GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc2585

Network Working Group R. Housley Request for Comments: 2585 SPYRUS Category: Standards Track P. Hoffman

                                                                  IMC
                                                             May 1999
              Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
                Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP

Status of this Memo

 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
 and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 The protocol conventions described in this document satisfy some of
 the operational requirements of the Internet Public Key
 Infrastructure (PKI).  This document specifies the conventions for
 using the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and the Hypertext Transfer
 Protocol (HTTP) to obtain certificates and certificate revocation
 lists (CRLs) from PKI repositories.  Additional mechanisms addressing
 PKIX operational requirements are specified in separate documents.

1 Introduction

 This specification is part of a multi-part standard for the Internet
 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) using X.509 certificates and
 certificate revocation lists (CRLs).  This document specifies the
 conventions for using the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and the
 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) to obtain certificates and CRLs
 from PKI repositories.  Additional mechanisms addressing PKI
 repository access are specified in separate documents.

Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999

1.1. Model

 The following is a simplified view of the architectural model assumed
 by the Internet PKI specifications.
    +---+
    | C |                       +------------+
    | e | <-------------------->| End entity |
    | r |       Operational     +------------+
    | t |       transactions          ^
    |   |      and management         |  Management
    | / |       transactions          |  transactions
    |   |                             |                PKI users
    | C |                             v
    | R |       -------------------+--+-----------+-----------------
    | L |                          ^              ^
    |   |                          |              |   PKI management
    |   |                          v              |       entities
    | R |                       +------+          |
    | e | <---------------------| RA   | <---+    |
    | p |  Publish certificate  +------+     |    |
    | o |                                    |    |
    | s |                                    |    |
    | I |                                    v    v
    | t |                                +------------+
    | o | <------------------------------|     CA     |
    | r |   Publish certificate          +------------+
    | y |   Publish CRL                         ^
    |   |                                       |
    +---+                        Management     |
                                 transactions   |
                                                v
                                            +------+
                                            |  CA  |
                                            +------+
 The components in this model are:
 End Entity:  user of PKI certificates and/or end user system that is
              the subject of a certificate;
 CA:          certification authority;
 RA:          registration authority, i.e., an optional system to
              which a CA delegates certain management functions;

Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999

 Repository:  a system or collection of distributed systems that store
              certificates and CRLs and serves as a means of
              distributing these certificates and CRLs to end
              entities.

1.2. Certificate and CRL Repository

 Some CAs mandate the use of on-line validation services, while others
 distribute CRLs to allow certificate users to perform certificate
 validation themselves.  In general, CAs make CRLs available to
 certificate users by publishing them in the Directory.  The Directory
 is also the normal distribution mechanism for certificates.  However,
 Directory Services are not available in many parts of the Internet
 today. The File Transfer Protocol (FTP) defined in RFC 959 and the
 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) defined in RFC 2068 offer
 alternate methods for certificate and CRL distribution.
 End entities and CAs may retrieve certificates and CRLs from the
 repository using FTP or HTTP.  End entities may publish their own
 certificate in the repository using FTP or HTTP, and RAs and CAs may
 publish certificates and CRLs in the repository using FTP or HTTP.

2 FTP Conventions

 Within certificate extensions and CRL extensions, the URI form of
 GeneralName is used to specify the location where issuer certificates
 and CRLs may be obtained.  For instance, a URI identifying the
 subject of a certificate may be carried in subjectAltName certificate
 extension. An IA5String describes the use of anonymous FTP to fetch
 certificate or CRL information.  For example:
    ftp://ftp.netcom.com/sp/spyrus/housley.cer
    ftp://ftp.your.org/pki/id48.cer
    ftp://ftp.your.org/pki/id48.no42.crl
 Internet users may publish the URI reference to a file that contains
 their certificate on their business card.  This practice is useful
 when there is no Directory entry for that user.  FTP is widely
 deployed, and anonymous FTP are accommodated by many firewalls.
 Thus, FTP is an attractive alternative to Directory access protocols
 for certificate and CRL distribution.  While this service satisfies
 the requirement to retrieve information related to a certificate
 which is already identified by a URI, it is not intended to satisfy
 the more general problem of finding a certificate for a user about
 whom some other information, such as their electronic mail address or
 corporate affiliation, is known.

Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999

 For convenience, the names of files that contain certificates should
 have a suffix of ".cer".  Each ".cer" file contains exactly one
 certificate, encoded in DER format.  Likewise, the names of files
 that contain CRLs should have a suffix of ".crl".  Each ".crl" file
 contains exactly one CRL, encoded in DER format.

