draft-ietf-acme-ip-00.txt   draft-ietf-acme-ip-01.txt 
ACME Working Group R. Shoemaker ACME Working Group R. Shoemaker
Internet-Draft ISRG Internet-Draft ISRG
Intended status: Standards Track July 16, 2017 Intended status: Standards Track September 18, 2017
Expires: January 17, 2018 Expires: March 22, 2018
ACME IP Identifier Validation Extension ACME IP Identifier Validation Extension
draft-ietf-acme-ip-00 draft-ietf-acme-ip-01
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies identifiers and challenges required to enable This document specifies identifiers and challenges required to enable
the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) to issue the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) to issue
certificates for IP addresses. certificates for IP addresses.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 32 skipping to change at page 1, line 32
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 January 17, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 2018.
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 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. IP Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. IP Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Identifier Validation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Identifier Validation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Reverse DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.1. Reverse DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Existing Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Existing Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Identifier Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Identifier Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Challenge Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Challenge Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Certificate Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Certificate Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) The Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)
[I-D.ietf-acme-acme] only defines challenges for validating control [I-D.ietf-acme-acme] only defines challenges for validating control
of DNS host name identifiers which limits its use to being used for of DNS host name identifiers which limits its use to being used for
issuing certificates for these identifiers. In order to allow issuing certificates for these identifiers. In order to allow
validation of IPv4 and IPv6 identifiers for inclusion in X.509 validation of IPv4 and IPv6 identifiers for inclusion in X.509
certificates this document defines a new challenge type and specifies certificates this document defines a new challenge type and specifies
how challenges defined in the original ACME specification can be used how challenges defined in the original ACME specification can be used
to validate IP identifiers. to validate IP identifiers.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant ACME-Wildcard [RFC2119].
implementations.
3. IP Identifier 3. IP Identifier
ACME only defines the identifier type "dns" which is used to refer to ACME only defines the identifier type "dns" which is used to refer to
fully qualified domain names. If a ACME server wishes to request fully qualified domain names. If a ACME server wishes to request
proof that a user controls a IPv4 or IPv6 address it MUST create an proof that a user controls a IPv4 or IPv6 address it MUST create an
authorization with the identifier type "ip". The value field of the authorization with the identifier type "ip". The value field of the
identifier MUST contain the textual form of the address as defined in identifier MUST contain the textual form of the address as defined in
RFC 1123 [RFC1123] Section 2.1 for IPv4 and in RFC 4291 [RFC4291] RFC 1123 [RFC1123] Section 2.1 for IPv4 and in RFC 4291 [RFC4291]
Section 2.2 for IPv6. Section 2.2 for IPv6.
skipping to change at page 4, line 45 skipping to change at page 4, line 45
On receiving a response, the server MUST verify that the key On receiving a response, the server MUST verify that the key
authorization in the response matches the "token" value in the authorization in the response matches the "token" value in the
challenge and the client's ACME account key. If they do not match, challenge and the client's ACME account key. If they do not match,
then the server MUST return an HTTP error in response to the POST then the server MUST return an HTTP error in response to the POST
request in which the client sent the challenge. request in which the client sent the challenge.
To validate a DNS challenge, the server performs the following steps: To validate a DNS challenge, the server performs the following steps:
1. Compute the SHA-256 digest of the key authorization 1. Compute the SHA-256 digest of the key authorization
2. Query for a PTR record for the IP identifiers relevant reverse 2. Query for a PTR record for the IP identifier's relevant reverse
mapping based on its version mapping based on its version
3. Query for TXT records for the computed validation domain name 3. Query for TXT records for the computed validation domain name
4. Verify that the contents of one of the TXT records matches the 4. Verify that the contents of one of the TXT records matches the
digest value digest value
If all of the above verifications succeed, then the validation is If all of the above verifications succeed, then the validation is
successful. If no PTR or TXT DNS records are found, or the returned successful. If no PTR or TXT DNS records are found, or the returned
TXT records do not contain the expected key authorization digest, TXT records do not contain the expected key authorization digest,
then the validation fails. then the validation fails.
