Network Working Group                                        R. Housley
Request for Comments: 2585                                       SPYRUS
Category: Standards Track                                    P. Hoffman
                                                                   IMC
                                                              May 1999


               Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
                 Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP

Status of this Memo

  This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
  Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
  improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
  Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
  and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

  The protocol conventions described in this document satisfy some of
  the operational requirements of the Internet Public Key
  Infrastructure (PKI).  This document specifies the conventions for
  using the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and the Hypertext Transfer
  Protocol (HTTP) to obtain certificates and certificate revocation
  lists (CRLs) from PKI repositories.  Additional mechanisms addressing
  PKIX operational requirements are specified in separate documents.

1  Introduction

  This specification is part of a multi-part standard for the Internet
  Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) using X.509 certificates and
  certificate revocation lists (CRLs).  This document specifies the
  conventions for using the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and the
  Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) to obtain certificates and CRLs
  from PKI repositories.  Additional mechanisms addressing PKI
  repository access are specified in separate documents.










Housley & Hoffman           Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 2585       PKIX Operational Protocols:  FTP and HTTP        May 1999


1.1. Model

  The following is a simplified view of the architectural model assumed
  by the Internet PKI specifications.

     +---+
     | C |                       +------------+
     | e | <-------------------->| End entity |
     | r |       Operational     +------------+
     | t |       transactions          ^
     |   |      and management         |  Management
     | / |       transactions          |  transactions
     |   |                             |                PKI users
     | C |                             v
     | R |       -------------------+--+-----------+-----------------
     | L |                          ^              ^
     |   |                          |              |   PKI management
     |   |                          v              |       entities
     | R |                       +------+          |
     | e | <---------------------| RA   | <---+    |
     | p |  Publish certificate  +------+     |    |
     | o |                                    |    |
     | s |                                    |    |
     | I |                                    v    v
     | t |                                +------------+
     | o | <------------------------------|     CA     |
     | r |   Publish certificate          +------------+
     | y |   Publish CRL                         ^
     |   |                                       |
     +---+                        Management     |
                                  transactions   |
                                                 v
                                             +------+
                                             |  CA  |
                                             +------+

  The components in this model are:

  End Entity:  user of PKI certificates and/or end user system that is
               the subject of a certificate;

  CA:          certification authority;

  RA:          registration authority, i.e., an optional system to
               which a CA delegates certain management functions;






Housley & Hoffman           Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 2585       PKIX Operational Protocols:  FTP and HTTP        May 1999


  Repository:  a system or collection of distributed systems that store
               certificates and CRLs and serves as a means of
               distributing these certificates and CRLs to end
               entities.

1.2.  Certificate and CRL Repository

  Some CAs mandate the use of on-line validation services, while others
  distribute CRLs to allow certificate users to perform certificate
  validation themselves.  In general, CAs make CRLs available to
  certificate users by publishing them in the Directory.  The Directory
  is also the normal distribution mechanism for certificates.  However,
  Directory Services are not available in many parts of the Internet
  today. The File Transfer Protocol (FTP) defined in RFC 959 and the
  Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) defined in RFC 2068 offer
  alternate methods for certificate and CRL distribution.

  End entities and CAs may retrieve certificates and CRLs from the
  repository using FTP or HTTP.  End entities may publish their own
  certificate in the repository using FTP or HTTP, and RAs and CAs may
  publish certificates and CRLs in the repository using FTP or HTTP.

2  FTP Conventions

  Within certificate extensions and CRL extensions, the URI form of
  GeneralName is used to specify the location where issuer certificates
  and CRLs may be obtained.  For instance, a URI identifying the
  subject of a certificate may be carried in subjectAltName certificate
  extension. An IA5String describes the use of anonymous FTP to fetch
  certificate or CRL information.  For example:

     ftp://ftp.netcom.com/sp/spyrus/housley.cer
     ftp://ftp.your.org/pki/id48.cer
     ftp://ftp.your.org/pki/id48.no42.crl

  Internet users may publish the URI reference to a file that contains
  their certificate on their business card.  This practice is useful
  when there is no Directory entry for that user.  FTP is widely
  deployed, and anonymous FTP are accommodated by many firewalls.
  Thus, FTP is an attractive alternative to Directory access protocols
  for certificate and CRL distribution.  While this service satisfies
  the requirement to retrieve information related to a certificate
  which is already identified by a URI, it is not intended to satisfy
  the more general problem of finding a certificate for a user about
  whom some other information, such as their electronic mail address or
  corporate affiliation, is known.





Housley & Hoffman           Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 2585       PKIX Operational Protocols:  FTP and HTTP        May 1999


  For convenience, the names of files that contain certificates should
  have a suffix of ".cer".  Each ".cer" file contains exactly one
  certificate, encoded in DER format.  Likewise, the names of files
  that contain CRLs should have a suffix of ".crl".  Each ".crl" file
  contains exactly one CRL, encoded in DER format.

