Network Working Group O. Lendl
Request for Comments: 5105 enum.at
Category: Standards Track December 2007
ENUM Validation Token Format Definition
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
An ENUM domain name is tightly coupled with the underlying E.164
number. The process of verifying whether the Registrant of an ENUM
domain name is identical to the Assignee of the corresponding E.164
number is commonly called "validation". This document describes a
signed XML data format -- the Validation Token -- with which
Validation Entities can convey successful completion of a validation
procedure in a secure fashion.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Data Requirements ...............................................2
3. Digital Signature ...............................................3
4. Field Descriptions ..............................................4
4.1. The Element ...................................4
4.2. The Element ....................................5
5. Examples ........................................................6
5.1. Unsigned Token without Registrant Information ..............6
5.2. Signed Token ...............................................6
6. Formal Syntax ...................................................8
6.1. Token Core Schema ..........................................9
6.2. Token Data Schema .........................................10
7. Other Applications of the Token Concept ........................12
8. IANA Considerations ............................................12
9. Security Considerations ........................................13
10. Acknowledgements ..............................................14
11. References ....................................................14
11.1. Normative References .....................................14
11.2. Informative References ...................................15
Lendl Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
1. Introduction
In the case where an ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping [1]) domain name
corresponds to an existing E.164 number [2], the delegation of this
domain needs to be authorized by the Assignee of the corresponding
E.164 number. In the role model described in [15], the entity that
performs this check is called the Validation Entity (VE).
By conveying an ENUM Validation Token -- a signed XML document -- to
the Registry, a VE certifies that delegation requirements have been
met and are current.
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 [3].
2. Data Requirements
In this model, the Token is the only piece of data passed from the VE
to the Registry. Therefore, the Token needs to contain at least as
much information as the Registry requires to grant the delegation of
the requested ENUM domain according to its registration policy. As
such, the Registry will need confirmation that:
o the Token was created by an accredited VE,
o the Token's duration of validity conforms to the policy,
o the validation procedure employed has met minimum requirements as
set forth by policy,
o and that the Token is protected against tampering and replay
attacks.
Beyond such mandatory information, the Token may optionally include
number holder information, in particular, to simplify future
revalidations.
For example, if initial validation requires the steps "Check the
identity of the Registrant" and "Check the ownership of an E.164
number", then a later revalidation only needs to re-check the
ownership as the identity of the Registrant does not change.
As the Token will be included (see e.g., [16]) in XML-based Registry/
Registrar protocols like the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
[13], it is a natural choice to use XML to encode Validation Tokens.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
3. Digital Signature
According to the architecture model the propriety of an ENUM
delegation depends on the trust relationship between the Registry and
the VE. In general, an untrusted link between the Registry and VE
should be assumed (for instance, the Token is passed along with the
registration request by a Registrar, who might have no role in
asserting the right-to-use). Therefore, the Token must be protected
against forgery, tampering, and replay-attacks.
A digital signature on the token:
o asserts that the token was indeed generated by the indicated VE
(authenticity).
o guarantees that the token was not tampered with in transit
(integrity).
o enables auditing the validation process (non-repudiation).
The cryptographic signature on the token follows RFC 3275 (XML-DSIG
[4]). As tokens might be transmitted as part of an already XML based
protocol, the exclusive XML canonicalization [9] MUST be used. This
transform guarantees that namespace declarations inherited from the
surrounding XML do not invalidate the signature. In order to make
the signature an integral part of the token, the
"enveloped"-signature mode is employed. The signature covers all
information contained in the Token.
XML-DSIG offers a number of cryptographic algorithms for digesting
and signing documents and recommends SHA1/RSA-SHA1. Recent advances
in cryptanalysis have cast doubt on the security of SHA1, thus
rendering this recommendation obsolete (see e.g., the Security
Considerations of [14]). RFC 4051 [5] defines how additional
algorithms can be used with XML-DSIG.
