A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and Management Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-01-29. Web PKI OPS (wpkops) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Proposed Working Group Chairs: Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com> Assigned Area Director: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Mailing list Address: wpkops@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wpkops/ Charter of Working Group: The Web PKI is the set of systems, policies and procedures most commonly used, in conjunction with security protocols (e.g. TLS/SSL and OCSP), to protect the confidentiality, integrity and authenticity of communications between Web browsers and Web content servers. More specifically, the Web PKI (as considered here) consists of the fields included in the certificates issued to Web content and application providers by Certification Authorities (CAs), the certificate status services provided by the Authorities to Web browsers and their users, and the TLS/SSL protocol stacks embedded in web servers and browsers. The Web PKI first appeared in 1993 or thereabouts and has developed continuously in a somewhat organic fashion since then. Taking into account all the versions of Web servers and browsers that have been released in the intervening years, there are now hundreds of variations on the Web PKI in regular use. And this is a source of problems for end-users, certificate holders, and certificate issuers (CAs). For end-users (i.e. relying parties), there is no clear view whether certificate "problems" remain when they see indication of a "good" connection. For instance, in some browsers, a "good" indication is displayed when a "revoked" response has been received and "accepted" by the user, whereas other browsers refuse to display the contents under these circumstances. Many certificate holders are unsure which browser versions will reject their certificate if certain certificate profiles are not met, such as a subject public key that does not satisfy a minimum key size, or a certificate policies extension that does not contain a particular standard policy identifier. And for certificate issuers, it is difficult to predict whether a certificate chain with certain characteristics will be accepted. For instance, some browsers include a nonce in their OCSP requests and expect one in the corresponding responses, not all servers include a nonce in their replies, and this means some certificate chains will validate while others won't. Starting from the premise that more consistency in Web security behavior is desirable, a natural first step is to document current and historic browser and server behavior, including: the trust model on which they are based; the contents and processing of fields and extensions; the processing of the various revocation schemes; and how the TLS stack deals with PKI, including varying interpretations and implementation errors, as well as state changes visible to the user. Where appropriate, specific products and specific versions of those products will be identified. The effectiveness of the Web PKI depends critically upon decisions made by its users in response to information provided in the user interfaces of its various components. Therefore, such information should be accurate and complete, yet comprehensible. While recording the design details of the user interfaces of specific products is not necessary, state changes that are visible to, and/or controlled by, the user should be captured. Such a project has to be bounded. Therefore, only server-authentication behavior encountered in more than 0.1 percent of connections made by desktop and mobile browsers is to be considered. While it is not intended to apply the threshold with any precision, it will be used to justify the inclusion or exclusion of a technique. Future activities may attempt to prescribe how the Web PKI "should" work, and the prescription may turn out to be a proper subset of the PKIX PKI. However, that task is explicitly not a goal of the proposed working group. Instead, the group's goal is merely to describe how the Web PKI "actually" works in the set of browsers and servers that are in common use today. Additionally, a number of applications (such as client authentication, document signing, code signing, and email) often use the same trust anchors and certificate processing mechanisms as those used for Web server authentication. This reuse creates problems in some situations [1]. While these applications are outside the scope of this working group, deliverables should (wherever practical within the available expertise and time) identify mechanisms that are reused by other applications and identify the implications of that reuse. Also, the reliability of the Web PKI depends critically on the "practices" of its certificate issuers. These practices comprise how certificate issuers perform their functions and implement controls, and are described in documents known as "Certification Practice Statements" [2][3] and operational requirements documents [4][5]. However, the topic of certification practices is outside the scope of the working group. That there are technical shortcomings with Web PKI, as it is practiced today, is well recognized. And, that there is also some urgency in addressing these shortcomings is also well recognized. But, it is felt that too much haste can be counter-productive. The expectation is that the work of this group will bring to light, in a systematic way, aspects of the Web PKI that should be progressed in future working groups of the IETF's Security Area, and that Web servers, browsers and CAs will be willing to participate in those working groups and modify their products to comply with their standards. Given the urgency of the required developments and the scale of the task, it is agreed that adherence to the published schedule should take precedence over completeness of the results, without sacrificing technical correctness. Milestones ========== 1. First WG draft of "trust model" document (4 months). 2. First WG draft of "field and extension processing for certificates, CRLs, and OCSP responses" document (12 months). 3. First WG draft of "certificate revocation" document (8 months). 4. First WG draft of "TLS stack operation" document (8 months). 5. IESG submission of "trust model" document (16 months). 6. IESG submission of "field and extension processing for certificates, CRLs, and OCSP responses" document (24 months). 7. IESG submission of "certificate revocation" document (20 months). 8. IESG submission of "TLS stack operation" document (16 months). References: [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wpkops/current/msg00104.html [2] Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Policy and Certification Practices Framework. S. Chokhani et al, IETF RFC3647 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3647 [3] Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Policy requirements for certification authorities issuing public key certificates. ETSI TS 102 042 V2.2.1 (2011- 12) http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/102000_102099/102042/02.02. 01_60/ts_102042v020201p.pdf [4] Network and certificate system security requirements, CA/Browser Forum, Aug 2012, https://www.cabforum.org/Network_Security_Controls_V1.pdf [5] Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates Version 1.0, CA/Browser Forum, Nov 2011, https://www.cabforum.org/Baseline_Requirements_V1.pdf Milestones:
