corrected verification examples

[gnutls.git] / doc / protocol / draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-04.txt

Internet-Draft                                                  M. Brown
April 2006                                             RedPhone Security
Expires: October 2006                                         R. Housley
                                                          Vigil Security

        Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions
                 <draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-04.txt>


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document specifies authorization extensions to the Transport
   Layer Security (TLS) Handshake Protocol.  Extensions carried in the
   client and server hello messages to confirm that both parties support
   the desired authorization data types.  Then, if supported by both the
   client and the server, authorization information is exchanged in the
   supplemental data handshake message.







Brown & Housley                                                 [Page 1]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


1. Introduction

   Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol [TLS1.0][TLS1.1] is being
   used in an increasing variety of operational environments, including
   ones that were not envisioned at the time of the original design for
   TLS.  The extensions introduced in this document are designed to
   enable TLS to operate in environments where authorization information
   needs to be exchanged between the client and the server before any
   protected data is exchanged.

   The use of these TLS authorization extensions is especially
   attractive when more than one application protocol can make use of
   the same authorization information.  Straightforward binding of
   identification, authentication, and authorization information is
   possible when all of these are handled within TLS.  If each
   application requires unique authorization information, then it might
   best be carried within the TLS-protected application protocol.
   However, care must be taken to ensure appropriate bindings when
   identification, authentication, and authorization information are
   handled at different protocol layers.

   This document describes authorization extensions for the TLS
   Handshake Protocol in both TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1.  These extensions
   observe the conventions defined for TLS Extensions [TLSEXT] that make
   use of the general extension mechanisms for the client hello message
   and the server hello message.  The extensions described in this
   document confirm that both the client and the server support the
   desired authorization data types.  Then, if supported, authorization
   information is exchanged in the supplemental data handshake message
   [TLSSUPP].

   The authorization extensions may be used in conjunction with TLS 1.0
   and TLS 1.1.  The extensions are designed to be backwards compatible,
   meaning that the Handshake Protocol Supplemental Data messages will
   only contain authorization information of a particular type if the
   client indicates support for them in the client hello message and the
   server indicates support for them in the server hello message.

   Clients typically know the context of the TLS session that is being
   setup, thus the client can use the authorization extensions when they
   are needed.  Servers must accept extended client hello messages, even
   if the server does not "understand" the all of the listed extensions.
   However, the server will not indicate support for these "not
   understood" extensions.  Then, clients may reject communications with
   servers that do not support the authorization extensions.






Brown & Housley                                                 [Page 2]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


1.1. Conventions

   The syntax for the authorization messages is defined using the TLS
   Presentation Language, which is specified in Section 4 of [TLS1.0].

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [STDWORDS].

1.2. Overview

   Figure 1 illustrates the placement of the authorization extensions
   and supplemental data messages in the full TLS handshake.

    Client                                                   Server

    ClientHello (w/ extensions) -------->

                                        ServerHello (w/ extensions)
                                                  SupplementalData*
                                                       Certificate*
                                                 ServerKeyExchange*
                                                CertificateRequest*
                                <--------           ServerHelloDone
    SupplementalData*
    Certificate*
    ClientKeyExchange
    CertificateVerify*
    [ChangeCipherSpec]
    Finished                    -------->
                                                 [ChangeCipherSpec]
                                <--------                  Finished
    Application Data            <------->          Application Data

     *  Indicates optional or situation-dependent messages that
        are not always sent.

     [] Indicates that ChangeCipherSpec is an independent TLS
        Protocol content type; it is not actually a TLS
        handshake message.

        Figure 1. Authorization data exchange in full TLS handshake


   The ClientHello message includes an indication of the client
   authorization data formats that are supported and an indication of
   the server authorization data formats that are supported.  The
   ServerHello message contains similar indications, but any



Brown & Housley                                                 [Page 3]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


   authorization data formats that are not supported by the server are
   not included.  Both the client and the server MUST indicate support
   for the authorization data types.  If the list of mutually supported
   authorization data formats is empty, then the ServerHello message
   MUST NOT carry the affected extension at all.

2. Authorization Extension Types

   The general extension mechanisms enable clients and servers to
   negotiate whether to use specific extensions, and how to use specific
   extensions.  As specified in [TLSEXT], the extension format used in
   the extended client hello message and extended server hello message
   is repeated here for convenience:

      struct {
         ExtensionType extension_type;
         opaque extension_data<0..2^16-1>;
      } Extension;

   The extension_type identifies a particular extension type, and the
   extension_data contains information specific to the particular
   extension type.