Validation Entities MUST be able to sign tokens according to
XML-DSIG, MUST support RSA-SHA1 and RSA-SHA256 [5], MUST support RSA
key sizes of 1024 and 2048 bits, and MUST be able to embed X.509 [10]
certificates. The Registry MUST define which signature algorithms
and key sizes it will accept in Validation Tokens as part of its
local policy.
The choice of a RSA-based signature does not require a public key
infrastructure. Whether the Registry acts as a certification
authority, accepts certs from a public certification authority, or
only accepts pre-registered keys is a local policy choice.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
4. Field Descriptions
The Validation Token is structured into three parts: the basic
validation information, additional information about the Registrant,
and the digital signature. The XML schema can be found in Section 6.
4.1. The Element
A token MUST contain a element that contains the
following:
o A single validation "serial" attribute identifying a validation
token for a certain VE. It must be unique per VE.
o A single element containing the underlying E.164
number in fully qualified (international) format.
o An optional element. If present, it indicates
that the whole number block starting with up to and
including has been validated. To avoid
ambiguity, both numbers MUST be of the same length.
o A single element identifying the VE.
o A single element identifying the Registrar on whose
behalf the validation was performed.
o A single element identifying the method used by the VE
for validation.
o A single attribute containing the date of
validation formatted as "full-date" according to RFC 3339 [6].
o An optional attribute marking the expiration date
of the validation token formatted as "full-date" according to RFC
3339. The Registry will automatically revoke the delegation at
this date unless a new Token has been submitted that extends the
lifetime of the validation. A missing indicates
infinite validity of the Token.
The format and the uniqueness-constraints of these IDs is left to the
local policy of the Registry.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
4.2. The Element
A token may contain a section containing information
about the number holder, consisting of the following elements:
o A single element containing the full name of the
organization to which the Registrant is affiliated.
o A single element. If the Registrant is
a company, then this field can be used to uniquely identify this
company by its official registration number within the local
country. The interpretation of this field is thus
country-specific.
o A single element.
o A single <firstname> element.
o A single <lastname> element.
o A single <address> section containing the following elements:
* A single optional <streetName>
* A single optional <houseNumber>
* A single optional <postalCode>
* A single optional <locality>
* A single optional <countyStateOrProvince>
* A single optional <ISOcountryCode>
o Up to 10 <phone> elements containing full E.164 numbers.
o Up to 10 <fax> elements containing full E.164 numbers.
o Up to 10 <email> elements.
All elements directly under <tokendata> are optional. The
<ISOcountryCode> element specifies the country using the alpha-2
country code from ISO 3166-1:2006 [11] (including updates published
by the 3166 Maintenance Agency). The definition of the first five
elements within the <address> element conforms to the second version
of the E.115 Computerized Directory Assistance [17].
Lendl Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
5. Examples
5.1. Unsigned Token without Registrant Information
This basic Token without any information about the Registrant and
without the cryptographic signature shows the basic layout of the
Token.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no" ?>
<token xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0" Id="TOKEN"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation=
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0 enum-token-1.0.xsd">
<validation serial="acmeve-000002">
<E164Number>+442079460200</E164Number>
<lastE164Number>+442079460499</lastE164Number>
<validationEntityID>ACME-VE</validationEntityID>
<registrarID>reg-4711</registrarID>
<methodID>42</methodID>
<executionDate>2007-05-08</executionDate>
<expirationDate>2007-11-01</expirationDate>
</validation>
</token>
5.2. Signed Token
This example uses an X.509 based signature that includes the
certificate of the signing validation entity. Thus, the validity of
the signature can be verified without the need for a key-server. A
valid signature is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a
valid Token. Any entity evaluating a Token needs to check other
factors as well, e.g., the certificate and the XML schema.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no" ?>
<token xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0" Id="TOKEN"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation=
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0 enum-token-1.0.xsd">
<validation serial="acmeve-000001">
<E164Number>+442079460123</E164Number>
<validationEntityID>ACME-VE</validationEntityID>
<registrarID>reg-4711</registrarID>
<methodID>42</methodID>
<executionDate>2007-05-08</executionDate>
</validation>
<tokendata xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0"
xsi:schemaLocation=
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0 enum-tokendata-1.0.xsd">
Lendl Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
<contact>
<organisation>Example Inc.</organisation>
<commercialregisternumber>4711</commercialregisternumber>
<title>Dr.
