RFC 4809:Requirements for an IPsec Certificate Man...
RFC-Ref

1. Introduction


   This document describes and identifies the requirements for
   transactions to handle PKC lifecycle transactions between [IPsec] VPN
   Systems using IKE ([IKEv1] and [IKEv2]) and PKI Systems.  This
   document contains requirements for a transaction-based approach.
   Other models are conceivable, for example, a directory-centric
   approach, but their requirements are beyond the scope of this
   document.

   This document enumerates requirements for Public Key Certificate
   (PKC) lifecycle transactions between different VPN System and PKI
   System products in order to better enable large scale, PKI-enabled
   IPsec deployments with a common set of transactions.  Requirements
   for both the IPsec and the PKI products are discussed.  The
   requirements are carefully designed to achieve security without
   compromising ease of management and deployment, even where the
   deployment involves tens of thousands of IPsec users and devices.

   The requirements address transactions for the entire PKC lifecycle
   for PKI-enabled VPN System: authorization (of PKC issuance),
   generation (public-private key pair and PKC request), enrollment (PKC
   request, PKC response, and confirmation), maintenance (rekey, renew,
   update, revoke, and confirm), and repository lookups.  These
   transactions enable a VPN Operator to:

     - Use a VPN Administration function (Admin), which is introduced in
       this document, to manage PKC authorization and possibly act as
       the sole interface for the VPN System and the PKI System.

     - Authorize individual or batches of PKC issuances based on a pre-
       agreed template (i.e., both types of authorization requests refer
       to the pre-agreed template).  These authorizations can occur
       either prior to the enrollment or in the same transaction as the
       enrollment.

     - Provision PKI-based user or machine identity to IPsec Peers, on a
       large scale.

     - Set the corresponding gateway or client authorization policy for
       remote access and site-to-site connections.

     - Establish policies for automatic PKC rekeys, renewals, and
       updates.

     - Ensure timely revocation information is available for PKCs used
       in IKE exchanges.

   These requirements are intended to be used to profile a certificate
   management protocol that the VPN System will use to communicate with
   the PKI System.  Note that this profile will be in another document.
   The certificate management profile will also clarify and constrain
   existing PKIX (PKI for X.509 Certificates) and IPsec standards to
   limit the complexity of deployment.  Some requirements may require
   either a new protocol, or changes or extensions to an existing
   protocol.

   The desired outcome of the requirements and profile documents is that
   both IPsec and PKI vendors create interoperable products to enable
   large-scale IPsec System deployments, and do so as quickly as
   possible.  For example, a VPN Operator should be able to use any
   conforming IPsec implementation (VPN Administration or IPsec Peer) of
   the certificate management profile with any conforming PKI vendor's
   implementation to perform the VPN rollout and management.


1.1. Scope


   The document addresses requirements on transactions between the VPN
   Systems and the PKI Systems and between the VPN Administration and
   IPsec Peers.  The requirements strive to meet eighty percent of the
   market needs for large-scale deployments (i.e., VPNs including
   hundreds or thousands of managed VPN gateways or VPN remote access
   clients).  Environments will understandably exist in which large-
   scale deployment tools are desired, but local security policy
   stringency will not allow for the use of such commercial tools.  The
   solution will possibly miss the needs of the highest ten percent of
   stringency and the lowest ten percent of convenience requirements.
   Use cases will be considered or rejected based upon this eighty
   percent rule.  The needs of small deployments are a stated non-goal;
   however, service providers employing the scoped solution and applying
   it to many smaller deployments in aggregate may address them.

   Gateway-to-gateway access and end-user remote access (to a gateway)
   are both covered.  End-to-end communications are not necessarily
   excluded, but are intentionally not a focus.

   Only VPN-PKI transactions that ease and enable scalable PKI-enabled
   IPsec deployments are addressed.


1.2. Non-Goals


   The scenario for PKC cross-certification will not be addressed.

   The protocol specification for the VPN-PKI interactions will not be
   addressed.

   The protocol specification for the VPN Administrator to Peer
   transactions will not be addressed.  These interactions are
   considered vendor proprietary.  These interactions may be
   standardized later to enable interoperability between VPN
   Administration function stations and IPsec Peers from different
   vendors, but are far beyond the scope of this current effort, and
   will be described as opaque transactions in this document.

