<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- 
     draft-rfcxml-general-template-standard-00
  
     This template includes examples of the most commonly used features of RFCXML with comments 
     explaining how to customise them. This template can be quickly turned into an I-D by editing 
     the examples provided. Look for [REPLACE], [REPLACE/DELETE], [CHECK] and edit accordingly.
     Note - 'DELETE' means delete the element or attribute, not just the contents.
     
     Documentation is at https://authors.ietf.org/en/templates-and-schemas
-->
<?xml-model href="rfc7991bis.rnc"?>  <!-- Required for schema validation and schema-aware editing -->
<!-- <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?> -->
<!-- This third-party XSLT can be enabled for direct transformations in XML processors, including most browsers -->


<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<!-- If further character entities are required then they should be added to the DOCTYPE above.
     Use of an external entity file is not recommended. -->

<rfc
  xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
  category="info"
  docName="draft-liu-lamps-mechanism-updates-to-rfc-5280-02"
  ipr="trust200902"
  obsoletes=""
  updates=""
  submissionType="IETF"
  xml:lang="en"
  version="3">
<!-- [REPLACE] 
       * docName with name of your draft
     [CHECK] 
       * category should be one of std, bcp, info, exp, historic
       * ipr should be one of trust200902, noModificationTrust200902, noDerivativesTrust200902, pre5378Trust200902
       * updates can be an RFC number as NNNN
       * obsoletes can be an RFC number as NNNN 
-->

  <front>
    <title abbrev="RFC 5280 Clarifications">Certificate Status Information Mechanism Description Updates to RFC 5280</title>
    <!--  [REPLACE/DELETE] abbrev. The abbreviated title is required if the full title is longer than 39 characters -->

    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-liu-lamps-mechanism-updates-to-rfc-5280-02"/>

    <author fullname="Penghui Liu" initials="P." role="editor" surname="Liu">
      <!-- [CHECK]
             * initials should not include an initial for the surname
             * role="editor" is optional -->
    <!-- Can have more than one author -->
      
    <!-- all of the following elements are optional -->
      <organization>Pengcheng Laboratory</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <street>No.2 Xingke 1 Street</street>
          <city>Shenzhen</city>
          <code>518055</code>
          <country>China</country>
          <!-- Uses two letter country code -->
        </postal>        
        <email>liuph@pcl.ac.cn</email>  
      </address>
    </author>
	
    <author fullname="Xiang Liu" initials="X." role="editor" surname="Liu">
      <!-- [CHECK]
             * initials should not include an initial for the surname
             * role="editor" is optional -->
    <!-- Can have more than one author -->
      
    <!-- all of the following elements are optional -->
      <organization>Pengcheng Laboratory</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <street>No.2 Xingke 1 Street</street>
          <city>Shenzhen</city>
          <code>518055</code>
          <country>China</country>
          <!-- Uses two letter country code -->
        </postal>        
        <email>liux15@pcl.ac.cn</email>  
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Rongwei Yang" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Yang">
      <!-- [CHECK]
             * initials should not include an initial for the surname
             * role="editor" is optional -->
    <!-- Can have more than one author -->
      
    <!-- all of the following elements are optional -->
      <organization>Pengcheng Laboratory</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <street>No.2 Xingke 1 Street</street>
          <city>Shenzhen</city>
          <code>518055</code>
          <country>China</country>
          <!-- Uses two letter country code -->
        </postal>        
        <email>yangrw@pcl.ac.cn</email>  
      </address>
    </author>
	
    <author fullname="Yu Zhang" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Zhang">
      <!-- [CHECK]
             * initials should not include an initial for the surname
             * role="editor" is optional -->
    <!-- Can have more than one author -->
      
    <!-- all of the following elements are optional -->
      <organization>Pengcheng Laboratory</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <street>No.2 Xingke 1 Street</street>
          <city>Shenzhen</city>
          <code>518055</code>
          <country>China</country>
          <!-- Uses two letter country code -->
        </postal>        
        <email>zhangy08@pcl.ac.cn</email>  
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024"/>
    <!-- On draft subbmission:
         * If only the current year is specified, the current day and month will be used.
         * If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, the current day will
           be used
         * If the year is not the current one, it is necessary to specify at least a month and day="1" will be used.
    -->

    <area>Security</area>
    <workgroup>LAMPS</workgroup>
    
    <!-- "Internet Engineering Task Force" is fine for individual submissions.  If this element is 
          not present, the default is "Network Working Group", which is used by the RFC Editor as 
          a nod to the history of the RFC Series. -->

