored in a secured Key Server (for instance hosted on
   the uCDN), so that they would never be exposed to the dCDN caches.

   - Out-of-Band redirection [I-D.reschke-http-oob-encoding]

   OOB redirection is a method to enable an Origin to delegate the
   delivery of contents to another server.  This method suggests the use
   of a resource map that will be downloaded from the origin by the
   user-agent, instead of the content itself.  The UA will be able to
   contact secondary sources (i.e., CDN caches) to get the content on
   behalf of the Origin.

   OOB advantages are dual for the uCDN and the Origin.  First, there
   might be no need to deal with delegated credentials nor private keys
   at uCDN nor dCDNs, and second, the content can remain encrypted on
   the dCDN which can be of interest for the Origin.

   Supporting these delegation methods might end up with the definition
   of new metadata and triggers, specific to each of them.




Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      CDNI update for HTTPS delegation          March 2017


5.  Delegation definition

   When HTTPS delegation has been set for a specific domain, the dCDN
   should present the Origin or uCDN certificate or
   "delegated_credential" instead of its own certificate when content
   delivery is requested.

   CDNI might needs to advertise support of HTTPS delegation information
   and parameters from uCDN to dCDNs.  Delegation related metadata might
   for instance include the delegated domain, and delegation period.
   Multiple delegations might be advertised for a same domain.

   We might also consider the dCDN discovery of the key server interface
   endpoint as well as the mutual authentication of the dCDN and uCDN
   key server.

   For instance, the uCDN might advertise to the dCDNs metadata such as
   the delegation validity (start, end), certificate renewal periodicity
   (if needed), the delegated domain FQDN.  Such information could be
   for instance, conveyed over the CDNI metadata interface.  We might
   also advertise what is/are the delegation method(s) to use for a
   given delegated domain (ex.  OOB, Subcerts, etc.) between a uCDN and
   a dCDN.  The above information could be carried in a
   delegationMethodOptions object in the DeliveryDelegation metadata.

   For instance, delegation might be seen as a new metadata
   DeliveryDelegation object.


        Example DeliveryDelegation object:
        {
                "generic-metadata-type": "MI.DeliveryDelegation",
                "generic-metadata-value":
                {
                        times: [{
                                "window": [{start: delegationStart, end: delegationEnd}]
                                }],
                        delegationMethodType: "subcerts", // refer to IANA considerations
                        delegationMethodOptions: {
                                "delegatedDomain": domain,
                                "credentialLocationURI": locationURI,
                                "renewalPeriodicity": periodicity,
                                "renewalMode": mode, // "pull" or "push"
                                "KeyServerEndpoint": endpoint
                        }
                }
        }




Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      CDNI update for HTTPS delegation          March 2017


   According to HTTPS delegation models, we might consider delivery
   delegation rights to be expressed through a set of metadata received
   at uCDN or dCDN.  As an example, the metadata might indicate if, for
   instance, the uCDN has been given the right to delegate delivery to
   other dCDN domains.  This could be expressed by "delegabilityAllowed"
   boolean.  Finer granularity might be expected.

6.  Credentials management

   In case of certificates based approaches, aka subcerts
   [I-D.rescorla-tls-subcerts] and short-lived certs
   [I-D.sheffer-lurk-cert-delegation], there might be a need in CDNI to
   periodically provision and update credentials (certificates or
   private keys) on the dCDNs for a given delegated domain.  This
   provisioning phase might be done off-line and is not in the scope of
   CDNI.

   We might also need to control credentials, e.g., sub-certificates,
   renewal demands incoming from dCDNs, or from the uCDN itself.  This
   might be specified in delegation metadata (see Delegation
   definition).  The credentials can be downloaded, either using dCDN
   pull requests to the uCDN, triggered or not by an UA request, or
   uploaded via an uCDN push request.  Both ways of provisioning might
   be specified in the corresponding metadata.

   In Keyless SSL approaches, like LURK [I-D.mglt-lurk-tls], we might
   have similar needs for CDNI: discovery of the key server, interface
   for credentials exchanges.  The credentials exchanges interface that
   allows live delivery of credentials (e.g., session keys) at the TLS
   session setup between the UA and the dCDN should be out of scope of
   CDNI.

   OOB redirection [I-D.reschke-http-oob-encoding] might require other
   specific needs because of its way of working.  For example, a uCDN
   might allow the creation of a resource map pointing at dCDNs
   pertaining to a delegation.

   The uCDN and dCDN might accept connections when BC header is
   positioned to true.  In case of expired delegation, enforcement might
   consist of creating a resource map not containing expired dCDN
   sources, or a uCDN not giving the necessary keys to decrypt the
   content stored on the revoked dCDN.

7.  Handling delegation expiration

   When the delegation has terminated for a given domain, an uCDN might
   have to enforce the expiration of the delegation.  Expiration of




Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      CDNI update for HTTPS delegation          March 2017


   delegation can occur for multiple reasons: changes in delegation
   rights, delegation validity is over.

   The uCDN might have then to prevent any dCDN to renew certificates,
   or access credentials, and might advertise consequently the
   expiration status to the requesting dCDN for that delegated domain.

   Removing of credentials in cascade might be ensured by the Control
   Interfaces / Triggers.

   CDNI Metadata Interface already provides deliveryAuthorization
   metadata [RFC8006] (see 7.1.17) which might be used for handling
   delegation expiration

8.  Logging delegation related data

   Regarding logging aspects, we might consider to log usages and errors
   related to a delegated domain.

   As an example, CDNI logs might include: supported delegation
   method(s), credentials renewal requests, credential revocation
   notice, mutual agreement for selected credential method to use,
   credentials download status for a specific domain, as well as errors,
   related to credentials transfer, or crypto aspects such as bad cypher
   suite supports, revoked delegations, etc.

9.  IANA considerations

   The document might consider specifying a registry of delegation
   methods, e.g. [1] OOB, [2] subcert, [3] shortlivedcert, that might be
   used in the delegation metadata in CDNI.

10.  Security considerations

   The CI/T interface and Metadata interface need only to specify
   mechanisms for delegation between uCDN and dCDN without the use of
   actual transfer of encrypting keys within the interface messages.
   The uCDN actions must be limited to in specifying its support for
   methods it prefers for delegation, actual delegation and revocation
   of any delegation.  The dCDN similarly, must indicate delegation
   methods it supports.  Any subsequent communications enabling
   delegation must be limited to the agreed delegation method.
   Additionally, the HTTPS delegation framework must comply with
   security considerations as specified within RFC 8007 [CDNI Control
   Interfaces].






Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      CDNI update for HTTPS delegation          March 2017


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6844]  Hallam-Baker, P. and R. Stradling, "DNS Certification
              Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record", RFC 6844,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6844, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6844>.

   [RFC7336]  Peterson, L., Davie, B., and R. van Brandenburg, Ed.,
              "Framework for Content Distribution Network
              Interconnection (CDNI)", RFC 7336, DOI 10.17487/RFC7336,
              August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7336>.

   [RFC7337]  Leung, K., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Content Distribution
              Network Interconnection (CDNI) Requirements", RFC 7337,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7337, August 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7337>.

   [RFC7937]  Le Faucheur, F., Ed., Bertrand, G., Ed., Oprescu, I., Ed.,
              and R. Peterkofsky, "Content Distribution Network
              Interconnection (CDNI) Logging Interface", RFC 7937,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7937, August 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7937>.

   [RFC8006]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Murray, R., Caulfield, M., and K. Ma,
              "Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI)
              Metadata", RFC 8006, DOI 10.17487/RFC8006, December 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8006>.







Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      CDNI update for HTTPS delegation          March 2017


   [RFC8007]  Murray, R. and B. Niven-Jenkins, "Content Delivery Network
              Interconnection (CDNI) Control Interface / Triggers",
              RFC 8007, DOI 10.17487/RFC8007, December 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8007>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.cairns-tls-session-key-interface]
              Cairns, K., Mattsson, J., Skog, R., and D. Migault,
              "Session Key Interface (SKI) for TLS and DTLS", draft-
              cairns-tls-session-key-interface-01 (work in progress),
              October 2015.

   [I-D.cdni-fieau-lurk-https-delegation]
              Fieau, F. and S. Emile, "Limited Use of Remote Keys for
              Interconnected CDNs", draft-cdni-fieau-lurk-https-
              delegation-00 (work in progress), July 2016.

   [I-D.mglt-lurk-tls]
              Migault, D., "LURK Protocol for TLS/DTLS1.2 version 1.0",
              draft-mglt-lurk-tls-01 (work in progress), March 2017.

   [I-D.reschke-http-oob-encoding]
              Reschke, J. and S. Loreto, "'Out-Of-Band' Content Coding
              for HTTP", draft-reschke-http-oob-encoding-11 (work in
              progress), March 2017.

   [I-D.rescorla-tls-subcerts]
              Barnes, R., Iyengar, S., Sullivan, N., and E. Rescorla,
              "Delegated Credentials for TLS", draft-rescorla-tls-
              subcerts-01 (work in progress), March 2017.

   [I-D.sheffer-lurk-cert-delegation]
              Sheffer, Y., "Delegating TLS Certificates to a CDN",
              draft-sheffer-lurk-cert-delegation-00 (work in progress),
              May 2016.

Authors' Addresses

   Frederic Fieau (editor)
   Orange
   40-48, avenue de la Republique
   Chatillon  92320
   France

   Email: frederic.fieau@orange.com





Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      CDNI update for HTTPS delegation          March 2017


   Emile Stephan
   Orange
   2, avenue Pierre Marzin
   Lannion  22300
   France

   Email: emile.stephan@orange.com


   Sanjay Mishra
   Verizon
   13100 Columbia Pike
   Silver Spring  MD 20904
   USA

   Email: sanjay.mishra@verizon.com



































Fieau, et al.          Expires September 14, 2017              [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/