4.2. Existing Challenges 4.2. Existing Challenges
IP identifiers MAY be used with the existing "http-01" and "tls-sni- IP identifiers MAY be used with the existing "http-01" and "tls-sni-
02" challenges from RFC XXXX Sections XXX and XXX respectively. To 02" challenges from draft-ietf-acme-acme Sections 8.3 and 8.4
use IP identifiers with these challenges their initial DNS resolution respectively. To use IP identifiers with these challenges their
step MUST be skipped and the address used for validation MUST be the initial DNS resolution step MUST be skipped and the address used for
value of the identifier. For the "http-01" challenge the Host header validation MUST be the value of the identifier. For the "http-01"
should be set to the IP address being used for validation per RFC challenge the Host header should be set to the IP address being used
7230. for validation per RFC 7230.
The existing "dns-01" challenge MUST NOT be used to validate IP The existing "dns-01" challenge MUST NOT be used to validate IP
identifiers. identifiers.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Identifier Types 5.1. Identifier Types
Adds a new type to the Identifier list defined in Section XXX of RFC Adds a new type to the Identifier list defined in Section 9.7.5 of
XXXX with the label "ip" and reference RFC XXXX. draft-ietf-acme-acme with the label "ip" and reference draft-ietf-
acme-ip.
5.2. Challenge Types 5.2. Challenge Types
Adds a new type to the Challenge list defined in Section XXX of RFC Adds a new type to the Challenge list defined in Section 9.7.6 of
XXXX with the label "reverse-dns-01", identifier type "ip", and draft-ietf-acme-acme with the label "reverse-dns-01", identifier type
reference RFC XXXX. "ip", and reference draft-ietf-acme-ip.
Add the value "ip" to the identifier type column for the "http-01" Add the value "ip" to the identifier type column for the "http-01"
and "tls-sni-02" challenges. and "tls-sni-02" challenges.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
6.1. Certificate Lifetime 6.1. Certificate Lifetime
Given the often short delegation periods for IP addresses provided by Given the often short delegation periods for IP addresses provided by
various service providers CAs MAY want to impose shorter lifetimes various service providers CAs MAY want to impose shorter lifetimes
for certificates which contain IP identifiers. They MAY also impose for certificates which contain IP identifiers. They MAY also impose
restrictions on IP identifiers which are in CIDRs known to be restrictions on IP identifiers which are in CIDRs known to be
assigned to service providers who dynamically assign addresses to assigned to service providers who dynamically assign addresses to
users for indeterminate periods of time. users for indeterminate periods of time.
7. Normative References 7. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank those who contributed to this document
and offered editorial advice, especially: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews and
Daniel McCarney.
8. Normative References
[FIPS180-4] [FIPS180-4]
Department of Commerce, National., "NIST FIPS 180-4, Department of Commerce, National., "NIST FIPS 180-4,
Secure Hash Standard", March 2012, Secure Hash Standard", March 2012,
<http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/ <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/
fips-180-4.pdf>. fips-180-4.pdf>.
[I-D.ietf-acme-acme] [I-D.ietf-acme-acme]
Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., and J. Kasten, "Automatic Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., and J. Kasten, "Automatic
Certificate Management Environment (ACME)", draft-ietf- Certificate Management Environment (ACME)", draft-ietf-
acme-acme-07 (work in progress), June 2017. acme-acme-07 (work in progress), June 2017.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989, DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989, <https://www.rfc-
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1123>. editor.org/info/rfc1123>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88, "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88,
RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003, RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006, Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
Author's Address Author's Address
Roland Bracewell Shoemaker Roland Bracewell Shoemaker
Internet Security Research Group Internet Security Research Group
Email: roland@letsencrypt.org Email: roland@letsencrypt.org
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
29 lines changed or deleted 36 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/