ACME Y. Sheffer Internet-Draft Intuit Intended status: Standards Track D. López Expires: 8 September 2021 A. Pastor Perales Telefonica I+D T. Fossati ARM 7 March 2021 An ACME Profile for Generating Delegated STAR Certificates draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-06 Abstract This memo proposes a profile of the ACME protocol that allows the owner of an identifier (e.g., a domain name) to delegate to a third party access to a certificate associated with said identifier. A primary use case is that of a CDN (the third party) terminating TLS sessions on behalf of a content provider (the owner of a domain name). The presented mechanism allows the owner of the identifier to retain control over the delegation and revoke it at any time by cancelling the associated STAR certificate renewal with the ACME CA. Another key property of this mechanism is it does not require any modification to the deployed TLS ecosystem. Status of This Memo 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 8 September 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 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 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Protocol Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Preconditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Delegated Identity Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.1. Delegation Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2. Order Object Transmitted from NDC to IdO and to ACME Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3.3. Capability Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.3.4. On Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4. Delegation of Non-STAR Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.5. Proxy Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. CSR Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.1. Template Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4. Further Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1. CDNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1.1. Multiple Parallel Delegates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1.2. Chained Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.2. STIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.1. New ACME Identifier Object Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.2. New Fields in the "meta" Object within a Directory Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.3. New Fields in the Order Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.4. New Fields in the Account Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.5. New Error Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.6. CSR Template Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.1. Trust Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.2. Delegation Security Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.3. New ACME Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.4. Restricting CDNs to the Delegation Mechanism . . . . . . 28 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Appendix A. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A.1. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A.2. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A.3. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A.4. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A.5. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A.6. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 33 A.7. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 33 A.8. draft-sheffer-acme-star-delegation-01 . . . . . . . . . . 33 A.9. draft-sheffer-acme-star-delegation-00 . . . . . . . . . . 33 Appendix B. CSR Template: CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Appendix C. CSR Template: JSON Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 1. Introduction This document is a companion document to [RFC8739]. To avoid duplication, we give here a bare-bones description of the motivation for this solution. For more details and further use cases, please refer to the introductory sections of [RFC8739]. An Identifier Owner (IdO) has agreements in place with one or more NDC (Name Delegation Consumer) to use and attest its identity. In the primary use case the IdO is a content provider, and we consider a Content Delivery Network (CDN) provider contracted to serve the content over HTTPS. The CDN terminates the HTTPS connection at one of its edge cache servers and needs to present its clients (browsers, mobile apps, set-top-boxes) a certificate whose name matches the authority of the URL that is requested, i.e., that of the IdO. Understandably, some IdOs may balk at sharing their long-term private keys with another organization and, equally, delegates would rather not have to handle other parties' long-term secrets. Other relevant use cases are discussed in Section 4. This document describes a profile of the ACME protocol [RFC8555] that allows the NDC to request from the IdO, acting as a profiled ACME server, a certificate for a delegated identity - i.e., one belonging to the IdO. The IdO then uses the ACME protocol (with the extensions described in [RFC8739]) to request issuance of a STAR certificate for the same delegated identity. The generated short-term certificate is automatically renewed by the ACME Certification Authority (CA), periodically fetched by the NDC and used to terminate HTTPS connections in lieu of the IdO. The IdO can end the delegation at any time by simply instructing the CA to stop the automatic renewal and letting the certificate expire shortly thereafter. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 In case the delegated identity is a domain name, this document also provides a way for the NDC to inform the IdO about the CNAME mappings that need to be installed in the IdO's DNS zone to enable the aliasing of the delegated name, thus allowing the complete name delegation workflow to be handled using a single interface. While the primary use case we address is delegation of STAR certificates, the mechanism proposed here accommodates any certificate managed with the ACME protocol. See Section 2.4 for details. We note that other ongoing efforts address the problem of certificate delegation for TLS connections, specifically [I-D.ietf-tls-subcerts] and [I-D.mglt-lurk-tls13]. Compared to these other solutions, the current draft does not introduce additional latency to the TLS connection, nor does it require changes to the TLS network stack of either the client or the server. 1.1. Terminology IdO Identifier Owner, the owner of an identifier (e.g., a domain name) that needs to be delegated. NDC Name Delegation Consumer, the entity to which the domain name is delegated for a limited time. This is a CDN in the primary use case (in fact, readers may note the symmetry of the two acronyms). CDN Content Delivery Network, a widely distributed network that serves the domain's web content to a wide audience at high performance. STAR Short-Term, Automatically Renewed X.509 certificates. ACME The IETF Automated Certificate Management Environment, a certificate management protocol. CA A Certificate Authority that implements the ACME protocol. Synonymous with "ACME server". 1.2. Conventions used in this document 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. 2. Protocol Flow This section presents the protocol flow. For completeness, we include the ACME profile proposed in this draft as well as the extended ACME protocol described in [RFC8739]. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 2.1. Preconditions The protocol assumes the following preconditions are met: * The IdO exposes an ACME server interface to the NDC(s) comprising the account management interface; * The NDC has registered an ACME account with the IdO; * NDC and IdO have agreed on a "CSR template" to use, including at a minimum: subject name (e.g., "somesite.example.com"), requested algorithms and key length, key usage, extensions (e.g., TNAuthList). The NDC is required to use this template for every CSR created under the same delegation; * IdO has registered an ACME account with the Certificate Authority (CA) Note that even if the IdO implements the ACME server role, it is not acting as a CA: in fact, from the point of view of the certificate issuance process, the IdO only works as a "policing" forwarder of the NDC's key-pair and is responsible for completing the identity verification process towards the ACME server. 2.2. Overview The interaction between the NDC and the IdO is governed by the profiled ACME workflow detailed in Section 2.3. The interaction between the IdO and the CA is ruled by ACME STAR [RFC8739] as well as any other ACME extension that applies (e.g., [I-D.ietf-acme-authority-token-tnauthlist] for STIR). The outline of the combined protocol is as follow (Figure 1): * NDC sends an order Order1 for the delegated identifier to IdO; * IdO creates an Order1 resource in state "ready" with a "finalize" URL; * NDC immediately sends a finalize request (which includes the CSR) to the IdO; * IdO verifies the CSR according to the agreed upon CSR template; * If the CSR verification fails, Order1 is moved to an "invalid" state and everything stops; * If the CSR verification is successful, IdO moves Order1 to state "processing", and sends a new Order2 (using its own account) for the delegated identifier to the CA; * If the ACME STAR protocol fails, Order2 moves to "invalid" and the same state is reflected in Order1 (i.e., the NDC Order); * If the ACME STAR run is successful (i.e., Order2 is "valid"), IdO copies the "star-certificate" URL from Order2 to Order1 and updates the Order1 state to "valid". Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 The NDC can now download, install and use the short-term certificate bearing the name delegated by the IdO. This can continue until the STAR certificate expires or the IdO decides to cancel the automatic renewal process with the CA. Note that the interactive identifier authorization phase described in Section 7.5 of [RFC8555] is suppressed on the NDC-IdO side because the delegated identity contained in the CSR presented to the IdO is validated against the configured CSR template (Section 2.3.1). Therefore, the NDC sends the finalize request, including the CSR, to the IdO immediately after Order1 has been acknowledged. The IdO SHALL buffer a (valid) CSR until the Validation phase completes successfully. .------. .---------------. .------. | NDC | | IdO | | ACME | +--------+ +--------+--------+ +--------+ | Client | | Server | Client | | Server | '---+----' '----+---+---+----' '----+---' | | | | | Order1 | | | | Signature | | | o------------------->| | | | | | | | [ No identity ] | | | | [ validation via ] | | | | [ authorizations ] | | | | | | | | CSR | | | | Signature | | | o------------------->| | | | Acknowledgement | | Order2 | |<-------------------o | Signature | | | o------------------->| | | | Required | | | | Authorizations | | | |<-------------------o | | | Responses | | | | Signature | | | o------------------->| | | | | | | |<~~~~Validation~~~~>| | | | | | | | CSR | | | | Signature | | | o------------------->| | | | Acknowledgement | | | |<-------------------o Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 | | | | |<~~Await issuance~->| |<~~Await issuance~~>| | | | (unauthenticated) GET STAR certificate | o------------------------------------------------>| | Certificate #1 | |<------------------------------------------------o | (unauthenticated) GET STAR certificate | o------------------------------------------------>| | Certificate #2 | |<------------------------------------------------o | [...] | | (unauthenticated) GET STAR certificate | o------------------------------------------------>| | Certificate #n | |<------------------------------------------------o Figure 1: End to end STAR delegation flow 2.3. Delegated Identity Profile This section defines a profile of the ACME protocol, to be used between the NDC and IdO. 2.3.1. Delegation Configuration 2.3.1.1. Account Object Extensions An NDC identifies itself to the IdO as an ACME account. The IdO can delegate multiple names to a NDC, and these configurations are described through "delegation" objects associated with the NDC's Account object on the IdO. As shown in Figure 2, the ACME account resource on the IdO is extended with a new "delegations" attribute: * delegations (required, string): A URL from which a list of delegations configured for this account can be fetched via a POST- as-GET request. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 { "status": "valid", "contact": [ "mailto:delegation-admin@ido.example" ], "termsOfServiceAgreed": true, "orders": "https://example.com/acme/orders/rzGoeA", "delegations": "https://acme.ido.example/acme/delegations/adFqoz" } Figure 2: Example Account object with delegations 2.3.1.2. Delegation Objects This profile extends the ACME resource model with a new read-only delegation object that represents a delegation configuration that applies to a given NDC. A delegation object contains the CSR template (see Section 3) that applies to that delegation, and optionally any related CNAME mapping for the delegated identifiers. Its structure is as follows: * csr-template (required, object): CSR template as defined in Section 3. * cname-map (optional, object): a map of FQDN pairs. In each pair, the name is the delegated identifier, the value is the corresponding IdO name that is aliased in the IdO's zone file to redirect the resolvers to the delegated entity. Both names and values MUST be FQDNs with a terminating '.'. This field is only meaningful for identifiers of type "dns". An example delegation object is shown in Figure 3. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 { "csr-template": { "keyTypes": [ { "PublicKeyType": "ecPublicKey", "Curve": "secp521r1", "SignatureType": "ecdsa-with-SHA256" } ], "subject": { "country": "CA", "stateOrProvince": "**", "locality": "**", "commonName": "**" }, "extensions": { "subjectAltName": { "DNS": [ "abc.ndc.ido.example" ] }, "keyUsage": [ "digitalSignature" ], "extendedKeyUsage": [ "serverAuth" ] } }, "cname-map": { "abc.ndc.ido.example.": "abc.ndc.example." } } Figure 3: Example Delegation Configuration object In order to indicate which specific delegation applies to the requested certificate a new "delegation" attribute is added to the identifier in the Order object on the NDC-IdO side (see Section 2.3.2). The value of this attribute is the URL pointing to the delegation configuration object that is to be used for this certificate request. If the "delegation" attribute in the Order object contains a URL that does not correspond to a configuration available to the requesting NDC, the IdO MUST return an error response with status code 403 (Forbidden) and type "urn:ietf:params:acme:error:unknownDelegation". Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 9] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 2.3.2. Order Object Transmitted from NDC to IdO and to ACME Server The Order object created by the NDC: * MUST have the delegated name as the identifier value with a "delegation" attribute indicating the configuration used for the identifier. Besides, when delegation is for a STAR certificate, the Order: * MUST NOT contain the "notBefore" and "notAfter" fields; * MUST contain an "auto-renewal" object and inside it, the fields listed in Section 3.1.1 of [RFC8739]. POST /acme/new-order HTTP/1.1 Host: acme.ido.example Content-Type: application/jose+json { "protected": base64url({ "alg": "ES256", "kid": "https://acme.ido.example/acme/acct/evOfKhNU60wg", "nonce": "5XJ1L3lEkMG7tR6pA00clA", "url": "https://acme.ido.example/acme/new-order" }), "payload": base64url({ "identifiers": [ { "type": "dns", "value": "abc.ndc.ido.example.", "delegation": "https://acme.ido.example/acme/delegations/adFqoz/2" } ], "auto-renewal": { "end-date": "2020-04-20T00:00:00Z", "lifetime": 345600, // 4 days "allow-certificate-get": true } }), "signature": "H6ZXtGjTZyUnPeKn...wEA4TklBdh3e454g" } The Order object that is created on the IdO: * MUST start in the "ready" state; * MUST contain an "authorizations" array with zero elements; * MUST contain the indicated "delegation" configurations. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 10] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 Besides, when delegation is for a STAR certificate, the Order: * MUST NOT contain the "notBefore" and "notAfter" fields. { "status": "ready", "expires": "2019-05-01T00:00:00Z", "identifiers": [ { "type": "dns", "value": "abc.ndc.ido.example.", "delegation": "https://acme.ido.example/acme/delegations/adFqoz/2" } ], "auto-renewal": { "end-date": "2020-04-20T00:00:00Z", "lifetime": 345600, "allow-certificate-get": true }, "authorizations": [], "finalize": "https://acme.ido.example/acme/order/TO8rfgo/finalize" } The Order is then finalized by the NDC supplying the CSR containing the delegated identifiers. The IdO checks the provided CSR against the template that applies to each delegated identifier, as described in Section 3.1. If the CSR fails validation for any of the identifiers, the IdO MUST return an error response with status code 403 (Forbidden) and an appropriate type, e.g., "rejectedIdentifier" or "badCSR". The error response SHOULD contain subproblems (Section 6.7.1 of [RFC8555]) for each failed identifier. If the CSR is successfully validated, the Order object status moves to "processing" and the twin ACME protocol instance is initiated on the IdO-CA side. The Order object created by the IdO: * MUST copy the identifiers sent by the NDC and strip the "delegation" attribute; Besides, when delegation is for a STAR certificate, the Order: Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 11] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 * MUST carry a copy of the "auto-renewal" object sent by the NDC and augment it with an "allow-certificate-get" attribute set to true. Instead, when the delegation is for a non-STAR certificate, the Order: * MUST include the "allow-certificate-get" attribute set to true. When the validation of the identifiers has been successfully completed and the certificate has been issued by the CA, the IdO: * MUST move its Order resource status to "valid". Besides, when delegation is for a STAR certificate, the IdO: * MUST copy the "star-certificate" field from the STAR Order. The latter indirectly includes (via the NotBefore and NotAfter HTTP headers) the renewal timers needed by the NDC to inform its certificate reload logic. Instead, when the delegation is for a non-STAR certificate, the IdO: * MUST copy the "certificate" field from the Order, as well as "notBefore" and "notAfter" if these fields exist. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 12] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 { "status": "valid", "expires": "2019-05-01T00:00:00Z", "identifiers": [ { "type": "dns", "value": "abc.ndc.ido.example.", "delegation": "https://acme.ido.example/acme/delegations/adFqoz/2" } ], "auto-renewal": { "end-date": "2020-04-20T00:00:00Z", "lifetime": 345600, "allow-certificate-get": true }, "authorizations": [], "finalize": "https://acme.ido.example/acme/order/TO8rfgo/finalize", "star-certificate": "https://acme.ca.example/acme/order/yTr23sSDg9" } If an identifier object of type "dns" was included, the IdO can add the corresponding CNAME records to its zone, e.g.: abc.ndc.ido.example. CNAME abc.ndc.example. 2.3.3. Capability Discovery In order to help a client to discover support for this profile, the directory object of an ACME server MUST contain the following attribute in the "meta" field: * delegation-enabled: boolean flag indicating support for the profile specified in this memo. An ACME server that supports this delegation profile MUST include this key, and MUST set it to true. The "delegation-enabled" flag may be specified regardless of the existence or setting of the "auto-renewal" flag. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 13] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 2.3.4. On Cancellation It is worth noting that cancellation of the ACME STAR certificate is a prerogative of the IdO. The NDC does not own the relevant account key on the ACME server, therefore it can't issue a cancellation request for the STAR cert. Potentially, since it holds the STAR certificate's private key, it could request the revocation of a single STAR certificate. However, STAR explicitly disables the revokeCert interface. 2.4. Delegation of Non-STAR Certificates The mechanism defined here can be used to delegate regular ACME certificates whose expiry is not "short term". To allow delegation of non-STAR certificates, this document allows use of "allow-certificate-get" directly in the Order object and independently of the "auto-renewal" object, so that the NDC can fetch the certificate without having to authenticate into the ACME server. The following differences exist between STAR and non-STAR certificate delegation: * With STAR certificates, the "star-certificate" field is copied by the IdO; with non-STAR certificates, the "certificate" field is copied. * The "auto-renewal" object is not used (either in the request or response) for non-STAR certificates. The field "allow- certificate-get" MUST be included in the order object, and its value MUST be "true". * The "notBefore" and "notAfter" order fields are omitted only in STAR certificates. When delegating a non-STAR certificate, standard certificate revocation still applies. The ACME certificate revocation endpoint is explicitly unavailable for STAR certificates but it is available for all other certificates. We note that according to Sec. 7.6 of [RFC8555], the revocation endpoint can be used with either the account keypair, or the certificate keypair. In other words, the NDC would be able to revoke the certificate. However, given the trust relationship between NDC and IdO expected by the delegation trust model (Section 6.1) as well as the lack of incentives for the NDC - which, doing so, would create a self-inflicted DoS - this does not represent a security risk. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 14] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 2.5. Proxy Behavior There are cases where the ACME Delegation flow should be proxied, such as the use case described in Section 4.1.2. This section describes the behavior of such proxies. An entity implementing the IdO server role - an "ACME Delegation server" - can decide, on a per-identity case, whether to act as a proxy into another ACME Delegation server, or to behave as an IdO and obtain a certificate directly. The determining factor is whether it can successfully be authorized by the ACME server for the identity associated with the certificate request. The identities supported by each server and the disposition for each of them are preconfigured. Following is the proxy's behavior for each of the messages exchanged in the ACME Delegation process: * New-order request: - The complete "identifiers" object MUST be copied as-is. - Similarly, the "auto-renewal" object MUST be copied as-is. * New-order response: - The "status", "expires", "authorizations", "identifiers" and "auto-renewal" attributes/objects MUST be copied as-is. - The "finalize" URL is rewritten, so that the "finalize" request will be made to the proxy. - Similarly, the "Location" header MUST be rewritten to point to an Order object on the proxy. - And similarly, any "Link" relations. * Get Order response: - The "status", "expires", "authorizations", "identifiers" and "auto-renewal" attributes/objects MUST be copied as-is. - Similarly, the "star-certificate" URL MUST be copied as-is. - The "finalize" URL is rewritten, so that the "finalize" request will be made to the proxy. - The "Location" header MUST be rewritten to point to an Order object on the proxy. - Any "Link" relations MUST be rewritten to point to the proxy. * Finalize request: - The CSR MUST be copied as-is. * Finalize response: - The "Location" header, "Link" relations and the "finalize" URLs are rewritten as for Get Order. We note that all the above messages are authenticated, and therefore each proxy must be able to authenticate any subordinate server. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 15] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 3. CSR Template The CSR template is used to express and constrain the shape of the CSR that the NDC uses to request the certificate. The CSR is used for every certificate created under the same delegation. Its validation by the IdO is a critical element in the security of the whole delegation mechanism. Instead of defining every possible CSR attribute, this document takes a minimalist approach by declaring only the minimum attribute set and deferring the registration of further, more specific, attributes to future documents. 3.1. Template Syntax The template is a JSON document. Each field (with the exception of "keyTypes", see below) denotes one of: * A mandatory field, where the template specifies the literal value of that field. This is denoted by a literal string, such as "client1.ndc.ido.example.com". * A mandatory field, where the content of the field is defined by the client. This is denoted by "**". * An optional field, where the client decides whether the field is included in the CSR and if so, what its value is. This is denoted by "*". The NDC MUST NOT include in the CSR any fields, including any extensions, unless they are specified in the template. The structure of the template object is defined by the CDDL [RFC8610] document in Appendix B. An alternative, non-normative JSON Schema syntax is given in Appendix C. The "subject" field and its subfields are mapped into the "subject" field of the CSR, as per [RFC5280], Sec. 4.1.2.6. Other extension fields of the CSR template are mapped into the CSR according to the table in Section 5.6. The "keyTypes" property is not copied into the CSR. Instead, this property constrains the "SubjectPublicKeyInfo" field of the CSR, which MUST have the type/size defined by one of the array members of the "keyTypes" property. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 16] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 When the CSR is received by the IdO, it MUST verify that the CSR is consistent with the template that the IdO sent earlier. The IdO MAY enforce additional constraints, e.g. by restricting field lengths. In this regard, note that a "subjectAltName" of type "DNS" can be specified using the wildcard notation, meaning that the NDC can be required ("**") or offered the possibility ("*") to define the delegated domain name by itself. If this is the case, the IdO needs to have a further layer of checks on top of the control rules already provided by the CSR template to fully validate the CSR input. 3.2. Example The CSR template in Figure 4 represents one possible CSR template governing the delegation exchanges provided in the rest of this document. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 17] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 { "keyTypes": [ { "PublicKeyType": "rsaEncryption", "PublicKeyLength": 2048, "SignatureType": "sha256WithRSAEncryption" }, { "PublicKeyType": "id-ecPublicKey", "namedCurve": "secp256r1", "SignatureType": "ecdsa-with-SHA256" } ], "subject": { "country": "CA", "stateOrProvince": "**", "locality": "**", "commonName": "**" }, "extensions": { "subjectAltName": { "DNS": [ "client1.ndc.ido.example" ] }, "keyUsage": [ "digitalSignature" ], "extendedKeyUsage": [ "serverAuth", "clientAuth" ] } } Figure 4: Example CSR template 4. Further Use Cases This non-normative section describes additional use cases that use STAR certificate delegation in non-trivial ways. 4.1. CDNI [I-D.ietf-cdni-interfaces-https-delegation] discusses several solutions addressing different delegation requirements for the CDNI (CDN Interconnection) environment. This section discusses two of the stated requirements in the context of the STAR delegation workflow. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 18] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 This section uses specifically CDNI terminology, e.g. "uCDN" and "dCDN", as defined in [RFC7336]. 4.1.1. Multiple Parallel Delegates In some cases the content owner (IdO) would like to delegate authority over a web site to multiple NDCs (CDNs). This could happen if the IdO has agreements in place with different regional CDNs for different geographical regions, or if a "backup" CDN is used to handle overflow traffic by temporarily altering some of the CNAME mappings in place. The STAR delegation flow enables this use case naturally, since each CDN can authenticate separately to the IdO (via its own separate account) specifying its CSR, and the IdO is free to allow or deny each certificate request according to its own policy. 4.1.2. Chained Delegation In other cases, a content owner (IdO) delegates some domains to a large CDN (uCDN), which in turn delegates to a smaller regional CDN, dCDN. The IdO has a contractual relationship with uCDN, and uCDN has a similar relationship with dCDN. However IdO may not even know about dCDN. If needed, the STAR protocol can be chained to support this use case: uCDN could forward requests from dCDN to IdO, and forward responses back to dCDN. Whether such proxying is allowed is governed by policy and contracts between the parties. A mechanism is necessary at the interface between uCDN and dCDN by which the uCDN can advertise: * The namespace that is made available to the dCDN to mint its delegated names; * The policy for creating the key material (allowed algorithms, minimum key lengths, key usage, etc.) that the dCDN needs to satisfy. Note that such mechanism is provided by the CSR template. 4.1.2.1. Two-Level Delegation in CDNI A User Agent (UA), browser or set-top-box, wants to fetch the video resource at the following URI: "https://video.cp.example/movie". Redirection between Content Provider (CP), upstream, and downstream CDNs is arranged as a CNAME-based aliasing chain as illustrated in Figure 5. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 19] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 .------------. video.cp.example ? | .-----. | .---------------------------------->| | | | (a) | | DNS | CP | | .-------------------------------+ | | | | CNAME video.ucdn.example | '-----' | | | '------------' | | | | .-----------|---v--. .------------. | .-----.-+-----. | video.ucdn.example ? | .