Internet-Draft I18n Updates to RFC 5280 September 2023
Housley Expires 15 March 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8399bis-00
Obsoletes:
8399 (if approved)
Updates:
5280 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Author:
R. Housley
Vigil Security

Internationalization Updates to RFC 5280

Abstract

The updates to RFC 5280 described in this document provide alignment with the 2008 specification for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and includes support for internationalized email addresses in X.509 certificates.

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 15 March 2024.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This document updates the Introduction in Section 1, the Name Constraints certificate extension discussion in Section 4.2.1.10, and the Processing Rules for Internationalized Names in Section 7 of RFC 5280 [RFC5280] to provide alignment with the 2008 specification for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and includes support for internationalized email addresses in X.509 certificates.

An IDN in Unicode (native character) form contains at least one U-label [RFC5890]. IDNs are carried in certificates in ACE-encoded form. That is, all U-labels within an IDN are converted to A-labels. Conversion of a U-label to an A-label is described in [RFC5891].

The GeneralName structure supports many different name forms, including otherName for extensibility. RFC 8398 [RFC8398] specifies the SmtpUTF8Mailbox for internationalized email addresses.

Note that Internationalized Domain Names in Applications specifications published in 2003 (IDNA2003) [RFC3490] and 2008 (IDNA2008) [RFC5890] both refer to the Punycode algorithm for conversion [RFC3492].

1.1. 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.

1.2. Changes since RFC 8399

In some cases, [RFC8399] required conversion of A-labels to U-labels in order to process name constraints for internationalized email addresses. This lead to implementation complexity and at least two security vulnerabilities. Now, all Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) are carried and processed as A-labels.

2. Updates to RFC 5280

This section provides updates to several paragraphs of [RFC5280]. For clarity, if the entire section is not replaced, then the original text and the replacement text are shown.

2.1. Update in the Introduction (Section 1)

This update provides references for IDNA2008.

OLD

  * Enhanced support for internationalized names is specified in
    Section 7, with rules for encoding and comparing
    Internationalized Domain Names, Internationalized Resource
    Identifiers (IRIs), and distinguished names.  These rules are
    aligned with comparison rules established in current RFCs,
    including [RFC3490], [RFC3987], and [RFC4518].

NEW

  * Enhanced support for internationalized names is specified in
    Section 7, with rules for encoding and comparing
    Internationalized Domain Names, Internationalized Resource
    Identifiers (IRIs), and distinguished names.  These rules are
    aligned with comparison rules established in current RFCs,
    including [RFC3987], [RFC4518], [RFC5890], and [RFC5891].

2.2. Update in Name Constraints (Section 4.2.1.10)

This update removes the ability to include constraints for a particular mailbox. This capability was not used, and removing it allows name constraints to apply to email addresses in rfc822Name and SmtpUTF8Mailbox [RFC8398] within otherName.

OLD

   A name constraint for Internet mail addresses MAY specify a
   particular mailbox, all addresses at a particular host, or all
   mailboxes in a domain.  To indicate a particular mailbox, the
   constraint is the complete mail address.  For example,
   "root@example.com" indicates the root mailbox on the host
   "example.com".  To indicate all Internet mail addresses on a
   particular host, the constraint is specified as the host name.  For
   example, the constraint "example.com" is satisfied by any mail
   address at the host "example.com".  To specify any address within a
   domain, the constraint is specified with a leading period (as with
   URIs).  For example, ".example.com" indicates all the Internet mail
   addresses in the domain "example.com", but not Internet mail
   addresses on the host "example.com".

NEW

   A name constraint for Internet mail addresses MAY specify all
   addresses at a particular host or all mailboxes in a domain.  To
   indicate all Internet mail addresses on a particular host, the
   constraint is specified as the host name.  For example, the
   constraint "example.com" is satisfied by any mail address at the
   host "example.com".  To specify any address within a domain, the
   constraint is specified with a leading period (as with URIs).  For
   example, ".example.com" indicates all the Internet mail addresses
   in the domain "example.com" but not Internet mail addresses on
   the host "example.com".

2.3. Update in IDNs in GeneralName (Section 7.2)

This update aligns with IDNA2008. Since all of Section 7.2 is replaced, the OLD text is not provided.

NEW

   Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) may be included in certificates
   and CRLs in the subjectAltName and issuerAltName extensions, name
   constraints extension, authority information access extension,
   subject information access extension, CRL distribution points
   extension, and issuing distribution point extension.  Each of these
   extensions uses the GeneralName type; one choice in GeneralName is
   the dNSName field, which is defined as type IA5String.

   IA5String is limited to the set of ASCII characters.  To accommodate
   IDNs, U-labels are converted to A-labels.  The A-label is the
   encoding of the U-label according to the Punycode algorithm [RFC3492]
   with the ACE prefix "xn--" added at the beginning of the string.

   When comparing DNS names for equality, conforming implementations
   MUST perform a case-insensitive exact match on the entire DNS name.
   When evaluating name constraints, conforming implementations MUST
   perform a case-insensitive exact match on a label-by-label basis.  As
   noted in Section 4.2.1.10, any DNS name that may be constructed by
   adding labels to the left-hand side of the domain name given as the
   constraint is considered to fall within the indicated subtree.

   Implementations that have a user interface SHOULD convert IDNs to
   Unicode for display.  Specifically, conforming implementations
   convert A-labels to U-labels for display purposes.

   Implementation consideration: There are increased memory requirements
   for IDNs.  An IDN ACE label will begin with the four additional
   characters "xn--", and an IDN can require as many as five ASCII
   characters to specify a single international character.

