draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-03.txt   draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-04.txt 
LAMPS J. Schaad LAMPS J. Schaad
Internet-Draft August Cellars Internet-Draft August Cellars
Intended status: Standards Track B. Ramsdell Obsoletes: 5750 (if approved) B. Ramsdell
Expires: September 14, 2017 Brute Squad Labs, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track Brute Squad Labs, Inc.
S. Turner Expires: October 9, 2017 S. Turner
sn3rd sn3rd
March 13, 2017 April 7, 2017
Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/ MIME) Version 4.0 Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/ MIME) Version 4.0
Certificate Handling Certificate Handling
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-03 draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-04
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies conventions for X.509 certificate usage by This document specifies conventions for X.509 certificate usage by
Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) v4.0 agents. Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) v4.0 agents.
S/MIME provides a method to send and receive secure MIME messages, S/MIME provides a method to send and receive secure MIME messages,
and certificates are an integral part of S/MIME agent processing. and certificates are an integral part of S/MIME agent processing.
S/MIME agents validate certificates as described in RFC 5280, the S/MIME agents validate certificates as described in RFC 5280, the
Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile. Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile.
S/MIME agents must meet the certificate processing requirements in S/MIME agents must meet the certificate processing requirements in
this document as well as those in RFC 5280. This document obsoletes this document as well as those in RFC 5280. This document obsoletes
RFC 3850. RFC 5750.
Contributing to this document Contributing to this document
The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub. Suggested The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub. Suggested
changes should be submitted as pull requests at <https://github.com/ changes should be submitted as pull requests at <https://github.com/
lamps-wg/smime>. Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial lamps-wg/smime>. Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial
changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial issues need to changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial issues need to
be discussed on the LAMPS mailing list. be discussed on the LAMPS mailing list.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 September 14, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 9, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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 3, line 9 skipping to change at page 3, line 9
3. Using Distinguished Names for Internet Mail . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Using Distinguished Names for Internet Mail . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Certificate Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Certificate Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Certificate Revocation Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Certificate Revocation Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Certificate Path Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Certificate Path Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Certificate and CRL Signing Algorithms and Key Sizes . . 12 4.3. Certificate and CRL Signing Algorithms and Key Sizes . . 12
4.4. PKIX Certificate Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4. PKIX Certificate Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.1. Basic Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.4.1. Basic Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.2. Key Usage Certificate Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.4.2. Key Usage Certificate Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.3. Subject Alternative Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4.3. Subject Alternative Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.4. Extended Key Usage Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4.4. Extended Key Usage Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. IANA Considertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. Historic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Appendix A. Historic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.1. Signature Algorithms and Key Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.1. Signature Algorithms and Key Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix B. Moving S/MIME v2 Certificate Handling to Historic Appendix B. Moving S/MIME v2 Certificate Handling to Historic
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix C. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix C. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
S/MIME (Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) v4.0, described S/MIME (Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) v4.0, described
skipping to change at page 13, line 30 skipping to change at page 13, line 30
[RFC4055] and the signature algorithm definition is found in [RFC4055] and the signature algorithm definition is found in
[RFC3447]. [RFC3447].
For RSASSA-PSS with SHA-256 see [RFC4056]. For RSASSA-PSS with SHA-256 see [RFC4056].
For ECDSA see [RFC5758] and [RFC6090]. The first reference provides For ECDSA see [RFC5758] and [RFC6090]. The first reference provides
the signature algorithm's object identifier and the second provides the signature algorithm's object identifier and the second provides
the signature algorithm's definition. Curves other than curve P-256 the signature algorithm's definition. Curves other than curve P-256
MAY be used as well. MAY be used as well.
For EdDSA see [I-D.ietf-curdle-pkix] and [I-D.irtf-cfrg-eddsa]. The For EdDSA see [I-D.ietf-curdle-pkix] and [RFC8032]. The first
first reference provides the signature algorithm's object identifier reference provides the signature algorithm's object identifier and
and the second provides the signature algorithm's definition. Other the second provides the signature algorithm's definition. Other
curves than curve 25519 MAY be used as well. curves than curve 25519 MAY be used as well.
