In general, a public-key certificate (hereinafter "certificate")
binds a public key held by an entity (such as person, organization,
account, device, or site) to a set of information that identifies the
entity associated with use of the corresponding private key. In most
cases involving identity certificates, this entity is known as the
"subject" or "subscriber" of the certificate. Two exceptions,
however, include devices (in which the subscriber is usually the
individual or organization controlling the device) and anonymous
certificates (in which the identity of the individual or organization
is not available from the certificate itself). Other types of
certificates bind public keys to attributes of an entity other than
the entity's identity, such as a role, a title, or creditworthiness
information.
A certificate is used by a "certificate user" or "relying party" that
needs to use, and rely upon the accuracy of, the binding between the
subject public key distributed via that certificate and the identity
and/or other attributes of the subject contained in that certificate.
A relying party is frequently an entity that verifies a digital
signature from the certificate's subject where the digital signature
is associated with an email, web form, electronic document, or other
data. Other examples of relying parties can include a sender of
encrypted email to the subscriber, a user of a web browser relying on
a server certificate during a secure sockets layer (SSL) session, and
an entity operating a server that controls access to online
information using client certificates as an access control mechanism.
In summary, a relying party is an entity that uses a public key in a
certificate (for signature verification and/or encryption). The
degree to which a relying party can trust the binding embodied in a
certificate depends on several factors. These factors can include
the practices followed by the certification authority (CA) in
authenticating the subject; the CA's operating policy, procedures,
and security controls; the scope of the subscriber's responsibilities
(for example, in protecting the private key); and the stated
responsibilities and liability terms and conditions of the CA (for
example, warranties, disclaimers of warranties, and limitations of
liability).
A Version 3 X.509 certificate may contain a field declaring that one
or more specific certificate policies apply to that certificate
[ISO1]. According to X.509, a certificate policy (CP) is "a named
set of rules that indicates the applicability of a certificate to a
particular community and/or class of applications with common
security requirements." A CP may be used by a relying party to help
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
in deciding whether a certificate, and the binding therein, are
sufficiently trustworthy and otherwise appropriate for a particular
application. The CP concept is an outgrowth of the policy statement
concept developed for Internet Privacy Enhanced Mail [PEM1] and
expanded upon in [BAU1]. The legal and liability aspects presented
in Section 4.9 are outcomes of a collaborative effort between IETF
PKIX working group and the American Bar Association (ABA) members who
have worked on legal acceptance of digital signature and role of PKI
in that acceptance.
A more detailed description of the practices followed by a CA in
issuing and otherwise managing certificates may be contained in a
certification practice statement (CPS) published by or referenced by
the CA. According to the American Bar Association Information
Security Committee's Digital Signature Guidelines (hereinafter
"DSG")(1) and the Information Security Committee's PKI Assessment
Guidelines (hereinafter "PAG")(2), "a CPS is a statement of the
practices which a certification authority employs in issuing
certificates." [ABA1, ABA2] In general, CPSs also describe practices
relating to all certificate lifecycle services (e.g., issuance,
management, revocation, and renewal or re-keying), and CPSs provide
details concerning other business, legal, and technical matters. The
terms contained in a CP or CPS may or may not be binding upon a PKI's
participants as a contract. A CP or CPS may itself purport to be a
contract. More commonly, however, an agreement may incorporate a CP
or CPS by reference and therefore attempt to bind the parties of the
agreement to some or all of its terms. For example, some PKIs may
utilize a CP or (more commonly) a CPS that is incorporated by
reference in the agreement between a subscriber and a CA or RA
(called a "subscriber agreement") or the agreement between a relying
party and a CA (called a "relying party agreement" or "RPA"). In
other cases, however, a CP or CPS has no contractual significance at
all. A PKI may intend these CPs and CPSs to be strictly
informational or disclosure documents.
The purpose of this document is twofold. First, the document aims to
explain the concepts of a CP and a CPS, describe the differences
between these two concepts, and describe their relationship to
subscriber and relying party agreements. Second, this document aims
to present a framework to assist the writers and users of certificate
policies or CPSs in drafting and understanding these documents. In
particular, the framework identifies the elements that may need to be
considered in formulating a CP or a CPS. The purpose is not to
define particular certificate policies or CPSs, per se. Moreover,
this document does not aim to provide legal advice or recommendations
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
as to particular requirements or practices that should be contained
within CPs or CPSs. (Such recommendations, however, appear in
[ABA2].)
The scope of this document is limited to discussion of the topics
that can be covered in a CP (as defined in X.509) or CPS (as defined
in the DSG and PAG). In particular, this document describes the
types of information that should be considered for inclusion in a CP
or a CPS. While the framework as presented generally assumes use of
the X.509 version 3 certificate format for the purpose of providing
assurances of identity, it is not intended that the material be
restricted to use of that certificate format or identity
certificates. Rather, it is intended that this framework be
adaptable to other certificate formats and to certificates providing
assurances other than identity that may come into use.
The scope does not extend to defining security policies generally
(such as organization security policy, system security policy, or
data labeling policy). Further, this document does not define a
specific CP or CPS. Moreover, in presenting a framework, this
document should be viewed and used as a flexible tool presenting
topics that should be considered of particular relevance to CPs or
CPSs, and not as a rigid formula for producing CPs or CPSs.
This document assumes that the reader is familiar with the general
concepts of digital signatures, certificates, and public-key
infrastructure (PKI), as used in X.509, the DSG, and the PAG.
This document makes use of the following defined terms:
Activation data - Data values, other than keys, that are required to
operate cryptographic modules and that need to be protected (e.g., a
PIN, a passphrase, or a manually-held key share).
Authentication - The process of establishing that individuals,
organizations, or things are who or what they claim to be. In the
context of a PKI, authentication can be the process of establishing
that an individual or organization applying for or seeking access to
something under a certain name is, in fact, the proper individual or
organization. This corresponds to the second process involved with
identification, as shown in the definition of "identification" below.
Authentication can also refer to a security service that provides
assurances that individuals, organizations, or things are who or what
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
they claim to be or that a message or other data originated from a
specific individual, organization, or device. Thus, it is said that
a digital signature of a message authenticates the message's sender.
CA-certificate - A certificate for one CA's public key issued by
another CA.
Certificate policy (CP) - A named set of rules that indicates the
applicability of a certificate to a particular community and/or class
of application with common security requirements. For example, a
particular CP might indicate applicability of a type of certificate
to the authentication of parties engaging in business-to-business
transactions for the trading of goods or services within a given
price range.
Certification path - An ordered sequence of certificates that,
together with the public key of the initial object in the path, can
be processed to obtain that of the final object in the path.
Certification Practice Statement (CPS) - A statement of the practices
that a certification authority employs in issuing, managing,
revoking, and renewing or re-keying certificates.
CPS Summary (or CPS Abstract) - A subset of the provisions of a
complete CPS that is made public by a CA.
Identification - The process of establishing the identity of an
individual or organization, i.e., to show that an individual or
organization is a specific individual or organization. In the
context of a PKI, identification refers to two processes:
(1) establishing that a given name of an individual or organization
corresponds to a real-world identity of an individual or
organization, and
(2) establishing that an individual or organization applying for or
seeking access to something under that name is, in fact, the
named individual or organization. A person seeking
identification may be a certificate applicant, an applicant for
employment in a trusted position within a PKI participant, or a
person seeking access to a network or software application, such
as a CA administrator seeking access to CA systems.
Issuing certification authority (issuing CA) - In the context of a
particular certificate, the issuing CA is the CA that issued the
certificate (see also Subject certification authority).
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
Participant - An individual or organization that plays a role within
a given PKI as a subscriber, relying party, CA, RA, certificate
manufacturing authority, repository service provider, or similar
entity.
PKI Disclosure Statement (PDS) - An instrument that supplements a CP
or CPS by disclosing critical information about the policies and
practices of a CA/PKI. A PDS is a vehicle for disclosing and
emphasizing information normally covered in detail by associated CP
and/or CPS documents. Consequently, a PDS is not intended to replace
a CP or CPS.
Policy qualifier - Policy-dependent information that may accompany a
CP identifier in an X.509 certificate. Such information can include
a pointer to the URL of the applicable CPS or relying party
agreement. It may also include text (or number causing the
appearance of text) that contains terms of the use of the certificate
or other legal information.
Registration authority (RA) - An entity that is responsible for one
or more of the following functions: the identification and
authentication of certificate applicants, the approval or rejection
of certificate applications, initiating certificate revocations or
suspensions under certain circumstances, processing subscriber
requests to revoke or suspend their certificates, and approving or
rejecting requests by subscribers to renew or re-key their
certificates. RAs, however, do not sign or issue certificates (i.e.,
an RA is delegated certain tasks on behalf of a CA). [Note: The term
Local Registration Authority (LRA) is sometimes used in other
documents for the same concept.]
Relying party - A recipient of a certificate who acts in reliance on
that certificate and/or any digital signatures verified using that
certificate. In this document, the terms "certificate user" and
"relying party" are used interchangeably.
Relying party agreement (RPA) - An agreement between a certification
authority and relying party that typically establishes the rights and
responsibilities between those parties regarding the verification of
digital signatures or other uses of certificates.
Set of provisions - A collection of practice and/or policy
statements, spanning a range of standard topics, for use in
expressing a CP or CPS employing the approach described in this
framework.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
Subject certification authority (subject CA) - In the context of a
particular CA-certificate, the subject CA is the CA whose public key
is certified in the certificate (see also Issuing certification
authority).
Subscriber - A subject of a certificate who is issued a certificate.
Subscriber Agreement - An agreement between a CA and a subscriber
that establishes the right and responsibilities of the parties
regarding the issuance and management of certificates.
Validation - The process of identification of certificate applicants.
"Validation" is a subset of "identification" and refers to
identification in the context of establishing the identity of
certificate applicants.
This section explains the concepts of CP and CPS, and describes their
relationship with other PKI documents, such as subscriber agreements
and relying party agreements. Other related concepts are also
described. Some of the material covered in this section and in some
other sections is specific to certificate policies extensions as
defined X.509 version 3. Except for those sections, this framework
is intended to be adaptable to other certificate formats that may
come into use.
When a certification authority issues a certificate, it is providing
a statement to a certificate user (i.e., a relying party) that a
particular public key is bound to the identity and/or other
attributes of a particular entity (the certificate subject, which is
usually also the subscriber). The extent to which the relying party
should rely on that statement by the CA, however, needs to be
assessed by the relying party or entity controlling or coordinating
the way relying parties or relying party applications use
certificates. Different certificates are issued following different
practices and procedures, and may be suitable for different
applications and/or purposes.
The X.509 standard defines a CP as "a named set of rules that
indicates the applicability of a certificate to a particular
community and/or class of application with common security
requirements" [ISO1]. An X.509 Version 3 certificate may identify a
specific applicable CP, which may be used by a relying party to
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
decide whether or not to trust a certificate, associated public key,
or any digital signatures verified using the public key for a
particular purpose.
CPs typically fall into two major categories. First, some CPs
"indicate the applicability of a certificate to a particular
community" [ISO1]. These CPs set forth requirements for certificate
usage and requirements on members of a community. For instance, a CP
may focus on the needs of a geographical community, such as the ETSI
policy requirements for CAs issuing qualified certificates [ETS].
Also, a CP of this kind may focus on the needs of a specific
vertical-market community, such as financial services [IDT].
The second category of typical CPs "indicate the applicability of a
certificate to a . . . class of application with common security
requirements." These CPs identify a set of applications or uses for
certificates and say that these applications or uses require a
certain level of security. They then set forth PKI requirements that
are appropriate for these applications or uses. A CP within this
category often makes sets requirements appropriate for a certain
"level of assurance" provided by certificates, relative to
certificates issued pursuant to related CPs. These levels of
assurance may correspond to "classes" or "types" of certificates.
For instance, the Government of Canada PKI Policy Management
Authority (GOC PMA) has established eight certificate policies in a
single document [GOC], four policies for certificates used for
digital signatures and four policies for certificates used for
confidentiality encryption. For each of these applications, the
document establishes four levels of assurances: rudimentary, basic,
medium, and high. The GOC PMA described certain types of digital
signature and confidentiality uses in the document, each with a
certain set of security requirements, and grouped them into eight
categories. The GOC PMA then established PKI requirements for each
of these categories, thereby creating eight types of certificates,
each providing rudimentary, basic, medium, or high levels of
assurance. The progression from rudimentary to high levels
corresponds to increasing security requirements and corresponding
increasing levels of assurance.
A CP is represented in a certificate by a unique number called an
"Object Identifier" (OID). That OID, or at least an "arc", can be
registered. An "arc" is the beginning of the numerical sequence of
an OID and is assigned to a particular organization. The
registration process follows the procedures specified in ISO/IEC and
ITU standards. The party that registers the OID or arc also can
publish the text of the CP, for examination by relying parties. Any
one certificate will typically declare a single CP or, possibly, be
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
issued consistent with a small number of different policies. Such
declaration appears in the Certificate Policies extension of a X.509
Version 3 certificate. When a CA places multiple CPs within a
certificate's Certificate Policies extension, the CA is asserting
that the certificate is appropriate for use in accordance with any of
the listed CPs.
CPs also constitute a basis for an audit, accreditation, or another
assessment of a CA. Each CA can be assessed against one or more
certificate policies or CPSs that it is recognized as implementing.
When one CA issues a CA-certificate for another CA, the issuing CA
must assess the set of certificate policies for which it trusts the
subject CA (such assessment may be based upon an assessment with
respect to the certificate policies involved). The assessed set of
certificate policies is then indicated by the issuing CA in the CA-
certificate. The X.509 certification path processing logic employs
these CP indications in its well-defined trust model.
For example purposes, suppose that the International Air Transport
Association (IATA) undertakes to define some certificate policies for
use throughout the airline industry, in a PKI operated by IATA in
combination with PKIs operated by individual airlines. Two CPs might
be defined - the IATA General-Purpose CP, and the IATA Commercial-
Grade CP.
The IATA General-Purpose CP could be used by industry personnel for
protecting routine information (e.g., casual electronic mail) and for
authenticating connections from World Wide Web browsers to servers
for general information retrieval purposes. The key pairs may be
generated, stored, and managed using low-cost, software-based
systems, such as commercial browsers. Under this policy, a
certificate may be automatically issued to anybody listed as an
employee in the corporate directory of IATA or any member airline who
submits a signed certificate request form to a network administrator
in his or her organization.
The IATA Commercial-Grade CP could be used to protect financial
transactions or binding contractual exchanges between airlines.
Under this policy, IATA could require that certified key pairs be
generated and stored in approved cryptographic hardware tokens.
Certificates and tokens could be provided to airline employees with
disbursement authority. These authorized individuals might then be
required to present themselves to the corporate security office, show
a valid identification badge, and sign a subscriber agreement
requiring them to protect the token and use it only for authorized
purposes, as a condition of being issued a token and a certificate.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
The following extension fields in an X.509 certificate are used to
support CPs:
* Certificate Policies extension;
* Policy Mappings extension; and
* Policy Constraints extension.
A Certificate Policies field lists CPs that the certification
authority declares are applicable. Using the example of the IATA
General-Purpose and Commercial-Grade policies defined in Section 3.2,
the certificates issued to regular airline employees would contain
the object identifier for General-Purpose policy. The certificates
issued to the employees with disbursement authority would contain the
object identifiers for both the General-Purpose policy and the
Commercial-Grade policy. The inclusion of both object identifiers in
the certificates means that they would be appropriate for either the
General-Purpose or Commercial-Grade policies. The Certificate
Policies field may also optionally convey qualifier values for each
identified policy; the use of qualifiers is discussed in Section 3.4.
When processing a certification path, a CP that is acceptable to the
relying party application must be present in every certificate in the
path, i.e., in CA-certificates as well as end entity certificates.
If the Certificate Policies field is flagged critical, it serves the
same purpose as described above but also has an additional role.
Specifically, it indicates that the use of the certificate is
restricted to one of the identified policies, i.e., the certification
authority is declaring that the certificate must only be used in
accordance with the provisions of at least one of the listed CPs.
This field is intended to protect the certification authority against
claims for damages asserted by a relying party who has used the
certificate for an inappropriate purpose or in an inappropriate
manner, as stipulated in the applicable CP.
For example, the Internal Revenue Service might issue certificates to
taxpayers for the purpose of protecting tax filings. The Internal
Revenue Service understands and can accommodate the risks of
erroneously issuing a bad certificate, e.g., to an imposter.
Suppose, however, that someone used an Internal Revenue Service tax-
filing certificate as the basis for encrypting multi-million-dollar-
value proprietary trade secrets, which subsequently fell into the
wrong hands because of a cryptanalytic attack by an attacker who is
able to decrypt the message. The Internal Revenue Service may want
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
to defend itself against claims for damages in such circumstances by
pointing to the criticality of the Certificate Policies extension to
show that the subscriber and relying party misused the certificate.
