Internet DRAFT - draft-housley-rfc5280-i18n-update
draft-housley-rfc5280-i18n-update
INTERNET-DRAFT
Internet Engineering Task Force R. Housley
Intended Status: Proposed Standard Vigil Security
Updates: RFC 5280 (once approved)
Expires: 4 November 2017 4 May 2017
Internationalization Updates to RFC 5280
draft-housley-rfc5280-i18n-update-02
Abstract
These updates to RFC 5280 provide clarity on the handling of
Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Internationalized Email
Addresses in X.509 Certificates.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Housley Expires 4 November 2017 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT I18n Updates to RFC 5280 4 May 2017
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction
This document updates RFC 5280 [RFC5280]. The Introduction in
Section 1, the Name Constraints certificate extension discussion in
Section 4.2.1.10, and the Processing Rules for Internationalized
Names in Section 7 are updated to provide clarity on the handling of
Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Internationalized Email
Addresses in X.509 Certificates.
An IDN in Unicode (native character) form contains at least one
U-label [RFC5890]. With one exception, IDNs are carried in
certificates in ACE-encoded form. That is, all U-labels within an
IDN are converted to A-labels. Conversion of an U-label to an
A-label is described in [RFC5981].
The GeneralName structure supports many different names forms,
including otherName for extensibility. [ID.lamps-eai-addresses]
specifies the SmtpUTF8Name for Internationalized Email addresses,
which include IDNs with U-labels.
Note that Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
specifications published in 2003 (IDNA2003) [RFC3490] and 2008
(IDNA2008) [RFC5980] both refer to the Punycode Algorithm for
conversion [RFC3492].
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Updates
This section provides updates to several paragraphs of RFC 5280
[RFC5280]. For clarity, if the entire section is not replace, then
the original text and the replacement text are shown.
Housley Expires 4 November 2017 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT I18n Updates to RFC 5280 4 May 2017
2.1. Update in Section 1, Introduction
This update includes references for IDNA2008.
OLD
* Enhanced support for internationalized names is specified in
Section 7, with rules for encoding and comparing
Internationalized Domain Names, Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs), and distinguished names. These rules are
aligned with comparison rules established in current RFCs,
including [RFC3490], [RFC3987], and [RFC4518].
NEW
* Enhanced support for internationalized names is specified in
Section 7, with rules for encoding and comparing
Internationalized Domain Names, Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs), and distinguished names. These rules are
aligned with comparison rules established in current RFCs,
including [RFC3987], [RFC4518], [RFC5890], and [RFC5891].
2.2. Update in Section 4.2.1.10, Name Constraints
This update removes the ability to include constraints for a
particular mailbox. This capability was not used, and removing it
allows name constraints to apply to email addresses in rfc822Name and
SmtpUTF8Name within otherName.
OLD
A name constraint for Internet mail addresses MAY specify a
particular mailbox, all addresses at a particular host, or all
mailboxes in a domain. To indicate a particular mailbox, the
constraint is the complete mail address. For example,
"root@example.com" indicates the root mailbox on the host
"example.com". To indicate all Internet mail addresses on a
particular host, the constraint is specified as the host name. For
example, the constraint "example.com" is satisfied by any mail
address at the host "example.com". To specify any address within a
domain, the constraint is specified with a leading period (as with
URIs). For example, ".example.com" indicates all the Internet mail
addresses in the domain "example.com", but not Internet mail
addresses on the host "example.com".
Housley Expires 4 November 2017 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT I18n Updates to RFC 5280 4 May 2017
NEW
A name constraint for Internet mail addresses MAY specify all
addresses at a particular host or all mailboxes in a domain. To
indicate all Internet mail addresses on a particular host, the
constraint is specified as the host name. For example, the
constraint "example.com" is satisfied by any mail address at the
host "example.com". To specify any address within a domain, the
constraint is specified with a leading period (as with URIs). For
example, ".example.com" indicates all the Internet mail addresses
in the domain "example.com", but not Internet mail addresses on
the host "example.com".
2.3. Update in Section 7.2, IDNs in GeneralName
This update aligns with IDNA2008. Since all of Section 7.2 is
replaced, the OLD text is not provided.
NEW
Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) may be included in certificates
and CRLs in the subjectAltName and issuerAltName extensions, name
constraints extension, authority information access extension,
subject information access extension, CRL distribution points
extension, and issuing distribution point extension. Each of these
extensions uses the GeneralName type; one choice in GeneralName is
the dNSName field, which is defined as type IA5String.
IA5String is limited to the set of ASCII characters. To accommodate
internationalized domain names U-labels are converted to A-labels.
The A-label is the encoding of the U-label according to the Punycode
algorithm [RFC3492] with the ACE prefix "xn--" added at the beginning
of the string.
When comparing DNS names for equality, conforming implementations
MUST perform a case-insensitive exact match on the entire DNS name.
When evaluating name constraints, conforming implementations MUST
perform a case-insensitive exact match on a label-by-label basis. As
noted in Section 4.2.1.10, any DNS name that may be constructed by
adding labels to the left-hand side of the domain name given as the
constraint is considered to fall within the indicated subtree.
Implementations should convert IDNs to Unicode before display.
Specifically, conforming implementations should convert A-labels to
U-labels for display.
Note: Implementations MUST allow for increased space requirements
for IDNs. An IDN ACE label will begin with the four additional
Housley Expires 4 November 2017 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT I18n Updates to RFC 5280 4 May 2017
characters "xn--" and may require as many as five ASCII characters to
specify a single international character.