   As specified in [TLSEXT], for all extension types, the extension type
   MUST NOT appear in the extended server hello message unless the same
   extension type appeared in the corresponding client hello message.
   Clients MUST abort the handshake if they receive an extension type in
   the extended server hello message that they did not request in the
   associated extended client hello message.

   When multiple extensions of different types are present in the
   extended client hello message or the extended server hello message,
   the extensions can appear in any order, but there MUST NOT be more
   than one extension of the same type.

   This document specifies the use of two new extension types:
   client_authz and server_authz.  These extension types are described
   in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2, respectively.  This specification
   adds two new types to ExtensionType:

      enum {
        client_authz(TBD), server_authz(TBD), (65535)
      } ExtensionType;

   The authorization extensions are relevant when a session is initiated
   and any subsequent session resumption.  However, a client that
   requests resumption of a session does not know whether the server
   will have all of the context necessary to accept this request, and



Brown & Housley                                                 [Page 4]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


   therefore the client SHOULD send an extended client hello message
   that includes the extension types associated with the authorization
   extensions.  This way, if the resumption request is denied, then the
   authorization extensions will be negotiated as normal.

2.1. The client_authz Extension Type

   Clients MUST include the client_authz extension type in the extended
   client hello message to indicate their desire to send authorization
   data to the server.  The extension_data field indicates the format of
   the authorization data that will be sent in the supplemental data
   handshake message.  The syntax of the client_authz extension_data
   field is described in Section 2.3.

   Servers that receive an extended client hello message containing the
   client_authz extension MUST respond with the same client_authz
   extension in the extended server hello message if the server is
   willing to receive authorization data in the indicated format.  Any
   unacceptable formats must be removed from the list provided by the
   client.  The client_authz extension MUST be omitted from the extended
   server hello message if the server is not willing to receive
   authorization data in any of the indicated formats.

2.2. The server_authz Extension Type

   Clients MUST include the server_authz extension type in the extended
   client hello message to indicate their desire to receive
   authorization data from the server.  The extension_data field
   indicates the format of the authorization data that will be sent in
   the supplemental data handshake message.  The syntax of the
   server_authz extension_data field as described in Section 2.3.

   Servers that receive an extended client hello message containing the
   server_authz extension MUST respond with the same server_authz
   extension in the extended server hello message if the server is
   willing to provide authorization data in the requested format.  Any
   unacceptable formats must be removed from the list provided by the
   client.  The server_authz extension MUST be omitted from the extended
   server hello message if the server is not able to provide
   authorization data in any of the indicated formats.











Brown & Housley                                                 [Page 5]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


2.3. AuthzDataFormat Type

   The AuthzDataFormat type is used in both the client_authz and the
   server_authz extensions.  It indicates the format of the
   authorization data that will be transferred.  The
   AuthorizationDataFormats type definition is:

      enum {
         x509_attr_cert(0), saml_assertion(1), x509_attr_cert_url(2),
         saml_assertion_url(3), (255)
      } AuthzDataFormat;

      AuthorizationDataFormats authz_format_list<1..2^8-1>;

   When the x509_attr_cert value is present, the authorization data is
   an X.509 Attribute Certificate (AC) that conforms to the profile in
   RFC 3281 [ATTRCERT].

   When the saml_assertion value is present, the authorization data is
   an assertion composed using the Security Assertion Markup Language
   (SAML) [SAML1.1][SAML2.0].

   When the x509_attr_cert_url value is present, the authorization data
   is an X.509 AC that conforms to the profile in RFC 3281 [ATTRCERT];
   however, the AC is fetched with the supplied URL.  A one-way hash
   value is provided to ensure that the intended AC is obtained.

   When the saml_assertion_url value is present, the authorization data
   is a SAML Assertion; however, the SAML Assertion is fetched with the
   supplied URL.  A one-way hash value is provided to ensure that the
   intended SAML Assertion is obtained.

3. Supplemental Data Handshake Message Usage

   As shown in Figure 1, supplemental data can be exchanges in two
   places in the handshake protocol.  The client_authz extension
   determines what authorization data formats are acceptable for
   transfer from the client to the server, and the server_authz
   extension determines what authorization data formats are acceptable
   for transfer from the server to the client.  In both cases, the
   syntax specified in [TLSSUPP] is used along with the authz_data type
   defined in this document.









