Network Working Group J. Peterson

Network Working Group J. Peterson
Request for Comments: 3853 Neustar
Updates: 3261 July 2004
Category: Standards Track

S/MIME Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
Requirement for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

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 (2004).

Abstract

RFC 3261 currently specifies 3DES as the mandatory-to-implement
ciphersuite for implementations of S/MIME in the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP). This document updates the normative guidance of RFC
3261 to require the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) for S/MIME.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. S/MIME Ciphersuite Requirements for SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Peterson Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 3853 S/MIME AES Requirement for SIP July 2004

1. Introduction

The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) specification (RFC 3261 [1])
currently details optional support (a normative MAY) for the use of
secure MIME, or S/MIME (RFC 2633 [8]). Since RFC 3261 was published,
the S/MIME specification and the underlying Cryptographic Message
Syntax (CMS, RFC 3369 [3]) have undergone some revision. Ongoing
work has identified AES as a algorithm that might be used for content
encryption in S/MIME.

The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES [6]) is widely believed to be
faster than Triple-DES (3DES, which has previously been mandated for
usage with S/MIME) and to be comparably secure. AES is also believed
to have comparatively low memory requirements, which makes it
suitable for use in mobile or embedded devices, an important use-case
for SIP.

As an additional consideration, the SIP specification has a
recommendation (normative SHOULD) for support of Transport Layer
Security (TLS, RFC 2246 [7]). TLS support in SIP requires the usage
of AES. That means that currently, implementations that support both
TLS and S/MIME must support both 3DES and AES. A similar duplication
of effort exists with DSS in S/MIME as a digital signature algorithm
(the mandatory TLS ciphersuite used by SIP requires RSA). Unifying
the ciphersuite and signature algorithm requirements for TLS and
S/MIME would simplify security implementations.

It is therefore desirable to bring the S/MIME requirement for SIP
into parity with ongoing work on the S/MIME standard, as well as to
unify the algorithm requirements for TLS and S/MIME. To date, S/MIME
has not yet seen widespread deployment in SIP user agents, and
therefore the minimum ciphersuite for S/MIME could be updated without
obsoleting any substantial deployments of S/MIME for SIP (in fact,
these changes will probably make support for S/MIME easier). This
document therefore updates the normative requirements for S/MIME in
RFC 3261.

Note that work on these revisions in the S/MIME working group is
still in progress. This document will continue to track that work as
it evolves. By initiating this process in the SIP WG now, we provide
an early opportunity for input into the proposed changes and give
implementers some warning that the S/MIME requirements for SIP are
potentially changing.

Peterson Standards Track [Page 2]

RFC 3853 S/MIME AES Requirement for SIP July 2004

2. Terminology

In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [2] and indicate requirement levels for
compliant SIP implementations.

3. S/MIME Ciphersuite Requirements for SIP

The following updates the text of RFC 3261 Section 23.3, specifically
the fifth bullet point. The text currently reads:

o S/MIME implementations MUST at a minimum support SHA1 as a digital
signature algorithm, and 3DES as an encryption algorithm. All
other signature and encryption algorithms MAY be supported.
Implementations can negotiate support for these algorithms with
the "SMIMECapabilities" attribute.

This text is updated with the following:

S/MIME implementations MUST at a minimum support RSA as a digital
signature algorithm and SHA1 as a digest algorithm [5], and AES as an
encryption algorithm (as specified in [4]. For key transport, S/MIME
implementations MUST support RSA key transport as specified in
section 4.2.1. of [5]. S/MIME implementations of AES MUST support
128-bit AES keys, and SHOULD support 192 and 256-bit keys. Note that
the S/MIME specification [8] mandates support for 3DES as an
encryption algorithm, DH for key encryption and DSS as a signature
algorithm. In the SIP profile of S/MIME, support for 3DES, DH and
DSS is RECOMMENDED but not required. All other signature and
encryption algorithms MAY be supported. Implementations can
negotiate support for algorithms with the "SMIMECapabilities"
attribute.

Since SIP is 8-bit clean, all implementations MUST use 8-bit binary
Content-Transfer-Encoding for S/MIME in SIP. Implementations MAY
also be able to receive base-64 Content-Transfer-Encoding.

4. Security Considerations

The migration of the S/MIME requirement from Triple-DES to AES is not
known to introduce any new security considerations.

Peterson Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 3853 S/MIME AES Requirement for SIP July 2004

5. References

5.1. Normative References

[1] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[3] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 3369,
August 2002.

[4] Schaad, J., "Use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
Encryption Algorithm in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC
3565, July 2003.

[5] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithms",
RFC 3394, August 2002.

5.2. Informative References

[6] National Institute of Standards & Technology, "Advanced
Encryption Standard (AES).", FIPS 197, November 2001.

[7] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC
2246, January 1999.

[8] Ramsdell, B., Ed., "S/MIME Version 3.1 Message Specification",
RFC 3851, July 2004.

6. Acknowledgments

Thanks to Rohan Mahy, Gonzalo Camarillo, and Eric Rescorla for review
of this document.

Peterson Standards Track [Page 4]

RFC 3853 S/MIME AES Requirement for SIP July 2004

7. Author's Address

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.
1800 Sutter St
Suite 570
Concord, CA 94520
US

Phone: +1 925/363-8720
EMail: [email protected]
URI: http://www.neustar.biz/

Peterson Standards Track [Page 5]

RFC 3853 S/MIME AES Requirement for SIP July 2004

8. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
[email protected].

Acknowledgement

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

Peterson Standards Track [Page 6]