draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names-03.txt   draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names-04.txt 
NETWORK WORKING GROUP N. Williams NETWORK WORKING GROUP N. Williams
Internet-Draft Sun Internet-Draft Sun
Intended status: Informational September 12, 2006 Expires: May 22, 2008 November 19, 2007
Expires: March 16, 2007
GSS-API Domain-Based Service Names and Name Type GSS-API Internationalization and Domain-Based Service Names and Name
draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names-03.txt Type
draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-domain-based-names-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 16, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
This document describes domainname-based service principal names and This document describes domainname-based service principal names and
the corresponding name type for the Generic Security Service the corresponding name type for the Generic Security Service
Application Programming Interface (GSS-API). Application Programming Interface (GSS-API). Internationalization of
the GSS-API is also covered.
Domain-based service names are similar to host-based service names, Domain-based service names are similar to host-based service names,
but using a domain name (not necessarily an Internet domain name) in but using a domain name (not necessarily an Internet domain name) in
addition to a hostname. The primary purpose of domain-based names is addition to a hostname. The primary purpose of domain-based names is
to provide a measure of protection to applications that utilize to provide a measure of protection to applications that utilize
insecure service discovery protocols. This is achieved by providing insecure service discovery protocols. This is achieved by providing
a way to name clustered services after the "domain" which they a way to name clustered services after the "domain" which they
service, thereby allowing their clients to authorize the service's service, thereby allowing their clients to authorize the service's
servers based on authentication of their service names. servers based on authentication of their service names.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Name Type OID and Symbolic Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Name Type OID and Symbolic Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Query and Display Syntaxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Query and Display Syntaxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Examples of domain-based names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Examples of domain-based names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Application protocol examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Internationalization (I18N) considerations . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. NFSv4 domain-wide namespace root server discovery . . . . . 7 5.1. Importing internationalized names . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. LDAP server discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Displaying internationalized names . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Application protocol examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. NFSv4 domain-wide namespace root server discovery . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. LDAP server discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 11 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 13
1. Conventions used in this document 1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
Some applications need to discover the names of servers for a Some applications need to discover the names of servers for a
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
service. service.
A domain-based name consists of three required elements: A domain-based name consists of three required elements:
o a service name o a service name
o a domain name o a domain name
o a hostname o a hostname
For the purposes of domain-based names a "domain" is defined by the The domain name and the hostname should be Domain Name System (DNS)
applications that use domain-based names. An application protocol names, though domain-based names could be used in non-DNS
might use a simple DNS domainname, such as "example.com" for naming, environments. Because of the use of DNS names we must also provide
while another it might use the DNS domainname of the SRV RRs it for internationalization of the GSS-API.
queries (e.g., "_tcp._foo.example.com"), and yet another may use
something that does not resemble a DNS domainname. Application
protocol specifications that provide for use of domain-based service
names MUST define the domain-portion of their domain-based names.
Note that domain-based naming isn't new. According to a report to Note that domain-based naming isn't new. According to a report to
the KITTEN WG mailing list there exists at least one implementation the KITTEN WG mailing list there exists at least one implementation
of LDAP which uses domain-based service naming, and the DIGEST-MD5 of LDAP which uses domain-based service naming, and the DIGEST-MD5
HTTP/SASL mechanism [RFC2831] describes a similar notion (see section HTTP/SASL mechanism [RFC2831] describes a similar notion (see section
2.1.2, description of the "serv-name" field of the digest-response). 2.1.2, description of the "serv-name" field of the digest-response).
3. Name Type OID and Symbolic Name 3. Name Type OID and Symbolic Name
The new name type has an OID of The new name type has an OID of
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
based MNs; hostnames MUST NOT contain '@'. based MNs; hostnames MUST NOT contain '@'.
4.1. Examples of domain-based names 4.1. Examples of domain-based names
These examples are not normative: These examples are not normative:
o ldap@example.tld@ds1.example.tld o ldap@example.tld@ds1.example.tld
o nfs@example.tld@nfsroot1.example.tld o nfs@example.tld@nfsroot1.example.tld
5. Application protocol examples 5. Internationalization (I18N) considerations
We introduce new versions of GSS_Import_name() and GSS_Display_name()
to better support Unicode. Additionally we provide for the use of
ACE-encoded DNS in the non-internationalized interfaces [RFC3490].
5.1. Importing internationalized names
When the input_name_type parameter is the
GSS_C_NT_DOMAINBASED_SERVICE OID then GSS_Import_name()
implementations and GSS-API mechanisms MUST accept ACE-encoded
internationalized domain names in the hostname and domain name slots
of the given domain-based name string.
Support for non-ASCII internationalized domain names SHOULD be
provided through a new function, GSS_Import_name_utf8(), that
operates exactly like GSS_Import_name(), except that it MUST accept
internationalized domain names both, as UTF-8 strings and as ACE-
encoded strings via its input_name_string argument.
5.2. Displaying internationalized names
Implementations of GSS_Display_name() MUST only output US-ASCII or
ACE-encoded internationalized domain names in the hostname and domain
name slots of domain-based names (or mechanism names (MN) that
conform to the mechanism's form for domain-based names).
Support for non-ASCII internationalized domain names SHOULD be
provided through a new function, GSS_Display_name_utf8(), that
operates exactly like GSS_Display_name(), except that it outputs
UTF-8 strings via its name_string output argument.
GSS_Display_name_utf8() MUST NOT output ACE-encoded internationalized
domain names.
6. Application protocol examples
The following examples are not normative. They describe how the The following examples are not normative. They describe how the
author envisions two applications' use of domain-based names. author envisions two applications' use of domain-based names.