Brown & Housley                                                 [Page 6]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


      enum {
         authz_data(TBD), (65535)
      } SupplementalDataType;

      struct {
         SupplementalDataType supplemental_data_type;
         select(SupplementalDataType) {
            case authz_data:  AuthorizationData;
         }
      } SupplementalData;

3.1. Client Authorization Data

   The SupplementalData message sent from the client to the server
   contains authorization data associated with the TLS client.
   Following the principle of least privilege, the client ought to send
   the minimal set of authorization information necessary to accomplish
   the task at hand.  That is, only those authorizations that are
   expected to be required by the server in order to gain access to the
   needed server resources ought to be included.  The format of the
   authorization data depends on the format negotiated in the
   client_authz hello message extension.  The AuthorizationData
   structure is described in Section 3.3.

   In some systems, clients present authorization information to the
   server, and then the server provides new authorization information.
   This type of transaction is not supported by SupplementalData
   messages.  In cases where the client intends to request the TLS
   server to perform authorization translation or expansion services,
   such translation services ought to occur within the ApplicationData
   messages, not within the TLS Handshake protocol.

3.2. Server Authorization Data

   The SupplementalData message sent from the server to the client
   contains authorization data associated with the TLS server.  This
   authorization information is expected to include statements about the
   server's qualifications, reputation, accreditation, and so on.
   Wherever possible, authorizations that can be misappropriated for
   fraudulent use ought to be avoided.  The format of the authorization
   data depends on the format negotiated in the server_authz hello
   message extensions.  The AuthorizationData structure is described in
   Section 3.3.








Brown & Housley                                                 [Page 7]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


3.3. AuthorizationData Type

   The AuthorizationData structure carried authorization information for
   either the client or the server.  The AuthzDataFormat specified in
   Section 2.3 for use in the hello extensions is also used in this
   structure.

   All of the entries in the authz_data_list MUST employ authorization
   data formats that were negotiated in the relevant hello message
   extension.

      struct{
         AuthorizationDataEntry authz_data_list<1..2^16-1>;
      } AuthorizationData;

      struct {
         AuthzDataFormat authz_format;
         select (AuthzDataFormat) {
            case x509_attr_cert:     X509AttrCert;
            case saml_assertion:     SAMLAssertion;
            case x509_attr_cert_url: URLandHash;
            case saml_assertion_url: URLandHash;
         }
      } AuthorizationDataEntry;

      enum {
         x509_attr_cert(0), saml_assertion(1), x509_attr_cert_url(2),
         saml_assertion_url(3), (255)
      } AuthzDataFormat;

      opaque X509AttrCert<1..2^16-1>;
      opaque SAMLAssertion<1..2^16-1>;

      struct {
         opaque url<1..2^16-1>;
         HashType hash_type;
         select (hash_type) {
            case sha1:   SHA1Hash;
            case sha256: SHA256Hash;
         } hash;
      } URLandHash;

      enum {
         sha1(0), sha256(1), (255)
      } HashType;

      opaque SHA1Hash[20];
      opaque SHA256Hash[32];



Brown & Housley                                                 [Page 8]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


3.3.1. X.509 Attribute Certificate

   When X509AttrCert is used, the field contains an ASN.1 DER-encoded
   X.509 Attribute Certificate (AC) that follows the profile in RFC 3281
   [ATTRCERT].  An AC is a structure similar to a public key certificate
   (PKC) [PKIX1]; the main difference being that the AC contains no
   public key.  An AC may contain attributes that specify group
   membership, role, security clearance, or other authorization
   information associated with the AC holder.

   When making an authorization decision based on an AC, proper linkage
   between the AC holder and the public key certificate that is
   transferred in the TLS Certificate message is needed.  The AC holder
   field provides this linkage.  The holder field is a SEQUENCE allowing
   three different (optional) syntaxes: baseCertificateID, entityName
   and objectDigestInfo.  In the TLS authorization context, the holder
   field MUST use the either baseCertificateID or entityName.  In the
   baseCertificateID case, the baseCertificateID field MUST match the
   issuer and serialNumber fields in the certificate.  In the entityName
   case, the entityName MUST be the same as the subject field in the
   certificate or one of the subjectAltName extension values in the
   certificate.  Note that [PKIX1] mandates that the subjectAltName
   extension be present if the subject field contains an empty
   distinguished name.

3.3.2. SAML Assertion

   When SAMLAssertion is used, the field contains XML constructs with a
   nested structure defined in [SAML1.1][SAML2.0].  SAML is an XML-based
   framework for exchanging security information.  This security
   information is expressed in the form of assertions about subjects,
   where a subject is either human or computer with an identity.  In
   this context, the SAML assertions are most likely to convey
   authentication or attribute statements to be used as input to
   authorization policy governing whether subjects are allowed to access
   certain resources.  Assertions are issued by SAML authorities.

   When making an authorization decision based on a SAML assertion,
   proper linkage between the SAML assertion and the public key
   certificate that is transferred in the TLS Certificate message may be
   needed.  A "Holder of Key" subject confirmation method in the SAML
   assertion can provide this linkage.  In other scenarios, it may be
   acceptable to use alternate confirmation methods that do not provide
   a strong binding, such as a bearer mechanism.  SAML assertion
   recipients MUST decide which subject confirmation methods are
   acceptable; such decisions MAY be specific to the SAML assertion
   contents and the TLS session context.




Brown & Housley                                                 [Page 9]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


   There is no general requirement that the subject of the SAML
   assertion correspond directly to the subject of the certificate.
   They may represent the same or different entities.  When they are
   different, SAML also provides a mechanism by which the certificate
   subject can be identified separately from the subject in the SAML
   assertion subject confirmation method.

   Since the SAML assertion is being provided at a part of the TLS
   Handshake that is unencrypted, an eavesdropper could replay the same
   SAML assertion when they establish their own TLS session.  This is
   especially important when a bearer mechanism is employed, the
   recipient of the SAML assertion assumes that the sender is an
   acceptable attesting entity for the SAML assertion.  Some constraints
   may be included to limit the context where the bearer mechanism will
   be accepted.  For example, the period of time that the SAML assertion
   can be short-lived (often minutes), the source address can be
   constrained, or the destination endpoint can be identified.  Also,
   bearer assertions are often checked against a cache of SAML assertion
   unique identifiers that were recently received in order to detect
   replay.  This is an appropriate countermeasure if the bearer
   assertion is intended to be used just once.  Section 5 provides a way
   to protect authorization information when necessary.

3.3.3. URL and Hash

   Since the X.509 AC and SAML assertion can be large, alternatives
   provide a URL to obtain the ASN.1 DER-encoded X.509 AC or SAML
   Assertion.  To ensure that the intended object is obtained, a one-way
   hash value of the object is also included.  Integrity of this one-way
   hash value is provided by the TLS Finished message.

   Implementations that support either x509_attr_cert_url or
   saml_assertion_url MUST support URLs that employ the http scheme.
   Other schemes may also be supported; however, to avoid circular
   dependencies, supported schemes SHOULD NOT themselves make use of
   TLS, such as the https scheme.

   Implementations that support either x509_attr_cert_url or
   saml_assertion_url MUST support both SHA-1 [SHA1] and SHA-256 [SHA2]
   as one-way hash functions.  Other one-way hash functions may also be
   supported.  Additional one-way hash functions can be registered in
   the future using the procedures in section 3.

4. IANA Considerations

   This document defines a two TLS extensions: client_authz(TBD) and
   server_authz(TBD).  These extension type values are assigned from the
   TLS Extension Type registry defined in [TLSEXT].



Brown & Housley                                                [Page 10]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


   This document defines one TLS supplemental data type:
   authz_data(TBD).  This supplemental data type is assigned from the
   TLS Supplemental Data Type registry defined in [TLSSUPP].

   This document establishes a new registry, to be maintained by IANA,
   for TLS Authorization Data Formats.  The first four entries in the
   registry are x509_attr_cert(0), saml_assertion(1),
   x509_attr_cert_url(2), and saml_assertion_url(3).  TLS Authorization
   Data Format identifiers with values in the inclusive range 0-63
   (decimal) are assigned via RFC 2434 [IANA] Standards Action.  Values
   from the inclusive range 64-223 (decimal) are assigned via RFC 2434
   Specification Required.  Values from the inclusive range 224-255
   (decimal) are reserved for RFC 2434 Private Use.

   This document establishes a new registry, to be maintained by IANA,
   for TLS Hash Types.  The first two entries in the registry are
   sha1(0) and sha256(1).  TLS Hash Type identifiers with values in the
   inclusive range 0-158 (decimal) are assigned via RFC 2434 [IANA]
   Standards Action.  Values from the inclusive range 159-223 (decimal)
   are assigned via RFC 2434 Specification Required.  Values from the
   inclusive range 224-255 (decimal) are reserved for RFC 2434 Private
   Use.

5. Security Considerations

   A TLS server can support more than one application, and each
   application may include several features, each of which requires
   separate authorization checks.  This is the reason that more than one
   piece of authorization information can be provided.

   A TLS server that requires different authorization information for
   different applications or different application features may find
   that a client has provided sufficient authorization information to
   grant access to a subset of these offerings.  In this situation the
   TLS Handshake protocol will complete successfully; however, the
   server must ensure that the client will only be able to use the
   appropriate applications and application features.  That is, the TLS
   server must deny access to the applications and application features
   for which authorization has not been confirmed.

   In many cases, the authorization information is itself sensitive.
   The double handshake technique can be used to provide protection for
   the authorization information.  Figure 2 illustrates the double
   handshake, where the initial handshake does not include any
   authorization extensions, but it does result in protected
   communications.  Then, a second handshake that includes the
   authorization information is performed using the protected
   communications.  In Figure 2, the number on the right side indicates



Brown & Housley                                                [Page 11]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


   the amount of protection for the TLS message on that line.  A zero
   (0) indicates that there is no communication protection; a one (1)
   indicates that protection is provided by the first TLS session; and a
   two (2) indicates that protection is provided by both TLS sessions.

   The placement of the SupplementalData message in the TLS Handshake
   results in the server providing its authorization information before
   the client is authenticated.  In many situations, servers will not
   want to provide authorization information until the client is
   authenticated.  The double handshake illustrated in Figure 2 provides
   a technique to ensure that the parties are mutually authenticated
   before either party provides authorization information.


    Client                                                   Server

    ClientHello (no extensions) -------->                            |0
                                        ServerHello (no extensions)  |0
                                                       Certificate*  |0
                                                 ServerKeyExchange*  |0
                                                CertificateRequest*  |0
                                <--------           ServerHelloDone  |0
    Certificate*                                                     |0
    ClientKeyExchange                                                |0
    CertificateVerify*                                               |0
    [ChangeCipherSpec]                                               |0
    Finished                    -------->                            |1
                                                 [ChangeCipherSpec]  |0
                                <--------                  Finished  |1
    ClientHello (w/ extensions) -------->                            |1
                                        ServerHello (w/ extensions)  |1
                                  SupplementalData (w/ authz data)*  |1
                                                       Certificate*  |1
                                                 ServerKeyExchange*  |1
                                                CertificateRequest*  |1
                                <--------           ServerHelloDone  |1
    SupplementalData (w/ authz data)*                                |1
    Certificate*                                                     |1
    ClientKeyExchange                                                |1
    CertificateVerify*                                               |1
    [ChangeCipherSpec]                                               |1
    Finished                    -------->                            |2
                                                 [ChangeCipherSpec]  |1
                                <--------                  Finished  |2
    Application Data            <------->          Application Data  |2

         Figure 2. Double Handshake to Protect Authorization Data




Brown & Housley                                                [Page 12]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


6. Acknowledgement

   The authors thank Scott Cantor for his assistance with the SAML
   Assertion portion of the document.

7. Normative References

   [ATTRCERT]   Farrell, S., and R. Housley, "An Internet Attribute
                Certificate Profile for Authorization", RFC 3281,
                April 2002.

   [IANA]       Narten, T., and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
                an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 3434,
                October 1998.

   [PKIX1]      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.

   [TLS1.0]     Dierks, T., and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol, Version 1.0",
                RFC 2246, January 1999.

   [TLS1.1]     Dierks, T., and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
                (TLS) Protocol, Version 1.1", RFC 4346, February 2006.

   [TLSEXT]     Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J.,
                and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions",
                RFC 3546, June 2003.

   [TLSSUPP]    Santesson, S., " TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental
                Data", work in progress: draft-santesson-tls-supp,
                March 2006.

   [SAML1.1]    OASIS Security Services Technical Committee, "Security
                Assertion Markup Language (SAML) Version 1.1
                Specification Set", September 2003.

   [SAML2.0]    OASIS Security Services Technical Committee, "Security
                Assertion Markup Language (SAML) Version 2.0
                Specification Set", March2005.

   [SHA1]       National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
                FIPS PUB 180-1, Secure Hash Standard, 17 April 1995.

   [SHA2]       National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
                FIPS PUB 180-2: Secure Hash Standard, 1 August 2002.




Brown & Housley                                                [Page 13]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


   [STDWORDS]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Author's Address

   Mark Brown
   RedPhone Security
   2019 Palace Avenue
   Saint Paul, MN  55105
   USA
   mark <at> redphonesecurity <dot> com

   Russell Housley
   Vigil Security, LLC
   918 Spring Knoll Drive
   Herndon, VA 20170
   USA
   housley <at> vigilsec <dot> com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   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.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.





Brown & Housley                                                [Page 14]
\f
Internet-Draft                                                April 2006


   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.






























Brown & Housley                                                [Page 15]