    <keyword>keyword</keyword>
    <!-- [REPLACE/DELETE]. Multiple allowed. Keywords are incorporated into HTML output files for 
         use by search engines. -->

    <abstract>
      <t>The updates to RFC 5280 described in this document provide alignment with the 2013 specification for the X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol-OCSP [RFC6960].
	  </t>
    </abstract>
 
  </front>

  <middle>
    
    <section>
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>For the relying parties of Web PKI, certificate path construction and certificate validation are necessary security review processes. With regard to the implementation of certificate validation process for Internet browsers, the mainstream Internet browser implementation generally follows "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile" [RFC5280] standard formulated in 2008. This version of the standard has a long history is not in line with existing practice, and with the development of technology and new features, such as the invention and standardization of certificate transparency system[RFC6962] and online certificate status protocol OCSP [RFC6960], browser manufacturers have not fully followed or enabled them. These new features of check are very helpful for building practical certificate security; In addition, considering the needs of manufacturers, the implementation of Internet browsers inevitably includes various private code implementations, and the certificate validation process in the Internet browser industry is relatively messy and arbitrary. In view of this situation, this document proposes some updates of the latest reference of certificate status information mechanism description for the RFC5280 in line with existing practice, to provide reference for Internet browser manufacturers.</t>
    </section>
    <section>
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/>
          <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in
          all capitals, as shown here.</t>
    </section>
      <!-- [CHECK] The 'Requirements Language' section is optional -->
	  
    <section>
      <name>Updates to RFC 5280</name>
      <t>This section provides updates to several paragraphs of RFC 5280 [RFC5280]. For clarity, if the entire section is not replaced, then the original text and the replacement text are shown.</t>

    <section>
      <name>Update in the Operational Protocols (Section 3.4)</name>
	  <t>This update provides references for OCSP</t>
	  <t>OLD:</t>
	  <t>* Operational protocols are required to deliver certificates and CRLs (or status information) to certificate-using client systems. Provisions are needed for a variety of different means of certificate and CRL delivery, including distribution procedures based on LDAP, HTTP, FTP, and X.500. Operational protocols supporting these functions are defined in other PKIX specifications. These specifications may include definitions of message formats and procedures for supporting all of the above operational environments, including definitions of or references to appropriate MIME content types.</t>
	  <t>NEW:</t>
      <t>* Operational protocols are required to deliver certificates and status information (CRLs or OCSP or other out-of-band means etc.,) to certificate-using client systems. Provisions are needed for a variety of different means of certificate and CRL or OCSP or out-of-band status delivery, including distribution procedures based on LDAP, HTTP, FTP, and X.500. Operational protocols supporting these functions are defined in other PKIX specifications. These specifications may include definitions of message formats and procedures for supporting all of the above operational environments, including definitions of or references to appropriate MIME content types.</t>	  
	</section>

    <section>
      <name>Update in CRL and CRL Extensions Profile (Section 5)</name>
	  <t>This update provides references for OCSP</t>
	  <t>OLD:</t>
	  <t>* CRL issuers issue CRLs. The CRL issuer is either the CA or an entity that has been authorized by the CA to issue CRLs. CAs publish CRLs to provide status information about the certificates they issued. However, a CA may delegate this responsibility to another trusted authority.</t>
	  <t>NEW:</t>
	  <t>* CRL issuers issue CRLs. The CRL issuer is either the CA or an entity that has been authorized by the CA to issue CRLs. CAs publish CRLs or OCSP to provide status information about the certificates they issued. However, a CA may delegate this responsibility to another trusted authority.</t>
	</section>
	
    <section>
      <name>Update in the Basic Certificate Processing (Section 6.1.3)</name>
	  <t>This update provides references for OCSP</t>
	  <t>OLD:</t>
	  <t>* (3) At the current time, the certificate is not revoked. This may be determined by obtaining the appropriate CRL (Section 6.3), by status information, or by out-of-band mechanisms.</t>  
	  <t>NEW:</t>  
	  <t>* At the current time, the certificate is not revoked. This may be determined by obtaining the appropriate CRL (Section 6.3), or by status information from OCSP, or by out-of-band mechanisms, such as Certificate Transparency.</t>
	</section>

    <section>
      <name>Update in the Internationalized Names in Distinguished Names (Section 7.1)</name>
	  <t>This update provides references for OCSP</t>
	  <t>OLD:</t>
	  <t>* Representation of internationalized names in distinguished names is covered in Sections 4.1.2.4, Issuer Name, and 4.1.2.6, Subject Name. Standard naming attributes, such as common name, employ the DirectoryString type, which supports internationalized names through a variety of language encodings. Conforming implementations MUST support UTF8String and PrintableString. RFC 3280 required only binary comparison of attribute values encoded in UTF8String, however, this specification requires a more comprehensive handling of comparison. Implementations may encounter certificates and CRLs with names encoded using TeletexString, BMPString, or UniversalString, but support for these is OPTIONAL.</t>
	  <t>NEW:</t>  
	  <t>* Representation of internationalized names in distinguished names is covered in Sections 4.1.2.4, Issuer Name, and 4.1.2.6, Subject Name. Standard naming attributes, such as common name, employ the DirectoryString type, which supports internationalized names through a variety of language encodings. Conforming implementations MUST support UTF8String and PrintableString. RFC 3280 required only binary comparison of attribute values encoded in UTF8String, however, this specification requires a more comprehensive handling of comparison. Implementations may encounter certificates and CRLs or OCSP with names encoded using TeletexString, BMPString, or UniversalString, but support for these is OPTIONAL.</t>
	</section>

    <section>
      <name>Update in the Internationalized Domain Names in GeneralName (Section 7.2)</name>
	  <t>This update provides references for OCSP</t>
	  <t>OLD:</t>
	  <t>* 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.</t>
	  <t>NEW:</t>  
	  <t>* Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) may be included in certificates and CRLs and OCSP etc,. 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, TBSRequest field. Each of these extensions uses the GeneralName type; one choice in GeneralName is the dNSName field, which is defined as type IA5String.</t>  
	</section>	
	
    <section>
      <name>Update in the Internationalized Electronic Mail Addresses (Section 7.5)</name>
	  <t>This update provides references for OCSP</t>
	  <t>OLD:</t>
	  <t>* 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; GeneralName includes the rfc822Name choice, which is defined as type IA5String. To accommodate email addresses with internationalized domain names using the current structure, conforming implementations MUST convert the addresses into an ASCII representation.</t>
	  <t>NEW:</t> 
      <t>* Electronic Mail addresses may be included in certificates and CRLs or OCSP 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, or TBSRequest field.  Each of these extensions uses the GeneralName construct; GeneralName includes the rfc822Name choice, which is defined as type IA5String. To accommodate email addresses with internationalized domain names using the current structure, conforming implementations MUST convert the addresses into an ASCII representation.</t>	  
	</section>		
    </section>
  
  

    
    <section anchor="IANA">
    <!-- All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section. See RFC 8126 for a guide.-->
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This memo includes no request to IANA. </t>
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="Security">
      <!-- All drafts are required to have a security considerations section. See RFC 3552 for a guide. -->
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>For the relying parties of Web PKI, certificate path construction and certificate validation are necessary security review processes.The quality of implementations that process certificates also affects the degree of assurance provided. The path validation algorithm described in Section 6 relies upon the integrity of the trusted CA information, and especially the integrity of the status information associated with the certificate. By providing multiple checking mechanisms, an attacker cannot trick the user into accepting false certificates.this document proposes some updates of the latest reference of certificate status information mechanism description for the RFC5280 in line with existing practice, to provide security reference for Internet browser manufacturers.
      </t>

    </section>
    
    <!-- NOTE: The Acknowledgements and Contributors sections are at the end of this template -->
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
        <!-- The recommended and simplest way to include a well known reference -->
        
      </references>
 
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC5280">
          <front>
            <title>Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile</title>
            <author fullname="D. Cooper" initials="D." surname="Cooper"/>
            <author fullname="S. Santesson" initials="S." surname="Santesson"/>
            <author fullname="S. Farrell" initials="S." surname="Farrell"/>
            <author fullname="S. Boeyen" initials="S." surname="Boeyen"/>
            <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/>
			<author fullname="W. Polk" initials="W." surname="Polk"/>
            <date month="May" year="2008"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This memo profiles the X.509 v3 certificate and X.509 v2 certificate revocation list (CRL) for use in the Internet. An overview of this approach and model is provided as an introduction. The X.509 v3 certificate format is described in detail, with additional information regarding the format and semantics of Internet name forms. Standard certificate extensions are described and two Internet-specific extensions are defined. A set of required certificate extensions is specified. The X.509 v2 CRL format is described in detail along with standard and Internet-specific extensions. An algorithm for X.509 certification path validation is described. An ASN.1 module and examples are provided in the appendices.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5280"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5280"/>
        </reference>
     
      </references>
    </references>
    
 </back>
</rfc>
