Multiparty Multimedia Session J. Lennox Control Columbia U. Expires:
January 2,September 4, 2006 Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) draft-ietf-mmusic-comedia-tls-05draft-ietf-mmusic-comedia-tls-06 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- Drafts. 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 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2,September 4, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).(2006). Abstract This document specifies how to establish secure connection-oriented media transport sessions over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol using the Session Description Protocol (SDP). It defines a new SDP protocol identifier, 'TCP/TLS'. It also defines the syntax and semantics for an SDP 'fingerprint' attribute that identifies the certificate which will be presented for the TLS session. This mechanism allows media transport over TLS connections to be established securely, so long as the integrity of session descriptions is assured. This revision of the document reflects comments made during IESG review. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. SDP Operational Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. The Need For Self-Signed Certificates . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Example SDP Description For TLS Connection . . . . . . . . 6 4. Protocol Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Fingerprint Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Endpoint Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Certificate Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Certificate Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Appendix A. Changes From Earlier Versions . . . . . . . . . . . 1213 Appendix A.1. Changes From Draft -04-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1213 Appendix A.2. Changes From Draft -03-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1214 Appendix A.3. Changes From Draft -02-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1214 Appendix A.4. Changes From Draft -01-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1315 Appendix A.5. Changes From Draft -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A.6. Changes From Draft -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1315 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1315 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1315 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1416 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1618 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 1719 1. Introduction The Session Description Protocol (SDP)  provides a general purpose format for describing multimedia sessions in announcements or invitations. For many applications, it is desirable to establish, as part of a multimedia session, a media stream which uses a connection- oriented transport. The documentRFC 4145, Connection-Oriented Media Transport in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) , specifies a general mechanism for describing and establishing such connection-oriented streams; however, the only transport protocol it directly supports is TCP. In many cases, session participants wish to provide confidentiality, data integrity, and authentication for their media sessions. This document therefore extends the Connection-Oriented Media specification to allow session descriptions to describe media sessions that use the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol . The TLS protocol allows applications to communicate over a channel which provides privacyconfidentiality and data integrity. The TLS specification, however, does not specify how specific protocols establish and use this secure channel; particularly, TLS leaves the question of how to interpret and validate authentication certificates as an issue for the protocols which run over TLS. This document specifies such usage for the case of connection-oriented media transport. Complicating this issue, endpoints exchanging media will often be unable to obtain authentication certificates signed by a well-known root certificatecertification authority (CA). Most certificate authorities charge for signed certificates, particularly host-based certificates; additionally, there is a substantial administrative overhead to obtaining signed certificates, as certificatecertification authorities must be able to confirm that they are issuing the signed certificates to the correct party. Furthermore, in many cases endpoints' IP addresses and host names are dynamic: they may be obtained from DHCP, for example. It is impractical to obtain a CA-signed certificate valid for the duration of a DHCP lease. For such hosts, self-signed certificates are usually the only option. This specification defines a mechanism which allows self-signed certificates can be used securely, provided that the integrity of the SDP description is assured. It provides for endpoints to include a secure hash of their certificate, known as the "certificate fingerprint", within the session description. Provided the fingerprint of the offered certificate matches the one in the session description, end hosts can trust even self-signed certificates. The rest of this document is laid out as follows. An overview of the problem and threat model is given in Section 3. Section 4 gives the basic mechanism for establishing TLS-based connected-oriented media in SDP. Section 5 describes the SDP fingerprint attribute, which, assuming the integrity of SDP content is assured, allows the secure use of self-signed certificates. Section 6 describes which X.509 certificates are presented, and how they are used in TLS. Section 7 discusses additional security considerations. 2. Terminology In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119  and indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations. 3. Overview This section discusses the threat model which motivates TLS transport for connection-oriented media streams. It also discusses in more detail the need for end systems to use self-signed certificates. 3.1. SDP Operational Modes There are two principal operational modes for multimedia sessions: advertised and offer-answer. Advertised sessions are the simpler mode. In this mode, a server publishes, in some manner, an SDP session description describing a multimedia session it is making available. The classic example of this mode of operation is the Session Announcement Protocol (SAP) , in which SDP session descriptions are periodically transmitted to a well-known multicast group. Traditionally, these descriptions involve multicast conferences, but unicast sessions are also possible. (Connection- oriented media, obviously, cannot use multicast.) Recipients of a session description connect to the addresses published in the session description. These recipients may not previously have been known to the advertiser of the session description. Alternatively, SDP conferences can operate in offer-answer mode . This mode allows two participants in a multimedia session to negotiate the multimedia session between them. In this model, one participant offers the other a description of the desired session from its perspective, and the other participant answers with the desired session from its own perspective. In this mode, each of the participants in the session has knowledge of the other one. This is the mode of operation used by the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) . 3.2. Threat Model Participants in multimedia conferences often wish to guarantee confidentiality, data integrity, and authentication for their media sessions. This section describes various types of attackers and the ways they attempt to violate these guarantees. It then describes how the TLS protocol can be used to thwart the attackers. The simplest type of attacker is one who listens passively to the traffic associated with a multimedia session. This attacker might, for example, be on the same local-area or wireless network as one of the participants in a conference. This sort of attacker does not threaten a connection's data integrity or authentication, and almost any operational mode of TLS can provide media stream confidentiality. More sophisticated is an attacker who can send his own data traffic over the network, but who cannot modify or redirect valid traffic. In SDP's 'advertised' operational mode, this can barely be considered an attack; media sessions are expected to be initiated from anywhere on the network. In SDP's offer-answer mode, however, this type of attack is more serious. An attacker could initiate a connection to one or both of the endpoints of a session, thus impersonating an endpoint, or acting as a man in the middle to listen in on their communications. To thwart these attacks, TLS uses endpoint certificates. So long as the certificates' private keys have not been compromised, the endpoints have an external trusted mechanism (most commonly, a mutually-trusted certificatecertification authority) to validate certificates, and the endpoints know what certificate identity to expect, endpoints can be certain that such an attack has not taken place. Finally, the most serious type of attacker is one who can modify or redirect session descriptions: for example, a compromised or malicious SIP proxy server. Neither TLS itself, nor any mechanisms which use it, can protect an SDP session against such an attacker. Instead, the SDP description itself must be secured through some mechanism; SIP, for example, defines how S/MIME  can be used to secure session descriptions. 3.3. The Need For Self-Signed Certificates SDP session descriptions are created by any endpoint that needs to participate in a multimedia session. In many cases, such as SIP phones, such endpoints have dynamically-configured IP addresses and host names, and must be deployed with nearly zero configuration. For such an endpoint, it is for practical purposes impossible to obtain a certificate signed by a well-known certificatecertification authority. If two endpoints have no prior relationship, self-signed certificates cannot generally be trusted, as there is no guarantee that an attacker is not launching a man-in-the-middle attack. Fortunately, however, if the integrity of SDP session descriptions can be assured, it is possible to consider those SDP descriptions themselves as a prior relationship: certificates can be securely described in the session description itself. This is done by providing a secure hash of a certificate, or "certificate fingerprint", as an SDP attribute; this mechanism is described in Section 5. 