4.4. PKIX Certificate Extensions 4.4. PKIX Certificate Extensions
PKIX describes an extensible framework in which the basic certificate PKIX describes an extensible framework in which the basic certificate
information can be extended and describes how such extensions can be information can be extended and describes how such extensions can be
used to control the process of issuing and validating certificates. used to control the process of issuing and validating certificates.
The PKIX Working Group has ongoing efforts to identify and create The PKIX Working Group has ongoing efforts to identify and create
extensions that have value in particular certification environments. extensions that have value in particular certification environments.
Further, there are active efforts underway to issue PKIX certificates Further, there are active efforts underway to issue PKIX certificates
skipping to change at page 16, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
extended key usage extension, then the certificate may also be used extended key usage extension, then the certificate may also be used
to sign but not encrypt S/MIME messages. to sign but not encrypt S/MIME messages.
If the extended key usage extension is present in the certificate, If the extended key usage extension is present in the certificate,
then interpersonal message S/MIME receiving agents MUST check that it then interpersonal message S/MIME receiving agents MUST check that it
contains either the emailProtection or the anyExtendedKeyUsage OID as contains either the emailProtection or the anyExtendedKeyUsage OID as
defined in [RFC5280]. S/MIME uses other than interpersonal messaging defined in [RFC5280]. S/MIME uses other than interpersonal messaging
MAY require the explicit presence of the extended key usage extension MAY require the explicit presence of the extended key usage extension
or other OIDs to be present in the extension or both. or other OIDs to be present in the extension or both.
5. Security Considerations 5. IANA Considertions
This document has no new IANA considerations.
6. Security Considerations
All of the security issues faced by any cryptographic application All of the security issues faced by any cryptographic application
must be faced by a S/MIME agent. Among these issues are protecting must be faced by a S/MIME agent. Among these issues are protecting
the user's private key, preventing various attacks, and helping the the user's private key, preventing various attacks, and helping the
user avoid mistakes such as inadvertently encrypting a message for user avoid mistakes such as inadvertently encrypting a message for
the wrong recipient. The entire list of security considerations is the wrong recipient. The entire list of security considerations is
beyond the scope of this document, but some significant concerns are beyond the scope of this document, but some significant concerns are
listed here. listed here.
When processing certificates, there are many situations where the When processing certificates, there are many situations where the
skipping to change at page 18, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 9
CRLs associated with newly received messages than the one provided CRLs associated with newly received messages than the one provided
for certificates and CRLs associated with previously stored messages. for certificates and CRLs associated with previously stored messages.
Server implementations (e.g., secure mail list servers) where user Server implementations (e.g., secure mail list servers) where user
warnings are not appropriate SHOULD reject messages with weak warnings are not appropriate SHOULD reject messages with weak
cryptography. cryptography.
If an implementation is concerned about compliance with National If an implementation is concerned about compliance with National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) key size Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) key size
recommendations, then see [SP800-57]. recommendations, then see [SP800-57].
6. References 7. References
6.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[FIPS186-2] [FIPS186-2]
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"Digital Signature Standard (DSS) [With Change Notice 1]", "Digital Signature Standard (DSS) [With Change Notice 1]",
Federal Information Processing Standards Federal Information Processing Standards
Publication 186-2, January 2000. Publication 186-2, January 2000.
[FIPS186-3] [FIPS186-3]
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", Federal Information "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", Federal Information
Processing Standards Publication 186-3, June 2009. Processing Standards Publication 186-3, June 2009.
[I-D.ietf-lamps-eai-addresses] [I-D.ietf-lamps-eai-addresses]
Melnikov, A. and W. Chuang, "Internationalized Email Melnikov, A. and W. Chuang, "Internationalized Email
Addresses in X.509 certificates", draft-ietf-lamps-eai- Addresses in X.509 certificates", draft-ietf-lamps-eai-
addresses-08 (work in progress), March 2017. addresses-08 (work in progress), March 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis] [I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis]
Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure/ Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure/
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0 Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0
Message Specification", draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-03 Message Specification", draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-04
(work in progress), February 2017. (work in progress), March 2017.