2.4. Update in IDNs in Distinguished Names (Section 7.3)

This update aligns with IDNA2008.

OLD

   Domain Names may also be represented as distinguished names using
   domain components in the subject field, the issuer field, the
   subjectAltName extension, or the issuerAltName extension.  As with
   the dNSName in the GeneralName type, the value of this attribute is
   defined as an IA5String.  Each domainComponent attribute represents a
   single label.  To represent a label from an IDN in the distinguished
   name, the implementation MUST perform the "ToASCII" label conversion
   specified in Section 4.1 of RFC 3490.  The label SHALL be considered
   a "stored string".  That is, the AllowUnassigned flag SHALL NOT be
   set.

NEW

   Domain names may also be represented as distinguished names using
   domain components in the subject field, the issuer field, the
   subjectAltName extension, or the issuerAltName extension.  As with
   the dNSName in the GeneralName type, the value of this attribute is
   defined as an IA5String.  Each domainComponent attribute represents a
   single label.  To represent a label from an IDN in the distinguished
   name, the implementation MUST convert all U-labels to A-labels.

2.5. Update in Internationalized Electronic Mail Addresses (Section 7.5)

This update aligns with IDNA2008 and [RFC8398]. Since all of Section 7.5 is replaced, the OLD text is not provided.

NEW

   Electronic Mail addresses may be included in certificates and CRLs in
   the subjectAltName and issuerAltName extensions, name constraints
   extension, authority information access extension, subject
   information access extension, issuing distribution point extension,
   or CRL distribution points extension.  Each of these extensions uses
   the GeneralName construct.  If the email address includes an IDN but
   the local-part of the email address can be represented in ASCII, then
   the email address is placed in the rfc822Name choice of GeneralName,
   which is defined as type IA5String.  If the local-part of the
   internationalized email address cannot be represented in ASCII, then
   the internationalized email address is placed in the otherName choice
   of GeneralName using the conventions in RFC 8398 [RFC8398].

   When the host-part contains an IDN, conforming implementations MUST
   convert all U-labels to A-labels.

   7.5.1.  Local-Part Contains Only ASCII Characters

   Two email addresses are considered to match if:

      1) The local-part of each name is an exact match, AND

      2) The host-part of each name matches using a case-insensitive
         ASCII comparison.

   Implementations that have a user interface SHOULD convert the
   host-part of internationalized email addresses specified in these
   extensions to Unicode before display.  Specifically, conforming
   implementations convert A-labels to U-labels for display purposes.

   7.5.2.  Local-Part Contains Non-ASCII Characters

   When the local-part contains non-ASCII characters, conforming
   implementations MUST place the internationalized email address in the
   SmtpUTF8Mailbox within the otherName choice of GeneralName as
   specified in Section 3 of RFC 8398 [RFC8398].  Note that the UTF8
   encoding of the internationalized email address MUST NOT contain a
   Byte-Order-Mark (BOM) [RFC3629] to aid comparison.  The email address
   local-part within the SmtpUTF8Mailbox MUST conform to the
   requirements of [RFC6530] and [RFC6531].

   Two email addresses are considered to match if:

      1) The local-part of each name is an exact match, AND

      2) The host-part of each name matches using a case-insensitive
         ASCII comparison.

   Implementations that have a user interface SHOULD convert the
   host-part of internationalized email addresses specified in these
   extensions to Unicode before display.  Specifically, conforming
   implementations convert A-labels to U-labels for display purposes.

3. Security Considerations

Conforming CAs SHOULD ensure that IDNs are valid. This can be done by validating all code points according to IDNA2008 [RFC5892]. Failure to use valid A-labels may yield a domain name that cannot be correctly represented in the Domain Name System (DNS). In addition, the CA/Browser Forum offers some guidance regarding internal server names in certificates [CABF].

An earlier version of this specification [RFC8399] required conversion of A-labels to U-labels in order to process name constraints for internationalized email addresses in SmtpUTF8Mailbox other names. This lead to implementation complexity and at least two security vulnerabilities. Now, all Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) are carried and processed as A-labels.

4. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to David Benjamin and Wei Chuang.

References

Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC3492]
Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3492, DOI 10.17487/RFC3492, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3492>.
[RFC3629]
Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3629>.
[RFC3987]
Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, DOI 10.17487/RFC3987, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3987>.
[RFC4518]
Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Internationalized String Preparation", RFC 4518, DOI 10.17487/RFC4518, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4518>.
[RFC5280]
Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5280>.
[RFC5890]
Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5890>.
[RFC5891]
Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, DOI 10.17487/RFC5891, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5891>.
[RFC5892]
Faltstrom, P., Ed., "The Unicode Code Points and Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)", RFC 5892, DOI 10.17487/RFC5892, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5892>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8398]
Melnikov, A., Ed. and W. Chuang, Ed., "Internationalized Email Addresses in X.509 Certificates", RFC 8398, DOI 10.17487/RFC8398, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8398>.

Informative References

[CABF]
CA/Browser Forum, "Internal Server Names and IP Address Requirements for SSL: Guidance on the Deprecation of Internal Server Names and Reserved IP Addresses provided by the CA/Browser Forum", Version 1.0, , <https://cabforum.org/internal-names/>.
[RFC3490]
Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, DOI 10.17487/RFC3490, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3490>.
[RFC8399]
Housley, R., "Internationalization Updates to RFC 5280", RFC 8399, DOI 10.17487/RFC8399, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8399>.

Author's Address

Russ Housley
Vigil Security, LLC
Herndon, VA,
United States of America