5.1. NFSv4 domain-wide namespace root server discovery 6.1. NFSv4 domain-wide namespace root server discovery
Work is ongoing to provide a method for constructing domain-wide Work is ongoing to provide a method for constructing domain-wide
NFSv4 [RFC3530] filesystem namespaces where there is a single "root" NFSv4 [RFC3530] filesystem namespaces where there is a single "root"
with one or more servers (replicas) and multiple filesystems glued with one or more servers (replicas) and multiple filesystems glued
into the namespace through use of "referrals." Clients could then into the namespace through use of "referrals." Clients could then
construct a "global" namespace through use of the DNS domain construct a "global" namespace through use of the DNS domain
hierarchy. hierarchy.
Here clients would always know, from context, when they need to find Here clients would always know, from context, when they need to find
the root servers for a given DNS domain. Root server discovery would the root servers for a given DNS domain. Root server discovery would
be performed using DNS SRV RR lookups, without using DNSSEC where be performed using DNS SRV RR lookups, without using DNSSEC where
DNSSEC has not been deployed. DNSSEC has not been deployed.
When using RPCSEC_GSS [RFC2203] for security NFSv4 clients would then When using RPCSEC_GSS [RFC2203] for security NFSv4 clients would then
use domain-based names to ensure that that the servers named in the use domain-based names to ensure that that the servers named in the
SRV RRs are in fact authorized to be the NFSv4 root servers for the SRV RRs are in fact authorized to be the NFSv4 root servers for the
target domain. target domain.
5.2. LDAP server discovery 6.2. LDAP server discovery
LDAP clients using the GSS-API through SASL too would benefit from LDAP clients using the GSS-API through SASL too would benefit from
use of domain-based names to protect server discovery through use of domain-based names to protect server discovery through
insecure DNS SRV RR lookups, much as described above. insecure DNS SRV RR lookups, much as described above.
Unlike NFSv4 clients, not all LDAP clients may always know from Unlike NFSv4 clients, not all LDAP clients may always know from
context when they should use domain-based names. That's because context when they should use domain-based names. That's because
existing clients may use host-based naming to authenticate servers existing clients may use host-based naming to authenticate servers
discovered through SRV RR lookups. Changing such clients to use discovered through SRV RR lookups. Changing such clients to use
domain-based naming when domain-based acceptor credentials have not domain-based naming when domain-based acceptor credentials have not
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
issue here. Therefore LDAP clients may require additional issue here. Therefore LDAP clients may require additional
configuration at deployment time to enable (or disable) use of configuration at deployment time to enable (or disable) use of
domain-based naming. domain-based naming.
Note: whether SASL [RFC4422] or its GSS-API bridges Note: whether SASL [RFC4422] or its GSS-API bridges
[I-D.ietf-sasl-gssapi] [I-D.josefsson-sasl-gs2] require updates in [I-D.ietf-sasl-gssapi] [I-D.josefsson-sasl-gs2] require updates in
order allow use of domain-based names is not relevant to the theory order allow use of domain-based names is not relevant to the theory
of how domain-based naming would protect LDAP clients' server of how domain-based naming would protect LDAP clients' server
discovery. discovery.
6. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Use of GSS-API domain-based names may not be negotiable by some GSS- Use of GSS-API domain-based names may not be negotiable by some GSS-
API mechanisms, and some acceptors may not support GSS-API domain- API mechanisms, and some acceptors may not support GSS-API domain-
based names. In such cases initiators are left to fallback on the based names. In such cases initiators are left to fallback on the
use of hostbased names, in which case the initiators MUST also verify use of hostbased names, in which case the initiators MUST also verify
that the acceptor's hostbased name is authorized to provide the given that the acceptor's hostbased name is authorized to provide the given
service for the domain that the initiator had wanted. service for the domain that the initiator had wanted.
The above security consideration also applies to all GSS-API The above security consideration also applies to all GSS-API
initiators who lack support for domain-based service names. initiators who lack support for domain-based service names.
7. References 8. References
7.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program [RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000. Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000. February 2000.
[RFC2831] Leach, P. and C. Newman, "Using Digest Authentication as a [RFC2831] Leach, P. and C. Newman, "Using Digest Authentication as a
SASL Mechanism", RFC 2831, May 2000. SASL Mechanism", RFC 2831, May 2000.
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3490, March 2003.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, March 2005. RFC 4033, March 2005.
7.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sasl-gssapi] [I-D.ietf-sasl-gssapi]
Melnikov, A., "The Kerberos V5 ("GSSAPI") SASL mechanism", Melnikov, A., "The Kerberos V5 ("GSSAPI") SASL mechanism",
draft-ietf-sasl-gssapi-06 (work in progress), June 2006. draft-ietf-sasl-gssapi-08 (work in progress),
September 2006.
[I-D.josefsson-sasl-gs2] [I-D.josefsson-sasl-gs2]
Josefsson, S., "Using GSS-API Mechanisms in SASL: The GS2 Josefsson, S., "Using GSS-API Mechanisms in SASL: The GS2
Mechanism Family", draft-josefsson-sasl-gs2-00 (work in Mechanism Family", draft-josefsson-sasl-gs2-00 (work in
progress), November 2005. progress), November 2005.
[RFC2203] Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol [RFC2203] Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol
Specification", RFC 2203, September 1997. Specification", RFC 2203, September 1997.
[RFC3530] Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R., [RFC3530] Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R.,
skipping to change at page 11, line 7 skipping to change at page 13, line 7
Nicolas Williams Nicolas Williams
Sun Microsystems Sun Microsystems
5300 Riata Trace Ct 5300 Riata Trace Ct
Austin, TX 78727 Austin, TX 78727
US US
Email: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com Email: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 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 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 76 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/