Max
Mustermann
Main
10
1010
London
London
GB
+442079460123
mm@example.com
VxqsBxSNPFwPAUlCHts3g3DehcexnB1dqUz+GypLZ0k=
QKqphKRNPokVZFbenje+HZZV+RLrNweGnlWBw7ngAtH+rtuslR8LhMLmC4DlBb9V
HvKItl+7zLGm3VgYsqfHH8q3jCl1mFxUIuLlIPqtpJs+xAHAJDzZ+vmsF/q2IgrS
K0uMmKuU5V1gydDBOvIipcJx+PrPYyXYZSjQXkWknK8=
Lendl Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
MIIDZjCCAs+gAwIBAgIBBDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADB0MQswCQYDVQQGEwJBVDEP
MA0GA1UEBxMGVmllbm5hMRQwEgYDVQQKEwtCT0ZIIENlcnRzLjEbMBkGA1UEAxMS
Q0VSVFMuYm9maC5wcml2LmF0MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJjZXJ0c0Bib2ZoLnBy
aXYuYXQwHhcNMDQwNzIwMTMxNTA5WhcNMDUwNzIwMTMxNTA5WjB/MQswCQYDVQQG
EwJBVDEKMAgGA1UECBMBLTEPMA0GA1UEBxMGVmllbm5hMR0wGwYDVQQKExRBY21l
IEVOVU0gVmFsaWRhdGlvbjEQMA4GA1UEAxMHYWNtZS1WRTEiMCAGCSqGSIb3DQEJ
ARYTbm9ib2R5QGVudW0tYWNtZS5hdDCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkC
gYEArJPcjMFc54/zwztSdQXGxUtodJT9r1qGI2lQPNjLvtPJg93+7o5SIOsZGSpg
zWbztDAV5qc7PHZWUVIyf6MbM5qSgQDVrjNRhTosNtyqmwi23BH52SKkX3P7eGit
LmqEkiUZRxZhZ6upRbtcqvKSwmXitvW4zXZhkVHYJZ2HuMcCAwEAAaOB/DCB+TAJ
BgNVHRMEAjAAMCwGCWCGSAGG+EIBDQQfFh1PcGVuU1NMIEdlbmVyYXRlZCBDZXJ0
aWZpY2F0ZTAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUyK4otTQtvv6KdSlMBOPT5Ve18JgwgZ4GA1UdIwSB
ljCBk4AUvfPadpm0HhmZx2iAVumQTwgnG2eheKR2MHQxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkFUMQ8w
DQYDVQQHEwZWaWVubmExFDASBgNVBAoTC0JPRkggQ2VydHMuMRswGQYDVQQDExJD
RVJUUy5ib2ZoLnByaXYuYXQxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmNlcnRzQGJvZmgucHJp
di5hdIIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQCB9CHBnIUhrdic4h5Ar4hdxjHSQkDH
sJWd+MYrNcuSrv3TIOsUkUgNpNNhmkZPtiXqfy3388IRdJtJiLWXSOb/XlZHOM9I
MvwKYwhcpQ9UdM/w7VpXQqf+CEj0XSyqxGw65UsHIOijgiG/WyhSj+Lzriw7CTge
P2iAJkJVC4t2XA==
6. Formal Syntax
The formal syntax of the validation token is specified using XML
schema notation [7] [8]. Two schemas are defined: The "token core
schema" contains mandatory attribute definitions, and the "token data
schema" defines the format of the optional "tokendata" section. The
BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they are used to note
the beginning and ending of the schema for URI registration purposes.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
6.1. Token Core Schema
BEGIN
Validation Token core schema
END
6.2. Token Data Schema
BEGIN
END
7. Other Applications of the Token Concept
The concept of the validation token may be useful in other
registry-type applications where the proof of an underlying right is
a condition for a valid registration.