3.4. Example SDP Description For TLS Connection Figure 1 illustrates an SDP offer which signals the availability of a T.38 fax session over TLS. For the purpose of brevity, the main portion of the session description is omitted in the example, showing only the 'm' line and its attributes. (This example is the same as the first one in RFC 4145 , except for the proto parameter and the fingerprint attribute.) See the subsequent sections for explanations of the example's TLS-specific attributes. (Note: due to RFC formatting conventions, this draft splits SDP across lines whose content would exceed 72 characters. A backslash character marks where this line folding has taken place. This backslash and its trailing CRLF and whitespace would not appear in actual SDP content.) m=image 54111 TCP/TLS t38 c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2 a=setup:passive a=connection:new a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \ 4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB Figure 1: Example SDP Description Offering a TLS Media Stream 4. Protocol Identifiers The 'm' line in SDP specifies, among other items, the transport protocol to be used for the media in the session. See the "Media Descriptions" section of SDP  for a discussion on transport protocol identifiers. This specification defines a new protocol identifier, 'TCP/TLS', which indicates that the media described will use the Transport Layer Security protocol  over TCP. (Using TLS over other transport protocols is not discussed by this document.) The 'TCP/TLS' protocol identifier describes only the transport protocol, not the upper-layer protocol. An 'm' line that specifies 'TCP/TLS' MUST further qualify the protocol using a fmt identifier, to indicate the application being run over TLS. Media sessions described with this identifier follow the procedures defined in the connection-oriented media specificationRFC 4145 . They also use the SDP attributes defined in that specification, 'setup' and 'connection'. 5. Fingerprint Attribute Parties to a TLS session indicate their identities by presenting authentication certificates as part of the TLS handshake procedure. Authentication certificates are X.509  certificates, as profiled by RFC 3279 , RFC 3280  and RFC 4055 . In order to associate media streams with connections, and to prevent unauthorized barge-in attacks on the media streams, endpoints MUST provide a certificate fingerprint. If the X.509 certificate presented for the TLS connection matches the fingerprint presented in the SDP, the endpoint can be confident that the author of the SDP is indeed the initiator of the connection. A certificate fingerprint is a secure one-way hash of the DER (distinguished encoding rules) form of the certificate. (Certificate fingerprints are widely supported by tools which manipulate X.509 certificates; for instance, the command "openssl x509 -fingerprint" causes the command-line tool of the openssl package to print a certificate fingerprint, and the certificate managers for Mozilla and Internet Explorer display them when viewing the details of a certificate.) A fingerprint is represented in SDP as an attribute (an 'a' line). It consists of the name of the hash function used, followed by the hash value itself. The hash value is represented as a sequence of upper-case hexadecimal bytes, separated by colons. The number of bytes is defined by the hash function. (This is the syntax used by openssl and by the browsers' certificate managers. It is different from the syntax used to represent hash values in, e.g., HTTP digest authentication , which uses unseparated lower-case hexadecimal bytes. It was felt that consistency with other applications of fingerprints was more important.) The formal syntax of the fingerprint attribute is given in Augmented Backus-Naur Form  in Figure 2. This syntax extends the BNF syntax of SDP . attribute =/ fingerprint-attribute fingerprint-attribute = "fingerprint" ":" hash-func SP fingerprint hash-func = "sha-1" / "sha-224" / "sha-256" / "sha-384" / "sha-512" / "md5" / "md2" / token ; Additional hash functions can only come ; from updates to RFC 3279 fingerprint = 2UHEX *(":" 2UHEX) ; Each byte in upper-case hex, separated ; by colons. UHEX = DIGIT / %x41-46 ; A-F uppercase Figure 2: Augmented Backus-Naur Syntax for the Fingerprint Attribute A certificate fingerprint MUST be computed using the same one-way hash function as is used in the certificate's signature algorithm. (This ensures that the security properties required for the certificate are also apply for the fingerprint. It also guarantees that the fingerprint will be usable by the other endpoint, so long as the certificate itself is.) Following RFC 3279  as updated by RFC 4055 , therefore, the defined hash functions are 'SHA-1'  , 'SHA-224' , 'SHA-256' , 'SHA-384' , 'SHA-512' , 'MD5' , and 'MD2' , with 'SHA-1' preferred. Additional hash functions can be definedA new IANA registry of Hash Function Textual Names, specified in Section 8, allows for addition of future tokens, but they may only by standards-trackbe added if they are included in RFCs which update or obsolete RFC 3279 . Self- signedSelf-signed certificates (for which legacy certificates are not a consideration) MUST use one of the FIPS 180 algorithms (SHA-1, SHA- 224, SHA-256, SHA-384, or SHA-512) as their signature algorithm, and thus also MUST use it to calculate certificate fingerprints. The fingerprint attribute may be either a session-level or a media- level SDP attribute. If it is a session-level attribute, it applies to all TLS sessions for which no media-level fingerprint attribute is defined. 