   The protocol specification for Registration Authority - Certificate
   Authority (RA-CA), CA-Repository, and RA-Repository interactions will
   not be addressed.


1.3. Definitions


   VPN System
   The VPN System is comprised of the VPN Administration function
   (defined below), the IPsec Peers, and the communication mechanism
   between the VPN Administration and the IPsec Peers.  VPN System is
   defined in more detail in Section 2.1.

   PKI System
   The PKI System, or simply PKI, is the set of functions needed to
   authorize, issue, and manage PKCs.  PKI System is defined in more
   detail in Section 2.2.

   (VPN) Operator
   The Operator is the person or group of people that define security
   policy and configure the VPN System to enforce that policy, with the
   VPN Administration function.

   IPsec Peer (Gateway or Client)
   For the purposes of this document, an IPsec Peer, or simply "Peer",
   is any VPN System component that communicates IKE and IPsec to
   another Peer in order to create an IPsec Security Association for
   communications.  It can be either a traditional security gateway
   (with two network interfaces, one for the protected network and one
   for the unprotected network) or an IPsec client (with a single
   network interface).  In both cases, the Peer can pass traffic with no
   IPsec protection, and can add IPsec protection to chosen traffic
   streams.  See Section 2.1.1 for more details.

   (VPN) Admin
   The Admin is the VPN System function that interacts with the PKI
   System to establish PKC provisioning for the VPN connections.  See
   Section 2.1.2 for more details.

   End Entity
   An end entity is the entity or subject that is identified in a PKC.
   The end entity is the one entity that will finally use a private key
   associated with a PKC to digitally sign data.  In this document, an
   IPsec Peer is certainly an end entity, but the VPN Admin can also
   constitute an end entity.  Note that end entities can have different
   PKCs for different purposes (e.g., signature vs. key exchange,
   Admin-functions vs. Peer-functions).

   PKC Rekey
   The routine procedure for replacement of a PKC with a new PKC with a
   new public key for the same subject name.  A rekey process can rely
   on the existing key pair to bootstrap authentication for the new
   enrollment.

   PKC Renewal
   The acquisition of a new PKC with the same public key due to the
   expiration of an existing PKC.  Renewal occurs prior to the
   expiration of the existing PKC to avoid any connection outages.  A
   renewal process can rely on the existing key pair to bootstrap
   authentication for the new enrollment.

   PKC Update
   A special case of a renewal-like occurrence where a PKC needs to be
   changed prior to expiration due to some change in its subject's
   information.  Examples might include change in the address, telephone
   number, or name change due to marriage of the end entity.  An update
   process can rely on the existing key pair to bootstrap authentication
   for the new enrollment.

   Registration Authority (RA)
   An optional entity in a PKI System given responsibility for
   performing some of the administrative tasks necessary in the
   registration of end entities, such as confirming the subject's
   identity and verifying that the subject has possession of the private
   key associated with the public key requested for a PKC.

   Certificate Authority (CA)
   An authority in a PKI System that is trusted by one or more users to
   create and sign PKCs.  It is important to note that the CA is
   responsible for the PKCs during their whole lifetime, not just for
   issuing them.

   Repository
   An Internet-accessible server in a PKI System that stores and makes
   available for retrieval PKCs and Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs).

   Root CA/Trust Anchor
   A CA that is directly trusted by an end entity; that is, securely
   acquiring the value of a Root CA public key requires some out-of-band
   step(s).  This term is not meant to imply that a Root CA is
   necessarily at the top of any hierarchy, simply that the CA in
   question is trusted directly.

   Certificate Revocation List (CRL)
   A CRL is a CA-signed, timestamped list identifying revoked PKCs and
   made freely available in a repository.  Peers retrieve the CRL to
   verify that a PKC being presented to them as the identity in an IKE
   transaction has not been revoked.

   CRL Distribution Point (CDP)
   The CDP is a PKC extension that identifies the location from which
   end entities should retrieve CRLs to check status information.

   Authority Info Access (AIA)
   The AIA is a PKC extension that indicates how to access CA
   information and services for the issuer of the PKC in which the
   extension appears.  Information and services may include on-line
   validation services and Certificate Policy (CP) data.


1.4. Requirements Terminology


   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [MUSTSHOULD].



Google
Web
RFC-Ref