3  HTTP Conventions

  Within certificate extensions and CRL extensions, the URI form of
  GeneralName is used to specify the location where issuer certificates
  and CRLs may be obtained.  For instance, a URI identifying the
  subject of a certificate may be carried in subjectAltName certificate
  extension. An IA5String describes the use of HTTP to fetch
  certificate or CRL information.  For example:

     http://www.netcom.com/sp/spyrus/housley.cer
     http://www.your.org/pki/id48.cer
     http://www.your.org/pki/id48.no42.crl

  Internet users may publish the URI reference to a file that contains
  their certificate on their business card.  This practice is useful
  when there is no Directory entry for that user.  HTTP is widely
  deployed, and HTTP is accommodated by many firewalls.  Thus, HTTP is
  an attractive alternative to Directory access protocols for
  certificate and CRL distribution.  While this service satisfies the
  requirement to retrieve information related to a certificate which is
  already identified by a URI, it is not intended to satisfy the more
  general problem of finding a certificate for a user about whom some
  other information, such as their electronic mail address or corporate
  affiliation, is known.

  For convenience, the names of files that contain certificates should
  have a suffix of ".cer".  Each ".cer" file contains exactly one
  certificate, encoded in DER format.  Likewise, the names of files
  that contain CRLs should have a suffix of ".crl".  Each ".crl" file
  contains exactly one CRL, encoded in DER format.

4  MIME registrations

  Two MIME types are defined to support the transfer of certificates
  and CRLs.  They are:

     application/pkix-cert
     application/pkix-crl







Housley & Hoffman           Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 2585       PKIX Operational Protocols:  FTP and HTTP        May 1999


4.1. application/pkix-cert

  To: [email protected]
  Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/pkix-cert

  MIME media type name: application

  MIME subtype name: pkix-cert

  Required parameters: None

  Optional parameters: version (default value is "1")

  Encoding considerations: will be none for 8-bit transports and most
  likely Base64 for SMTP or other 7-bit transports

  Security considerations: Carries a cryptographic certificate

  Interoperability considerations: None

  Published specification: draft-ietf-pkix-ipki-part1

  Applications which use this media type: Any MIME-complaint transport

  Additional information:
    Magic number(s): None
    File extension(s): .CER
    Macintosh File Type Code(s): none

  Person & email address to contact for further information:
  Russ Housley <[email protected]>

  Intended usage: COMMON

  Author/Change controller:
  Russ Housley <[email protected]>

4.2. application/pkix-crl

  To: [email protected]
  Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/pkix-crl

  MIME media type name: application

  MIME subtype name: pkix-crl

  Required parameters: None




Housley & Hoffman           Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 2585       PKIX Operational Protocols:  FTP and HTTP        May 1999


  Optional parameters: version (default value is "1")

  Encoding considerations: will be none for 8-bit transports and most
  likely Base64 for SMTP or other 7-bit transports

  Security considerations: Carries a cryptographic certificate
  revocation list

  Interoperability considerations: None

  Published specification: draft-ietf-pkix-ipki-part1

  Applications which use this media type: Any MIME-complaint transport

  Additional information:
    Magic number(s): None
    File extension(s): .CRL
    Macintosh File Type Code(s): none

  Person & email address to contact for further information:
  Russ Housley <[email protected]>

  Intended usage: COMMON

  Author/Change controller:
  Russ Housley <[email protected]>

References

  [RFC 959]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol (FTP)",
              STD 5, RFC 959, October 1985.

  [RFC 1738]  Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L. and M. McCahill, "Uniform
              Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.

  [RFC 2068]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H. and
              T. Berners-Lee; "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
              RFC 2068, January 1997.

Security Considerations

  Since certificates and CRLs are digitally signed, no additional
  integrity service is necessary.  Neither certificates nor CRLs need
  be kept secret, and anonymous access to certificates and CRLs is
  generally acceptable.  Thus, no privacy service is necessary.






Housley & Hoffman           Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 2585       PKIX Operational Protocols:  FTP and HTTP        May 1999


  HTTP caching proxies are common on the Internet, and some proxies do
  not check for the latest version of an object correctly. If an HTTP
  request for a certificate or CRL goes through a misconfigured or
  otherwise broken proxy, the proxy may return an out-of-date response.

  Operators of FTP sites and World Wide Web servers should authenticate
  end entities who publish certificates as well as CAs and RAs who
  publish certificates and CRLs.  However, authentication is not
  necessary to retrieve certificates and CRLs.

Authors' Addresses

  Russell Housley
  SPYRUS
  381 Elden Street, Suite 1120
  Herndon, VA 20170 USA

  EMail: [email protected]


  Paul Hoffman
  Internet Mail Consortium
  127 Segre Place
  Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA

  EMail: [email protected]

























Housley & Hoffman           Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 2585       PKIX Operational Protocols:  FTP and HTTP        May 1999


Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

  This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
  others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
  or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
  and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
  kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
  included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
  document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
  the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
  Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
  developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
  copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
  followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
  English.

  The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
  revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

  This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
  "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
  TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
  BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
  HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
  MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

  Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
  Internet Society.



















Housley & Hoffman           Standards Track                     [Page 8]