6. Endpoint Identification 6.1. Certificate Choice An X.509 certificates certify identities. Thecertificate binds an identity and a public key. If SDP describing a TLS session is transmitted over a mechanism which provides integrity protection, a certificate asserting any syntactically valid identity MAY be used. For example, an SDP description sent over HTTP/TLS  or secured by S/MIME  MAY assert any identity in the certificate securing the media connection. Security protocols which provide only hop-by-hop integrity protection, e.g., the sips protocol  (SIP over TLS), are considered sufficiently secure to allow the mode in which any valid identity is accepted. However, see Section 7 for a discussion of some security implications of this fact. In situations where the SDP is not integrity-protected, however, the certificate provided for a TLS connection needs toMUST certify an appropriate identity for the connection. Identity matching is performed usingIn these scenarios, the matching rules specifiedcertificate presented by RFC 3280 . If more than onean endpoint MUST certify either the SDP connection address, or the identity of a given type is present inthe certificate (e.g., more than one dNSName name), a match in any one of the set is considered acceptable. The certificate presented by an endpoint MUST correspond to onecreator of the following identities:SDP message, as follows: o If the connection address for the media description is specified as an IP address, the endpoint MAY use a certificate with an iPAddress subjectAltName which exactly matches the IP in the connection-address in the session description's 'c' line. o IfSimilarly, if the connection address for the media description is specified as a fully-qualifiedpfully-qualified domain name, the endpoint MAY use a certificate with a dNSName subjectAltName matching the specified 'c' line connection-address exactly. (Wildcard patterns MUST NOT be used.) o IfAlternately, if the SDP session description describing the session was transmitted over a protocol (such as SIP ) for which the identities of session participants are defined by uniform resource identifiers (URIs), the endpoint MAY use a certificate with a uniformResourceIdentifier subjectAltName.subjectAltName corresponding to the identity of the endpoint which generated the SDP. The details of what URIs are appropriatevalid are dependent on the transmitting protocol. (For more details on this,the validity of URIs, see Section 7.) If the SDP session description describing the session was transmitted over an end-to-end secure protocol which uses X.509 certificates, and the certificates sent fulfill the requirements above (as they normally would be expected to), the endpoint MAY use the same certificate to certifyIdentity matching is performed using the media connection. For example, an SDP description sent over HTTP/TLS  or securedmatching rules specified by S/MIME  MAY useRFC 3280 . If more than one identity of a given type is present in the samecertificate to secure the media connection. (Note, however, that(e.g., more than one dNSName name), a match in any one of the sips protocol  (SIP over TLS) provides only hop-by-hop security, so its TLS certificates do not satisfy this criterion.)set is considered acceptable. To support the use of certificate caches, as described in Section 7, endpoints SHOULD consistently provide the same certificate for each identity they support. 6.2. Certificate Presentation In all cases, an endpoint acting as the TLS server, i.e., one taking the 'setup:passive' role, in the terminology of connection-oriented media, MUST present a certificate during TLS initiation, following the rules presented in Section 6.1. If the certificate does not match the original fingerprint, or, if there is no fingerprint, the certificate identity is incorrect,the client endpoint MUST either notify the user, if possible, orterminate the media connection with a bad certificatebad_certificate error. If the SDP offer/answer model  is being used, the client (the endpoint with the 'setup:active' role) MUST also present a certificate following the rules of Section 6.1. The server MUST request a certificate, and if the client does not provide one, or if the certificate does not match the provided fingerprint, or, if there was no fingerprint, the certificate identity is incorrect,the server endpoint MUST either notify the user orterminate the media connection with a bad certificatebad_certificate error. Note that when the offer/answer model is being used, it is possible for a media connection to outrace the answer back to the offerer. Thus, if the offerer has offered a 'setup:passive' or 'setup:actpass' role, it MUST (as specified in the Connection-Oriented Media specificationRFC 4145 ) begin listening for an incoming connection as soon as it sends its offer. However, because its peer's media connection may outrace its answer,it MUST NOT definitively acceptassume the peer's certificatedata transmitted over the TLS connection is valid until it has received and processed thea matching fingerprint in an SDP answer. If the fingerprint, once it arrives, does not match the client's certificate, the server endpoint MUST terminate the media connection with a bad_certificate error, as stated in the previous paragraph. If offer/answer is not being used (e.g., if the SDP was sent over the Session Announcement Protocol ), the TLS server typically hasthere is no external knowledge of what the TLS client's identity oughtsecure channel available for clients to communicate certificate fingerprints to be.servers. In this case, noservers MAY request client certificate need be presented, and no certificate validation cancertificates, which SHOULD be performed, unless the server has knowledge of validsigned by a well-known certification authority, or MAY allow clients through some external means.to connect without a certificate. 7. Security Considerations This entire document concerns itself with security. The problem to be solved is addressed in Section 1, and a high-level overview is presented in Section 3. See the SDP specification  for security considerations applicable to SDP in general. Offering an TCP/TLS connection in SDP (or agreeing to one in SDP offer/answer mode) does not create an obligation for an endpoint to accept any TLS connection with the given fingerprint. Instead, the endpoint must engage in the standard TLS negotiation procedure to ensure that the TLS stream cypher and MAC algorithm chosen meet the security needs of the higher-level application. (For example, an offered stream cypher of TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL SHOULD be rejected in almost every application scenario.) Like all SDP messages, SDP messages describing TLS streams are conveyed in an encapsulating application protocol (e.g., SIP, MGCP, etc.). It is the responsibility of the encapsulating protocol to ensure the integrity and confidentialityof the SDP security descriptions. Therefore, the application protocol SHOULD either invoke its own security mechanisms (e.g., secure multiparts) or alternatively utilize a lower-layer security service (e.g., TLS or IPSec).IPsec). This security service SHOULD provide strong message authentication and packet-payload encryptionas well as effective replay protection. However, such integrity protection is not always possible. For these cases, end systems SHOULD maintain a cache of certificates which other parties have previously presented using this mechanism. If possible, users SHOULD be notified when an unsecured certificate associated with a previously unknown end system is presented, and SHOULD be strongly warned if a different and unauthenticatedunsecured certificate is presented by a party with which they have communicated in the past. In this way, even in the absence of integrity protection for SDP, the security of this document's mechanism is equivalent to that of the Secure Shell (ssh) protocol , which is vulnerable to man-in-the-middleman-in-the- middle attacks when two parties first communicate, but can detect ones that occur subsequently. (Note that a precise definition of the "other party" depends on the application protocol carrying the SDP message.) Users SHOULD NOT, however, in any circumstances be notified about certificates described in SDP descriptions sent over an integrity-protected channel. To aid interoperability and deployment, security protocols which provide only hop-by-hop integrity protection, e.g., the sips protocol  (SIP over TLS), are considered sufficiently secure to allow the mode in which any syntactially valid identity is accepted in a certificate. This decision was made because sips is currently the integrity mechanism most likely to be used in deployed networks in the short to medium-term. However, in this mode, SDP integrity is vulnerable to attacks by compromised or malicious middleboxes, e.g. SIP proxy servers. End systems MAY warn users about SDP sessions that are secured in only a hop-by-hop manner, and definitions of media formats running over TCP/TLS MAY specify that only end-to-end integrity mechanisms are to be used. Depending on how SDP messages are transmitted, it is not always possible to determine whether a uniformResourceIdentifiersubjectAltName presented in a remote certificate is expected or not for the remote party. In particular, given call forwarding, third- partythird-party call control, or session descriptions generated by endpoints controlled by the Gateway Control Protocol , it is not always possible in SIP to determine what entity ought to have generated a remote SDP response. In some cases this determination may needgeneral, when not using authenticity and integrity protection of SDP descriptions, a certificate transmitted over SIP SHOULD assert the endpoint's SIP Address of Record as a uniformResourceIndicator subjectAltName. When an endpoint receives a certificate over SIP asserting an identity (including an iPAddress or dNSName identity) other than the one to which it placed or received the call, it SHOULD alert the user and ask for confirmation. This applies whether certificates are self-signed, or signed by certification authorities; a certificate for sip:email@example.com may be madelegitimately signed by a human, as automated logiccertification authority, but may still not be able to determine correctness. (For example, "You placed thisacceptable for a call to sip:firstname.lastname@example.org, but the remote certificate presented belongs to sip:email@example.com. Continue?") Thissip:firstname.lastname@example.org. (This issue is not one specific to this specification; the same consideration applies for S/MIME- signedS/MIME-signed SDP carried over SIP. TLS is not always the most appropriate choice for secure connection- oriented media; in some cases, a higher- or lower-level security protocol may be appropriate.SIP.) This document does not define any mechanism for securely transporting RTP and RTCP packets over a connection-oriented channel. There was no consensus in the working group as to whether it would be better to send Secure RTP packets  over a connection-oriented transport , or whether it would be better to send standard unsecured RTP packets over TLS using the mechanisms described in this document. The group consensus was to wait until a use-case requiring secure connection-oriented RTP was presented. TLS is not always the most appropriate choice for secure connection- oriented media; in some cases, a higher- or lower-level security protocol may be appropriate. 8. IANA Considerations This document defines an SDP proto value: 'TCP/TLS'. Its format is defined in Section 4. This proto value should be registered by IANA on under "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" under "proto". This document defines an SDP session and media level attribute: 'fingerprint'. Its format is defined in Section 5. This attribute should be registered by IANA under "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" under "att-field (both session and media level)". The SDP specification, RFC2327,specification  states that specifications defining new proto values, like the 'TCP/TLS' proto value defined in this one, must define the rules by which their media format (fmt) namespace is managed. For the TCP/TLS protocol, new formats SHOULD have an associated MIME registration. Use of an existing MIME subtype for the format is encouraged. If no MIME subtype exists, it is RECOMMENDED that a suitable one be registered through the IETF process  by production of, or reference to, a standards-track RFC that defines the transport protocol for the format. This specification creates a new IANA registry named "Hash Function Textual Names". It will not be part of the SDP Parameters. The names of hash functions used for certificate fingerprints are registered by the IANA. Hash functions MUST be defined by standards- track RFCs which update or obsolete RFC 3279 . When registering a new hash function textual name, the following information MUST be provided. o The textual name of the hash function. o The Object Identifier (OID) of the hash function as used in X.509 certificates. o A reference to the standards-track RFC, updating or obsoleting RFC 3279 , defining the use of the hash function in X.509 certificates. Figure 3 contains the initial values of this registry. Hash Function Name OID Reference ------------------ --- --------- "md2" 1.2.840.113549.2.2 RFC 3279 "md5" 1.2.840.113549.2.5 RFC 3279 "sha-1" 188.8.131.52.2.26 RFC 3279 "sha-224" 2.16.8184.108.40.206.4.2.4 RFC 4055 "sha-256" 2.16.8220.127.116.11.4.2.1 RFC 4055 "sha-384" 2.16.818.104.22.168.4.2.2 RFC 4055 "sha-512" 2.16.822.214.171.124.4.2.3 RFC 4055 Figure 3: IANA Hash Function Textual Name Registry Appendix A. Changes From Earlier Versions Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to publication as an RFC. Appendix A.1. Changes From Draft -05 o Specified that hop-by-hop integrity protection counts as valid integrity protection (though specific media formats can define otherwise if they choose.) o Allowed SDP descriptions which are integrity-protected to advertise any subjectAltName in their certificates. o Made session teardown a MUST following a bad certificate fingerprint -- user notification is no longer an option in this scenario. o Established and populated a new IANA registry for Hash Function Textual Names. o Allowed announcement-mode (SAP-like) uses of TLS to request client certificates, even though there is no way for clients to provide certificate fingerprints in this case. o Confidentiality is not required for secure transmission of SDP descriptions, only integrity protection; removed this requirement. o Established that user notification about bad certificate identities only applies to certificates not sent over a protected channel. o Clarified the language on what identity must be asserted, for certificates which must include specific identities. o Clarified the scenarios in which users must be consulted on whether certificates are acceptable. o Clarified that TLS connections MUST NOT act upon data transmitted over a TLS connection before they have verified the fingerprint. o Clarified that the use of the same hash function for fingerprints as for their corresponding certificates ensures that the certificates' security properties are preserved for their fingerprints. o Standardized some terminology to properly reflect standard security usage. Notably, "confidentiality" and "certification authority" replaced "privacy" and "certificate authority" respectively. o Updated the references for Connection-Oriented Media in SDP (now RFC 4145 ), ABNF (now RFC 4234 ), Media Type Registration Procedures (now RFC 4288 ), and the SSH Protocol Architecture (now RFC 4251 ). Appendix A.2. Changes From Draft -04 o The section discussing the