Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Fieau, Ed.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Fieau, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9538 E. Stephan
Category: Standards Track Orange
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Mishra
Verizon
February 2024

Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Delegation Using the
Automated Certificate Management Environment

Abstract

This document defines metadata to support delegating the delivery of
HTTPS content between two or more interconnected Content Delivery
Networks (CDNs). Specifically, this document defines a Content
Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Metadata interface object to
enable delegation of X.509 certificates leveraging delegation schemes
defined in RFC 9115. Per RFC 9115, delegating entities can remain in
full control of the delegation and can revoke it at any time. This
avoids the need to share private cryptographic key material between
the involved entities.

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/rfc9538.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology
2. Advertising Delegation Metadata for CDNI through FCI
3. ACME Delegation Metadata for CDNI
3.1. ACMEDelegationMethod Object
3.1.1. Examples
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. CDNI MI ACMEDelegationMethod Payload Type
5. Security Considerations
6. References
6.1. Normative References
6.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

Content delivery over HTTPS using two or more cooperating CDNs along
the path requires credential management, specifically when DNS-based
redirection is used. In such cases, an upstream CDN (uCDN) needs to
delegate its credentials to a downstream CDN (dCDN) for content
delivery.

[RFC9115] defines delegation methods that allow a uCDN on behalf of
the content provider, the holder of the domain, to generate on-demand
an X.509 certificate that binds the designated domain name with a key
pair owned by the dCDN. For further details, please refer to
Sections 1 and 5.1.2.1 of [RFC9115].

This document defines CDNI Metadata to make use of HTTPS delegation
between a uCDN and a dCDN based on the mechanism specified in
[RFC9115]. Furthermore, it adds a delegation method to the "CDNI
Payload Types" IANA registry.

Section 2 presents delegation metadata for the Footprint &
Capabilities Advertisement interface (FCI). Section 3 addresses the
metadata for handling HTTPS delegation with the Metadata interface.

1.1. Terminology

This document uses terminology from CDNI framework documents such as:
CDNI framework document [RFC7336] and CDNI interface specifications
documents: CDNI Metadata interface [RFC8006] and CDNI Footprint and
Capabilities Advertisement interface [RFC8008]. It also uses
terminology from Section 1.2 of [RFC8739] and Section 1.1 of
[RFC9115], including Short-Term, Automatically Renewed (STAR), as
applied to X.509 certificates.

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. Advertising Delegation Metadata for CDNI through FCI

The Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface (FCI) defined in
[RFC8008] allows a dCDN to send a FCI capability type object to a
uCDN.

This document uses the CDNI Metadata capability object serialization
from [RFC8008] for a CDN that supports delegation methods.

The following is an example of the supported delegated methods
capability object for a dCDN implementing the ACME delegation method.

{
"capabilities": [
{
"capability-type": "FCI.Metadata",
"capability-value": {
"metadata": [
// list of supported delegation methods
"ACMEDelegationMethod"
]
},
"footprints": [
"Footprint objects"
]
}
]
}

3. ACME Delegation Metadata for CDNI

When a uCDN delegates the delivery of HTTPS traffic to a dCDN using
DNS redirection [RFC7336], the dCDN must use a certificate bound to
the origin's name to successfully authenticate to the end-user (see
also Section 5.1.2.1 of [RFC9115]).

To that end, this section defines the AcmeDelegationMethod object,
which describes metadata for using the ACME delegation interface
[RFC9115].

The ACMEDelegationMethod applies to both ACME STAR delegation, which
provides a delegation model based on short-term certificates with
automatic renewal (Section 2.3.2 of [RFC9115]), and non-STAR
delegation, which allows delegation between CDNs using long-term
certificates (Section 2.3.3 of [RFC9115]).

Figure 1 provides a high-level view of the combined CDNI and ACME
delegation message flows to obtain a STAR certificate from the
Certification Authority (CA) bound to the Content Provider's (CP)
name.

----. .----. .----. .----.
|dCDN| |uCDN| | CP | | CA |
'-+--' '-+--' '--+-' '--+-'
| GET metadata | | |
+--------[CDNI]------>| | |
| 200 OK, metadata | | |
| (inc. dele config) | | |
|<-------[CDNI]-------+ | |
| | | |
| GET delegation | | |
+-----[ACME dele]---->| | |
| 200 OK, delegation | | |
| (inc. CSR template) | | |
|<----[ACME dele]-----+ | |
| | | |
+----. | | |
| | | | |
| create key pair and| | |
| CSR w/ delegated | | |
| name | | |
| | | | |
|<---' | | |
| | | |
| POST Order1 | | |
+-----[ACME dele]---->| | |
| | forward Order1 | |
| +-----[ACME dele]---->| |
| | | POST Order2 |
| | +-----[ACME STAR]----->|
| | | |
| | |<---authorizations--->|
| | | |
|<---wait issuance--->|<---wait issuance--->|<---wait issuance---->|
| |
| (unauthenticated) GET star-certificate |
+----------------------------------------------------------------->|
| certificate #1 |
|<-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| ... |

Figure 1: Example Call Flow of STAR Delegation in CDNI Showing
Two Levels of Delegation

| Note: The delegation object defined in Section 2.3.1.3 of
| [RFC9115] only allows DNS mappings to be specified using CNAME
| RRs. A future document updating [RFC9115] could expand the
| delegation object to also include SVCB/HTTPS-based mappings
| [RFC9460].

Section 3.1 defines the objects used for bootstrapping the ACME
delegation method between a uCDN and a delegate dCDN.

