ACME IP Identifier Validation Extension
draft-ietf-acme-ip-08

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (acme WG)
Last updated 2019-10-17 (latest revision 2019-10-01)
Replaces draft-shoemaker-acme-ip
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Daniel McCarney
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2018-08-27)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Roman Danyliw
Send notices to Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
IANA expert review state Expert Reviews OK
RFC Editor RFC Editor state EDIT
ACME Working Group                                          R. Shoemaker
Internet-Draft                                                      ISRG
Intended status: Standards Track                        October 01, 2019
Expires: April 3, 2020

                ACME IP Identifier Validation Extension
                         draft-ietf-acme-ip-08

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 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 April 3, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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.

Shoemaker                 Expires April 3, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   ACME-IP                    October 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  IP Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Identifier Validation Challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  HTTP Challenge  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   6.  TLS with Application Level Protocol Negotiation (TLS ALPN)
       Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   7.  DNS Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     8.1.  Identifier Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     8.2.  Challenge Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     9.1.  CA Policy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   11. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   The Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) [RFC8555]
   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
   [I-D.ietf-acme-tls-alpn] can be used to validate IP identifiers.

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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  IP Identifier

   [RFC8555] 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 a 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 [RFC1123] Section 2.1 for IPv4 and in [RFC5952]
   Section 4 for IPv6.

Shoemaker                 Expires April 3, 2020                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   ACME-IP                    October 2019

   An identifier for the IPv6 address 2001:db8::1 would be formatted
   like so:

   {"type": "ip", "value": "2001:db8::1"}

4.  Identifier Validation Challenges

   IP identifiers MAY be used with the existing "http-01" (see
Show full document text