difficulty of knowing what URI identities are appropriate for SDP was expanded, adding a reference to the Gateway Control Protocol. o An un-cited informative reference was removed. Appendix A.2.A.3. Changes From Draft -03 o The number of options in the protocol were significantly reduced: a number of SHOULD requirements were elevated to MUST. Notably, the use of the 'fingerprint' attribute, strict certificate identity choices, and the use of the same digest algorithm for fingerprints as for certificates were all made mandatory. o Support for the digest algorithms from FIPS 180-2  / RFC 4055  ('SHA-224', 'SHA-256', 'SHA-384', and 'SHA-512') was added. o Discussion was added about the difficulty of automatically determining the URI a remote endpoint's certificate should assert, especially in SIP in the presence of call forwarding or third-partythird- party call control. o The document was aligned with version -10 of draft-ietf-mmusic-comedia . This consisted mostly of wording and formatting changes. Appendix A.3.A.4. Changes From Draft -02 None, other than IPR boilerplate and reference updates. Draft -03 was a resubmission to refresh the draft's presence in the Internet- Drafts repository. Appendix A.4.A.5. Changes From Draft -01 o Made the use of SHA-1 fingerprints mandatory in self-signed certificates. o Aligned with version -09 of draft-ietf-mmusic-comedia , also drawing some wording changes from that document. o Forbid the use of wildcards for the dNS subjectAltName. o Eliminated requirements on identities provided with self-signed certificates. o Recommended the use of a certificate cache when SDP integrity protection cannot be assured. o Explained that there is no currently supported mechanism for securely sending RTP over connection-oriented media. o Described the procedure for establishing media formats for TCP/ TLS. Appendix A.5.A.6. Changes From Draft -00 o Significantly expanded introduction and motivation sections. o Significant clarifications to other sections. o Aligned with version -07 of draft-ietf-mmusic-comedia . Protocol identifier changed from TLS to TCP/TLS at that document's recommendation. 9. References 9.1. Normative References  Handley, M., "SDP: Session Description Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-25draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-26 (work in progress), July 2005.January 2006.  Yon, D., "Connection-OrientedD. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-10 (work in progress), November 2004.RFC 4145, September 2005.  Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January 1999.  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.  International Telecommunications Union, "Information technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Public-key and attribute certificate frameworks", ITU-T Recommendation X.509, ISO Standard 9594-8, March 2000.  Bassham, L., Polk, W., and R. Housley, "Algorithms and Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3279, April 2002.  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.  Schaad, J., Kaliski, B., and R. Housley, "Additional Algorithms and Identifiers for RSA Cryptography for use in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 4055, June 2005.  Crocker, D., Ed.D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.4234, October 2005.  National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure Hash Standard", FIPS PUB 180-2, August 2002, <http://csrc.nist.gov/ publications/fips/fips180-2/fips180-2.pdf>.  Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April 1992.  Kaliski, B., "The MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1319, April 1992.  Freed, N., Klensin, J.,N. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four:Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.4288, December 2005. 9.2. Informative References  Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.  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.  Ramsdell, B., "S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification", RFC 2633, June 1999.  Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2617, June 1999.  Eastlake, D. and P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1 (SHA1)", RFC 3174, September 2001.  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.  Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "SSH"The Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Architecture", draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-22 (work in progress), March 2005.RFC 4251, January 2006.  Groves, C., Pantaleo, M., Anderson, T., and T. Taylor, "Gateway Control Protocol Version 1", RFC 3525, June 2003.  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004.  Lazzaro, J., "Framing RTP and RTCP Packets over Connection- Oriented Transport", draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans-06 (work in progress), September 2005. Author's Address Jonathan Lennox Columbia University Department of Computer Science 450 Computer Science 1214 Amsterdam Ave., M.C. 0401 New York, NY 10027 US Phone: +1 212 939 7018Email: email@example.com Intellectual Property Statement 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 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).(2006). 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. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.