-----. | | | | +----------------------------->| | | | UA | TLS | DNS | | (b) | | DNS | uCDN | | | | |<-----------------------------+ | | | '--+--'-----+-' | CNAME video.dcdn.example | '-----' | '------|----^---|--' '------------' | | | | | | | | | .------------. | | | video.dcdn.example ? | .-----. | | | '------------------------------>| | | | | (c) | | DNS | | | '-----------------------------------+ | | | A 192.0.2.1 | +-----+ dCDN | | | | | | '--------------------------------------->| TLS | | SNI: video.cp.example | | | | | '-----' | '------------' Figure 5: DNS Redirection Unlike HTTP based redirection, where the original URL is supplanted by the one found in the Location header of the 302 response, DNS redirection is completely transparent to the User Agent. As a result, the TLS connection to the dCDN edge is done with an SNI equal to the "host" in the original URI - in the example, "video.cp.example". So, in order to successfully complete the handshake, the landing dCDN node has to be configured with a certificate whose subjectAltName matches "video.cp.example", i.e., a Content Provider's name. Figure 6 illustrates the cascaded delegation flow that allows dCDN to obtain a STAR certificate that bears a name belonging to the Content Provider with a private key that is only known to the dCDN. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 20] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 .--------------------. | .------.------. | | | STAR | ACME |<-------------. .------->| CP | dele | STAR | | | | | | srv | cli +-----. | | | '---+--'------' | | 6 | '---------|------^---' 5 | | | | | .--|-------. | | | | | .-+----. | | 7 | '---->| ACME | | | | | | | STAR | C | 0 | 4 | +------| A | | | | | | HTTP | | | | | | '----+-' | | | .-' '--^--|----' | .--------------v--|--. | | | | .------.----+-. | | 10 | | | | STAR | | | | '-->| uCDN | CDNI | dele | | | | | | | fwd | | | | | '----+-'-+----' | | | '-------^--|---|--^--' | | | | | | | | | 2 8 | | | 1 | | 3 | | | | | | 9 | .-------|--v---v--|---------. | | | .-+----.----+-.------. | | | | | | STAR | +------------' | | dCDN | CDNI | dele | HTTP | | | | | | cli | |<--------------' | '------'------'------' | '---------------------------' Figure 6: Two levels delegation in CDNI uCDN is configured to delegate to dCDN, and CP is configured to delegate to uCDN, both as defined in Section 2.3.1. 1. dCDN requests CDNI path metadata to uCDN; 2. uCDN replies with, among other CDNI metadata, the STAR delegation configuration, which includes the delegated Content Provider's name; 3. dCDN creates a key-pair and the CSR with the delegated name. It then places an order for the delegated name to uCDN; 4. uCDN forwards the received order to the Content Provider (CP); Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 21] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 5. CP creates an order for a STAR certificate and sends it to the CA. The order also requests unauthenticated access to the certificate resource; 6. After all authorizations complete successfully, the STAR certificate is issued; 7. CP notifies uCDN that the STAR certificate is available at the order's star-certificate URL; 8. uCDN forwards the information to dCDN. At this point the ACME signalling is complete; 9. dCDN requests the STAR certificate using unauthenticated GET from the ACME server; 10. the CA returns the certificate. Now dCDN is fully configured to handle HTTPS traffic in-lieu of the Content Provider. Note that 9. and 10. repeat until the delegation expires or is terminated. 4.2. STIR As a second use case, we consider the delegation of credentials in the STIR ecosystem [I-D.ietf-stir-cert-delegation]. In the STIR "delegated" mode, a service provider SP2 - the NDC - needs to sign PASSPorT's [RFC8225] for telephone numbers (e.g., TN=+123) belonging to another service provider, SP1 - the IdO. In order to do that, SP2 needs a STIR certificate, and private key, that includes TN=+123 in the TNAuthList [RFC8226] certificate extension. In details (Figure 7): 1. SP1 and SP2 agree on the configuration of the delegation - in particular, the CSR template that applies; 2. SP2 generates a private/public key-pair and sends a CSR to SP1 requesting creation of a certificate with: SP1 name, SP2 public key, and a TNAuthList extension with the list of TNs that SP1 delegates to SP2. (Note that the CSR sent by SP2 to SP1 needs to be validated against the CSR template agreed upon in step 1.); 3. SP1 sends an Order for the CSR to the CA; 4. Subsequently, after the required TNAuthList authorizations are successfully completed, the CA moves the Order to a "valid" state; at the same time the star-certificate endpoint is populated. 5. The Order contents are forwarded from SP1 to SP2 by means of the paired "delegation" Order. 6. SP2 dereferences the star-certificate URL in the Order to fetch the rolling STAR certificate bearing the delegated identifiers. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 22] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 .-------------------. | .------.------. | | | STAR | STAR |<--------------. .-->| SP1 | dele | dele | | | | | | srv | cli +-----. | | | '----+-'------' | | 4 | '------^--|---------' 3 | | | | | .----|-----. | | 5 | | .---+--. | | | | '--->| ACME | | | | | | | STAR | C | 1 | | | +------| A | | | | .--->| HTTP | | | 2 | | | '---+--' | | | | | '----|-----' | .------|--v---------. 6 | | | .-+----.------. | | 7 | | | STAR | +-----' | '-->| SP2 | dele | HTTP | | | | | cli | |<--------------' | '----+-'-+----' | '-------------------' Figure 7: Delegation in STIR As shown, the STAR delegation profile described in this document applies straightforwardly, the only extra requirement being the ability to instruct the NDC about the allowed TNAuthList values. This can be achieved by a simple extension to the CSR template. 5. IANA Considerations [[RFC Editor: please replace XXXX below by the RFC number.]] 5.1. New ACME Identifier Object Fields This document requests that IANA create the following new registry under the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Protocol: * ACME Identifier Object Fields This registry is administered under a Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. The "ACME Identifier Object Fields" registry lists field names that are defined for use in the ACME identifier object. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 23] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 Template: * Field name: The string to be used as a field name in the JSON object * Field type: The type of value to be provided, e.g., string, boolean, array of string * Reference: Where this field is defined +============+============+===========================+ | Field Name | Field Type | Reference | +============+============+===========================+ | type | string | Section 7.1.3 of RFC 8555 | +------------+------------+---------------------------+ | value | string | Section 7.1.3 of RFC 8555 | +------------+------------+---------------------------+ | delegation | string | RFC XXXX | +------------+------------+---------------------------+ Table 1 Note: this registry was not created at the time [RFC8555] was standardized likely because it was not anticipated that the identifier object would be extended. It is retrospectively introduced to record the status quo and allow controlled extensibility of the identifier object. 5.2. New Fields in the "meta" Object within a Directory Object This document adds the following entries to the ACME Directory Metadata Fields registry: +====================+============+===========+ | Field Name | Field Type | Reference | +====================+============+===========+ | delegation-enabled | boolean | RFC XXXX | +--------------------+------------+-----------+ Table 2 5.3. New Fields in the Order Object This document adds the following entries to the ACME Order Object Fields registry: Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 24] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 +=======================+============+==============+===========+ | Field Name | Field Type | Configurable | Reference | +=======================+============+==============+===========+ | allow-certificate-get | boolean | true | RFC XXXX | +-----------------------+------------+--------------+-----------+ Table 3 5.4. New Fields in the Account Object This document adds the following entries to the ACME Account Object Fields registry: +=============+============+==========+===========+ | Field Name | Field Type | Requests | Reference | +=============+============+==========+===========+ | delegations | string | none | RFC XXXX | +-------------+------------+----------+-----------+ Table 4 Note that the "delegations" field is only reported by ACME servers that have "delegation-enabled" set to true in their meta Object. 5.5. New Error Types This document adds the following entries to the ACME Error Type registry: +===================+================================+===========+ | Type | Description | Reference | +===================+================================+===========+ | unknownDelegation | An unknown configuration is | RFC XXXX | | | listed in the "delegations" | | | | attribute of the request Order | | +-------------------+--------------------------------+-----------+ Table 5 5.6. CSR Template Extensions IANA is requested to establish a registry "STAR Delegation CSR Template Extensions", with "Expert Review" as its registration procedure. Each extension registered must specify: * An extension name. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 25] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 * An extension syntax, as a reference to a JSON Schema document that defines this extension. * The extension's mapping into an X.509 certificate extension. The initial contents of this registry are the extensions defined by the JSON Schema document in Appendix C. +==================+===========+===============================+ | Extension Name | Extension | Mapping to X.509 Certificate | | | Syntax | Extension | +==================+===========+===============================+ | keyUsage | See | [RFC5280], Sec. 4.2.1.3 | | | Appendix | | | | C | | +------------------+-----------+-------------------------------+ | extendedKeyUsage | See | [RFC5280], Sec. 4.2.1.12 | | | Appendix | | | | C | | +------------------+-----------+-------------------------------+ | subjectAltName | See | [RFC5280], Sec. 4.2.1.6 (note | | | Appendix | that only specific name | | | C | formats are allowed: URI, DNS | | | | name, email address) | +------------------+-----------+-------------------------------+ Table 6 6. Security Considerations 6.1. Trust Model The ACME trust model needs to be extended to include the trust relationship between NDC and IdO. Note that once this trust link is established, it potentially becomes recursive. Therefore, there has to be a trust relationship between each of the nodes in the delegation chain; for example, in case of cascading CDNs this is contractually defined. Note that using standard [RFC6125] identity verification there are no mechanisms available to the IdO to restrict the use of the delegated name once the name has been handed over to the first NDC. 6.2. Delegation Security Goal Delegation introduces a new security goal: only an NDC that has been authorised by the IdO, either directly or transitively, can obtain a certificate with an IdO identity. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 26] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 From a security point of view, the delegation process has five separate parts: 1. Enabling a specific third party (the intended NDC) to submit requests for delegated certificates; 2. Making sure that any request for a delegated certificate matches the intended "shape" in terms of delegated identities as well as any other certificate metadata, e.g., key length, x.509 extensions, etc.; 3. Serving the certificate back to the NDC; 4. A process for handling revocation of the delegation; 5. A process for handling revocation of the certificate itself. The first part is covered by the NDC's ACME account that is administered by the IdO, whose security relies on the correct handling of the associated key pair. When a compromise of the private key is detected, the delegate MUST use the account deactivation procedures defined in Section 7.3.6 of [RFC8555]. The second part is covered by the act of checking an NDC's certificate request against the intended CSR template. The steps of shaping the CSR template correctly, selecting the right CSR template to check against the presented CSR, and making sure that the presented CSR matches the selected CSR template are all security relevant. The third part builds on the trust relationship between NDC and IdO that is responsible for correctly forwarding the certificate URL from the Order returned by the ACME server. The fourth part is associated with the ability of the IdO to unilaterally remove the delegation object associated with the revoked identity, therefore disabling any further NDC requests for such identity. Note that, in more extreme circumstances, the IdO might decide to disable the NDC account thus entirely blocking any further interaction. The fifth is covered by two different mechanisms, depending on the nature of the certificate. For STAR, the IdO shall use the cancellation interface defined in Section 2.3 of [RFC8739]. For non- STAR, the certificate revocation interface defined in Section 7.6 of [RFC8555]). 6.3. New ACME Channels Using the model established in Section 10.1 of [RFC8555], we can decompose the interactions of the basic delegation workflow as shown in Figure 8. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 27] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 ACME Channel .------------>------------. .-----. ACME Channel .--+--. .--+----------. | NDC +------------->| IdO | | ACME server | '--+--' '--+--' '--+-+--------' | '-----------<-------------' | | Validation Channel | '-------------------->---------------------------' (subset of) ACME Channel [1] [1] Unauthenticated certificate fetch and non-STAR certificate revocation. Figure 8: Delegation Channels Topology The considerations regarding the security of the ACME Channel and Validation Channel discussed in [RFC8555] apply verbatim to the IdO/ ACME server leg. The same can be said for the ACME channel on the NDC/IdO leg. A slightly different set of considerations apply to the ACME Channel between NDC and ACME server, which consists of a subset of the ACME interface comprising two API endpoints: the unauthenticated certificate retrieval and, potentially, non-STAR revocation via certificate private key. No specific security considerations apply to the former, but the privacy considerations in Section 6.3 of [RFC8739] do. With regards to the latter, it should be noted that there is currently no means for an IdO to disable authorising revocation based on certificate private keys. So, in theory, an NDC could use the revocation API directly with the ACME server, therefore bypassing the IdO. The NDC SHOULD NOT directly use the revocation interface exposed by the ACME server unless failing to do so would compromise the overall security, for example if the certificate private key is compromised and the IdO is not currently reachable. All other security considerations from [RFC8555] and [RFC8739] apply as-is to the delegation topology. 6.4. Restricting CDNs to the Delegation Mechanism When a web site is delegated to a CDN, the CDN can in principle modify the web site at will, create and remove pages. This means that a malicious or breached CDN can pass the ACME (as well as common non-ACME) HTTPS-based validation challenges and generate a certificate for the site. This is true regardless of whether the CNAME mechanisms defined in the current document is used or not. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 28] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 In some cases, this is the desired behavior: the domain owner trusts the CDN to have full control of the cryptographic credentials for the site. The current document however assumes that the domain owner only wants to delegate restricted control, and wishes to retain the capability to cancel the CDN's credentials at a short notice. The following is a possible mitigation when the IdO wishes to ensure that a rogue CDN cannot issue unauthorized certificates: * The domain owner makes sure that the CDN cannot modify the DNS records for the domain. The domain owner should ensure it is the only entity authorized to modify the DNS zone. Typically, it establishes a CNAME resource record from a subdomain into a CDN- managed domain. * The domain owner uses a CAA record [RFC8659] to restrict certificate issuance for the domain to specific CAs that comply with ACME and are known to implement [RFC8657]. * The domain owner uses the ACME-specific CAA mechanism [RFC8657] to restrict issuance to a specific account key which is controlled by it, and MUST require "dns-01" as the sole validation method. We note that the above solution may need to be tweaked depending on the exact capabilities and authorisation flows supported by the selected CAs. 7. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the following people who contributed significantly to this document with their review comments and design proposals: Roman Danyliw, Frédéric Fieau, Sanjay Mishra, Jon Peterson, Ryan Sleevi, Emile Stephan. This work is partially supported by the European Commission under Horizon 2020 grant agreement no. 688421 Measurement and Architecture for a Middleboxed Internet (MAMI). This support does not imply endorsement. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 29] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 [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, . [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8555] Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., McCarney, D., and J. Kasten, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)", RFC 8555, DOI 10.17487/RFC8555, March 2019, . [RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610, June 2019, . [RFC8657] Landau, H., "Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Record Extensions for Account URI and Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Method Binding", RFC 8657, DOI 10.17487/RFC8657, November 2019, . [RFC8659] Hallam-Baker, P., Stradling, R., and J. Hoffman-Andrews, "DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record", RFC 8659, DOI 10.17487/RFC8659, November 2019, . [RFC8739] Sheffer, Y., Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Pastor Perales, A., and T. Fossati, "Support for Short-Term, Automatically Renewed (STAR) Certificates in the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME)", RFC 8739, DOI 10.17487/RFC8739, March 2020, . 8.2. Informative References Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 30] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 [I-D.ietf-acme-authority-token-tnauthlist] Wendt, C., Hancock, D., Barnes, M., and J. Peterson, "TNAuthList profile of ACME Authority Token", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-acme-authority-token- tnauthlist-06, 9 March 2020, . [I-D.ietf-cdni-interfaces-https-delegation] Fieau, F., Emile, S., and S. Mishra, "CDNI extensions for HTTPS delegation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cdni-interfaces-https-delegation-04, 9 September 2020, . [I-D.ietf-stir-cert-delegation] Peterson, J., "STIR Certificate Delegation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-stir-cert-delegation- 03, 13 July 2020, . [I-D.ietf-tls-subcerts] Barnes, R., Iyengar, S., Sullivan, N., and E. Rescorla, "Delegated Credentials for TLS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-subcerts-10, 24 January 2021, . [I-D.mglt-lurk-tls13] Migault, D., "LURK Extension version 1 for (D)TLS 1.3 Authentication", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- mglt-lurk-tls13-04, 25 January 2021, . [json-schema-07] Wright, A., Andrews, H., and G. Luff, "JSON Schema Validation: A Vocabulary for Structural Validation of JSON", 2018, . [RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March 2011, . Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 31] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 [RFC7336] Peterson, L., Davie, B., and R. van Brandenburg, Ed., "Framework for Content Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI)", RFC 7336, DOI 10.17487/RFC7336, August 2014, . [RFC8225] Wendt, C. and J. Peterson, "PASSporT: Personal Assertion Token", RFC 8225, DOI 10.17487/RFC8225, February 2018, . [RFC8226] Peterson, J. and S. Turner, "Secure Telephone Identity Credentials: Certificates", RFC 8226, DOI 10.17487/RFC8226, February 2018, . Appendix A. Document History [[Note to RFC Editor: please remove before publication.]] A.1. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-06 * CDDL schema to address Roman's remaining comments. A.2. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-05 * Detailed AD review by Roman Danyliw. * Some comments that were left unaddressed in Ryan Sleevi's review. * Numerous other edits for clarity and consistency. A.3. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-04 * Delegation of non-STAR certificates. * More IANA clarity, specifically on certificate extensions. * Add delegation configuration object and extend account and order objects accordingly. * A lot more depth on Security Considerations. A.4. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-03 * Consistency with the latest changes in the base ACME STAR document, e.g. star-delegation-enabled capability renamed and moved. * Proxy use cases (recursive delegation) and the definition of proxy behavior. * More detailed analysis of the CDNI and STIR use cases, including sequence diagrams. A.5. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-02 Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 32] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 * Security considerations: review by Ryan Sleevi. * CSR template simplified: instead of being a JSON Schema document itself, it is now a simple JSON document which validates to a JSON Schema. A.6. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-01 * Refinement of the CDNI use case. * Addition of the CSR template (partial, more work required). * Further security considerations (work in progress). A.7. draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-00 * Republished as a working group draft. A.8. draft-sheffer-acme-star-delegation-01 * Added security considerations about disallowing CDNs from issuing certificates for a delegated domain. A.9. draft-sheffer-acme-star-delegation-00 * Initial version, some text extracted from draft-sheffer-acme-star- requests-02 Appendix B. CSR Template: CDDL Following is the normative definition of the CSR template, using CDDL [RFC8610]. The CSR template MUST be a valid JSON document, compliant with the syntax defined here. An additional constraint that is not expressed in CDDL but MUST be validated by the recipient is that all objects (e.g. "distinguishedName") MUST NOT be empty when they are included, even when each separate property is optional. csr-template-schema = { keyTypes: [ 1* $keyType ] ? subject: distinguishedName extensions: extensions } mandatory-wildcard = "**" optional-wildcard = "*" wildcard = mandatory-wildcard / optional-wildcard ; regtext matches all text strings but "*" and "**" regtext = text .regexp "([^\*].*)|([\*][^\*].*)|([\*][\*].+)" Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 33] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 regtext-or-wildcard = regtext / wildcard distinguishedName = { ? country: regtext-or-wildcard ? stateOrProvince: regtext-or-wildcard ? locality: regtext-or-wildcard ? organization: regtext-or-wildcard ? organizationalUnit: regtext-or-wildcard ? emailAddress: regtext-or-wildcard ? commonName: regtext-or-wildcard } $keyType /= rsaKeyType $keyType /= ecdsaKeyType rsaKeyType = { PublicKeyType: "rsaEncryption" ; OID: 1.2.840.113549.1.1.1 PublicKeyLength: rsaKeySize SignatureType: $rsaSignatureType } rsaKeySize = int .ge 2048 ; RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 with SHA-256 $rsaSignatureType /= "sha256WithRSAEncryption" ; RSASSA-PCKS1-v1_5 with SHA-384 $rsaSignatureType /= "sha384WithRSAEncryption" ; RSASSA-PCKS1-v1_5 with SHA-512 $rsaSignatureType /= "sha512WithRSAEncryption" ; RSASSA-PSS with SHA-256, MGF-1 with SHA-256, and a salt length of 32 bytes $rsaSignatureType /= "sha256WithRSAandMGF1" ; RSASSA-PSS with SHA-384, MGF-1 with SHA-384, and a salt length of 48 bytes $rsaSignatureType /= "sha384WithRSAandMGF1" ; RSASSA-PSS with SHA-512, MGF-1 with SHA-512, and a salt length of 64 bytes $rsaSignatureType /= "sha512WithRSAandMGF1" ecdsaKeyType = { PublicKeyType: "id-ecPublicKey" ; OID: 1.2.840.10045.2.1 namedCurve: $ecdsaCurve SignatureType: $ecdsaSignatureType } $ecdsaCurve /= "secp256r1" ; OID: 1.2.840.10045.3.1.7 $ecdsaCurve /= "secp384r1" ; OID: 1.3.132.0.34 $ecdsaCurve /= "secp521r1" ; OID: 1.3.132.0.3 $ecdsaSignatureType /= "ecdsa-with-SHA256" ; paired with secp256r1 $ecdsaSignatureType /= "ecdsa-with-SHA384" ; paired with secp384r1 Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 34] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 $ecdsaSignatureType /= "ecdsa-with-SHA512" ; paired with secp521r1 subjectaltname = { ? DNS: [ 1* regtext-or-wildcard ] ? Email: [ 1* regtext ] ? URI: [ 1* regtext ] * $$subjectaltname-extension } extensions = { ? keyUsage: [ 1* keyUsageType ] ? extendedKeyUsage: [ 1* extendedKeyUsageType ] subjectAltName: subjectaltname } keyUsageType /= "digitalSignature" keyUsageType /= "nonRepudiation" keyUsageType /= "keyEncipherment" keyUsageType /= "dataEncipherment" keyUsageType /= "keyAgreement" keyUsageType /= "keyCertSign" keyUsageType /= "cRLSign" keyUsageType /= "encipherOnly" keyUsageType /= "decipherOnly" extendedKeyUsageType /= "serverAuth" extendedKeyUsageType /= "clientAuth" extendedKeyUsageType /= "codeSigning" extendedKeyUsageType /= "emailProtection" extendedKeyUsageType /= "timeStamping" extendedKeyUsageType /= "OCSPSigning" Appendix C. CSR Template: JSON Schema This appendix includes an alternative, non-normative, JSON Schema definition of the CSR template. The syntax used is that of draft 7 of JSON Schema, which is documented in [json-schema-07]. Note that later versions of this (now expired) draft describe later versions of the JSON Schema syntax. At the time of writing, a stable reference for this syntax is not yet available, and we have chosen to use the draft version which is currently best supported by tool implementations. While the CSR template must follow the syntax defined here, neither the IdO nor the NDC are expected to validate it at run-time. Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 35] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 { "title": "JSON Schema for the STAR Delegation CSR template", "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#", "$id": "http://ietf.org/acme/drafts/star-delegation/csr-template", "$defs": { "distinguished-name": { "$id": "#distinguished-name", "type": "object", "minProperties": 1, "properties": { "country": { "type": "string" }, "stateOrProvince": { "type": "string" }, "locality": { "type": "string" }, "organization": { "type": "string" }, "organizationalUnit": { "type": "string" }, "emailAddress": { "type": "string" }, "commonName": { "type": "string" } }, "additionalProperties": false }, "rsaKeyType": { "$id": "#rsaKeyType", "type": "object", "properties": { "PublicKeyType": { "type": "string", "const": "rsaEncryption" }, "PublicKeyLength": { "type": "integer", "minimum": 2048, "multipleOf": 8 }, "SignatureType": { Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 36] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 "type": "string", "enum": [ "sha256WithRSAEncryption", "sha384WithRSAEncryption", "sha512WithRSAEncryption", "sha256WithRSAandMGF1", "sha384WithRSAandMGF1", "sha512WithRSAandMGF1" ] } }, "required": [ "PublicKeyType", "PublicKeyLength", "SignatureType" ], "additionalProperties": false }, "ecdsaKeyType": { "$id": "#ecdsaKeyType", "type": "object", "properties": { "PublicKeyType": { "type": "string", "const": "id-ecPublicKey" }, "namedCurve": { "type": "string", "enum": [ "secp256r1", "secp384r1", "secp521r1" ] }, "SignatureType": { "type": "string", "enum": [ "ecdsa-with-SHA256", "ecdsa-with-SHA384", "ecdsa-with-SHA512" ] } }, "required": [ "PublicKeyType", "namedCurve", "SignatureType" ], Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 37] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 "additionalProperties": false } }, "type": "object", "properties": { "keyTypes": { "type": "array", "items": { "oneOf": [ { "$ref": "#rsaKeyType" }, { "$ref": "#ecdsaKeyType" } ] } }, "subject": { "$ref": "#distinguished-name" }, "extensions": { "type": "object", "properties": { "keyUsage": { "type": "array", "minItems": 1, "items": { "type": "string", "enum": [ "digitalSignature", "nonRepudiation", "keyEncipherment", "dataEncipherment", "keyAgreement", "keyCertSign", "cRLSign", "encipherOnly", "decipherOnly" ] } }, "extendedKeyUsage": { "type": "array", "minItems": 1, "items": { "type": "string", "enum": [ Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 38] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 "serverAuth", "clientAuth", "codeSigning", "emailProtection", "timeStamping", "OCSPSigning" ] } }, "subjectAltName": { "type": "object", "minProperties": 1, "properties": { "DNS": { "type": "array", "minItems": 1, "items": { "type": "string", "format": "hostname" } }, "Email": { "type": "array", "minItems": 1, "items": { "type": "string", "format": "email" } }, "URI": { "type": "array", "minItems": 1, "items": { "type": "string", "format": "uri" } } }, "additionalProperties": false } }, "required": [ "subjectAltName" ], "additionalProperties": false } }, "required": [ Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 39] Internet-Draft ACME STAR Delegation March 2021 "extensions", "keyTypes" ], "additionalProperties": false } Authors' Addresses Yaron Sheffer Intuit Email: yaronf.ietf@gmail.com Diego López Telefonica I+D Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com Antonio Agustín Pastor Perales Telefonica I+D Email: antonio.pastorperales@telefonica.com Thomas Fossati ARM Email: thomas.fossati@arm.com Sheffer, et al. Expires 8 September 2021 [Page 40]