draft-ietf-csi-send-name-type-registry-06.txt   rfc6495.txt 
Network Working Group R. Gagliano Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Gagliano
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Request for Comments: 6495 Cisco Systems
Updates: 3971 (if approved) S. Krishnan Updates: 3971 S. Krishnan
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson Category: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: December 5, 2010 A. Kukec ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Kukec
University of Zagreb Enterprise Architects
June 3, 2010 February 2012
Subject Key Identifier (SKI) SEND Name Type fields. Subject Key Identifier (SKI) SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)
draft-ietf-csi-send-name-type-registry-06 Name Type Fields
Abstract Abstract
SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) defines the Name Type field in the SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) defines the Name Type field in the
ICMPv6 Trust Anchor option. This document specifies new Name Type ICMPv6 Trust Anchor option. This document specifies new Name Type
fields based on certificate Subject Key Identifiers (SKI). fields based on certificate Subject Key Identifiers (SKIs).
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2010. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6495.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Name Type fields in the ICMPv6 TA option defined in this 3. Name Type Fields in the ICMPv6 TA Option Defined in This
document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Processing Rules for Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Processing Rules for Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Requirements notation 1. Introduction
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] .
2. Introduction
SEcure Neighbor Discovery [RFC3971] (SEND) utilizes X.509v3 SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971] utilizes X.509v3
certificates that include the [RFC3779] extension for IPv6 addresses certificates that include the [RFC3779] extension for IPv6 addresses
to certify a router's authority over an IPv6 prefix for the NDP to certify a router's authority over an IPv6 prefix for the NDP
(Neighbor Discovery Protocol). The Trust Anchor (TA) Option in (Neighbor Discovery Protocol). The Trust Anchor (TA) option in
section 6.4.3 of [RFC3971] allows the identification of the Trust Section 6.4.3 of [RFC3971] allows the identification of the Trust
Anchor selected by the host. In that same section, two name types Anchor selected by the host. In that same section, two name types
were defined: the DER Encoded X.501 Name and a Fully Qualified Domain were defined: the DER Encoded X.501 Name and a Fully Qualified Domain
Name (FQDN). Name (FQDN).
In any Public Key Infrastructure, the subject name of a certificate In any Public Key Infrastructure, the subject name of a certificate
is only unique within each CA. Consequently, a new option to is only unique within each Certification Authority (CA).
identify TAs across CAs is needed. Consequently, a new option to identify TAs across CAs is needed.
In [I-D.ietf-csi-send-cert] the certificate profile described in In [RFC6494], the certificate profile described in [RFC6487] is
[I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs] is adopted for SEND. In these documents, adopted for SEND. In these documents, the Subject field in the
the Subject field in the certificates is declared to be meaningless certificates is declared to be meaningless and the subjectAltName
and the subjectAltName field is not allowed. On the other hand, the field is not allowed. On the other hand, the Subject Key Identifier
Subject Key Identifier (SKI) extension for the X.509 certificates is (SKI) extension for the X.509 certificates is defined as mandatory
defined as mandatory and non-critical. and non-critical.
This document specifies new Name Type fields in the SEND TA option This document specifies new Name Type fields in the SEND TA option
that allows the use of the SKI X.509 extension to identify TA X.509 that allows the use of the SKI X.509 extension to identify TA X.509
certificates. This document also defines experimental and reserved certificates. This document also defines experimental and reserved
Name Types values. Name Types values.
Finally, this document updates the [RFC3971] by changing the Name Finally, this document updates [RFC3971] by changing the "Trust
Type field in the ICMPv6 Trust Anchor option registration procedures Anchor option (Type 15) Name Type field" registration procedures from
from Standards Action to Standards Action or IESG Approval. Standards Action to Standards Action or IESG Approval [RFC5226].
3. Name Type fields in the ICMPv6 TA option defined in this document 2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Name Type Fields in the ICMPv6 TA Option Defined in This Document
The following Name Type fields in the ICMPv6 TA option are defined: The following Name Type fields in the ICMPv6 TA option are defined:
Name Type Description Name Type Description
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
3 SHA-1 Subject Key Identifier (SKI). 3 SHA-1 Subject Key Identifier (SKI)
4 SHA-224 Subject Key Identifier (SKI). 4 SHA-224 Subject Key Identifier (SKI)
5 SHA-256 Subject Key Identifier (SKI). 5 SHA-256 Subject Key Identifier (SKI)
6 SHA-384 Subject Key Identifier (SKI). 6 SHA-384 Subject Key Identifier (SKI)
7 SHA-512 Subject Key Identifier (SKI). 7 SHA-512 Subject Key Identifier (SKI)
253-254 Experimental 253-254 Experimental
255 Reserved 255 Reserved
Name Type field values 0 and 255 are marked as reserved. This means Name Type field values 0 and 255 are marked as reserved. This means
that they are not available for allocation. that they are not available for allocation.
When the Name Type field is set to 3, the Name Type field contains a When the Name Type field is set to 3, the Name Type field contains a
160-bit SHA-1 hash of the value of the DER-encoded ASN.1 bit string 160-bit SHA-1 hash of the value of the DER-encoded ASN.1 bit string
of the subject public key, as described in Section 3.9.2 of of the subject public key, as described in Section 4.8.2 of
[I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs]. Implementations MAY support SHA-1 SKI [RFC6487]. Implementations MAY support SHA-1 SKI name type.
name type.
When the Name Type field is set to 4,5,6 or 7, the hash function will When the Name Type field is set to 4, 5, 6, or 7, the hash function
respectively be: SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512. will respectively be: SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, or SHA-512.