3.1. ACMEDelegationMethod Object

The ACMEDelegationMethod object allows a uCDN to define both STAR and
non-STAR delegations. The dCDN, the consumer of the delegation, can
determine the type of delegation by the presence (or absence) of the
"lifetime" property. That is, the presence of the "lifetime"
property explicitly means a short-term delegation with lifetime of
the certificate based on that property (and the optional "lifetime-
adjust" attribute). A non-STAR delegation will not have the
"lifetime" property in the delegation. See also the examples in
Section 3.1.1.

The ACMEDelegationMethod object is defined with the properties shown
below.

* Property: acme-delegation

- Description: A URL pointing at an ACME delegation object,
either STAR or non-STAR, associated with the dCDN account on
the uCDN ACME server (see Section 2.3.1.3 of [RFC9115] for the
details). The URL MUST use the https scheme.

- Type: String

- Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes

* Property: time-window

- Description: Validity period of the certificate. According to
Section 4.3.4 of [RFC8006], a TimeWindow object is defined by a
window "start" time and a window "end" time. In the case of a
STAR method, the "start" and "end" properties of the window
MUST be understood respectively as the start-date and end-date
of the certificate validity. In the case of a non-STAR method,
the "start" and "end" properties of the window MUST be
understood, respectively, as the notBefore and notAfter fields
of the certificate.

- Type: TimeWindow

- Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes

* Property: lifetime

- Description: See lifetime in Section 3.1.1 of [RFC8739]

- Type: Integer

- Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes, only if a STAR delegation method is
specified

* Property: lifetime-adjust

- Description: See lifetime-adjust in Section 3.1.1 of [RFC8739]

- Type: Integer

- Mandatory-to-Specify: No

3.1.1. Examples

The following example shows an ACMEDelegationMethod object for a
STAR-based ACME delegation.

{
"generic-metadata-type": "MI.ACMEDelegationMethod",
"generic-metadata-value": {
"acme-delegation": "https://acme.ucdn.example/delegation/ogfr",
"time-window": {
"start": 1665417434,
"end": 1665676634
},
"lifetime": 345600,
"lifetime-adjust": 259200
}
}

The example below shows an ACMEDelegationMethod object for a non-STAR
ACME delegation. The delegation object is defined as per Section 4.3
of [RFC8006].

{
"generic-metadata-type": "MI.ACMEDelegationMethod",
"generic-metadata-value": {
"acme-delegation": "https://acme.ucdn.example/delegation/wSi5",
"time-window": {
"start": 1570982234,
"end": 1665417434
}
}
}

4. IANA Considerations

Per this document, the following type has been registered in the
"CDNI Payload Types" registry:

+=========================+===========+
| Payload Type | Reference |
+=========================+===========+
| MI.ACMEDelegationMethod | RFC 9538 |
+-------------------------+-----------+

Table 1

4.1. CDNI MI ACMEDelegationMethod Payload Type

Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to distinguish
AcmeDelegationMethod MI objects (and any associated capability
advertisement)

Interface: MI/FCI

Encoding: See Section 3.1

5. Security Considerations

The metadata object defined in this document does not introduce any
new security or privacy concerns over those already discussed in
[RFC9115], [RFC8006], and [RFC8008].

The reader is expected to understand the ACME delegation trust model
(Section 7.1 of [RFC9115]) and security goal (Section 7.2 of
[RFC9115]). In particular, the reader is expected to understand that
it is critical to protect the user account associated with the
delegation; this account authorizes all the security-relevant
operations between a dCDN and a uCDN over the ACME channel. The
dCDN's ACME account is also relevant to the privacy of the entire
scheme; for example, the acme-delegation resource in the Metadata
object is only accessible to the holder of the account key, who is
allowed to fetch its content exclusively via POST-as-GET
(Section 2.3.1.2 of [RFC9115]).

In addition, the Metadata interface authentication and
confidentiality requirements defined in Section 8 of [RFC8006] MUST
be followed.

Implementers MUST adhere to the security considerations defined in
Section 7 of [RFC8008], "Content Delivery Network Interconnection
(CDNI) Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities Semantics".

When TLS is used to achieve the above security objectives, the
general TLS usage guidance in [RFC9325] MUST be followed.

6. References

6.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC8006] Niven-Jenkins, B., Murray, R., Caulfield, M., and K. Ma,
"Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI)
Metadata", RFC 8006, DOI 10.17487/RFC8006, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8006>.

[RFC8008] Seedorf, J., Peterson, J., Previdi, S., van Brandenburg,
R., and K. Ma, "Content Delivery Network Interconnection
(CDNI) Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities
Semantics", RFC 8008, DOI 10.17487/RFC8008, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8008>.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "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>.

[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8739>.

[RFC9115] Sheffer, Y., López, D., Pastor Perales, A., and T.
Fossati, "An Automatic Certificate Management Environment
(ACME) Profile for Generating Delegated Certificates",
RFC 9115, DOI 10.17487/RFC9115, September 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9115>.

[RFC9325] Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.

6.2. Informative References

[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7336>.

[RFC9460] Schwartz, B., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Service Binding
and Parameter Specification via the DNS (SVCB and HTTPS
Resource Records)", RFC 9460, DOI 10.17487/RFC9460,
November 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9460>.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank authors of the [RFC9115], Antonio Augustín
Pastor Perales, Diego López, Thomas Fossati, and Yaron Sheffer.
Additionally, our gratitude to Thomas Fossati who participated in the
drafting, reviewing, and giving his feedback in finalizing this
document. We also thank CDNI co-chair Kevin Ma for his continual
review and feedback during the development of this document.

Authors' Addresses

Frédéric Fieau (editor)
Orange
40-48, avenue de la République
92320 Châtillon
France
Email: [email protected]

Emile Stephan
Orange
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
22300 Lannion
France
Email: [email protected]

Sanjay Mishra
Verizon
13100 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904
United States of America
Email: [email protected]