| Internet-Draft | est-renew | July 2025 |
| Shekh-Yusef & Richardson | Expires 6 January 2026 | [Page] |
This document describes an extension to RFC7030, Enrollment over Secure Transport to give an indication to a end-entity device when it should start attempting to renew its certificates.¶
Prior art is that client decides, with a typical recommmendation to start when the remaining lifetime of the certificate is at the 50% point. As typical certificate lifetimes are reduced from years to fractions of a year, the 50% may be far too early, and this document provides a way to give alternate advice.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yusef-lamps-rfc7030-renewal-recommendation/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the lamps Working Group mailing list (mailto:spasm@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/mcr/rfc7030-renewal-recommendation.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
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."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 January 2026.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
[RFC9773], Section 1 explains why certificate lifetimes and renewal times need more deterministic control in the ACME [RFC8555] ecosystem. Similar arguments apply to the [RFC7030] ecosystem.¶
(Do the ecosystems differ in significant ways? Probably. How much to explain)¶
Is this as much about client certificates and IoT certificates?¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
A new magic header will be returned during RFC7030 certificate enrollment, whether using simpleenroll, or fullcmc.¶
A very short certificate lifetime renewal time will cause clients to communicate with the EST Registrar more frequently.¶
EST connections make use of mutually authenticated TLS, when the client certificate being an IDevID, or the last issued certificate, often an LDevID, there is potential to disclose identities during this connection.¶
When using TLS 1.2, the client certificate details will be revealed. TLS 1.3 does not suffer from this problem, and it's use is RECOMMENDED as per [I-D.ietf-uta-require-tls13]¶
Not sure what yet.¶
Might need a header allocation¶
Hello.¶