3 HTTP Conventions

 Within certificate extensions and CRL extensions, the URI form of
 GeneralName is used to specify the location where issuer certificates
 and CRLs may be obtained.  For instance, a URI identifying the
 subject of a certificate may be carried in subjectAltName certificate
 extension. An IA5String describes the use of HTTP to fetch
 certificate or CRL information.  For example:
    http://www.netcom.com/sp/spyrus/housley.cer
    http://www.your.org/pki/id48.cer
    http://www.your.org/pki/id48.no42.crl
 Internet users may publish the URI reference to a file that contains
 their certificate on their business card.  This practice is useful
 when there is no Directory entry for that user.  HTTP is widely
 deployed, and HTTP is accommodated by many firewalls.  Thus, HTTP is
 an attractive alternative to Directory access protocols for
 certificate and CRL distribution.  While this service satisfies the
 requirement to retrieve information related to a certificate which is
 already identified by a URI, it is not intended to satisfy the more
 general problem of finding a certificate for a user about whom some
 other information, such as their electronic mail address or corporate
 affiliation, is known.
 For convenience, the names of files that contain certificates should
 have a suffix of ".cer".  Each ".cer" file contains exactly one
 certificate, encoded in DER format.  Likewise, the names of files
 that contain CRLs should have a suffix of ".crl".  Each ".crl" file
 contains exactly one CRL, encoded in DER format.

4 MIME registrations

 Two MIME types are defined to support the transfer of certificates
 and CRLs.  They are:
    application/pkix-cert
    application/pkix-crl

Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999

4.1. application/pkix-cert

 To: ietf-types@iana.org
 Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/pkix-cert
 MIME media type name: application
 MIME subtype name: pkix-cert
 Required parameters: None
 Optional parameters: version (default value is "1")
 Encoding considerations: will be none for 8-bit transports and most
 likely Base64 for SMTP or other 7-bit transports
 Security considerations: Carries a cryptographic certificate
 Interoperability considerations: None
 Published specification: draft-ietf-pkix-ipki-part1
 Applications which use this media type: Any MIME-complaint transport
 Additional information:
   Magic number(s): None
   File extension(s): .CER
   Macintosh File Type Code(s): none
 Person & email address to contact for further information:
 Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>
 Intended usage: COMMON
 Author/Change controller:
 Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>

4.2. application/pkix-crl

 To: ietf-types@iana.org
 Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/pkix-crl
 MIME media type name: application
 MIME subtype name: pkix-crl
 Required parameters: None

Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999

 Optional parameters: version (default value is "1")
 Encoding considerations: will be none for 8-bit transports and most
 likely Base64 for SMTP or other 7-bit transports
 Security considerations: Carries a cryptographic certificate
 revocation list
 Interoperability considerations: None
 Published specification: draft-ietf-pkix-ipki-part1
 Applications which use this media type: Any MIME-complaint transport
 Additional information:
   Magic number(s): None
   File extension(s): .CRL
   Macintosh File Type Code(s): none
 Person & email address to contact for further information:
 Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>
 Intended usage: COMMON
 Author/Change controller:
 Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>

References

 [RFC 959]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol (FTP)",
             STD 5, RFC 959, October 1985.
 [RFC 1738]  Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L. and M. McCahill, "Uniform
             Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.
 [RFC 2068]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H. and
             T. Berners-Lee; "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
             RFC 2068, January 1997.

Security Considerations

 Since certificates and CRLs are digitally signed, no additional
 integrity service is necessary.  Neither certificates nor CRLs need
 be kept secret, and anonymous access to certificates and CRLs is
 generally acceptable.  Thus, no privacy service is necessary.

Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999

 HTTP caching proxies are common on the Internet, and some proxies do
 not check for the latest version of an object correctly. If an HTTP
 request for a certificate or CRL goes through a misconfigured or
 otherwise broken proxy, the proxy may return an out-of-date response.
 Operators of FTP sites and World Wide Web servers should authenticate
 end entities who publish certificates as well as CAs and RAs who
 publish certificates and CRLs.  However, authentication is not
 necessary to retrieve certificates and CRLs.

Authors' Addresses

 Russell Housley
 SPYRUS
 381 Elden Street, Suite 1120
 Herndon, VA 20170 USA
 EMail: housley@spyrus.com
 Paul Hoffman
 Internet Mail Consortium
 127 Segre Place
 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA
 EMail: phoffman@imc.org

Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 2585 PKIX Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP May 1999

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.
 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
 English.
 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Housley & Hoffman Standards Track [Page 8]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc2585.txt · Last modified: 1999/05/13 19:05 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki