Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
93929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 8738

Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) IP Identifier Validation Extension

Pages: ~5
IETF/sec/acme/draft-ietf-acme-ip-08
Proposed Standard

Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738
R.B. Shoemaker, Ed.
Internet Security Research Group
February 2020

Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) IP Identifier Validation Extension

Abstract

This document specifies identifiers and challenges required to enable the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) to issue certificates for IP addresses.

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8738.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2020 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 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.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

1.  Introduction

The Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) [RFC 8555] only defines challenges for validating control of DNS host name identifiers, which limits its use to being used for issuing certificates for DNS identifiers. In order to allow validation of IPv4 and IPv6 identifiers for inclusion in X.509 certificates, this document specifies how challenges defined in the original ACME specification and the TLS-ALPN extension specification [RFC 8737] can be used to validate IP identifiers.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

2.  Terminology

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 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

3.  IP Identifier

[RFC 8555] only defines the identifier type "dns", which is used to refer to fully qualified domain names. If an ACME server wishes to request proof that a user controls an IPv4 or IPv6 address, it MUST create an authorization with the identifier type "ip". The value field of the identifier MUST contain the textual form of the address as defined in Section 2.1 of RFC 1123 for IPv4 and in Section 4 of RFC 5952 for IPv6.
An identifier for the IPv6 address 2001:db8::1 would be formatted like so:
{"type": "ip", "value": "2001:db8::1"}
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

4.  Identifier Validation Challenges

IP identifiers MAY be used with the existing "http-01" (see Section 8.3 of RFC 8555) and "tls-alpn-01" (see Section 3 of RFC 8737). To use IP identifiers with these challenges, their initial DNS resolution step MUST be skipped, and the IP address used for validation MUST be the value of the identifier.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

5.  HTTP Challenge

For the "http-01" challenge, the Host header field MUST be set to the IP address being used for validation per [RFC 7230]. The textual form of this address MUST be as defined in Section 2.1 of RFC 1123 for IPv4 and in Section 4 of RFC 5952 for IPv6.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

6.  TLS with Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (TLS ALPN) Challenge

For the "tls-alpn-01" challenge, the subjectAltName extension in the validation certificate MUST contain a single iPAddress that matches the address being validated. As [RFC 6066] does not permit IP addresses to be used in the Server Name Indication (SNI) extension HostName field, the server MUST instead use the IN-ADDR.ARPA [RFC 1034] or IP6.ARPA [RFC 3596] reverse mapping of the IP address as the HostName field value instead of the IP address string representation itself. For example, if the IP address being validated is 2001:db8::1, the SNI HostName field should contain "1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa".
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

7.  DNS Challenge

The existing "dns-01" challenge MUST NOT be used to validate IP identifiers.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  Identifier Types

Per this document, a new type has been added to the "ACME Identifier Types" registry defined in Section 9.7.7 of RFC 8555 with Label "ip" and Reference "RFC 8738".

8.2.  Challenge Types

Per this document, two new entries have been added to the "ACME Validation Methods" registry defined in Section 9.7.8 of RFC 8555. These entries are defined below:
Label Identifier Type ACME Reference
http-01 ip Y RFC 8738
tls-alpn-01 ip Y RFC 8738
Table 1
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

9.  Security Considerations

The extensions to ACME described in this document do not deviate from the broader threat model described in Section 10.1 of RFC 8555.

9.1.  Certification Authority (CA) Policy Considerations

This document only specifies how an ACME server may validate that a certificate applicant controls an IP identifier at the time of validation. The CA may wish to perform additional checks not specified in this document. For example, if the CA believes an IP identifier belongs to an ISP or cloud service provider with short delegation periods, they may wish to impose additional restrictions on certificates requested for that identifier.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

10.  Normative References

[RFC1034]
P.V. Mockapetris, "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1123]
R. Braden, "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1123>.
[RFC2119]
S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3596]
S. Thomson, C. Huitema, V. Ksinant, and M. Souissi, "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88, RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
[RFC5952]
S. Kawamura, and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.
[RFC6066]
D. Eastlake 3rd, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>.
[RFC7230]
R. Fielding, and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC8174]
B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8555]
R. Barnes, J. Hoffman-Andrews, D. McCarney, and J. Kasten, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)", RFC 8555, DOI 10.17487/RFC8555, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8555>.
[RFC8737]
R.B. Shoemaker, "Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Challenge Extension", RFC 8737, DOI 10.17487/RFC8737, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8737>.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank those who contributed to this document and offered editorial and technical input, especially Jacob Hoffman-Andrews and Daniel McCarney.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-8738

Author's Address

Roland Bracewell Shoemaker

Internet Security Research Group
Top   ToC