Implementations MAY support SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-284 and SHA-512 SKI Implementations MAY support SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512
name types. SKI name types.
Name Type fields 253 and 254 are marked as experimental, following Name Type fields 253 and 254 are marked as experimental, per guidance
[RFC3692]. in [RFC3692].
4. Processing Rules for Routers 4. Processing Rules for Routers
As specified in [RFC3971], a TA is identified by the SEND TA option. As specified in [RFC3971], a TA is identified by the SEND TA option.
If the TA option is represented as a SKI, then the SKI MUST be equal If the TA option is represented as a SKI, then the SKI MUST be equal
to the X.509 SKI extension in the trust anchor's certificate. The to the X.509 SKI extension in the trust anchor's certificate. The
router SHOULD include the TA option(s) in the advertisement for which router SHOULD include the TA option(s) in the advertisement for which
the certification path was found. Also, following [RFC3971] the certification path was found. Also, following the specification
specification, if the router is unable to find a path to the defined in [RFC3971], if the router is unable to find a path to the
requested anchor, it SHOULD send an advertisement without any requested anchor, it SHOULD send an advertisement without any
certificate. In this case, the router SHOULD include the TA options certificate. In this case, the router SHOULD include the TA options
that were solicited. that were solicited.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to update the Name Type field in the ICMPv6 Trust IANA has updated the "Trust Anchor option (Type 15) Name Type field"
Anchor option registry by adding the following values: registry to include the following values:
+---------+----------------------------------------------------+ +---------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Value | Description | | Value | Description |
+---------+----------------------------------------------------+ +---------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved ( Section 3 ) | | 0 | Reserved (Section 3) |
| 3 | SHA-1 Subject Key Identifier (SKI) ( Section 3 ) | | 3 | SHA-1 Subject Key Identifier (SKI) (Section 3) |
| 4 | SHA-224 Subject Key Identifier (SKI) ( Section 3 ) | | 4 | SHA-224 Subject Key Identifier (SKI) (Section 3) |
| 5 | SHA-256 Subject Key Identifier (SKI) ( Section 3 ) | | 5 | SHA-256 Subject Key Identifier (SKI) (Section 3) |
| 6 | SHA-384 Subject Key Identifier (SKI) ( Section 3 ) | | 6 | SHA-384 Subject Key Identifier (SKI) (Section 3) |
| 7 | SHA-512 Subject Key Identifier (SKI) ( Section 3 ) | | 7 | SHA-512 Subject Key Identifier (SKI) (Section 3) |
| 253-254 | Experimental use ( Section 3 ) | | 253-254 | Experimental Use (Section 3) |
| 255 | Reserved ( Section 3 ) | | 255 | Reserved (Section 3) |
+---------+----------------------------------------------------+ +---------+--------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: New Name Type field values in the ICMPv6 TA option Table 1: New Name Type Field Values in the ICMPv6 TA Option
IANA is also requested to modify the registration procedures for the IANA has also modified the registration procedures for the "Trust
Name Type field in the ICMPv6 Trust Anchor option registry to Anchor option (Type 15) Name Type field" registry to Standards Action
Standard Action or IESG Approval [RFC5226]. or IESG Approval [RFC5226].
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The hash functions referenced in this document to calculate the SKI The hash functions referenced in this document to calculate the SKI
have reasonable random properties in order to provide reasonably have reasonable random properties in order to provide reasonably
unique identifiers. Two identical identifiers in the same validation unique identifiers. Two identical identifiers in the same validation
path will cause the router to stop fetching certificates once the path will cause the router to stop fetching certificates once the
first certificate has been fetched. In the case that the upward first certificate has been fetched. In the case that the upward
certificate was configured as TA by a host, the router will send to certificate was configured as a TA by a host, the router will send to
this host an incomplete list of certificates, causing the SEND this host an incomplete list of certificates, causing the SEND
validation to fail. validation to fail.
For experimental values of the Name Type field, the guidance given in For experimental values of the Name Type field, the guidance given in
[RFC3692] about the use of experimental values needs to be followed. [RFC3692] about the use of experimental values needs to be followed.
7. Normative References 7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-csi-send-cert]
Gagliano, R., Krishnan, S., and A. Kukec, "Certificate
profile and certificate management for SEND",
draft-ietf-csi-send-cert-03 (work in progress),
March 2010.
[I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs]
Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for
X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates",
draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs-18 (work in progress), May 2010.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
[RFC3779] Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP [RFC3779] Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004. Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC6487] Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for
X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487,
February 2012.
[RFC6494] Gagliano, R., Krishnan, S., and A. Kukec, "Certificate
Profile and Certificate Management for SEcure Neighbor
Discovery (SEND)", RFC 6494, February 2012.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Roque Gagliano Roque Gagliano
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Avenue des Uttins 5 Avenue des Uttins 5
Rolle, 1180 Rolle, 1180
Switzerland Switzerland
Email: rogaglia@cisco.com EMail: rogaglia@cisco.com
Suresh Krishnan Suresh Krishnan
Ericsson Ericsson
8400 Decarie Blvd. 8400 Decarie Blvd.
Town of Mount Royal, QC Town of Mount Royal, QC
Canada Canada
Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871 Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871
Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com EMail: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
Ana Kukec Ana Kukec
University of Zagreb Enterprise Architects
Unska 3 46/525 Collins St
Zagreb Melbourne, VIC 3000
Croatia Australia
Email: ana.kukec@fer.hr EMail: ana.kukec@enterprisearchitects.com
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
105 lines changed or deleted 97 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/