The critical-flagged Certificate Policies extension is intended to
mitigate the risk to the CA in such situations.
The Policy Mappings extension may only be used in CA-certificates.
This field allows a certification authority to indicate that certain
policies in its own domain can be considered equivalent to certain
other policies in the subject certification authority's domain.
For example, suppose that for purposes of facilitating
interoperability, the ACE Corporation establishes an agreement with
the ABC Corporation to cross-certify the public keys of each others'
certification authorities for the purposes of mutually securing their
respective business-to-business exchanges. Further, suppose that
both companies have pre-existing financial transaction protection
policies called ace-e-commerce and abc-e-commerce, respectively. One
can see that simply generating cross-certificates between the two
domains will not provide the necessary interoperability, as the two
companies' applications are configured with, and employee
certificates are populated with, their respective certificate
policies. One possible solution is to reconfigure all of the
financial applications to require either policy and to reissue all
the certificates with both policies appearing in their Certificate
Policies extensions. Another solution, which may be easier to
administer, uses the Policy Mapping field. If this field is included
in a cross-certificate for the ABC Corporation certification
authority issued by the ACE Corporation certification authority, it
can provide a statement that the ABC's financial transaction
protection policy (i.e., abc-e-commerce) can be considered equivalent
to that of the ACE Corporation (i.e., ace-e-commerce). With such a
statement included in the cross-certificate issued to ABC, relying
party applications in the ACE domain requiring the presence of the
object identifier for the ace-e-commerce CP can also accept, process,
and rely upon certificates issued within the ABC domain containing
the object identifier for the abc-e-commerce CP.
The Policy Constraints extension supports two optional features. The
first is the ability for a certification authority to require that
explicit CP indications be present in all subsequent certificates in
a certification path. Certificates at the start of a certification
path may be considered by a relying party to be part of a trusted
domain, i.e., certification authorities are trusted for all purposes
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
so no particular CP is needed in the Certificate Policies extension.
Such certificates need not contain explicit indications of CP. When
a certification authority in the trusted domain, however, certifies
outside the domain, it can activate the requirement that a specific
CP's object identifier appear in subsequent certificates in the
certification path.
The other optional feature in the Policy Constraints field is the
ability for a certification authority to disable policy mapping by
subsequent certification authorities in a certification path. It may
be prudent to disable policy mapping when certifying outside the
domain. This can assist in controlling risks due to transitive
trust, e.g., a domain A trusts domain B, domain B trusts domain C,
but domain A does not want to be forced to trust domain C.
The Certificate Policies extension field has a provision for
conveying, along with each CP identifier, additional policy-dependent
information in a qualifier field. The X.509 standard does not
mandate the purpose for which this field is to be used, nor does it
prescribe the syntax for this field. Policy qualifier types can be
registered by any organization.
The following policy qualifier types are defined in PKIX RFC 3280
[PKI1]:
(a) The CPS Pointer qualifier contains a pointer to a CPS, CPS
Summary, RPA, or PDS published by the CA. The pointer is in the
form of a uniform resource identifier (URI).
(b) The User Notice qualifier contains a text string that is to be
displayed to subscribers and relying parties prior to the use of
the certificate. The text string may be an IA5String or a
BMPString - a subset of the ISO 100646-1 multiple octet coded
character set. A CA may invoke a procedure that requires that
the relying party acknowledge that the applicable terms and
conditions have been disclosed and/or accepted.
Policy qualifiers can be used to support the definition of generic,
or parameterized, CPs. Provided the base CP so provides, policy
qualifier types can be defined to convey, on a per-certificate basis,
additional specific policy details that fill in the generic
definition.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
The term certification practice statement (CPS) is defined by the DSG
and PAG as: "A statement of the practices which a certification
authority employs in issuing certificates." [ABA1, ABA2] As stated
above, a CPS establishes practices concerning lifecycle services in
addition to issuance, such as certificate management (including
publication and archiving), revocation, and renewal or re-keying. In
the DSG, the ABA expands this definition with the following comments:
"A certification practice statement may take the form of a
declaration by the certification authority of the details of its
trustworthy system and the practices it employs in its operations and
in support of issuance of a certificate . . . ." This form of CPS is
the most common type, and can vary in length and level of detail.
Some PKIs may not have the need to create a thorough and detailed
statement of practices. For example, the CA may itself be the
relying party and would already be aware of the nature and
trustworthiness of its services. In other cases, a PKI may provide
certificates providing only a very low level of assurances where the
applications being secured may pose only marginal risks if
compromised. In these cases, an organization establishing a PKI may
only want to write or have CAs use a subscriber agreement, relying
party agreement, or agreement combining subscriber and relying party
terms, depending on the role of the different PKI participants. In
such a PKI, that agreement may serve as the only "statement of
practices" used by one or more CAs within that PKI. Consequently,
that agreement may also be considered a CPS and can be entitled or
subtitled as such.
Likewise, since a detailed CPS may contain sensitive details of its
system, a CA may elect not to publish its entire CPS. It may instead
opt to publish a CPS Summary (or CPS Abstract). The CPS Summary
would contain only those provisions from the CPS that the CA
considers to be relevant to the participants in the PKI (such as the
responsibilities of the parties or the stages of the certificate
lifecycle). A CPS Summary, however, would not contain those
sensitive provisions of the full CPS that might provide an attacker
with useful information about the CA's operations. Throughout this
document, the use of "CPS" includes both a detailed CPS and a CPS
Summary (unless otherwise specified).
CPSs do not automatically constitute contracts and do not
automatically bind PKI participants as a contract would. Where a
document serves the dual purpose of being a subscriber or relying
party agreement and CPS, the document is intended to be a contract
and constitutes a binding contract to the extent that a subscriber or
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
relying party agreement would ordinarily be considered as such. Most
CPSs, however, do not serve such a dual purpose. Therefore, in most
cases, a CPS's terms have a binding effect as contract terms only if
a separate document creates a contractual relationship between the
parties and that document incorporates part or all of the CPS by
reference. Further, if a particular PKI employs a CPS Summary (as
opposed to the entire CPS), the CPS Summary could be incorporated
into any applicable subscriber or relying party agreement.
In the future, a court or applicable statutory or regulatory law may
declare that a certificate itself is a document that is capable of
creating a contractual relationship, to the extent its mechanisms
designed for incorporation by reference (such as the Certificate
Policies extension and its qualifiers) indicate that terms of its use
appear in certain documents. In the meantime, however, some
subscriber agreements and relying party agreements may incorporate a
CPS by reference and therefore make its terms binding on the parties
to such agreements.
Practice Statement
The CP and CPS address the same set of topics that are of interest to
the relying party in terms of the degree to and purpose for which a
public key certificate should be trusted. Their primary difference
is in the focus of their provisions. A CP sets forth the
requirements and standards imposed by the PKI with respect to the
various topics. In other words, the purpose of the CP is to
establish what participants must do. A CPS, by contrast, states how
a CA and other participants in a given domain implement procedures
and controls to meet the requirements stated in the CP. In other
words, the purpose of the CPS is to disclose how the participants
perform their functions and implement controls.
An additional difference between a CP and CPS relates the scope of
coverage of the two kinds of documents. Since a CP is a statement of
requirements, it best serves as the vehicle for communicating minimum
operating guidelines that must be met by interoperating PKIs. Thus,
a CP generally applies to multiple CAs, multiple organizations, or
multiple domains. By contrast, a CPS applies only to a single CA or
single organization and is not generally a vehicle to facilitate
interoperation.
A CA with a single CPS may support multiple CPs (used for different
application purposes and/or by different relying party communities).
Also, multiple CAs, with non-identical CPSs, may support the same CP.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
For example, the Federal Government might define a government-wide CP
for handling confidential human resources information. The CP will
be a broad statement of the general requirements for participants
within the Government's PKI, and an indication of the types of
applications for which it is suitable for use. Each department or
agency wishing to operate a certification authority in this PKI may
be required to write its own certification practice statement to
support this CP by explaining how it meets the requirements of the
CP. At the same time, a department's or agency's CPS may support
other certificate policies.
An additional difference between a CP and CPS concerns the level of
detail of the provisions in each. Although the level of detail may
vary among CPSs, a CPS will generally be more detailed than a CP. A
CPS provides a detailed description of procedures and controls in
place to meet the CP requirements, while a CP is more general.
The main differences between CPs and CPSs can therefore be summarized
as follows:
(a) A PKI uses a CP to establish requirements that state what
participants within it must do. A single CA or organization can
use a CPS to disclose how it meets the requirements of a CP or
how it implements its practices and controls.
(b) A CP facilitates interoperation through cross-certification,
unilateral certification, or other means. Therefore, it is
intended to cover multiple CAs. By contrast, a CPS is a
statement of a single CA or organization. Its purpose is not to
facilitate interoperation (since doing so is the function of a
CP).
(c) A CPS is generally more detailed than a CP and specifies how the
CA meets the requirements specified in the one or more CPs under
which it issues certificates.
In addition to populating the certificate policies extension with the
applicable CP object identifier, a certification authority may
include, in certificates it issues, a reference to its certification
practice statement. A standard way to do this, using a CP qualifier,
is described in Section 3.4.
CPs and CPSs play a central role in documenting the requirements and
practices of a PKI. Nonetheless, they are not the only documents
relevant to a PKI. For instance, subscriber agreements and relying
party agreements play a critical role in allocating responsibilities
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
to subscribers and relying parties relating to the use of
certificates and key pairs. They establish the terms and conditions
under which certificates are issued, managed, and used. The term
subscriber agreement is defined by the PAG as: "An agreement between
a CA and a subscriber that establishes the right and obligations of
the parties regarding the issuance and management of certificates."
[ABA2] The PAG defines a relying party agreement as: "An agreement
between a certification authority and relying party that typically
establishes the rights and obligations between those parties
regarding the verification of digital signatures or other uses of
certificates." [ABA2]
As mentioned in Section 3.5, a subscriber agreement, relying party
agreement, or an agreement that combines subscriber and relying party
terms may also serve as a CPS. In other PKIs, however, a subscriber
or relying party agreement may incorporate some or all of the terms
of a CP or CPS by reference. Yet other PKIs may distill from a CP
and/or CPS the terms that are applicable to a subscriber and place
such terms in a self-contained subscriber agreement, without
incorporating a CP or CPS by reference. They may use the same method
to distill relying party terms from a CP and/or CPS and place such
terms in a self-contained relying party agreement. Creating such
self-contained agreements has the advantage of creating documents
that are easier for consumers to review. In some cases, subscribers
or relying parties may be deemed to be "consumers" under applicable
law, who are subject to certain statutory or regulatory protections.
Under the legal systems of civil law countries, incorporating a CP or
CPS by reference may not be effective to bind consumers to the terms
of an incorporated CP or CPS.
CPs and CPSs may be incorporated by reference in other documents,
including:
* Interoperability agreements (including agreements between CAs for
cross-certification, unilateral certification, or other forms of
interoperation),
* Vendor agreements (under which a PKI vendor agrees to meet
standards set forth in a CP or CPS), or
* A PDS. See [ABA2]
A PDS serves a similar function to a CPS Summary. It is a relatively
short document containing only a subset of critical details about a
PKI or CA. It may differ from a CPS Summary, however, in that its
purpose is to act as a summary of information about the overall
nature of the PKI, as opposed to simply a condensed form of the CPS.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
Moreover, its purpose is to distill information about the PKI, as
opposed to protecting security sensitive information contained in an
unpublished CPS, although a PDS could also serve that function.
Just as writers may wish to refer to a CP or CPS or incorporate it by
reference in an agreement or PDS, a CP or CPS may refer to other
documents when establishing requirements or making disclosures. For
instance, a CP may set requirements for certificate content by
referring to an external document setting forth a standard
certificate profile. Referencing external documents permits a CP or
CPS to impose detailed requirements or make detailed disclosures
without having to reprint lengthy provisions from other documents
within the CP or CPS. Moreover, referencing a document in a CP or
CPS is another useful way of dividing disclosures between public
information and security sensitive confidential information (in
addition to or as an alternative to publishing a CPS Summary). For
example, a PKI may want to publish a CP or CPS, but maintain site
construction parameters for CA high security zones as confidential
information. In that case, the CP or CPS could reference an external
manual or document containing the detailed site construction
parameters.
Documents that a PKI may wish to refer to in a CP or CPS include:
* A security policy,
* Training, operational, installation, and user manuals (which may
contain operational requirements),
* Standards documents that apply to particular aspects of the PKI
(such as standards specifying the level of protection offered by
any hardware tokens used in the PKI or standards applicable to the
site construction),
* Key management plans,
* Human resource guides and employment manuals (which may describe
some aspects of personnel security practices), and
* E-mail policies (which may discuss subscriber and relying party
responsibilities, as well as the implications of key management,
if applicable). See [ABA2]
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
A set of provisions is a collection of practice and/or policy
statements, spanning a range of standard topics for use in expressing
a CP or CPS employing the approach described in this framework by
covering the topic appearing in Section 5 below. They are also
described in detail in Section 4 below.
A CP can be expressed as a single set of provisions.
A CPS can be expressed as a single set of provisions with each
component addressing the requirements of one or more certificate
policies, or, alternatively, as an organized collection of sets of
provisions. For example, a CPS could be expressed as a combination
of the following:
(a) a list of certificate policies supported by the CPS;
(b) for each CP in (a), a set of provisions that contains statements
responding to that CP by filling in details not stipulated in
that policy or expressly left to the discretion of the CA (in its
CPS) ; such statements serve to state how this particular CPS
implements the requirements of the particular CP; or
(c) a set of provisions that contains statements regarding the
certification practices on the CA, regardless of CP.
The statements provided in (b) and (c) may augment or refine the
stipulations of the applicable CP, but generally must not conflict
with any of the stipulations of such CP. In certain cases, however,
a policy authority may permit exceptions to the requirements in a CP,
because certain compensating controls of the CA are disclosed in its
CPS that allow the CA to provide assurances that are equivalent to
the assurances provided by CAs that are in full compliance with the
CP.
This framework outlines the contents of a set of provisions, in terms
of nine primary components, as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Publication and Repository
3. Identification and Authentication
4. Certificate Life-Cycle Operational Requirements
5. Facilities, Management, and Operational Controls
6. Technical Security Controls
7. Certificate, CRL, and OCSP Profile
8. Compliance audit
9. Other Business and Legal Matters
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
PKIs can use this simple framework of nine primary components to
write a simple CP or CPS. Moreover, a CA can use this same framework
to write a subscriber agreement, relying party agreement, or
agreement containing subscriber and relying party terms. If a CA
uses this simple framework to construct an agreement, it can use
paragraph 1 as an introduction or recitals, it can set forth the
responsibilities of the parties in paragraphs 2-8, and it can use
paragraph 9 to cover the business and legal issues described in more
detail, using the ordering of Section 4.9 below (such as
representations and warranties, disclaimers, and liability
limitations). The ordering of topics in this simple framework and
the business and legal matters Section 4.9 is the same as (or similar
to) the ordering of topics in a typical software or other technology
agreement. Therefore, a PKI can establish a set of core documents
(with a CP, CPS, subscriber agreement, and relying party agreement)
all having the same structure and ordering of topics, thereby
facilitating comparisons and mappings among these documents and among
the corresponding documents of other PKIs.
This simple framework may also be useful for agreements other than
subscriber agreements and relying party agreements. For instance, a
CA wishing to outsource certain services to an RA or certificate
manufacturing authority (CMA) may find it useful to use this
framework as a checklist to write a registration authority agreement
or outsourcing agreement. Similarly, two CAs may wish to use this
simple framework for the purpose of drafting a cross-certification,
unilateral certification, or other interoperability agreement.
In short, the primary components of the simple framework (specified
above) may meet the needs of drafters of short CPs, CPSs, subscriber
agreements, and relying party agreements. Nonetheless, this
framework is extensible, and its coverage of the nine components is
flexible enough to meet the needs of drafters of comprehensive CPs
and CPSs. Specifically, components appearing above can be further
divided into subcomponents, and a subcomponent may comprise multiple
elements. Section 4 provides a more detailed description of the
contents of the above components, and their subcomponents. Drafters
of CPs and CPSs are permitted to add additional levels of
subcomponents below the subcomponents described in Section 4 for the
purpose of meeting the needs of the drafter's particular PKI.
This section expands upon the contents of the simple framework of
provisions, as introduced in Section 3.7. The topics identified in
this section are, consequently, candidate topics for inclusion in a
detailed CP or CPS.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
While many topics are identified, it is not necessary for a CP or a
CPS to include a concrete statement for every such topic. Rather, a
particular CP or CPS may state "no stipulation" for a component,
subcomponent, or element on which the particular CP or CPS imposes no
requirements or makes no disclosure. In this sense, the list of
topics can be considered a checklist of topics for consideration by
the CP or CPS writer.
It is recommended that each and every component and subcomponent be
included in a CP or CPS, even if there is "no stipulation"; this will
indicate to the reader that a conscious decision was made to include
or exclude a provision concerning that topic. This drafting style
protects against inadvertent omission of a topic, while facilitating
comparison of different certificate policies or CPSs, e.g., when
making policy mapping decisions.
In a CP, it is possible to leave certain components, subcomponents,
and/or elements unspecified, and to stipulate that the required
information will be indicated in a policy qualifier, or the document
to which a policy qualifier points. Such CPs can be considered
parameterized definitions. The set of provisions should reference or
define the required policy qualifier types and should specify any
applicable default values.
This component identifies and introduces the set of provisions, and
indicates the types of entities and applications for which the
document (either the CP or the CPS being written) is targeted.
This subcomponent provides a general introduction to the document
being written. This subcomponent can also be used to provide a
synopsis of the PKI to which the CP or CPS applies. For example, it
may set out different levels of assurance provided by certificates
within the PKI. Depending on the complexity and scope of the
particular PKI, a diagrammatic representation of the PKI might be
useful here.
This subcomponent provides any applicable names or other identifiers,
including ASN.1 object identifiers, for the document. An example of
such a document name would be the US Federal Government Policy for
Secure E-mail.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This subcomponent describes the identity or types of entities that
fill the roles of participants within a PKI, namely:
* Certification authorities, i.e., the entities that issue
certificates. A CA is the issuing CA with respect to the
certificates it issues and is the subject CA with respect to the
CA certificate issued to it. CAs may be organized in a hierarchy
in which an organization's CA issues certificates to CAs operated
by subordinate organizations, such as a branch, division, or
department within a larger organization.
* Registration authorities, i.e., the entities that establish
enrollment procedures for end-user certificate applicants, perform
identification and authentication of certificate applicants,
initiate or pass along revocation requests for certificates, and
approve applications for renewal or re-keying certificates on
behalf of a CA. Subordinate organizations within a larger
organization can act as RAs for the CA serving the entire
organization, but RAs may also be external to the CA.
* Subscribers. Examples of subscribers who receive certificates
from a CA include employees of an organization with its own CA,
banking or brokerage customers, organizations hosting e-commerce
sites, organizations participating in a business-to-business
exchange, and members of the public receiving certificates from a
CA issuing certificates to the public at large.
* Relying parties. Examples of relying parties include employees of
an organization having its own CA who receive digitally signed e-
mails from other employees, persons buying goods and services from
e-commerce sites, organizations participating in a business-to-
business exchange who receive bids or orders from other
participating organizations, and individuals and organizations
doing business with subscribers who have received their
certificates from a CA issuing certificates to the public.
Relying parties may or may not also be subscribers within a given
PKI.
* Other participants, such as certificate manufacturing authorities,
providers of repository services, and other entities providing
PKI-related services.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This subcomponent contains:
* A list or the types of applications for which the issued
certificates are suitable, such as electronic mail, retail
transactions, contracts, and a travel order, and/or
* A list or the types of applications for which use of the issued
certificates is prohibited.
In the case of a CP or CPS describing different levels of assurance,
this subcomponent can describe applications or types of applications
that are appropriate or inappropriate for the different levels of
assurance.
This subcomponent includes the name and mailing address of the
organization that is responsible for the drafting, registering,
maintaining, and updating of this CP or CPS. It also includes the
name, electronic mail address, telephone number, and fax number of a
contact person. As an alternative to naming an actual person, the
document may name a title or role, an e-mail alias, and other
generalized contact information. In some cases, the organization may
state that its contact person, alone or in combination with others,
is available to answer questions about the document.
Moreover, when a formal or informal policy authority is responsible
for determining whether a CA should be allowed to operate within or
interoperate with a PKI, it may wish to approve the CPS of the CA as
being suitable for the policy authority's CP. If so, this
subcomponent can include the name or title, electronic mail address
(or alias), telephone number, fax number, and other generalized
information of the entity in charge of making such a determination.
Finally, in this case, this subcomponent also includes the procedures
by which this determination is made.
This subcomponent contains a list of definitions for defined terms
used within the document, as well as a list of acronyms in the
document and their meanings.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 24]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This component contains any applicable provisions regarding:
* An identification of the entity or entities that operate
repositories within the PKI, such as a CA, certificate
manufacturing authority, or independent repository service
provider;
* The responsibility of a PKI participant to publish information
regarding its practices, certificates, and the current status of
such certificates, which may include the responsibilities of
making the CP or CPS publicly available using various mechanisms
and of identifying components, subcomponents, and elements of such
documents that exist but are not made publicly available, for
instance, security controls, clearance procedures, or trade secret
information due to their sensitivity;
* When information must be published and the frequency of
publication; and
* Access control on published information objects including CPs,
CPS, certificates, certificate status, and CRLs.
This component describes the procedures used to authenticate the
identity and/or other attributes of an end-user certificate applicant
to a CA or RA prior to certificate issuance. In addition, the
component sets forth the procedures for authenticating the identity
and the criteria for accepting applicants of entities seeking to
become CAs, RAs, or other entities operating in or interoperating
with a PKI. It also describes how parties requesting re-key or
revocation are authenticated. This component also addresses naming
practices, including the recognition of trademark rights in certain
names.
This subcomponent includes the following elements regarding naming
and identification of the subscribers:
* Types of names assigned to the subject, such as X.500
distinguished names; RFC-822 names; and X.400 names;
* Whether names have to be meaningful or not;(3)
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 25]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
* Whether or not subscribers can be anonymous or pseudonymous, and
if they can, what names are assigned to or can be used by
anonymous subscribers;
* Rules for interpreting various name forms, such as the X.500
standard and RFC-822;
* Whether names have to be unique; and
* Recognition, authentication, and the role of trademarks.
This subcomponent contains the following elements for the
identification and authentication procedures for the initial
registration for each subject type (CA, RA, subscriber, or other
participant):
* If and how the subject must prove possession of the companion
private key for the public key being registered, for example, a
digital signature in the certificate request message;(4)
* Identification and authentication requirements for organizational
identity of subscriber or participant (CA; RA; subscriber (in the
case of certificates issued to organizations or devices controlled
by an organization), or other participant), for example,
consulting the database of a service that identifies organizations
or inspecting an organization's articles of incorporation;
* Identification and authentication requirements for an individual
subscriber or a person acting on behalf of an organizational
subscriber or participant (CA, RA, in the case of certificates
issued to organizations or devices controlled by an organization,
the subscriber, or other participant),(5) including:
* Type of documentation and/or number of identification
credentials required;
* How a CA or RA authenticates the identity of the organization
or individual based on the documentation or credentials
provided;
* If the individual must personally present to the authenticating
CA or RA;
* How an individual as an organizational person is authenticated,
such as by reference to duly signed authorization documents or
a corporate identification badge.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 26]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
* List of subscriber information that is not verified (called "non-
verified subscriber information") during the initial registration;
* Validation of authority involves a determination of whether a
person has specific rights, entitlements, or permissions,
including the permission to act on behalf of an organization to
obtain a certificate; and
* In the case of applications by a CA wishing to operate within, or
interoperate with, a PKI, this subcomponent contains the criteria
by which a PKI, CA, or policy authority determines whether or not
the CA is suitable for such operations or interoperation. Such
interoperation may include cross-certification, unilateral
certification, or other forms of interoperation.
This subcomponent addresses the following elements for the
identification and authentication procedures for re-key for each
subject type (CA, RA, subscriber, and other participants):
* Identification and authentication requirements for routine re-key,
such as a re-key request that contains the new key and is signed
using the current valid key; and
* Identification and authentication requirements for re-key after
certificate revocation. One example is the use of the same
process as the initial identity validation.
This subcomponent describes the identification and authentication
procedures for a revocation request by each subject type (CA, RA,
subscriber, and other participant). Examples include a revocation
request digitally signed with the private key whose companion public
key needs to be revoked, and a digitally signed request by the RA.
This component is used to specify requirements imposed upon issuing
CA, subject CAs, RAs, subscribers, or other participants with respect
to the life-cycle of a certificate.
Within each subcomponent, separate consideration may need to be given
to subject CAs, RAs, subscribers, and other participants.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 27]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This subcomponent is used to address the following requirements
regarding subject certificate application:
* Who can submit a certificate application, such as a certificate
subject or the RA; and
* Enrollment process used by subjects to submit certificate
applications and responsibilities in connection with this process.
An example of this process is where the subject generates the key
pair and sends a certificate request to the RA. The RA validates
and signs the request and sends it to the CA. A CA or RA may have
the responsibility of establishing an enrollment process in order
to receive certificate applications. Likewise, certificate
applicants may have the responsibility of providing accurate
information on their certificate applications.
This subcomponent is used to describe the procedure for processing
certificate applications. For example, the issuing CA and RA may
perform identification and authentication procedures to validate the
certificate application. Following such steps, the CA or RA will
either approve or reject the certificate application, perhaps upon
the application of certain criteria. Finally, this subcomponent sets
a time limit during which a CA and/or RA must act on and process a
certificate application.
This subcomponent is used to describe the following certificate
issuance related elements:
* Actions performed by the CA during the issuance of the
certificate, for example a procedure whereby the CA validates the
RA signature and RA authority and generates a certificate; and
* Notification mechanisms, if any, used by the CA to notify the
subscriber of the issuance of the certificate; an example is a
procedure under which the CA e-mails the certificate to the
subscriber or the RA or e-mails information permitting the
subscriber to download the certificate from a web site.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 28]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This subcomponent addresses the following:
* The conduct of an applicant that will be deemed to constitute
acceptance of the certificate. Such conduct may include
affirmative steps to indicate acceptance, actions implying
acceptance, or a failure to object to the certificate or its
content. For instance, acceptance may be deemed to occur if the
CA does not receive any notice from the subscriber within a
certain time period; a subscriber may send a signed message
accepting the certificate; or a subscriber may send a signed
message rejecting the certificate where the message includes the
reason for rejection and identifies the fields in the certificate
that are incorrect or incomplete.
* Publication of the certificate by the CA. For example, the CA may
post the certificate to an X.500 or LDAP repository.
* Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other entities.
As an example, the CA may send the certificate to the RA.
This subcomponent is used to describe the responsibilities relating
to the use of keys and certificates, including:
* Subscriber responsibilities relating to use of the subscriber's
private key and certificate. For example, the subscriber may be
required to use a private key and certificate only for appropriate
applications as set forth in the CP and in consistency with
applicable certificate content (e.g., key usage field). Use of a
private key and certificate are subject to the terms of the
subscriber agreement, the use of a private key is permitted only
after the subscriber has accepted the corresponding certificate,
or the subscriber must discontinue use of the private key
following the expiration or revocation of the certificate.
* Relying party responsibilities relating to the use of a
subscriber's public key and certificate. For instance, a relying
party may be obligated to rely on certificates only for
appropriate applications as set forth in the CP and in consistency
with applicable certificate content (e.g., key usage field),
successfully perform public key operations as a condition of
relying on a certificate, assume responsibility to check the
status of a certificate using one of the required or permitted
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 29]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
mechanisms set forth in the CP/CPS (see Section 4.4.9 below), and
assent to the terms of the applicable relying party agreement as a
condition of relying on the certificate.
This subcomponent is used to describe the following elements related
to certificate renewal. Certificate renewal means the issuance of a
new certificate to the subscriber without changing the subscriber or
other participant's public key or any other information in the
certificate:
* Circumstances under which certificate renewal takes place, such as
where the certificate life has expired, but the policy permits the
same key pair to be reused;
* Who may request certificate renewal, for instance, the subscriber,
RA, or the CA may automatically renew an end-user subscriber
certificate;
* A CA or RA's procedures to process renewal requests to issue the
new certificate, for example, the use of a token, such as a
password, to re-authenticate the subscriber, or procedures that
are the same as the initial certificate issuance;
* Notification of the new certificate to the subscriber;
* Conduct constituting acceptance of the certificate;
* Publication of the certificate by the CA; and
* Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other entities.
This subcomponent is used to describe the following elements related
to a subscriber or other participant generating a new key pair and
applying for the issuance of a new certificate that certifies the new
public key:
* Circumstances under which certificate re-key can or must take
place, such as after a certificate is revoked for reasons of key
compromise or after a certificate has expired and the usage period
of the key pair has also expired;
* Who may request certificate re-key, for example, the subscriber;
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 30]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
* A CA or RA's procedures to process re-keying requests to issue the
new certificate, such as procedures that are the same as the
initial certificate issuance;
* Notification of the new certificate to the subscriber;
* Conduct constituting acceptance of the certificate;
* Publication of the certificate by the CA; and
* Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other entities.
This subcomponent is used to describe the following elements related
to the issuance of a new certificate (6) due to changes in the
information in the certificate other than the subscriber public key:
* Circumstances under which certificate modification can take place,
such as name change, role change, reorganization resulting in a
change in the DN;
* Who may request certificate modification, for instance,
subscribers, human resources personnel, or the RA;
* A CA or RA's procedures to process modification requests to issue
the new certificate, such as procedures that are the same as the
initial certificate issuance;
* Notification of the new certificate to the subscriber;
* Conduct constituting acceptance of the certificate;
* Publication of the certificate by the CA; and
* Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other entities.
This subcomponent addresses the following:
* Circumstances under which a certificate may be suspended and
circumstances under which it must be revoked, for instance, in
cases of subscriber employment termination, loss of cryptographic
token, or suspected compromise of the private key;
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 31]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
* Who can request the revocation of the participant's certificate,
for example, the subscriber, RA, or CA in the case of an end-user
subscriber certificate.
* Procedures used for certificate revocation request, such as a
digitally signed message from the RA, a digitally signed message
from the subscriber, or a phone call from the RA;
* The grace period available to the subscriber, within which the
subscriber must make a revocation request;
* The time within which CA must process the revocation request;
* The mechanisms, if any, that a relying party may use or must use
in order to check the status of certificates on which they wish to
rely;
* If a CRL mechanism is used, the issuance frequency;
* If a CRL mechanism is used, maximum latency between the generation
of CRLs and posting of the CRLs to the repository (in other words,
the maximum amount of processing- and communication-related delays
in posting CRLs to the repository after the CRLs are generated);
* On-line revocation/status checking availability, for instance,
OCSP and a web site to which status inquiries can be submitted;
* Requirements on relying parties to perform on-line
revocation/status checks;
* Other forms of revocation advertisements available;
* Any variations of the above stipulations for which suspension or
revocation is the result of private key compromise (as opposed to
other reasons for suspension or revocation).
* Circumstances under which a certificate may be suspended;
* Who can request the suspension of a certificate, for example, the
subscriber, human resources personnel, a supervisor of the
subscriber, or the RA in the case of an end-user subscriber
certificate;
* Procedures to request certificate suspension, such as a digitally
signed message from the subscriber or RA, or a phone call from the
RA; and
* How long the suspension may last.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 32]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This subcomponent addresses the certificate status checking services
available to the relying parties, including:
* The operational characteristics of certificate status checking
services;
* The availability of such services, and any applicable policies on
unavailability; and
* Any optional features of such services.
This subcomponent addresses procedures used by the subscriber to end
subscription to the CA services, including:
* The revocation of certificates at the end of subscription (which
may differ, depending on whether the end of subscription was due
to the expiration of the certificate or termination of the
service).
This subcomponent contains the following elements to identify the
policies and practices relating to the escrowing, and/or recovery of
private keys where private key escrow services are available (through
the CA or other trusted third parties):
* Identification of the document containing private key escrow and
recovery policies and practices or a listing of such policies and
practices; and
* Identification of the document containing session key
encapsulation and recovery policies and practices or a listing of
such policies and practices.
This component describes non-technical security controls (that is,
physical, procedural, and personnel controls) used by the issuing CA
to securely perform the functions of key generation, subject
authentication, certificate issuance, certificate revocation,
auditing, and archiving.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 33]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This component can also be used to define non-technical security
controls on repositories, subject CAs, RAs, subscribers, and other
participants. The non-technical security controls for the subject
CAs, RAs, subscribers, and other participants could be the same,
similar, or very different.
These non-technical security controls are critical to trusting the
certificates since lack of security may compromise CA operations
resulting for example, in the creation of certificates or CRLs with
erroneous information or compromising the CA private key.
Within each subcomponent, separate consideration will, in general,
need to be given to each entity type, that is, the issuing CA,
repository, subject CAs, RAs, subscribers, and other participants.
In this subcomponent, the physical controls on the facility housing
the entity systems are described. Topics addressed may include:
* Site location and construction, such as the construction
requirements for high-security zones and the use of locked rooms,
cages, safes, and cabinets;
* Physical access, i.e., mechanisms to control access from one area
of the facility to another or access into high-security zones,
such as locating CA operations in a secure computer room monitored
by guards or security alarms and requiring movement from zone to
zone to be accomplished using a token, biometric readers, and/or
access control lists;
* Power and air conditioning;
* Water exposures;
* Fire prevention and protection;
* Media storage, for example, requiring the storage of backup media
in a separate location that is physically secure and protected
from fire and water damage;
* Waste disposal; and
* Off-site backup.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 34]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
In this subcomponent, requirements for recognizing trusted roles are
described, together with the responsibilities for each role.
Examples of trusted roles include system administrators, security
officers, and system auditors.
For each task identified, the number of individuals required to
perform the task (n out m rule) should be stated for each role.
Identification and authentication requirements for each role may also
be defined.
This component also includes the separation of duties in terms of the
roles that cannot be performed by the same individuals.
This subcomponent addresses the following:
* Qualifications, experience, and clearances that personnel must
have as a condition of filling trusted roles or other important
roles. Examples include credentials, job experiences, and
official government clearances that candidates for these positions
must have before being hired;
* Background checks and clearance procedures that are required in
connection with the hiring of personnel filling trusted roles or
perhaps other important roles; such roles may require a check of
their criminal records, references, and additional clearances that
a participant undertakes after a decision has been made to hire a
particular person;
* Training requirements and training procedures for each role
following the hiring of personnel;
* Any retraining period and retraining procedures for each role
after completion of initial training;
* Frequency and sequence for job rotation among various roles;
* Sanctions against personnel for unauthorized actions, unauthorized
use of authority, and unauthorized use of entity systems for the
purpose of imposing accountability on a participant's personnel;
* Controls on personnel that are independent contractors rather than
employees of the entity; examples include:
- Bonding requirements on contract personnel;
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 35]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
- Contractual requirements including indemnification for damages
due to the actions of the contractor personnel;
- Auditing and monitoring of contractor personnel; and
- Other controls on contracting personnel.
* Documentation to be supplied to personnel during initial training,
retraining, or otherwise.
This subcomponent is used to describe event logging and audit
systems, implemented for the purpose of maintaining a secure
environment. Elements include the following:
* Types of events recorded, such as certificate lifecycle
operations, attempts to access the system, and requests made to
the system;
* Frequency with which audit logs are processed or archived, for
example, weekly, following an alarm or anomalous event, or when
ever the audit log is n% full;
* Period for which audit logs are kept;
* Protection of audit logs:
- Who can view audit logs, for example only the audit
administrator;
- Protection against modification of audit logs, for instance a
requirement that no one may modify or delete the audit records
or that only an audit administrator may delete an audit file as
part of rotating the audit file; and
- Protection against deletion of audit logs.
* Audit log back up procedures;
* Whether the audit log accumulation system is internal or external
to the entity;
* Whether the subject who caused an audit event to occur is notified
of the audit action; and
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 36]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
* Vulnerability assessments, for example, where audit data is run
through a tool that identifies potential attempts to breach the
security of the system.
This subcomponent is used to describe general records archival (or
records retention) policies, including the following:
* Types of records that are archived, for example, all audit data,
certificate application information, and documentation supporting
certificate applications;
* Retention period for an archive;
* Protection of an archive:
- Who can view the archive, for example, a requirement that only
the audit administrator may view the archive;
- Protection against modification of the archive, such as
securely storing the data on a write once medium;
- Protection against deletion of the archive;
- Protection against the deterioration of the media on which the
archive is stored, such as a requirement for data to be
migrated periodically to fresh media; and
- Protection against obsolescence of hardware, operating systems,
and other software, by, for example, retaining as part of the
archive the hardware, operating systems, and/or other software
in order to permit access to and use of archived records over
time.
* Archive backup procedures;
* Requirements for time-stamping of records;
* Whether the archive collection system is internal or external; and
* Procedures to obtain and verify archive information, such as a
requirement that two separate copies of the archive data be kept
under the control of two persons, and that the two copies be
compared in order to ensure that the archive information is
accurate.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 37]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This subcomponent describes the procedures to provide a new public
key to a CA's users following a re-key by the CA. These procedures
may be the same as the procedure for providing the current key.
Also, the new key may be certified in a certificate signed using the
old key.
This subcomponent describes requirements relating to notification and
recovery procedures in the event of compromise or disaster. Each of
the following may need to be addressed separately:
* Identification or listing of the applicable incident and
compromise reporting and handling procedures.
* The recovery procedures used if computing resources, software,
and/or data are corrupted or suspected to be corrupted. These
procedures describe how a secure environment is re-established,
which certificates are revoked, whether the entity key is revoked,
how the new entity public key is provided to the users, and how
the subjects are re-certified.
* The recovery procedures used if the entity key is compromised.
These procedures describe how a secure environment is re-
established, how the new entity public key is provided to the
users, and how the subjects are re-certified.
* The entity's capabilities to ensure business continuity following
a natural or other disaster. Such capabilities may include the
availability of a remote hot-site at which operations may be
recovered. They may also include procedures for securing its
facility during the period of time following a natural or other
disaster and before a secure environment is re-established, either
at the original site or at a remote site. For example, procedures
to protect against theft of sensitive materials from an
earthquake-damaged site.
This subcomponent describes requirements relating to procedures for
termination and termination notification of a CA or RA, including the
identity of the custodian of CA and RA archival records.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 38]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This component is used to define the security measures taken by the
issuing CA to protect its cryptographic keys and activation data
(e.g., PINs, passwords, or manually-held key shares). This component
may also be used to impose constraints on repositories, subject CAs,
subscribers, and other participants to protect their private keys,
activation data for their private keys, and critical security
parameters. Secure key management is critical to ensure that all
secret and private keys and activation data are protected and used
only by authorized personnel.
This component also describes other technical security controls used
by the issuing CA to perform securely the functions of key
generation, user authentication, certificate registration,
certificate revocation, auditing, and archiving. Technical controls
include life-cycle security controls (including software development
environment security, trusted software development methodology) and
operational security controls.
This component can also be used to define other technical security
controls on repositories, subject CAs, RAs, subscribers, and other
participants.
Key pair generation and installation need to be considered for the
issuing CA, repositories, subject CAs, RAs, and subscribers. For
each of these types of entities, the following questions potentially
need to be answered:
1. Who generates the entity public, private key pair? Possibilities
include the subscriber, RA, or CA. Also, how is the key
generation performed? Is the key generation performed by hardware
or software?
2. How is the private key provided securely to the entity?
Possibilities include a situation where the entity has generated
it and therefore already has it, handing the entity the private
key physically, mailing a token containing the private key
securely, or delivering it in an SSL session.
3. How is the entity's public key provided securely to the
certification authority? Some possibilities are in an online SSL
session or in a message signed by the RA.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 39]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
4. In the case of issuing CAs, how is the CA's public key provided
securely to potential relying parties? Possibilities include
handing the public key to the relying party securely in person,
physically mailing a copy securely to the relying party, or
delivering it in a SSL session.
5. What are the key sizes? Examples include a 1,024 bit RSA modulus
and a 1,024 bit DSA large prime.
6. Who generates the public key parameters, and is the quality of the
parameters checked during key generation?
7. For what purposes may the key be used, or for what purposes should
usage of the key be restricted? For X.509 certificates, these
purposes should map to the key usage flags in X.509 Version 3
certificates.
Controls
Requirements for private key protection and cryptographic modules
need to be considered for the issuing CA, repositories, subject CAs,
RAs, and subscribers. For each of these types of entities, the
following questions potentially need to be answered:
1. What standards, if any, are required for the cryptographic module
used to generate the keys? A cryptographic module can be
composed of hardware, software, firmware, or any combination of
them. For example, are the keys certified by the infrastructure
required to be generated using modules compliant with the US FIPS
140-1? If so, what is the required FIPS 140-1 level of the
module? Are there any other engineering or other controls
relating to a cryptographic module, such as the identification of
the cryptographic module boundary, input/output, roles and
services, finite state machine, physical security, software
security, operating system security, algorithm compliance,
electromagnetic compatibility, and self tests.
2. Is the private key under n out of m multi-person control?(7) If
yes, provide n and m (two person control is a special case of n
out of m, where n = m = 2)?
3. Is the private key escrowed?(8) If so, who is the escrow agent,
what form is the key escrowed in (examples include plaintext,
encrypted, split key), and what are the security controls on the
escrow system?
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 40]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
4. Is the private key backed up? If so, who is the backup agent,
what form is the key backed up in (examples include plaintext,
encrypted, split key), and what are the security controls on the
backup system?
5. Is the private key archived? If so, who is the archival agent,
what form is the key archived in (examples include plaintext,
encrypted, split key), and what are the security controls on the
archival system?
6. Under what circumstances, if any, can a private key be
transferred into or from a cryptographic module? Who is
permitted to perform such a transfer operation? In what form is
the private key during the transfer (i.e., plaintext, encrypted,
or split key)?
7. How is the private key stored in the module (i.e., plaintext,
encrypted, or split key)?
8. Who can activate (use) the private key? What actions must be
performed to activate the private key (e.g., login, power on,
supply PIN, insert token/key, automatic, etc.)? Once the key is
activated, is the key active for an indefinite period, active for
one time, or active for a defined time period?
9. Who can deactivate the private key and how? Examples of methods
of deactivating private keys include logging out, turning the
power off, removing the token/key, automatic deactivation, and
time expiration.
10. Who can destroy the private key and how? Examples of methods of
destroying private keys include token surrender, token
destruction, and overwriting the key.
11. Provide the capabilities of the cryptographic module in the
following areas: identification of the cryptographic module
boundary, input/output, roles and services, finite state machine,
physical security, software security, operating system security,
algorithm compliance, electromagnetic compatibility, and self
tests. Capability may be expressed through reference to
compliance with a standard such as U.S. FIPS 140-1, associated
level, and rating.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 41]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
Other aspects of key management need to be considered for the issuing
CA, repositories, subject CAs, RAs, subscribers, and other
participants. For each of these types of entities, the following
questions potentially need to be answered:
1. Is the public key archived? If so, who is the archival agent and
what are the security controls on the archival system? Also,
what software and hardware need to be preserved as part of the
archive to permit use of the public key over time? Note: this
subcomponent is not limited to requiring or describing the use of
digital signatures with archival data, but rather can address
integrity controls other than digital signatures when an archive
requires tamper protection. Digital signatures do not provide
tamper protection or protect the integrity of data; they merely
verify data integrity. Moreover, the archival period may be
greater than the cryptanalysis period for the public key needed
to verify any digital signature applied to archival data.
2. What is the operational period of the certificates issued to the
subscriber. What are the usage periods, or active lifetimes, for
the subscriber's key pair?
Activation data refers to data values other than whole private keys
that are required to operate private keys or cryptographic modules
containing private keys, such as a PIN, passphrase, or portions of a
private key used in a key-splitting scheme. Protection of activation
data prevents unauthorized use of the private key, and potentially
needs to be considered for the issuing CA, subject CAs, RAs, and
subscribers. Such consideration potentially needs to address the
entire life-cycle of the activation data from generation through
archival and destruction. For each of the entity types (issuing CA,
repository, subject CA, RA, subscriber, and other participants), all
of the questions listed in 4.6.1 through 4.6.3 potentially need to be
answered with respect to activation data rather than with respect to
keys.
This subcomponent is used to describe computer security controls such
as: use of the trusted computing base concept, discretionary access
control, labels, mandatory access controls, object re-use, audit,
identification and authentication, trusted path, security testing,
and penetration testing. Product assurance may also be addressed.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 42]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
A computer security rating for computer systems may be required. The
rating could be based, for example, on the Trusted System Evaluation
Criteria (TCSEC), Canadian Trusted Products Evaluation Criteria,
European Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria (ITSEC),
or the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation, ISO/IEC 15408:1999. This subcomponent can also address
requirements for product evaluation analysis, testing, profiling,
product certification, and/or product accreditation related activity
undertaken.
This subcomponent addresses system development controls and security
management controls.
System development controls include development environment security,
development personnel security, configuration management security
during product maintenance, software engineering practices, software
development methodology, modularity, layering, use of failsafe design
and implementation techniques (e.g., defensive programming) and
development facility security.
Security management controls include execution of tools and
procedures to ensure that the operational systems and networks adhere
to configured security. These tools and procedures include checking
the integrity of the security software, firmware, and hardware to
ensure their correct operation.
This subcomponent can also address life-cycle security ratings based,
for example, on the Trusted Software Development Methodology (TSDM)
level IV and V, independent life-cycle security controls audit, and
the Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model (SEI-
CMM).
This subcomponent addresses requirements or practices relating to the
use of timestamps on various data. It may also discuss whether or
not the time-stamping application must use a trusted time source.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 43]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This component is used to specify the certificate format and, if CRLs
and/or OCSP are used, the CRL and/or OCSP format. This includes
information on profiles, versions, and extensions used.
This subcomponent addresses such topics as the following (potentially
by reference to a separate profile definition, such as the one
defined in IETF PKIX RFC 3280):
* Version number(s) supported;
* Certificate extensions populated and their criticality;
* Cryptographic algorithm object identifiers;
* Name forms used for the CA, RA, and subscriber names;
* Name constraints used and the name forms used in the name
constraints;
* Applicable CP OID(s);
* Usage of the policy constraints extension;
* Policy qualifiers syntax and semantics; and
* Processing semantics for the critical CP extension.
This subcomponent addresses such topics as the following (potentially
by reference to a separate profile definition, such as the one
defined in IETF PKIX RFC 3280):
* Version numbers supported for CRLs; and
* CRL and CRL entry extensions populated and their criticality.
This subcomponent addresses such topics as the following (potentially
by reference to a separate profile definition, such as the IETF RFC
2560 profile):
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 44]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
* Version of OCSP that is being used as the basis for establishing
an OCSP system; and
* OCSP extensions populated and their criticality.
This component addresses the following:
* The list of topics covered by the assessment and/or the assessment
methodology used to perform the assessment; examples include
WebTrust for CAs (9) and SAS 70 (10).
* Frequency of compliance audit or other assessment for each entity
that must be assessed pursuant to a CP or CPS, or the
circumstances that will trigger an assessment; possibilities
include an annual audit, pre-operational assessment as a condition
of allowing an entity to be operational, or investigation
following a possible or actual compromise of security.
* The identity and/or qualifications of the personnel performing the
audit or other assessment.
* The relationship between the assessor and the entity being
assessed, including the degree of independence of the assessor.
* Actions taken as a result of deficiencies found during the
assessment; examples include a temporary suspension of operations
until deficiencies are corrected, revocation of certificates
issued to the assessed entity, changes in personnel, triggering
special investigations or more frequent subsequent compliance
assessments, and claims for damages against the assessed entity.
* Who is entitled to see results of an assessment (e.g., assessed
entity, other participants, the general public), who provides them
(e.g., the assessor or the assessed entity), and how they are
communicated.
This component covers general business and legal matters. Sections
9.1 and 9.2 of the framework discuss the business issues of fees to
be charged for various services and the financial responsibility of
participants to maintain resources for ongoing operations and for
paying judgments or settlements in response to claims asserted
against them. The remaining sections are generally concerned with
legal topics.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 45]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
Starting with Section 9.3 of the framework, the ordering of topics is
the same as or similar to the ordering of topics in a typical
software licensing agreement or other technology agreement.
Consequently, this framework may not only be used for CPs and CPSs,
but also associated PKI-related agreements, especially subscriber
agreements, and relying party agreements. This ordering is intended
help lawyers review CPs, CPSs, and other documents adhering to this
framework.
With respect to many of the legal subcomponents within this
component, a CP or CPS drafter may choose to include in the document
terms and conditions that apply directly to subscribers or relying
parties. For instance, a CP or CPS may set forth limitations of
liability that apply to subscribers and relying parties. The
inclusion of terms and conditions is likely to be appropriate where
the CP or CPS is itself a contract or part of a contract.
In other cases, however, the CP or CPS is not a contract or part of a
contract; instead, it is configured so that its terms and conditions
are applied to the parties by separate documents, which may include
associated agreements, such as subscriber or relying party
agreements. In that event, a CP drafter may write a CP so as to
require that certain legal terms and conditions appear (or not
appear) in such associated agreements. For example, a CP might
include a subcomponent stating that a certain limitation of liability
term must appear in a CA's subscriber and relying party agreements.
Another example is a CP that contains a subcomponent prohibiting the
use of a subscriber or relying party agreement containing a
limitation upon CA liability inconsistent with the provisions of the
CP. A CPS drafter may use legal subcomponents to disclose that
certain terms and conditions appear in associated subscriber, relying
party, or other agreements in use by the CA. A CPS might explain,
for instance, that the CA writing it uses an associated subscriber or
relying party agreement that applies a particular provision for
limiting liability.
This subcomponent contains any applicable provisions regarding fees
charged by CAs, repositories, or RAs, such as:
* Certificate issuance or renewal fees;
* Certificate access fees;
* Revocation or status information access fees;
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 46]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
* Fees for other services such as providing access to the relevant
CP or CPS; and
* Refund policy.
This subcomponent contains requirements or disclosures relating to
the resources available to CAs, RAs, and other participants providing
certification services to support performance of their operational
PKI responsibilities, and to remain solvent and pay damages in the
event they are liable to pay a judgment or settlement in connection
with a claim arising out of such operations. Such provisions
include:
* A statement that the participant maintains a certain amount of
insurance coverage for its liabilities to other participants;
* A statement that a participant has access to other resources to
support operations and pay damages for potential liability, which
may be couched in terms of a minimum level of assets necessary to
operate and cover contingencies that might occur within a PKI,
where examples include assets on the balance sheet of an
organization, a surety bond, a letter of credit, and a right under
an agreement to an indemnity under certain circumstances; and
* A statement that a participant has a program that offers first-
party insurance or warranty protection to other participants in
connection with their use of the PKI.
This subcomponent contains provisions relating to the treatment of
confidential business information that participants may communicate
to each other, such as business plans, sales information, trade
secrets, and information received from a third party under a
nondisclosure agreement. Specifically, this subcomponent addresses:
* The scope of what is considered confidential information,
* The types of information that are considered to be outside the
scope of confidential information, and
* The responsibilities of participants that receive confidential
information to secure it from compromise, and refrain from using
it or disclosing it to third parties.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 47]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This subcomponent relates to the protection that participants,
particularly CAs, RAs, and repositories, may be required to afford to
personally identifiable private information of certificate
applicants, subscribers, and other participants. Specifically, this
subcomponent addresses the following, to the extent pertinent under
applicable law:
* The designation and disclosure of the applicable privacy plan that
applies to a participant's activities, if required by applicable
law or policy;
* Information that is or is not considered private within the PKI;
* Any responsibility of participants that receive private
information to secure it, and refrain from using it and from
disclosing it to third parties;
* Any requirements as to notices to, or consent from individuals
regarding use or disclosure of private information; and
* Any circumstances under which a participant is entitled or
required to disclose private information pursuant to judicial,
administrative process in a private or governmental proceeding, or
in any legal proceeding.
This subcomponent addresses the intellectual property rights, such as
copyright, patent, trademarks, or trade secrets, that certain
participants may have or claim in a CP, CPS, certificates, names, and
keys, or are the subject of a license to or from participants.
This subcomponent can include representations and warranties of
various entities that are being made pursuant to the CP or CPS. For
example, a CPS that serves as a contract might contain a CA's
warranty that information contained in the certificate is accurate.
Alternatively, a CPS might contain a less extensive warranty to the
effect that the information in the certificate is true to the best of
the CA's knowledge after performing certain identity authentication
procedures with due diligence. This subcomponent can also include
requirements that representations and warranties appear in certain
agreements, such as subscriber or relying party agreements. For
instance, a CP may contain a requirement that all CAs utilize a
subscriber agreement, and that a subscriber agreement must contain a
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 48]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
warranty by the CA that information in the certificate is accurate.
Participants that may make representations and warranties include
CAs, RAs, subscribers, relying parties, and other participants.
This subcomponent can include disclaimers of express warranties that
may otherwise be deemed to exist in an agreement, and disclaimers of
implied warranties that may otherwise be imposed by applicable law,
such as warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular
purpose. The CP or CPS may directly impose such disclaimers, or the
CP or CPS may contain a requirement that disclaimers appear in
associated agreements, such as subscriber or relying party
agreements.
This subcomponent can include limitations of liability in a CP or CPS
or limitations that appear or must appear in an agreement associated
with the CP or CPS, such as a subscriber or relying party agreement.
These limitations may fall into one of two categories: limitations
on the elements of damages recoverable and limitations on the amount
of damages recoverable, also known as liability caps. Often,
contracts contain clauses preventing the recovery of elements of
damages such as incidental and consequential damages, and sometimes
punitive damages. Frequently, contracts contain clauses that limit
the possible recovery of one party or the other to an amount certain
or to an amount corresponding to a benchmark, such as the amount a
vendor was paid under the contract.
This subcomponent includes provisions by which one party makes a
second party whole for losses or damage incurred by the second party,
typically arising out of the first party's conduct. They may appear
in a CP, CPS, or agreement. For example, a CP may require that
subscriber agreements contain a term under which a subscriber is
responsible for indemnifying a CA for losses the CA sustains arising
out of a subscriber's fraudulent misrepresentations on the
certificate application under which the CA issued the subscriber an
inaccurate certificate. Similarly, a CPS may say that a CA uses a
relying party agreement, under which relying parties are responsible
for indemnifying a CA for losses the CA sustains arising out of use
of a certificate without properly checking revocation information or
use of a certificate for purposes beyond what the CA permits.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 49]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This subcomponent can include the time period in which a CP or a CPS
remains in force and the circumstances under which the document,
portions of the document, or its applicability to a particular
participant can be terminated. In addition or alternatively, the CP
or CPS may include requirements that certain term and termination
clauses appear in agreements, such as subscriber or relying party
agreements. In particular, such terms can include:
* The term of a document or agreement, that is, when the document
becomes effective and when it expires if it is not terminated
earlier.
* Termination provisions stating circumstances under which the
document, certain portions of it, or its application to a
particular participant ceases to remain in effect.
* Any consequences of termination of the document. For example,
certain provisions of an agreement may survive its termination and
remain in force. Examples include acknowledgements of
intellectual property rights and confidentiality provisions.
Also, termination may trigger a responsibility of parties to
return confidential information to the party that disclosed it.
This subcomponent discusses the way in which one participant can or
must communicate with another participant on a one-to-one basis in
order for such communications to be legally effective. For example,
an RA may wish to inform the CA that it wishes to terminate its
agreement with the CA. This subcomponent is different from
publication and repository functions, because unlike individual
communications described in this subcomponent, publication and
posting to a repository are for the purpose of communicating to a
wide audience of recipients, such as all relying parties. This
subcomponent may establish mechanisms for communication and indicate
the contact information to be used to route such communications, such
as digitally signed e-mail notices to a specified address, followed
by a signed e-mail acknowledgement of receipt.
It will occasionally be necessary to amend a CP or CPS. Some of
these changes will not materially reduce the assurance that a CP or
its implementation provides, and will be judged by the policy
administrator to have an insignificant effect on the acceptability of
certificates. Such changes to a CP or CPS need not require a change
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 50]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
in the CP OID or the CPS pointer (URL). On the other hand, some
changes to a specification will materially change the acceptability
of certificates for specific purposes, and these changes may require
corresponding changes to the CP OID or CPS pointer qualifier (URL).
This subcomponent may also contain the following information:
* The procedures by which the CP or CPS and/or other documents must,
may be, or are amended. In the case of CP or CPS amendments,
change procedures may include a notification mechanism to provide
notice of proposed amendments to affected parties, such as
subscribers and relying parties, a comment period, a mechanism by
which comments are received, reviewed and incorporated into the
document, and a mechanism by which amendments become final and
effective.
* The circumstances under which amendments to the CP or CPS would
require a change in CP OID or CPS pointer (URL).
This subcomponent discusses procedures utilized to resolve disputes
arising out of the CP, CPS, and/or agreements. Examples of such
procedures include requirements that disputes be resolved in a
certain forum or by alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
This subcomponent sets forth a statement that the law of a certain
jurisdiction governs the interpretation and enforcement of the
subject CP or CPS or agreements.
This subcomponent relates to stated requirements that participants
comply with applicable law, for example, laws relating to
cryptographic hardware and software that may be subject to the export
control laws of a given jurisdiction. The CP or CPS could purport to
impose such requirements or may require that such provisions appear
in other agreements.
This subcomponent contains miscellaneous provisions, sometimes called
"boilerplate provisions," in contracts. The clauses covered in this
subcomponent may appear in a CP, CPS, or agreements and include:
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 51]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
* An entire agreement clause, which typically identifies the
document or documents comprising the entire agreement between the
parties and states that such agreements supersede all prior and
contemporaneous written or oral understandings relating to the
same subject matter;
* An assignment clause, which may act to limit the ability of a
party in an agreement, assigning its rights under the agreement to
another party (such as the right to receive a stream of payments
in the future) or limiting the ability of a party to delegate its
obligations under the agreement;
* A severability clause, which sets forth the intentions of the
parties in the event that a court or other tribunal determines
that a clause within an agreement is, for some reason, invalid or
unenforceable, and whose purpose is frequently to prevent the
unenforceability of one clause from causing the whole agreement to
be unenforceable; and
* An enforcement clause, which may state that a party prevailing in
any dispute arising out of an agreement is entitled to attorneys'
fees as part of its recovery, or may state that a party's waiver
of one breach of contract does not constitute a continuing waiver
or a future waiver of other breaches of contract.
* A force majeure clause, commonly used to excuse the performance of
one or more parties to an agreement due to an event outside the
reasonable control of the affected party or parties. Typically,
the duration of the excused performance is commensurate with the
duration of the delay caused by the event. The clause may also
provide for the termination of the agreement under specified
circumstances and conditions. Events considered to constitute a
"force majeure" may include so-called "Acts of God," wars,
terrorism, strikes, natural disasters, failures of suppliers or
vendors to perform, or failures of the Internet or other
infrastructure. Force majeure clauses should be drafted so as to
be consistent with other portions of the framework and applicable
service level agreements. For instance, responsibilities and
capabilities for business continuity and disaster recovery may
place some events within the reasonable control of the parties,
such as an obligation to maintain backup electrical power in the
face of power outages.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 52]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
This subcomponent is a "catchall" location where additional
responsibilities and terms can be imposed on PKI participants that do
not neatly fit within one of the other components or subcomponents of
the framework. CP and CPS writers can place any provision within
this subcomponent that is not covered by another subcomponent.
According to X.509, a certificate policy (CP) is "a named set of
rules that indicates the applicability of a certificate to a
particular community and/or class of applications with common
security requirements." A CP may be used by a relying party to help
in deciding whether a certificate, and the binding therein, are
sufficiently trustworthy and otherwise appropriate for a particular
application.
The degree to which a relying party can trust the binding embodied in
a certificate depends on several factors. These factors can include
the practices followed by the certification authority (CA) in
authenticating the subject; the CA's operating policy, procedures,
and technical security controls, including the scope of the
subscriber's responsibilities (for example, in protecting the private
key), and the stated responsibilities and liability terms and
conditions of the CA (for example, warranties, disclaimers of
warranties, and limitations of liability).
This document provides a framework to address technical, procedural,
personnel, and physical security aspects of Certification
Authorities, Registration Authorities, repositories, subscribers, and
relying party cryptographic modules, in order to ensure that the
certificate generation, publication, renewal, re-key, usage, and
revocation is done in a secure manner. Specifically, Section 4.3
Identification and Authentication (I&A); Section 4.4 Certificate
Life-Cycle Operational Requirements; Section 4.5 Facility Management,
and Operational Controls; Section 4.6 Technical Security Controls;
Section 4.7 Certificate CRL, and OCSP Profiles; and Section 4.8
Compliance Audit and Other Assessment, are oriented towards ensuring
secure operation of the PKI entities such as CA, RA, repository,
subscriber systems, and relying party systems.
This section contains a recommended outline for a set of provisions,
intended to serve as a checklist or (with some further development) a
standard template for use by CP or CPS writers. Such a common
outline will facilitate:
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 53]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
(a) Comparison of two certificate policies during cross-
certification or other forms of interoperation (for the purpose
of equivalency mapping).
(b) Comparison of a CPS with a CP to ensure that the CPS faithfully
implements the policy.
(c) Comparison of two CPSs.
In order to comply with the RFC, the drafters of a compliant CP or
CPS are strongly advised to adhere to this outline. While use of an
alternate outline is discouraged, it may be accepted if a proper
justification is provided for the deviation and a mapping table is
provided to readily discern where each of the items described in this
outline is provided.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
1.2 Document name and identification
1.3 PKI participants
1.3.1 Certification authorities
1.3.2 Registration authorities
1.3.3 Subscribers
1.3.4 Relying parties
1.3.5 Other participants
1.4 Certificate usage
1.4.1. Appropriate certificate uses
1.4.2 Prohibited certificate uses
1.5 Policy administration
1.5.1 Organization administering the document
1.5.2 Contact person
1.5.3 Person determining CPS suitability for the policy
1.5.4 CPS approval procedures
1.6 Definitions and acronyms
2. PUBLICATION AND REPOSITORY RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Repositories
2.2 Publication of certification information
2.3 Time or frequency of publication
2.4 Access controls on repositories
3. IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION (11)
3.1 Naming
3.1.1 Types of names
3.1.2 Need for names to be meaningful
3.1.3 Anonymity or pseudonymity of subscribers
3.1.4 Rules for interpreting various name forms
3.1.5 Uniqueness of names
3.1.6 Recognition, authentication, and role of trademarks
3.2 Initial identity validation
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 54]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
3.2.1 Method to prove possession of private key
3.2.2 Authentication of organization identity
3.2.3 Authentication of individual identity
3.2.4 Non-verified subscriber information
3.2.5 Validation of authority
3.2.6 Criteria for interoperation
3.3 Identification and authentication for re-key requests
3.3.1 Identification and authentication for routine re-key
3.3.2 Identification and authentication for re-key after revocation
3.4 Identification and authentication for revocation request
4. CERTIFICATE LIFE-CYCLE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS (11)
4.1 Certificate Application
4.1.1 Who can submit a certificate application
4.1.2 Enrollment process and responsibilities
4.2 Certificate application processing
4.2.1 Performing identification and authentication functions
4.2.2 Approval or rejection of certificate applications
4.2.3 Time to process certificate applications
4.3 Certificate issuance
4.3.1 CA actions during certificate issuance
4.3.2 Notification to subscriber by the CA of issuance of
certificate
4.4 Certificate acceptance
4.4.1 Conduct constituting certificate acceptance
4.4.2 Publication of the certificate by the CA
4.4.3 Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other
entities
4.5 Key pair and certificate usage
4.5.1 Subscriber private key and certificate usage
4.5.2 Relying party public key and certificate usage
4.6 Certificate renewal
4.6.1 Circumstance for certificate renewal
4.6.2 Who may request renewal
4.6.3 Processing certificate renewal requests
4.6.4 Notification of new certificate issuance to subscriber
4.6.5 Conduct constituting acceptance of a renewal certificate
4.6.6 Publication of the renewal certificate by the CA
4.6.7 Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other
entities
4.7 Certificate re-key
4.7.1 Circumstance for certificate re-key
4.7.2 Who may request certification of a new public key
4.7.3 Processing certificate re-keying requests
4.7.4 Notification of new certificate issuance to subscriber
4.7.5 Conduct constituting acceptance of a re-keyed certificate
4.7.6 Publication of the re-keyed certificate by the CA
4.7.7 Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other
entities
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 55]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
4.8 Certificate modification
4.8.1 Circumstance for certificate modification
4.8.2 Who may request certificate modification
4.8.3 Processing certificate modification requests
4.8.4 Notification of new certificate issuance to subscriber
4.8.5 Conduct constituting acceptance of modified certificate
4.8.6 Publication of the modified certificate by the CA
4.8.7 Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other
entities
4.9 Certificate revocation and suspension
4.9.1 Circumstances for revocation
4.9.2 Who can request revocation
4.9.3 Procedure for revocation request
4.9.4 Revocation request grace period
4.9.5 Time within which CA must process the revocation request
4.9.6 Revocation checking requirement for relying parties
4.9.7 CRL issuance frequency (if applicable)
4.9.8 Maximum latency for CRLs (if applicable)
4.9.9 On-line revocation/status checking availability
4.9.10 On-line revocation checking requirements
4.9.11 Other forms of revocation advertisements available
4.9.12 Special requirements re key compromise
4.9.13 Circumstances for suspension
4.9.14 Who can request suspension
4.9.15 Procedure for suspension request
4.9.16 Limits on suspension period
4.10 Certificate status services
4.10.1 Operational characteristics
4.10.2 Service availability
4.10.3 Optional features
4.11 End of subscription
4.12 Key escrow and recovery
4.12.1 Key escrow and recovery policy and practices
4.12.2 Session key encapsulation and recovery policy and practices
5. FACILITY, MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATIONAL CONTROLS (11)
5.1 Physical controls
5.1.1 Site location and construction
5.1.2 Physical access
5.1.3 Power and air conditioning
5.1.4 Water exposures
5.1.5 Fire prevention and protection
5.1.6 Media storage
5.1.7 Waste disposal
5.1.8 Off-site backup
5.2 Procedural controls
5.2.1 Trusted roles
5.2.2 Number of persons required per task
5.2.3 Identification and authentication for each role
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 56]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
5.2.4 Roles requiring separation of duties
5.3 Personnel controls
5.3.1 Qualifications, experience, and clearance requirements
5.3.2 Background check procedures
5.3.3 Training requirements
5.3.4 Retraining frequency and requirements
5.3.5 Job rotation frequency and sequence
5.3.6 Sanctions for unauthorized actions
5.3.7 Independent contractor requirements
5.3.8 Documentation supplied to personnel
5.4 Audit logging procedures
5.4.1 Types of events recorded
5.4.2 Frequency of processing log
5.4.3 Retention period for audit log
5.4.4 Protection of audit log
5.4.5 Audit log backup procedures
5.4.6 Audit collection system (internal vs. external)
5.4.7 Notification to event-causing subject
5.4.8 Vulnerability assessments
5.5 Records archival
5.5.1 Types of records archived
5.5.2 Retention period for archive
5.5.3 Protection of archive
5.5.4 Archive backup procedures
5.5.5 Requirements for time-stamping of records
5.5.6 Archive collection system (internal or external)
5.5.7 Procedures to obtain and verify archive information
5.6 Key changeover
5.7 Compromise and disaster recovery
5.7.1 Incident and compromise handling procedures
5.7.2 Computing resources, software, and/or data are corrupted
5.7.3 Entity private key compromise procedures
5.7.4 Business continuity capabilities after a disaster
5.8 CA or RA termination
6. TECHNICAL SECURITY CONTROLS (11)
6.1 Key pair generation and installation
6.1.1 Key pair generation
6.1.2 Private key delivery to subscriber
6.1.3 Public key delivery to certificate issuer
6.1.4 CA public key delivery to relying parties
6.1.5 Key sizes
6.1.6 Public key parameters generation and quality checking
6.1.7 Key usage purposes (as per X.509 v3 key usage field)
6.2 Private Key Protection and Cryptographic Module Engineering
Controls
6.2.1 Cryptographic module standards and controls
6.2.2 Private key (n out of m) multi-person control
6.2.3 Private key escrow
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 57]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
6.2.4 Private key backup
6.2.5 Private key archival
6.2.6 Private key transfer into or from a cryptographic module
6.2.7 Private key storage on cryptographic module
6.2.8 Method of activating private key
6.2.9 Method of deactivating private key
6.2.10 Method of destroying private key
6.2.11 Cryptographic Module Rating
6.3 Other aspects of key pair management
6.3.1 Public key archival
6.3.2 Certificate operational periods and key pair usage periods
6.4 Activation data
6.4.1 Activation data generation and installation
6.4.2 Activation data protection
6.4.3 Other aspects of activation data
6.5 Computer security controls
6.5.1 Specific computer security technical requirements
6.5.2 Computer security rating
6.6 Life cycle technical controls
6.6.1 System development controls
6.6.2 Security management controls
6.6.3 Life cycle security controls
6.7 Network security controls
6.8 Time-stamping
7. CERTIFICATE, CRL, AND OCSP PROFILES
7.1 Certificate profile
7.1.1 Version number(s)
7.1.2 Certificate extensions
7.1.3 Algorithm object identifiers
7.1.4 Name forms
7.1.5 Name constraints
7.1.6 Certificate policy object identifier
7.1.7 Usage of Policy Constraints extension
7.1.8 Policy qualifiers syntax and semantics
7.1.9 Processing semantics for the critical Certificate Policies
extension
7.2 CRL profile
7.2.1 Version number(s)
7.2.2 CRL and CRL entry extensions
7.3 OCSP profile
7.3.1 Version number(s)
7.3.2 OCSP extensions
8. COMPLIANCE AUDIT AND OTHER ASSESSMENTS
8.1 Frequency or circumstances of assessment
8.2 Identity/qualifications of assessor
8.3 Assessor's relationship to assessed entity
8.4 Topics covered by assessment
8.5 Actions taken as a result of deficiency
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 58]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
8.6 Communication of results
9. OTHER BUSINESS AND LEGAL MATTERS
9.1 Fees
9.1.1 Certificate issuance or renewal fees
9.1.2 Certificate access fees
9.1.3 Revocation or status information access fees
9.1.4 Fees for other services
9.1.5 Refund policy
9.2 Financial responsibility
9.2.1 Insurance coverage
9.2.2 Other assets
9.2.3 Insurance or warranty coverage for end-entities
9.3 Confidentiality of business information
9.3.1 Scope of confidential information
9.3.2 Information not within the scope of confidential information
9.3.3 Responsibility to protect confidential information
9.4 Privacy of personal information
9.4.1 Privacy plan
9.4.2 Information treated as private
9.4.3 Information not deemed private
9.4.4 Responsibility to protect private information
9.4.5 Notice and consent to use private information
9.4.6 Disclosure pursuant to judicial or administrative process
9.4.7 Other information disclosure circumstances
9.5 Intellectual property rights
9.6 Representations and warranties
9.6.1 CA representations and warranties
9.6.2 RA representations and warranties
9.6.3 Subscriber representations and warranties
9.6.4 Relying party representations and warranties
9.6.5 Representations and warranties of other participants
9.7 Disclaimers of warranties
9.8 Limitations of liability
9.9 Indemnities
9.10 Term and termination
9.10.1 Term
9.10.2 Termination
9.10.3 Effect of termination and survival
9.11 Individual notices and communications with participants
9.12 Amendments
9.12.1 Procedure for amendment
9.12.2 Notification mechanism and period
9.12.3 Circumstances under which OID must be changed
9.13 Dispute resolution provisions
9.14 Governing law
9.15 Compliance with applicable law
9.16 Miscellaneous provisions
9.16.1 Entire agreement
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 59]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
9.16.2 Assignment
9.16.3 Severability
9.16.4 Enforcement (attorneys' fees and waiver of rights)
9.16.5 Force Majeure
9.17 Other provisions
This framework represents an incremental improvement over RFC 2527.
The new framework benefits from the experience gained in the course
of deploying CP and CPS documents under RFC 2527. Further, this new
framework is based on coordination with the American Bar Association
Information Security Committee within the Section of Science and
Technology Law. The ISC wrote the PKI Assessment Guidelines [ABA2],
which embodies a great deal of technical, business, and legal
experience in PKI operations. In particular, representatives of the
ISC made changes to the framework to better suite it to the legal
environment and make it more accessible to lawyers.
>From a technical perspective, the changes to the RFC 2527 framework
were minimal and incremental, rather than revolutionary. Sections
3-7 have largely been preserved, with modest reorganization and new
topics. For example, the new framework includes a revision of
Section 4 of the framework to include a full treatment of the
certificate life-cycle, the addition of key escrow, key
encapsulation, and key recovery policies and practices, and OCSP.
Section 2 audit functions now appear alone in Section 8, and Section
2 focuses exclusively on repository functions. The business and
legal matters in RFC 2527's Section 2 now appear in a new Section 9.
From a legal perspective, the new Section 9 is useful because it
places topics in the framework in an ordering that is similar to
software licensing and other technology agreements and thus is
familiar to technology lawyers. Moreover, the framework as a whole
can double as a framework for a subscriber, relying party, or other
PKI-related agreement. The changes are intended to make legal review
of, and input into, CP and CPS documents more efficient. Section 9
also adds new legal topics, such as the privacy of personal
information, liability terms, and duration of the effectiveness of
the document.
Section 1 of the new framework is largely the same as RFC 2527,
although it increases coverage of PKI participants by breaking out
subscribers from relying parties and adding a section for other
participants. It changes the "applicability" section to one covering
appropriate and prohibited uses of certificates. Also, it moves CPS
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 60]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
approval procedures from RFC 2527's Section 8.3 into a collected
policy administration section. Finally, Section 1.6 adds a place to
list definitions and acronyms.
Section 2 of the new framework is a reorganization of Section 2.6 of
the old framework. Section 3 of the new framework is based on a
division of the old Section 3.1 into two parts for naming and
identification and authentication issues. It adds new issues, such
as the permissibility of pseudonyms and anonymity. Old Section 4
topics on audit logging, record archives, key changeover, compromise
and disaster recovery, and CA termination have moved to Section 5.
The remaining Section 4 topics have been expanded and reorganized to
cover a complete certificate lifecycle. New topics include items
implicit in the RFC 2527 Section 4, but now explicit, such as
certificate application processing, certificate modification, and the
end of subscription.
New Sections 5.1 through 5.3 are almost identical to their
counterparts in RFC 2527. The remainder of the new Section 5 is the
topics moved from RFC 2527's Section 4, in the order that they
appeared in Section 4. Section 6 of the new framework is almost the
same as the old Section 6, with some exceptions, such as the
consolidation of old Section 6.8 (cryptographic module engineering
controls) into Section 6.2.1 (now called "cryptographic module
standards and controls") and the addition of time-stamping in a new
Section 6.8. Section 7 is almost identical to the old Section 7, the
major change being the addition of a section covering OCSP profile.
Section 8 is almost identical to RFC 2527's Section 2.7.
New Section 9 contains business and legal topics that were covered in
RFC 2527's Section 2, including fees, financial responsibility,
confidentiality, and intellectual property. It adds a section on the
privacy of personal information, which has become a significant
policy issue. The "liability" Section 2.2 in RFC 2527 now appears in
Sections 9.6 through 9.9, covering representations and warranties,
disclaimers, limitations of liability, and indemnities. Section 9.10
adds a section concerning the duration of the effectiveness of
documentation. Section 9.12 collects terms concerning the way in
which a document (CP, CPS, agreement, or other document) may be
amended, formerly appearing in Section 8.1. Section 9 includes
"legal boilerplate" topics, some of which were in the old Section 2.
Finally, Section 9.17 is a catch-all "other provisions" section where
drafters can place information that does not fit well into any other
section of the framework.
The following matrix shows the sections in the old RFC 2527 framework
and their successor sections in the new framework.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 61]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
ORIGINAL RFC 2527 NEW RFC SECTION
SECTION
------------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction 1.
------------------------------------------------------
1.1 Overview 1.1
------------------------------------------------------
1.2 Identification 1.2
------------------------------------------------------
1.3 Community and
Applicability 1.3
------------------------------------------------------
1.3.1 Certification
Authorities 1.3.1
------------------------------------------------------
1.3.2 Registration Authorities 1.3.2
------------------------------------------------------
1.3.3 End entities 1.3.3,
1.3.4
------------------------------------------------------
1.3.4 Applicability 1.4, 4.5
------------------------------------------------------
1.4 Contact Details 1.5
------------------------------------------------------
1.4.1 Specification Administration
Organization 1.5.1
------------------------------------------------------
1.4.2 Contact Person 1.5.2
------------------------------------------------------
1.4.3 Person Determining CPS
Suitability for the Policy 1.5.3
------------------------------------------------------
2. General Provisions 2, 8, 9
------------------------------------------------------
2.1 Obligations 2.6.4
------------------------------------------------------
2.1.1 1A Obligations Integrated
throughout
portions of the
framework that
apply to CAs
------------------------------------------------------
2.1.2 RA Obligations Integrated
throughout
portions of the
framework that
apply to RAs
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 62]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
2.1.3 Subscriber Obligations 4.1.2, 4.4, 4.5,
4.5.1, 4.6.5,
4.7.5, 4.8.1,
4.8.5, 4.9.1,
4.9.2, 4.9.13,
4.9.15, 5., 6.,
9.6.3, 9.9
------------------------------------------------------
2.1.4 Relying Party Obligations 4.5, 4.5.2, 4.9.6,
5., 6., 9.6.4, 9.9
------------------------------------------------------
2.1.5 Repository Obligations 2., 4.4.2, 4.4.3,
4.6.6, 4.6.7,
4.7.6, 4.7.7,
4.8.6, 4.8.7
------------------------------------------------------
2.2 Liability 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9
------------------------------------------------------
2.2.1 CA Liability 9.6.1, 9.7., 9.8,
9.9
------------------------------------------------------
2.2.2 RA Liability 9.6.2, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9
------------------------------------------------------
2.3 Financial Responsibility 9.2
------------------------------------------------------
2.3.1 Indemnification by Relying
Parties 9.9
------------------------------------------------------
2.3.2 Fiduciary Relationships 9.7
------------------------------------------------------
2.4 Interpretation and Enforcement 9.16
------------------------------------------------------
2.4.1 Governing Law 9.14, 9.15
------------------------------------------------------
2.4.2 Severability, Survival,
Merger, Notice 9.10.3, 9.11,
9.16.1,9.16.3
------------------------------------------------------
2.4.3 Dispute Resolution
Procedures 9.13, 9.16.4
------------------------------------------------------
2.5 Fees 9.1
------------------------------------------------------
2.5.1 Certificate Issuance
or Renewal Fees 9.1.1
------------------------------------------------------
2.5.2 Certificate Access Fees 9.1.2
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 63]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
2.5.3 Revocation or Status
Information Access Fees 9.1.3
------------------------------------------------------
2.5.4 Fees for Other Services Such
as Policy Information 9.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
2.5.5 Refund Policy 9.1.5
------------------------------------------------------
2.6 Publication and Repository 2.
------------------------------------------------------
2.6.1 Publication of CA
Information 2.2, 4.4.2,
4.4.3, 4.6.6,
4.6.7, 4.7.6,
4.7.7, 4.8.6,
4.8.7
------------------------------------------------------
2.6.2 Frequency of Publication 2.3
------------------------------------------------------
2.6.3 Access Controls 2.4
------------------------------------------------------
2.6.4 Repositories 2.1
------------------------------------------------------
2.7 Compliance Audit 8.
------------------------------------------------------
2.7.1 Frequency of Entity Compliance
Audit 8.1
------------------------------------------------------
2.7.2 Identity/Qualifications of
Auditor 8.2
------------------------------------------------------
2.7.3 Auditor's Relationship to Audited
Party 8.3
------------------------------------------------------
2.7.4 Topics Covered by Audit 8.4
------------------------------------------------------
2.7.5 Actions Taken as a Result of
Deficiency 8.5
------------------------------------------------------
2.7.6 Communications of Results 8.6
------------------------------------------------------
2.8 Confidentiality 9.3, 9.4
------------------------------------------------------
2.8.1 Types of Information to be
Kept Confidential 9.3.1, 9.4.2
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 64]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
2.8.2 Types of Information Not
Considered Confidential 9.3.2, 9.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
2.8.3 Disclosure of Certificate
Revocation/Suspension
Information 9.3.1, 9.3.2,
9.3.3, 9.4.2,
9.4.3, 9.4.4
------------------------------------------------------
2.8.4 Release to Law Enforcement
Officials 9.3.3, 9.4.6
------------------------------------------------------
2.8.5 Release as Part of Civil
Discovery 9.3.3, 9.4.6
------------------------------------------------------
2.8.6 Disclosure Upon Owner's
Request 9.3.3, 9.4.7
------------------------------------------------------
2.8.7 Other Information Release
Circumstances 9.3.3, 9.4.7
------------------------------------------------------
2.9 Intellectual Property Rights 9.5
------------------------------------------------------
3. Identification and Authentication 3.
------------------------------------------------------
3.1 Initial Registration 3.1, 3.2
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.1 Type of Names 3.1.1
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.2 Need for Names to be
Meaningful 3.1.2, 3.1.3
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.3 Rules for Interpreting
Various Name Forms 3.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.4 Uniqueness of Names 3.1.5
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.5 Name Claim Dispute
Resolution Procedure 3.1.6
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.6 Recognition, Authentication,
and Role of Trademarks 3.1.6
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.7 Method to Prove Possession
of Private Key 3.2.1
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 65]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.8 Authentication of
Organization Identity 3.2.2
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.9 Authentication of
Individual Identity 3.2.3
------------------------------------------------------
3.2 Routine Rekey 3.3.1, 4.6, 4.7
------------------------------------------------------
3.3 Rekey After Revocation 3.3.2
------------------------------------------------------
3.4 Revocation Request 3.4
------------------------------------------------------
4. Operational Requirements 4., 5.
------------------------------------------------------
4.1 Certificate Application 4.1, 4.2, 4.6,
4.7
------------------------------------------------------
4.2 Certificate Issuance 4.2, 4.3, 4.4.3,
4.6, 4.7, 4.8.4,
4.8.6, 4.8.7
------------------------------------------------------
4.3 Certificate Acceptance 4.3.2, 4.4, 4.6,
4.7, 4.8.4-4.8.7
------------------------------------------------------
4.4 Certificate Suspension
and Revocation 4.8, 4.9
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.1 Circumstances for Revocation 4.8.1, 4.9.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.2 Who Can Request Revocation 4.8.2, 4.9.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.3 Procedure for Revocation
Request 4.8.3-4.8.7,
4.9.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.4 Revocation Request
Grace Period 4.9.4
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.5 Circumstances for Suspension 4.9.13
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.6 Who Can Request Suspension 4.9.14
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.7 Procedure for Suspension
Request 4.9.15
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.8 Limits on Suspension Period 4.9.16
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 66]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.9 CRL Issuance Frequency
(If Applicable) 4.9.7, 4.9.8,
4.10
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.10 CRL Checking Requirements 4.9.6, 4.10
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.11 On-Line Revocation/
Status Checking
Availability 4.9.9, 4.10
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.12 On-Line Revocation
Checking Requirements 4.9.6, 4.9.10,
4.10
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.13 Other Forms
of Revocation
Advertisements 4.9.11, 4.10
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.14 Checking Requirements
for Other Forms of
Revocation
Advertisements 4.9.6, 4.9.11,
4.10
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.15 Special Requirements re
Key Compromise 4.9.12
------------------------------------------------------
4.5 Security Audit Procedures 5.4
------------------------------------------------------
4.5.1 Types of Events Recorded 5.4.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.5.2 Frequency of Processing Log 5.4.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.5.3 Retention Period for Audit
Log 5.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.5.4 Protection of Audit Log 5.4.4
------------------------------------------------------
4.5.5 Audit Log Backup Procedures 5.4.5
------------------------------------------------------
4.5.6 Audit Collection System
(Internal vs. External) 5.4.6
------------------------------------------------------
4.5.7 Notification to Event-Causing
Subject 5.4.7
------------------------------------------------------
4.5.8 Vulnerability Assessments 5.4.8
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 67]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
4.6 Records Archival 5.5
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.1 Types of Records Archived 5.5.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.2 Retention Period for Archive 5.5.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.3 Protection of Archive 5.5.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.4 Archive Backup Procedures 5.5.4
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.5 Requirements for
Time-Stamping of Records 5.5.5
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.6 Archive Collection System
(Internal or External) 5.5.6
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.6 Procedures to Obtain and
Verify Archive Information 5.5.7
------------------------------------------------------
4.7 Key Changeover 5.6
------------------------------------------------------
4.8 Compromise and Disaster
Recovery 5.7, 5.7.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.8.1 Computing Resources, Software,
and/or Data Are Corrupted 5.7.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.8.2 Entity Public
Key is Revoked 4.9.7, 4.9.9,
4.9.11
------------------------------------------------------
4.8.3 Entity Key is Compromised 5.7.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.8.4 Secure Facility After a Natural
or Other Type of Disaster 5.7.4
------------------------------------------------------
4.9 CA Termination 5.8
------------------------------------------------------
5. Physical, Procedural, and
Personnel Security Controls 5.
------------------------------------------------------
5.1 Physical Controls 5.1
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.1 Site Location and Construction 5.1.1
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.2 Physical Access 5.1.2
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 68]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.3 Power and Air Conditioning 5.1.3
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.4 Water Exposures 5.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.5 Fire Prevention and Protection 5.1.5
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.6 Media Storage 5.1.6
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.7 Waste Disposal 5.1.7
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.8 Off-Site Backup 5.1.8
------------------------------------------------------
5.2 Procedural Controls 5.2
------------------------------------------------------
5.2.1 Trusted Roles 5.2.1, 5.2.4
------------------------------------------------------
5.2.2 Number of Persons
Required per Task 5.2.2, 5.2.4
------------------------------------------------------
5.2.3 Identification and
Authentication for Each Role 5.2.3
------------------------------------------------------
5.3 Personnel Controls 5.3
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.1 Background, Qualifications,
Experience, and Clearance
Requirements 5.3.1
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.2 Background Check Procedures 5.3.2
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.3 Training Requirements 5.3.3
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.4 Retraining Frequency
and Requirements 5.3.4
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.5 Job Rotation Frequency
and Sequence 5.3.5
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.6 Sanctions for
Unauthorized Actions 5.3.6
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.7 Contracting Personnel
Requirements 5.3.7
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.8 Documentation Supplied to
Personnel 5.3.8
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 69]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
6. Technical Security Controls 6.
------------------------------------------------------
6.1 Key Pair Generation and
Installation 6.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.1 Key Pair Generation 6.1.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.2 Private Key Delivery to Entity 6.1.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.3 Public Key Delivery to
Certificate Issuer 6.1.3
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.4 CA Public Key Delivery to Users 6.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.5 Key Sizes 6.1.5
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.6 Public Key Parameters Generation 6.1.6
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.7 Parameter Quality Checking 6.1.6
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.8 Hardware/Software Key Generation 6.1.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.9 Key Usage Purposes
(as per X.509 v3 Key Usage Field) 6.1.9
------------------------------------------------------
6.2 Private Key Protection 6.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.1 Standards for Cryptographic
Module 6.2.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.2 Private Key (n out of m)
Multi-Person Control 6.2.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.3 Private Key Escrow 6.2.3
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.4 Private Key Backup 6.2.4
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.5 Private Key Archival 6.2.5
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.6 Private Key Entry Into
Cryptographic Module 6.2.6, 6.2.7
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.7 Method of Activating
Private Key 6.2.8
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 70]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.8 Method of Deactivating
Private Key 6.2.9
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.9 Method of Destroying Private
Key 6.2.10
------------------------------------------------------
6.3 Other Aspects of Key Pair
Management 6.3
------------------------------------------------------
6.3.1 Public Key Archival 6.3.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.3.2 Usage Periods for the Public
and Private Keys 6.3.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.4 Activation Data 6.4
------------------------------------------------------
6.4.1 Activation Data Generation
and Installation 6.4.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.4.2 Activation Data Protection 6.4.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.4.3 Other Aspects of Activation
Data 6.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
6.5 Computer Security Controls 6.5
------------------------------------------------------
6.5.1 Specific Computer Security
Technical Requirements 6.5.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.5.2 Computer Security Rating 6.5.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.6 Life Cycle Technical Controls 6.6
------------------------------------------------------
6.6.1 System Development Controls 6.6.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.6.2 Security Management Controls 6.6.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.6.3 Life Cycle Security Controls 6.6.3
------------------------------------------------------
6.7 Network Security Controls 6.7
------------------------------------------------------
6.8 Cryptographic Module
Engineering Controls 6.2.1, 6.2,
6.2.1, 6.2.11
------------------------------------------------------
7.Certificate and CRL Profiles 7.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 71]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
7.1 Certificate Profile 7.1
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.1 Version Number(s) 7.1.1
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.2 Certificate Extensions 7.1.2
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.3 Algorithm Object Identifiers 7.1.3
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.4 Name Forms 7.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.5 Name Constraints 7.1.5
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.6 Certificate Policy Object
Identifier 7.1.6
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.7 Usage of Policy Constraints
Extension 7.1.7
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.8 Policy Qualifiers Syntax
and Semantics 7.1.8
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.9 Processing Semantics for
the Critical Certificate
Policies Extension 7.1.9
------------------------------------------------------
7.2 CRL Profile 7.2
------------------------------------------------------
7.2.1 Version Number(s) 7.2.1
------------------------------------------------------
7.2.2 CRL and CRL Entry Extensions 7.2.1
------------------------------------------------------
8. Specification Administration N/A
------------------------------------------------------
8.1 Specification Change
Procedures 9.12
------------------------------------------------------
8.2 Publication and Notification
Policies 2.2, 2.3
------------------------------------------------------
8.3 CPS Approval Procedures 1.5.4
------------------------------------------------------
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 72]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
The following matrix shows the sections in the new framework and the
sections in RFC 2527 to which the headings in the new framework
correspond.
NEW RFC SECTION ORIGINAL RFC 2527
SECTION
------------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction 1.
------------------------------------------------------
1.1 Overview 1.1
------------------------------------------------------
1.2 Document Name and Identification 1.2
------------------------------------------------------
1.3 PKI Participants 1.3
------------------------------------------------------
1.3.1 Certification Authorities 1.3.1
------------------------------------------------------
1.3.2 Registration Authorities 1.3.2
------------------------------------------------------
1.3.3 Subscribers 1.3.3
------------------------------------------------------
1.3.4 Relying Parties 1.3.3
------------------------------------------------------
1.3.5 Other Participants N/A
------------------------------------------------------
1.4 Certificate Usage 1.3.4
------------------------------------------------------
1.4.1 Appropriate Certificate Uses 1.3.4
------------------------------------------------------
1.4.2 Prohibited Certificate Uses 1.3.4
------------------------------------------------------
1.5 Policy Administration 1.4
------------------------------------------------------
1.5.1 Organization Administering
the Document 1.4.1
------------------------------------------------------
1.5.2 Contact Person 1.4.2
------------------------------------------------------
1.5.3 Person Determining CPS
Suitability for the Policy 1.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
1.5.4 CPS Approval Procedures 8.3
------------------------------------------------------
1.6 Definitions and Acronyms N/A
------------------------------------------------------
2. Publication and Repository
Responsibilities 2.1.5, 2.6
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 73]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
2.1 Repositories 2.6.4
------------------------------------------------------
2.2 Publication of Certification
Information 2.6.1, 8.2
------------------------------------------------------
2.3 Time or Frequency of
Publication 2.6.2, 8.2
------------------------------------------------------
2.4 Access Controls on Repositories 2.6.3
------------------------------------------------------
3. Identification and Authentication 3.
------------------------------------------------------
3.1 Naming 3.1
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.1 Type of Names 3.1.1
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.2 Need for Names to be Meaningful 3.1.2
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.3. Anonymity or Pseudonymity of
Subscribers 3.1.2
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.4 Rules for Interpreting Various
Name Forms 3.1.3
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.5 Uniqueness of Names 3.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
3.1.6 Recognition, Authentication,
and Role of Trademarks 3.1.5, 3.1.6
------------------------------------------------------
3.2 Initial Identity Validation 3.1
------------------------------------------------------
3.2.1 Method to Prove Possession
of Private Key 3.1.7
------------------------------------------------------
3.2.2 Authentication of
Organization Identity 3.1.8
------------------------------------------------------
3.2.3 Authentication of Individual
Identity 3.1.9
------------------------------------------------------
3.2.4 Non-Verified Subscriber
Information N/A
------------------------------------------------------
3.2.5 Validation of Authority 3.1.9
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 74]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
3.2.6 Criteria for Interoperation 4.1
------------------------------------------------------
3.3 Identification and Authentication
for Re-Key Requests 3.2, 3.3
------------------------------------------------------
3.3.1 Identification and
Authentication for Routine
Re-Key 3.2
------------------------------------------------------
3.3.2 Identification and
Authentication for Re-Key
After Revocation 3.3
------------------------------------------------------
3.4 Identification and Authentication
for Revocation Request 3.4
------------------------------------------------------
4. Certificate Life-Cycle
Operational Requirements 4.
------------------------------------------------------
4.1 Certificate Application 4.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.1.1 Who Can Submit a Certificate
Application 4.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.1.2 Enrollment Process and
Responsibilities 2.1.3, 4.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.2 Certificate Application
Processing 4.1, 4.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.2.1 Performing Identification
and Authentication Functions 4.1, 4.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.2.2 Approval or Rejection of
Certificate Applications 4.1, 4.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.2.3 Time to Process
Certificate Applications 4.1, 4.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.3 Certificate Issuance 4.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.3.1 CA Actions During
Certificate Issuance 4.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.3.2 Notifications to Subscriber by
the CA of Issuance of Certificate 4.2, 4.3
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 75]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
4.4 Certificate Acceptance 2.1.3, 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.1 Conduct Constituting
Certificate Acceptance 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.2 Publication of the
Certificate by the CA 2.1.5, 2.6.1, 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.4.3 Notification of
Certificate Issuance by
the CA to Other Entities 2.1.5, 2.6.1,
4.2, 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.5 Key Pair and
Certificate Usage 1.3.4, 2.1.3,
2.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
4.5.1 Subscriber Private Key
and Certificate Usage 1.3.4, 2.1.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.5.2 Relying Party Public
Key and Certificate
Usage 1.3.4, 2.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
4.6 Certificate Renewal 3.2, 4.1, 4.2,
4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.1 Circumstances for
Certificate Renewal 3.2, 4.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.2 Who May Request Renewal 3.2, 4.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.3 Processing Certificate
Renewal Requests 3.2, 4.1, 4.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.4 Notification of New
Certificate Issuance to
Subscriber 3.2, 4.2, 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.5 Conduct Constituting
Acceptance of a Renewal
Certificate 2.1.3, 3.2, 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.6 Publication of the
Renewal Certificate
by the CA 2.1.5, 2.6.1,
3.2, 4.3
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 76]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
4.6.7 Notification of
Certificate Issuance by
the CA to Other Entities 2.1.5, 2.6.1, 3.2,
4.2, 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.7 Certificate Re-Key 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.7.1 Circumstances for
Certificate Re-Key 3.2, 4.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.7.2 Who May Request Certification
of a New Public Key 3.2, 4.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.7.3 Processing Certificate
Re-Keying Requests 3.2, 4.1, 4.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.7.4 Notification of New
Certificate Issuance to
Subscriber 3.2, 4.2, 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.7.5 Conduct Constituting
Acceptance of a
Re-Keyed Certificate 2.1.3, 3.2, 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.7.6 Publication of the
Re-Keyed Certificate
by the CA 2.1.5, 2.6.1,
3.2, 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.7.7 Notification of Certificate
Issuance by the CA
to Other Entities 2.1.5, 2.6.1,
3.2, 4.2, 4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.8 Certificate Modification 4.4
------------------------------------------------------
4.8.1 Circumstances for
Certificate Modification 2.1.3, 4.4.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.8.2 Who May Request Certificate
Modification 4.4.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.8.3 Processing Certificate
Modification Requests 4.4.3
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 77]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
4.8.4 Notification of New
Certificate Issuance to
Subscriber 4.2, 4.3, 4.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.8.5 Conduct Constituting
Acceptance of Modified
Certificate 2.1.3, 4.3, 4.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.8.6 Publication of the Modified
Certificate by
the CA 2.1.5, 2.6.1,
4.2, 4.3, 4.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.8.7 Notification of
Certificate Issuance by
the CA to Other
Entities 2.1.5, 2.6.1,
4.2, 4.3, 4.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.9 Certificate Revocation
and Suspension 4.4
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.1 Circumstances for Revocation 2.1.3, 4.4.1
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.2 Who Can Request Revocation 4.4.2
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.3 Procedure for Revocation
Request 2.1.3, 4.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.4 Revocation Request Grace
Period 4.4.4
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.5 Time Within Which CA Must
Process the Revocation Request N/A
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.6 Revocation Checking
Requirements for Relying
Parties 2.1.4, 4.4.10,
4.4.12, 4.4.14
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.7 CRL Issuance Frequency 4.4.9, 4.8.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.8 Maximum Latency for CRLs 4.4.9
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.9 On-Line Revocation/Status
Checking Availability 4.4.11, 4.8.3
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 78]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.10 On-Line Revocation
Checking Requirements 4.4.12
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.11 Other Forms of Revocation
Advertisements Available 4.4.13, 4.4.14,
4.8.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.12 Special Requirements re
Key Compromise 4.4.15
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.13 Circumstances for Suspension 2.1.3, 4.4.5
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.14 Who Can Request Suspension 4.4.6
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.15 Procedure for
Suspension Request 2.1.3, 4.4.7
------------------------------------------------------
4.9.16 Limits on Suspension Period 4.4.8
------------------------------------------------------
4.10 Certificate Status Services 4.4.9-4.4.14
------------------------------------------------------
4.10.1 Operational
Characteristics 4.4.9, 4.4.11,
4.4.13
------------------------------------------------------
4.10.2 Service Availability 4.4.9, 4.4.11,
4.4.13
------------------------------------------------------
4.10.3 Operational Features 4.4.9, 4.4.11,
4.4.13
------------------------------------------------------
4.11 End of Subscription N/A
------------------------------------------------------
4.12 Key Escrow and Recovery 6.2.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.12.1 Key Escrow and Recovery Policy
and Practices 6.2.3
------------------------------------------------------
4.12.2 Session Key Encapsulation
and Recovery Policy and
Practices 6.2.3
------------------------------------------------------
5. Facility, Management, and
Operational Controls 2.1.3, 2.1.4,
4., 5.
