draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-03.txt   draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-04.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force S. Hollenbeck Internet Engineering Task Force S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft Verisign Labs Internet-Draft Verisign Labs
Intended status: Standards Track N. Kong Intended status: Standards Track N. Kong
Expires: October 31, 2013 CNNIC Expires: December 05, 2013 CNNIC
April 29, 2013 June 03, 2013
Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-03 draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-04
Abstract Abstract
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) provides "RESTful" web The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) provides "RESTful" web
services to retrieve registration metadata from domain name and services to retrieve registration metadata from domain name and
regional internet registries. This document describes information regional internet registries. This document describes information
security services including authentication, authorization, security services including authentication, authorization,
availability, data confidentiality, and data integrity for RDAP. availability, data confidentiality, and data integrity for RDAP.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 31, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 05, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Information Security Services and RDAP . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Information Security Services and RDAP . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Federated Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1.1. Federated Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Data Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Data Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Data Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Data Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) is specified in multiple The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) is specified in multiple
documents, including "Registration Data Access Protocol Lookup documents, including "Registration Data Access Protocol Lookup
Format" [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query], "JSON Responses for the Format" [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query], "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)" Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)"
skipping to change at page 3, line 38 skipping to change at page 3, line 38
3.1. Authentication 3.1. Authentication
WHOIS does not provide features to identify and authenticate clients. WHOIS does not provide features to identify and authenticate clients.
As noted in section 3.1.4.2 of "Cross Registry Internet Service As noted in section 3.1.4.2 of "Cross Registry Internet Service
Protocol (CRISP) Requirements" [RFC3707], there is utility in Protocol (CRISP) Requirements" [RFC3707], there is utility in
allowing server operators to offer "varying degrees of access allowing server operators to offer "varying degrees of access
depending on policy and need". Clients have to be identified and depending on policy and need". Clients have to be identified and
authenticated to provide that utility. authenticated to provide that utility.
RDAP MUST include an authentication framework that can accommodate RDAP's authentication framework needs to accomodate anonymous access
anonymous access as well as verification of identities using a range as well as verification of identities using a range of authentication
of authentication methods and credential services. To that end, RDAP methods and credential services. To that end, RDAP clients and
clients and servers MUST implement the authentication framework servers MUST implement the authentication framework specified in
specified in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"
Authentication" [RFC2617]. The "basic" scheme can be used to send a [RFC2617]. The "basic" scheme can be used to send a client's user
client's user name and password to a server in plaintext, name and password to a server in plaintext, based64-encoded form.
based64-encoded form. The "digest" scheme can be used to The "digest" scheme can be used to authenticate a client without
authenticate a client without exposing the client's plaintext exposing the client's plaintext password. If the "basic" scheme is
password. If the "basic" scheme is used, HTTP Over TLS [RFC2818] used, HTTP Over TLS [RFC2818] MUST be used to protect the client's
MUST be used to protect the client's credentials from disclosure credentials from disclosure while in transit (see Section 3.4).
while in transit (see Section 3.4).
The Transport Layer Security Protocol [RFC5246] includes an optional The Transport Layer Security Protocol [RFC5246] includes an optional
feature to identify and authenticate clients who possess and present feature to identify and authenticate clients who possess and present
a valid X.509 digital certificate [RFC5280]. Support for this a valid X.509 digital certificate [RFC5280]. Support for this
feature is OPTIONAL. feature is OPTIONAL.
RDAP SHOULD be capable of supporting future authentication methods RDAP SHOULD be capable of supporting future authentication methods
defined for use with HTTP. defined for use with HTTP.
3.1.1. Federated Authentication 3.1.1. Federated Authentication
skipping to change at page 5, line 15 skipping to change at page 5, line 17
3.2. Authorization 3.2. Authorization
WHOIS does not provide services to grant different levels of access WHOIS does not provide services to grant different levels of access
to clients based on a client's authenticated identity. As noted in to clients based on a client's authenticated identity. As noted in
section 3.1.4.2 of "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) section 3.1.4.2 of "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP)
Requirements" [RFC3707], there is utility in allowing server Requirements" [RFC3707], there is utility in allowing server
operators to offer "varying degrees of access depending on policy and operators to offer "varying degrees of access depending on policy and
need". Access control decisions can be made once a client's identity need". Access control decisions can be made once a client's identity
has been established and authenticated (see Section 3.1). has been established and authenticated (see Section 3.1).
RDAP MUST include an authorization framework that is capable of An RDAP server MUST provide granular access controls (that is, on a
providing granular (per registration data object) access controls per registration data object basis) in order to implement
according to the policies of the operator. Server operators will authorization policies. Server operators will offer varying degrees
offer varying degrees of access depending on policy and need in of access depending on policy and need in conjunction with the
conjunction with the authentication methods described in Section 3.1. authentication methods described in Section 3.1. Some examples:
Some examples:
- Clients will be allowed access only to data for which they have a - Clients will be allowed access only to data for which they have a
relationship. relationship.
- Unauthenticated or anonymous access status may not yield any - Unauthenticated or anonymous access status may not yield any
contact information. contact information.
- Full access may be granted to a special group of authenticated - Full access may be granted to a special group of authenticated
clients. clients.
skipping to change at page 8, line 13 skipping to change at page 8, line 19
weirds-json-response-03 (work in progress), April 2013. weirds-json-response-03 (work in progress), April 2013.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol Lookup Format", draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-04 Protocol Lookup Format", draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-04
(work in progress), April 2013. (work in progress), April 2013.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http] [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]
Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP usage in the Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf- Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-using-http-04 (work in progress), April 2013. weirds-using-http-05 (work in progress), May 2013.
[OpenID] OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Authentication 2.0 - Final ", [OpenID] OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Authentication 2.0 - Final ",
December 2007, <http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0>. December 2007, <http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0>.
[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.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P.M., Hostetler, J.L., Lawrence, [RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P.M., Hostetler, J.L., Lawrence,
S.D., Leach, P.J., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP S.D., Leach, P.J., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
RFC 2617, June 1999. RFC 2617, June 1999.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000. [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC4732] Handley, M., Rescorla, E., IAB, "Internet Denial-of-
Service Considerations", RFC 4732, December 2006.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[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, May 2008.
[RFC6585] Nottingham, M. and R. Fielding, "Additional HTTP Status [RFC6585] Nottingham, M. and R. Fielding, "Additional HTTP Status
Codes", RFC 6585, April 2012. Codes", RFC 6585, April 2012.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC
6749, October 2012.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[RFC3707] Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol [RFC3707] Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol
(CRISP) Requirements", RFC 3707, February 2004. (CRISP) Requirements", RFC 3707, February 2004.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, [RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
September 2004. September 2004.
[RFC4732] Handley, M., Rescorla, E., IAB, "Internet Denial-of-
Service Considerations", RFC 4732, December 2006.
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", RFC [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", RFC
4949, August 2007. 4949, August 2007.
[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, May 2008.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC
6749, October 2012.
Appendix A. Change Log Appendix A. Change Log
Initial -00: Adopted as working group document. Initial -00: Adopted as working group document.
-01: Extensive text additions and revisions based on in-room -01: Extensive text additions and revisions based on in-room
discussion at IETF-85. Sections for data integrity and non- discussion at IETF-85. Sections for data integrity and non-
repudiation have been removed due to a lack of requirements, but repudiation have been removed due to a lack of requirements, but
both topics are now addressed in the Security Considerations both topics are now addressed in the Security Considerations
section. section.
-02: Fixed document names in the Introduction. Modified text in -02: Fixed document names in the Introduction. Modified text in
Section 3.1.1 to clarify requirement. Added text to Section 3.3 Section 3.1.1 to clarify requirement. Added text to Section 3.3
to describe rate limiting. Added new data integrity section. to describe rate limiting. Added new data integrity section.
Updated security considerations to describe injection attacks. Updated security considerations to describe injection attacks.
-03: Extensive updates to address WG last call comments: rewrote -03: Extensive updates to address WG last call comments: rewrote
introduction, removed references to draft documents, changed introduction, removed references to draft documents, changed
"HTML" to "HTTP" in Section 5, eliminated upper case words that "HTML" to "HTTP" in Section 5, eliminated upper case words that
could be misunderstood to be normative guidance, rewrote could be misunderstood to be normative guidance, rewrote
Section 3.4 and Section 3.5. Section 3.4 and Section 3.5.
-04: Address AD evaluation comments: In Section 3.1 change "RDAP
MUST include an authentication framework that can accommodate" to
"RDAP's authentication framework needs to accomodate"; in
Section 3.2 change "RDAP MUST include an authorization framework
that is capable of providing granular (per registration data
object) access controls according to the policies of the operator"
to "An RDAP server MUST provide granular access controls (that is,
on a per registration data object basis) in order to implement
authorization policies"; move RFCs 4732, 5280, and 6749 from
normative to informative subsection.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Scott Hollenbeck Scott Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs Verisign Labs
12061 Bluemont Way 12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190 Reston, VA 20190
US US
Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/ URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/
Ning Kong Ning Kong
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 44 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/