2.3. Update in Section 7.3, IDNs in Distinguished Names
This update aligns with IDNA2008.
OLD
Domain Names may also be represented as distinguished names using
domain components in the subject field, the issuer field, the
subjectAltName extension, or the issuerAltName extension. As with
the dNSName in the GeneralName type, the value of this attribute is
defined as an IA5String. Each domainComponent attribute represents a
single label. To represent a label from an IDN in the distinguished
name, the implementation MUST perform the "ToASCII" label conversion
specified in Section 4.1 of RFC 3490. The label SHALL be considered
a "stored string". That is, the AllowUnassigned flag SHALL NOT be
set.
NEW
Domain Names may also be represented as distinguished names using
domain components in the subject field, the issuer field, the
subjectAltName extension, or the issuerAltName extension. As with
the dNSName in the GeneralName type, the value of this attribute is
defined as an IA5String. Each domainComponent attribute represents a
single label. To represent a label from an IDN in the distinguished
name, the implementation MUST convert all U-labels to A-labels.
2.4. Update in Section 7.5, Internationalized Electronic Mail Addresses
This update aligns with IDNA2008 and [ID.lamps-eai-addresses]. Since
all of Section 7.5 is replaced, the OLD text is not provided.
NEW
Electronic Mail addresses may be included in certificates and CRLs in
the subjectAltName and issuerAltName extensions, name constraints
extension, authority information access extension, subject
information access extension, issuing distribution point extension,
or CRL distribution points extension. Each of these extensions uses
the GeneralName construct. If the email address includes an IDN but
the local-part of the email address can be represented in ASCII, then
the email address is placed in the rfc822Name choice of GeneralName,
which is defined as type IA5String. If the local-part of the
internationalized email address cannot be represented in ASCII, then
the internationalized email address is placed in the otherName choice
Housley Expires 4 November 2017 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT I18n Updates to RFC 5280 4 May 2017
of GeneralName using the conventions in [ID.lamps-eai-addresses].
7.5.1. Local-part Contains Only ASCII Characters
Where the host-part contains an IDN, conforming implementations MUST
MUST convert all U-labels to A-labels.
Two email addresses are considered to match if:
1) the local-part of each name is an exact match, AND
2) the host-part of each name matches using a case-insensitive
ASCII comparison.
Implementations should convert the host-part of internationalized
email addresses specified in these extensions to Unicode before
display. Specifically, conforming implementations should convert
A-labels to U-labels for display.
7.5.2. Local-part Contains Non-ASCII Characters
When the local-part contains non-ASCII character, conforming
implementations MUST be placed in the SmtpUtf8Name within the
otherName choice of GeneralName as specified in Section 3 of
[ID.lamps-eai-addresses]. Note that the UTF8 encoding of the
internationalized email address MUST NOT contain a Byte-Order-Mark
(BOM) [RFC3629] to aid comparison.
The comparison of two internationalized email addresses is specified
in Section 5 of [ID.lamps-eai-addresses].
Implementations should convert the local-part and the host-part of
internationalized email addresses placed in these extensions to
Unicode before display.
3. Security Considerations
Conforming CAs SHOULD ensure that IDNs are represented as valid
A-labels. This can be accomplished by taking a provided U-label,
validating the code points, converting it to an A-label, back to an
U-label, and then checking to see that the result is the same as the
original U-label. Failure to use valid A-labels may yield a name
that cannot be correctly represented in the Domain Name System (DNS).
In addition, the CA/Browser Forum offers some guidance regarding
internal server names in certificates [CABF].
Housley Expires 4 November 2017 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT I18n Updates to RFC 5280 4 May 2017
4. IANA Considerations
No IANA registries are changed by this update.
5. Normative References
[ID.lamps-eai-addresses]
Melnikov, A. (Ed.) and W. Chuang (Ed.),
"Internationalized Email Addresses in X.509 certificates",
December 2016, <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lamps-
eai-addresses>, work-in-progress.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI
10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, DOI 10.17487/RFC3987,
January 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987>.
[RFC4518] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): Internationalized String Preparation", RFC 4518,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4518, June 2006, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4518>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, DOI
10.17487/RFC5891, August 2010, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5891>.
[RFC5892] Faltstrom, P., Ed., "The Unicode Code Points and
Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 5892, DOI 10.17487/RFC5892, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5892>.
Housley Expires 4 November 2017 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT I18n Updates to RFC 5280 4 May 2017
6. Informative References
[CABF] CA/Browser Forum, "Internal Server Names and IP Address
Requirements for SSL", Version 1.0, June 2012,
<https://cabforum.org/internal-names/>
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3490, DOI 10.17487/RFC3490, March 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3490>.
[RFC3639] St. Johns, M., Ed., Huston, G., Ed., and IAB,
"Considerations on the use of a Service Identifier in
Packet Headers", RFC 3639, DOI 10.17487/RFC3639, October
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3639>.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Alexey Melnikov for the encouragement to write this update.
Thanks to John Klensin and Patrik Falstrom for confirming many of the
details in this update. Thanks to Wei Chuang, Tim Ruehsen, and Sean
Turner for their careful review and comments.
Authors' Address
Russ Housley
Vigil Security, LLC
918 Spring Knoll Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
USA
EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
Housley Expires 4 November 2017 [Page 8]