------------------------------------------------------
5.1 Physical Controls 5.1
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 79]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.1 Site Location and Construction 5.1.1
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.2 Physical Access 5.1.2
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.3 Power and Air Conditioning 5.1.3
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.4 Water Exposures 5.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.5 Fire Prevention and Protection 5.1.5
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.6 Media Storage 5.1.6
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.7 Waste Disposal 5.1.7
------------------------------------------------------
5.1.8 Off-Site Backup 5.1.8
------------------------------------------------------
5.2 Procedural Controls 5.2
------------------------------------------------------
5.2.1 Trusted Roles 5.2.1
------------------------------------------------------
5.2.2 Number of Persons Required
per Task 5.2.2
------------------------------------------------------
5.2.3 Identification and
Authentication for Each Role 5.2.3
------------------------------------------------------
5.2.4 Roles Requiring Separation
of Duties 5.2.1, 5.2.2
------------------------------------------------------
5.3 Personnel Controls 5.3
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.1 Qualifications, Experience,
and Clearance Requirements 5.3.1
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.2 Background Check Procedures 5.3.2
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.3 Training Requirements 5.3.3
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.4 Retraining Frequency
and Requirements 5.3.4
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.5 Job Rotation Frequency
and Sequence 5.3.5
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.6 Sanctions for Unauthorized
Actions 5.3.6
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 80]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.7 Independent Contractor
Requirements 5.3.7
------------------------------------------------------
5.3.8 Documentation Supplied to
Personnel 5.3.8
------------------------------------------------------
5.4 Audit Logging Procedures 4.5
------------------------------------------------------
5.4.1 Types of Events Recorded 4.5.1
------------------------------------------------------
5.4.2 Frequency of Processing Log 4.5.2
------------------------------------------------------
5.4.3 Retention Period for Audit
Log 4.5.3
------------------------------------------------------
5.4.4 Protection of Audit Log 4.5.4
------------------------------------------------------
5.4.5 Audit Log Backup Procedures 4.5.5
------------------------------------------------------
5.4.6 Audit Collection System
(Internal vs. External) 4.5.6
------------------------------------------------------
5.4.7 Notification to Event-Causing
Subject 4.5.7
------------------------------------------------------
5.4.8 Vulnerability Assessments 4.5.8
------------------------------------------------------
5.5 Records Archival 4.6
------------------------------------------------------
5.5.1 Types of Records Archived 4.6.1
------------------------------------------------------
5.5.2 Retention Period for Archive 4.6.2
------------------------------------------------------
5.5.3 Protection of Archive 4.6.3
------------------------------------------------------
5.5.4 Archive Backup Procedures 4.6.4
------------------------------------------------------
5.5.5 Requirements for Time-Stamping
of Records 4.6.5
------------------------------------------------------
5.5.6 Archive Collection System
(Internal or External) 4.6.6
------------------------------------------------------
5.5.7 Procedures to Obtain and
Verify Archive
Information 4.6.7
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 81]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
5.6 Key Changeover 4.7
------------------------------------------------------
5.7 Compromise and Disaster Recovery 4.8
------------------------------------------------------
5.7.1 Incident and Compromise
Handling Procedures 4.8
------------------------------------------------------
5.7.2 Computing Resources, Software,
and/or Data Are Corrupted 4.8.1
------------------------------------------------------
5.7.3 Entity Private Key
Compromise Procedures 4.8.3
------------------------------------------------------
5.7.4 Business Continuity
Capabilities After a
Disaster 4.8.4
------------------------------------------------------
5.8 CA or RA Termination 4.9
------------------------------------------------------
6. Technical Security Controls 2.1.3, 2.1.4,
6.
------------------------------------------------------
6.1 Key Pair Generation and
Installation 6.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.1 Key Pair Generation 6.1.1, 6.1.8
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.2 Private Key Delivery to
Subscriber 6.1.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.3 Public Key Delivery to
Certificate Issuer 6.1.3
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.4 CA Public Key Delivery to
Relying Parties 6.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.5 Key Sizes 6.1.5
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.6 Public Key Parameters Generation
and Quality Checking 6.1.6, 6.1.7
------------------------------------------------------
6.1.7 Key Usage Purposes
(as per X.509 v3
Key Usage Field) 6.1.9
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 82]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
6.2 Private Key Protection and
Cryptographic Module
Engineering Controls 6.2, 6.8
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.1 Cryptographic Module Standards
and Controls 6.2.1, 6.8
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.2 Private Key (n out of m)
Multi-Person Control 6.2.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.3 Private Key Escrow 6.2.3
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.4 Private Key Backup 6.2.4
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.5 Private Key Archival 6.2.5
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.6 Private Key Transfer Into
or From a Cryptographic
Module 6.2.6
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.7 Private Key Storage on
Cryptographic Module 6.2.6
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.8 Method of Activating Private
Key 6.2.7
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.9 Method of Deactivating
Private Key 6.2.8
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.10 Method of Destroying
Private Key 6.2.9
------------------------------------------------------
6.2.11 Cryptographic Module Rating 6.2.1, 6.8
------------------------------------------------------
6.3 Other Aspects of Key Pair
Management 6.3
------------------------------------------------------
6.3.1 Public Key Archival 6.3.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.3.2 Certificate Operational
Periods and Key Pair Usage
Periods 6.3.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.4 Activation Data 6.4
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 83]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
6.4.1 Activation Data Generation
and Installation 6.4.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.4.2 Activation Data Protection 6.4.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.4.3 Other Aspects of Activation
Data 6.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
6.5 Computer Security Controls 6.5
------------------------------------------------------
6.5.1 Specific Computer Security
Technical Requirements 6.5.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.5.2 Computer Security Rating 6.5.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.6 Life Cycle Technical Controls 6.6
------------------------------------------------------
6.6.1 System Development Controls 6.6.1
------------------------------------------------------
6.6.2 Security Management Controls 6.6.2
------------------------------------------------------
6.6.3 Life Cycle Security Controls 6.6.3
------------------------------------------------------
6.7 Network Security Controls 6.7
------------------------------------------------------
6.8 Time-Stamping N/A
------------------------------------------------------
7. Certificate, CRL, and
OCSP Profiles 7.
------------------------------------------------------
7.1 Certificate Profile 7.1
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.1 Version Number(s) 7.1.1
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.2 Certificate Extensions 7.1.2
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.3 Algorithm Object Identifiers 7.1.3
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.4 Name Forms 7.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.5 Name Constraints 7.1.5
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.6 Certificate Policy
Object Identifier 7.1.6
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.7 Usage of Policy Constraints
Extension 7.1.7
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 84]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.8 Policy Qualifiers Syntax
and Semantics 7.1.8
------------------------------------------------------
7.1.9 Processing Semantics for the
Critical Certificate Policies
Extension 7.1.9
------------------------------------------------------
7.2 CRL Profile 7.2
------------------------------------------------------
7.2.1 Version Number(s) 7.2.1
------------------------------------------------------
7.2.2 CRL and CRL Entry Extensions 7.2.1
------------------------------------------------------
7.3 OCSP Profile N/A
------------------------------------------------------
7.3.1 Version Number(s) N/A
------------------------------------------------------
7.3.2 OCSP Extensions N/A
------------------------------------------------------
8. Compliance Audit and Other
Assessments 2.7
------------------------------------------------------
8.1 Frequency and Circumstances
of Assessment 2.7.1
------------------------------------------------------
8.2 Identity/Qualifications of
Assessor 2.7.2
------------------------------------------------------
8.3 Assessor's Relationship to
Assessed Entity 2.7.3
------------------------------------------------------
8.4 Topics Covered by Assessment 2.7.4
------------------------------------------------------
8.5 Actions Taken as a Result
of Deficiency 2.7.5
------------------------------------------------------
8.6 Communications of Results 2.7.6
------------------------------------------------------
9. Other Business and Legal
Matters 2.
------------------------------------------------------
9.1 Fees 2.5
------------------------------------------------------
9.1.1 Certificate Issuance or
Renewal Fees 2.5.1
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 85]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
9.1.2 Certificate Access Fees 2.5.2
------------------------------------------------------
9.1.3 Revocation or Status
Information Access Fees 2.5.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.1.4 Fees for Other Services 2.5.4
------------------------------------------------------
9.1.5 Refund Policy 2.5.5
------------------------------------------------------
9.2 Financial Responsibility 2.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.2.1 Insurance Coverage 2.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.2.2 Other Assets 2.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.2.3 Insurance or Warranty Coverage
for End-Entities 2.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.3 Confidentiality of Business
Information 2.8
------------------------------------------------------
9.3.1 Scope of Confidential
Information 2.8.1, 2.8.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.3.2 Information Not Within the
Scope of Confidential
Information 2.8.2, 2.8.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.3.3 Responsibility to Protect
Confidential Information 2.8,
2.8.3-2.8.7
------------------------------------------------------
9.4 Privacy of Personal Information 2.8
------------------------------------------------------
9.4.1 Privacy Plan N/A
------------------------------------------------------
9.4.2 Information Treated as Private 2.8.1, 2.8.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.4.3 Information Not Deemed Private 2.8.2, 2.8.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.4.4 Responsibility to Protect
Private Information 2.8, 2.8.1,
2.8.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.4.5 Notice and Consent to Use
Private Information N/A
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 86]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
9.4.6 Disclosure Pursuant to
Judicial or Administrative
Process 2.8.4-2.8.5
------------------------------------------------------
9.4.7 Other Information Disclosure
Circumstances 2.8.6-2.8.7
------------------------------------------------------
9.5 Intellectual Property rights 2.9
------------------------------------------------------
9.6 Representations and Warranties 2.2
------------------------------------------------------
9.6.1 CA Representations and
Warranties 2.2.1
------------------------------------------------------
9.6.2 RA Representations and
Warranties 2.2.2
------------------------------------------------------
9.6.3 Subscriber Representations
and Warranties 2.1.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.6.4 Relying Party Representations
and Warranties 2.1.4
------------------------------------------------------
9.6.5 Representations and Warranties
of Other Participants N/A
------------------------------------------------------
9.7 Disclaimers of Warranties 2.2, 2.3.2
------------------------------------------------------
9.8 Limitations of Liability 2.2
------------------------------------------------------
9.9 Indemnities 2.1.3, 2.1.4,
2.2, 2.3.1
------------------------------------------------------
9.10 Term and Termination N/A
------------------------------------------------------
9.10.1 Term N/A
------------------------------------------------------
9.10.2 Termination N/A
------------------------------------------------------
9.10.3 Effect of Termination and
Survival N/A
------------------------------------------------------
9.11 Individual Notices and
Communications with Participants 2.4.2
------------------------------------------------------
9.12 Amendments 8.1
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 87]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
------------------------------------------------------
9.12.1 Procedure for Amendment 8.1
------------------------------------------------------
9.12.2 Notification Mechanism
and Period 8.1
------------------------------------------------------
9.12.3 Circumstances Under Which OID
Must be Changed 8.1
------------------------------------------------------
9.13 Dispute Resolution Provisions 2.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.14 Governing Law 2.4.1
------------------------------------------------------
9.15 Compliance with Applicable Law 2.4.1
------------------------------------------------------
9.16 Miscellaneous Provisions 2.4
------------------------------------------------------
9.16.1 Entire Agreement 2.4.2
------------------------------------------------------
9.16.2 Assignment N/A
------------------------------------------------------
9.16.3 Severability 2.4.2
------------------------------------------------------
9.16.4 Enforcement (Attorney's Fees
and Waiver of Rights) 2.4.3
------------------------------------------------------
9.17 Other Provisions N/A
------------------------------------------------------
The development of the predecessor document (RFC 2527) was supported
by the Government of Canada's Policy Management Authority (PMA)
Committee, the National Security Agency, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), and the American Bar Association
Information Security Committee Accreditation Working Group.
This revision effort is largely a result of constant inspiration from
Michael Baum. Michael Power, Mike Jenkins, and Alice Sturgeon have
also made several contributions.
[ABA1] American Bar Association, Digital Signature Guidelines: Legal
Infrastructure for Certification Authorities and Secure
Electronic Commerce, 1996.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 88]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
[ABA2] American Bar Association, PKI Assessment Guidelines, v0.30,
Public Draft For Comment, June 2001.
[BAU1] Michael. S. Baum, Federal Certification Authority Liability
and Policy, NIST-GCR-94-654, June 1994, available at
http://www.verisign.com/repository/pubs/index.html.
[ETS] European Telecommunications Standards Institute, "Policy
Requirements for Certification Authorities Issuing Qualified
Certificates," ETSI TS 101 456, Version 1.1.1, December 2000.
[GOC] Government of Canada PKI Policy Management Authority, "Digital
Signature and Confidentiality Certificate Policies for the
Government of Canada Public Key Infrastructure," v.3.02, April
1999.
[IDT] Identrus, LLC, "Identrus Identity Certificate Policy" IP-IPC
Version 1.7, March 2001.
[ISO1] ISO/IEC 9594-8/ITU-T Recommendation X.509, "Information
Technology - Open Systems Interconnection: The Directory:
Authentication Framework," 1997 edition. (Pending publication
of 2000 edition, use 1997 edition.)
[PEM1] Kent, S., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail:
Part II: Certificate-Based Key Management", RFC 1422, February
1993.
[PKI1] Housley, R., Polk, W. Ford, W. and D. Solo, "Internet X.509
Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate
Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280, April 2002.
[CPF] Chokhani, S. and W. Ford, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure, Certificate Policy and Certification Practices
Statement Framework", RFC 2527, March 1999.
1. A paper copy of the ABA Digital Signature Guidelines can be
purchased from the ABA. See http://www.abanet.com for ordering
details. The DSG may also be downloaded without charge from the
ABA website at
http://www.abanet.org/scitech/ec/isc/digital_signature.html.
2. A draft of the PKI Assessment Guidelines may be downloaded
without charge from the ABA website at
http://www.abanet.org/scitech/ec/isc/pag/pag.html.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 89]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
3. The term "meaningful" means that the name form has commonly
understood semantics to determine the identity of a person and/or
organization. Directory names and RFC 822 names may be more or
less meaningful.
4. The subject may not need to prove to the CA that the subject has
possession of the private key corresponding to the public key
being registered if the CA generates the subject's key pair on
the subject's behalf.
5. Examples of means to identify and authenticate individuals
include biometric means (such as thumb print, ten finger print,
and scan of the face, palm, or retina), a driver's license, a
credit card, a company badge, and a government badge.
6. Certificate "modification" does not refer to making a change to
an existing certificate, since this would prevent the
verification of any digital signatures on the certificate and
cause the certificate to be invalid. Rather, the concept of
"modification" refers to a situation where the information
referred to in the certificate has changed or should be changed,
and the CA issues a new certificate containing the modified
information. One example is a subscriber that changes his or her
name, which would necessitate the issuance of a new certificate
containing the new name.
7. The n out of m rule allows a private key to be split in m parts.
The m parts may be given to m different individuals. Any n parts
out of the m parts may be used to fully reconstitute the private
key, but having any n-1 parts provides one with no information
about the private key.
8. A private key may be escrowed, backed up, or archived. Each of
these functions has a different purpose. Thus, a private key may
go through any subset of these functions depending on the
requirements. The purpose of escrow is to allow a third party
(such as an organization or government) to obtain the private key
without the cooperation of the subscriber. The purpose of back
up is to allow the subscriber to reconstitute the key in case of
the destruction or corruption of the key for business continuity
purposes. The purpose of archives is to provide for reuse of the
private key in the future, e.g., use to decrypt a document.
9. WebTrust refers to the "WebTrust Program for Certification
Authorities," from the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, Inc., and the Canadian Institute of Chartered
Accountants.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 90]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
10. See <http://www.aicpa.org>.
11. All or some of the following items may be different for the
various types of entities, i.e., CA, RA, and end entities.
ABA - American Bar Association
CA - Certification Authority
CP - Certificate Policy
CPS - Certification Practice Statement
CRL - Certificate Revocation List
DAM - Draft Amendment
FIPS - Federal Information Processing Standard
I&A - Identification and Authentication
IEC - International Electrotechnical Commission
IETF - Internet Engineering Task Force
IP - Internet Protocol
ISO - International Organization for Standardization
ITU - International Telecommunications Union
NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology
OID - Object Identifier
PIN - Personal Identification Number
PKI - Public Key Infrastructure
PKIX - Public Key Infrastructure (X.509) (IETF Working Group)
RA - Registration Authority
RFC - Request For Comment
URL - Uniform Resource Locator
US - United States
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 91]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
Santosh Chokhani
Orion Security Solutions, Inc.
3410 N. Buchanan Street
Arlington, VA 22207
Phone: (703) 237-4621
Fax: (703) 237-4920
EMail: chokhani@orionsec.com
Warwick Ford
VeriSign, Inc.
6 Ellery Square
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: (617) 642-0139
EMail: wford@verisign.com
Randy V. Sabett, J.D., CISSP
Cooley Godward LLP
One Freedom Square, Reston Town Center
11951 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190-5656
Phone: (703) 456-8137
Fax: (703) 456-8100
EMail: rsabett@cooley.com
Charles (Chas) R. Merrill
McCarter & English, LLP
Four Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street
Newark, New Jersey 07101-0652
Phone: (973) 622-4444
Fax: (973) 624-7070
EMail: cmerrill@mccarter.com
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 92]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
Stephen S. Wu
Infoliance, Inc.
800 West El Camino Real
Suite 180
Mountain View, CA 94040
Phone: (650) 917-8045
Fax: (650) 618-1454
EMail: swu@infoliance.com
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 93]
RFC 3647 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure November 2003
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Chokhani, et al. Informational [Page 94]