SIP WG                                                       S. Lawrence
Internet-Draft                                           Bluesocket Inc.
Updates:  3261 (if approved)                                  V. Gurbani
Intended status:  Standards Track      Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Expires:  May 11,  August 21, 2008                              February 18, 2008                                  November 8, 2007

  Using Extended Key Usage (EKU) for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
                           X.509 Certificates

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 May 11, August 21, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). (2008).


   This memo documents an extended key usage (EKU) X.509 certificate
   extension for identifying the holder of a certificate as
   authoritative for a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) service in the
   domain named by the DNS name in the certificate.

Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Key Words  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Abstract syntax notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Problem statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Restricting usage to SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Extended Key Usage values for SIP domains  . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Using the SIP EKU in a certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Guidelines for a Certification Authority . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7  8
   Appendix A.  ASN.1 Module  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10

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].

1.2.  Abstract syntax notation

   All X.509 certificate X.509 [4] extensions are defined using ASN.1
   X.680 [5],X.690 [6].

2.  Problem statement

   Consider the SIP [2] trapezoid shown in Figure 1. ------------
             |                           |
             |                           |
             |                           |
             |                         +---+
           0---0                       |   |
            /-\                        |___|
           +---+                      /    /

                          Figure 1: SIP Trapezoid

   Assume that creates an INVITE for;
   her user agent routes the request to some proxy in her domain,  Suppose also that is a large organization
   that maintains several SIP proxies, and normal resolution rules cause
   her INVITE to be sent to an outbound proxy, which
   then uses RFC 3263 [7] resolution and finds that
   is a valid proxy for that uses TLS.
   requests a TLS connection to, and each presents a
   certificate to authenticate that connection.  This is the basic
   mutual authentication model explored in depth in [8].

   However, there arise certain cases where one SIP proxy needs to know
   whether it has reached an authoritative proxy in target SIP domain.
   For instance, billing transactions may be triggered when an
   authoritative SIP proxy in one domain sends messages to its
   equivalent in another domain.  In Figure 1,
   performs certain DNS manipulations queries to arrive at
   Because of these the answers to the DNS machinations, queries, proxyA has a certain
   expectation that proxyB is a valid proxy in the domain
   and is authorized to receive inbound requests targeted to that

   However, the problem for proxyB is different; it is presented with a
   connection from a specific host, but what it needs to determine is
   whether or not that connection can be treated as coming from a
   particular SIP domain.  If it receives a certificate that contains
   only the name, then it cannot determine that
   proxyA is authorized to act as a SIP outbound proxy for,
   because may use different systems for inbound messages so
   SIP DNS resolution of may not lead to
   (if this is the case, proxyB should not reuse this connection if it
   needs to send a request to  The certificate usage in
   SIP should not require that every outbound proxy for a domain must
   also be an inbound proxy for that domain, but should provide for
   certificate based binding of the SIP domain name to a particular

   Thus, there is a need for an extra attribute that allows a proxy to
   know that its peer is an authorized proxy for that domain.  This memo
   discusses such an attribute as part of the X.509 certificate
   exchanged by the proxies when a TLS connection is first established.

3.  Restricting usage to SIP

   The intent of this draft is to define

   This memo defines a certificate profile for binding a SIP domain name
   to a connection. an entity.  A SIP domain name is frequently textually identical to
   the same DNS name used for other purposes.  For example, the DNS name may serve as a SIP domain name, an email domain name, and
   web service name.  Since these different services within a single
   organization may well might be administered independently and hosted
   separately, it should be possible to create a certificate that binds
   the DNS name to its usage as a SIP domain name without creating the
   implication that the usage is also valid for some other purpose.  RFC
   3280 [3] section defines a mechanism for this purpose:  an
   "Extended Key Usage" attribute.  Certificates whose purpose is to
   bind a SIP domain identity without binding other non-SIP identities
   MUST include an id-kp-SIPdomain attribute.

3.1.  Extended Key Usage values for SIP domains

   RFC 3280 [3] specifies the EKU X.509 certificate Extension for use in
   the Internet.  The extension indicates one or more purposes for which
   the certified public key may be used.  The EKU extension can be used
   in conjunction with the key usage extension, which indicates how the
   public key in the certificate may be used, in a more basic
   cryptographic way.

   The EKU extension syntax is repeated here for convenience:

         ExtKeyUsageSyntax  ::=  SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF KeyPurposeId

         KeyPurposeId  ::=  OBJECT IDENTIFIER

   This specification defines the KeyPurposeId id-kp-sipDomain.
   Inclusion of this KeyPurposeId in a certificate indicates that any
   DNS Subject names in the certificate are intended to identify the
   holder as authoritative for a SIP service in the domain named by the
   DNS name(s) in question.
   subjectAltName values.  Whether or not to include this restriction is
   up to the certificate issuer, but if it is included, it MUST be
   marked as critical so that implementations that do not understand it
   will not accept the certificate for any other purpose.

         id-kp  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=
            { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
              security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) 3 }

         id-kp-sipDomain  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { id-kp VALUE-TBD }

   See Section 4 for how the presence of an id-kp-sipDomain value
   affects the interpretation of the certificate.

4.  Using the SIP EKU in a certificate

   Section 7.1 of [8] contains two steps for finding an identity (or a
   set of identities) in an X.509 certificate.  In order to determine
   whether a SIP proxy is authoritative for its domain, implementations
   MUST perform the step given below first, and then proceed with the
   steps in Section 7.1 of [8].

   The key usage Extended Key Usage value(s), if any, MUST be examined to
   determine whether or not the certificate is valid for use in SIP:

   o  If the certificate contains does not contain any EKU values (the Extended
      Key Usage extension other than id-kp-
      sipDomain, and does not contain the id-kp-sipDomain extension,
      then exist), it is a matter of local
      policy whether or not to accept the certificate MUST NOT be accepted as valid for use as a SIP certificate, and none of the identities it contains are
      acceptable for SIP domain authentication.

   o  If the certificate contains the id-kp-anyExtendedKeyUsage
      extension and also contains the id-kp-sipDomain EKU extension,
      then the certificate can MUST be used accepted as valid for use as a SIP
      certificate.  Furthermore, it
      can also be used for any other application that the key usage
      extension permits.

   o  If the certificate does not contain any the id-kp-sipDomain EKU values, value,
      but does contain the id-kp-anyExtendedKeyUsage EKU value, it is a
      matter of local policy whether or not to accept it for use as a
      SIP certificate.

   A summary of

   o  If the logic flow for peer certificate validation follows:

   1.  If no EKU extension, apply local policy and accept does not contain the

   2.  If id-kp-sipDomain EKU is present and contains id-kp-sipDomain, accept value,
      but does contain either the

   3.  If any id-kp-serverAuth or id-kp-clientAuth
      EKU values, it is present and contains both id-kp-anyExtendedKeyUsage
       and id-kp-sipDomain, a matter of local policy whether or not to
      accept the it for use as a SIP certificate.


   o  If any EKU is present extension exists but does not include id-kp-sipDomain,
       reject contain any of the id-kp-
      sipDomain, id-kp-anyExtendedKeyUsage, id-kp-serverAuth, or id-kp-
      clientAuth EKU values, then the certificate MUST NOT be accepted
      as valid for use as a SIP certificate.

5.  Guidelines for a Certification Authority

   The procedures and practices employed by the certification authority
   MUST ensure that the correct values for the EKU extension and
   subjectAltName are inserted in each certificate that is issued.  For
   certificates that indicate authority over a SIP domain, but not over
   services other than SIP, certificate authorities MUST include the id-
   kp-sipDomain EKU extension.

6.  Security Considerations

   This memo defines an EKU X.509 certificate extension that enables the
   holder of a certificate to be authoritative for a SIP service
   belonging to an autonomous domain.  Relying parties may execute
   applicable policies (such as those related to billing) on receiving a
   certificate with the id-kp-sipDomain EKU value.  An id-kp-sipDomain
   EKU value does not introduce any new security or privacy concerns.
   At the very most, it simply allows the relying party to know that the
   holder of the certificate is authoritative for the SIP service in a
   certain domain.  In the absence of the id-kp-sipDomain EKU value,
   this information can be collected over time by a peer in any case.

7.  IANA Considerations

   The id-kp-sipDomain purpose requires an object idenitifier (OID).
   The objects are defined in an arc delegated by IANA to the PKIX
   working group.  No further action is necessary by IANA.

8.  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, and Stephen Kent.  Special
   acknowledgement is due to

   Sharon Boyen for reviewing and Trevor Freeman reviewed the document and
   pointing out facilitated
   the role of id-kp-anyExtendedKeyUsage discussion on id-kp-anyExtendedKeyUsage, id-kpServerAuth and id-
   kp-ClientAuth purposes in certificates.


9.  References


9.1.  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]  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.

   [4]  International International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative
        Committee, "Information Technology - Open Systems
        Interconnection - The Directory: Authentication Framework",
        CCITT Recommendation X.509, November 1988.

   [5]  International International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative
        Committee, "Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One
        (ASN.1): Specification of Basic Notation", CCITT Recommendation
        X.680, July 1994.

   [6]  International Telecommunications Union, "Information Technology
        - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules
        (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding
        Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, 1994.

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


9.2.  Informative References

   [8]  Gurbani, V., Lawrence, S., and A. Jeffrey, "Domain Certificates
        in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
        draft-ietf-sip-domain-certs-00.txt (work in progress),
        November 2007.

Appendix A.  ASN.1 Module

        { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
          security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
          id-mod-sip-domain-extns2007(VALUE-TBD) }


      -- OID Arcs

      id-pe  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=
         { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
           security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) 1 }

      id-kp  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=
         { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
           security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) 3 }

      id-aca  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=
         { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
           security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) 10 }

      -- Extended Key Usage Values

      id-kp-sipDomain  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { id-kp VALUE-TBD }


Authors' Addresses

   Scott Lawrence
   Bluesocket Inc.
   10 North Ave.
   Burlington, MA  01803

   Phone:  +1 781 229 0533

   Vijay K. Gurbani
   Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
   2701 Lucent Lane
   Room 9F-546
   Lisle, IL  60532

   Phone:  +1 630 224-0216

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). (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).