[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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2634] Hoffman, P., Ed., "Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME", [RFC2634] Hoffman, P., Ed., "Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME",
RFC 2634, DOI 10.17487/RFC2634, June 1999, RFC 2634, DOI 10.17487/RFC2634, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2634>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2634>.
skipping to change at page 20, line 35 skipping to change at page 20, line 40
This group of documents represents S/MIME version 4.0. This group of documents represents S/MIME version 4.0.
This set of documents are [RFC2634], This set of documents are [RFC2634],
[I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis], [[This Document]], [I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis], [[This Document]],
[RFC5652], and [RFC5035]. [RFC5652], and [RFC5035].
[X.680] "Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One [X.680] "Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One
(ASN.1): Specification of basic notation. ITU-T (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation. ITU-T
Recommendation X.680 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002.". Recommendation X.680 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002.".
6.2. Informational References 7.2. Informational References
[ESS] "Enhanced Security Services for S/ MIME". [ESS] "Enhanced Security Services for S/ MIME".
This is the set of documents dealing with enhanged This is the set of documents dealing with enhanged
security services and refers to [RFC2634] and [RFC5035]. security services and refers to [RFC2634] and [RFC5035].
[I-D.ietf-curdle-pkix] [I-D.ietf-curdle-pkix]
Josefsson, S. and J. Schaad, "Algorithm Identifiers for Josefsson, S. and J. Schaad, "Algorithm Identifiers for
Ed25519, Ed25519ph, Ed448, Ed448ph, X25519 and X448 for Ed25519, Ed448, X25519 and X448 for use in the Internet
use in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure", X.509 Public Key Infrastructure", draft-ietf-curdle-
draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-03 (work in progress), November pkix-04 (work in progress), March 2017.
2016.
[I-D.irtf-cfrg-eddsa]
Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", draft-irtf-cfrg-eddsa-08
(work in progress), August 2016.
[PKCS6] RSA Laboratories, "PKCS #6: Extended-Certificate Syntax [PKCS6] RSA Laboratories, "PKCS #6: Extended-Certificate Syntax
Standard", November 1993. Standard", November 1993.
[RFC2311] Dusse, S., Hoffman, P., Ramsdell, B., Lundblade, L., and [RFC2311] Dusse, S., Hoffman, P., Ramsdell, B., Lundblade, L., and
L. Repka, "S/MIME Version 2 Message Specification", L. Repka, "S/MIME Version 2 Message Specification",
RFC 2311, DOI 10.17487/RFC2311, March 1998, RFC 2311, DOI 10.17487/RFC2311, March 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2311>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2311>.
[RFC2312] Dusse, S., Hoffman, P., Ramsdell, B., and J. Weinstein, [RFC2312] Dusse, S., Hoffman, P., Ramsdell, B., and J. Weinstein,
skipping to change at page 22, line 34 skipping to change at page 22, line 34
[RFC6151] Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations [RFC6151] Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations
for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms", for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms",
RFC 6151, DOI 10.17487/RFC6151, March 2011, RFC 6151, DOI 10.17487/RFC6151, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6151>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6151>.
[RFC6194] Polk, T., Chen, L., Turner, S., and P. Hoffman, "Security [RFC6194] Polk, T., Chen, L., Turner, S., and P. Hoffman, "Security
Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest
Algorithms", RFC 6194, DOI 10.17487/RFC6194, March 2011, Algorithms", RFC 6194, DOI 10.17487/RFC6194, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6194>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6194>.
[RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.
[SMIMEv2] "S/MIME version v2". [SMIMEv2] "S/MIME version v2".
This group of documents represents S/MIME version 2. This This group of documents represents S/MIME version 2. This
set of documents are [RFC2311], [RFC2312], [RFC2313], set of documents are [RFC2311], [RFC2312], [RFC2313],
[RFC2314], and [RFC2315]. [RFC2314], and [RFC2315].
[SMIMEv3] "S/MIME version 3". [SMIMEv3] "S/MIME version 3".
This group of documents represents S/MIME version 3. This This group of documents represents S/MIME version 3. This
set of documents are [RFC2630], [RFC2631], [RFC2632], set of documents are [RFC2630], [RFC2631], [RFC2632],
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
29 lines changed or deleted 33 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/