An example is a Top Level Domain (TLD) where registration is subject
to proof of some precondition, like a trade mark or the right in a
name. Such situations often arise during the introduction of a new
TLD, e.g., during a "sunrise" phase.
A Number Portability (NP) database faces very similar verification
issues. An NP system based on the Token concept could potentially be
superior to current methods, and aid in the convergence of NP and
ENUM.
8. IANA Considerations
This document uses Uniform Resource Names (URNs) to describe XML
namespaces and XML schemas conforming to a registry mechanism
described in RFC 3688 [12]. IANA has made the following four URI
assignments.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
1. Registration for the Token namespace:
* URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-token-1.0
* Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
* XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML
specification.
2. Registration for the Token XML schema:
* URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:enum-token-1.0
* Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
* XML: See Section 6.1 of this document.
3. Registration for the Token Data namespace:
* URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:enum-tokendata-1.0
* Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
* XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML
specification.
4. Registration for the Token Data XML schema:
* URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:enum-tokendata-1.0
* Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
* XML: See Section 6.2 of this document.
The IDs used in the validationEntityID, RegistrarID, and methodID
elements are subject to local policy and thus do not require IANA
registration.
9. Security Considerations
The security of the Validation Token depends on the security of the
underlying XML DSIG algorithms. As such, all the security
considerations from [4] apply here as well. Two points from [4]
merit repetition:
Transforms are used to select the relevant data for signing and
discarding irrelevant information (e.g., pretty-printing and
name-space local names).
The element and attribute combined with the
Id="TOKEN" attribute in specifies that the signature should
cover the complete token. Moving the Id="TOKEN" attribute to e.g.,
the element would make the signature worthless.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
It is thus critical that the Registry not only checks whether the
Token passes a generic XML-DSIG signature check, but also that:
1. the signature uses approved transforms and cryptographic
algorithms.
2. the signature references the element.
3. the key used in the signature belongs to an accredited VE.
The Token content is not encrypted. If local policy dictates that
the information contained within the token should be confidential,
then this has to be handled through a different mechanism.
When processing a delegation request, the Registry MUST verify that
the information contained in the Token matches the delegation
request. The element in the Token prevents a malicious
second Registrar from using an eavesdropped Token to register a
domain in his name. The Registry MUST verify that the
given (including the case of no given expiration
date) conforms to the Registry's policy. To avert replay attacks,
local policy MUST specify how long after the Token
can be used to authorize a delegation.
10. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the following persons for their
valuable suggestions and contributions: Michael Haberler, Alexander
Mayrhofer, Bernie Hoeneisen, Michael Braunoeder, Staffan Hagnell,
Lawrence Conroy, and Tony Rutkowski.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[1] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.
[2] ITU-T, "The international public telecommunication numbering
plan", Recommendation E.164, May 1997.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Eastlake 3rd, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "(Extensible Markup
Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275, March
2002.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
[5] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Additional XML Security Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 4051, April 2005.
[6] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
[7] Maloney, M., Beech, D., Mendelsohn, N., and H. Thompson, "XML
Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C REC REC-xmlschema-1-20010502,
May 2001.
[8] Malhotra, A. and P. Biron, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C
REC REC-xmlschema-2-20010502, May 2001.
[9] Eastlake, D., Boyer, J., and J. Reagle, "Exclusive XML
Canonicalization Version 1.0", W3C REC REC-xml-exc-c14n-
20020718, July 2002.
[10] International Telecommunications Union, "Information technology
- Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Public-key and
attribute certificate frameworks", ITU-T Recommendation X.509,
ISO Standard 9594-8, March 2000.
[11] International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for the
representation of names of countries and their subdivisions --
Part 1: Country codes, 2nd edition", ISO Standard 3166,
November 2006.
[12] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
11.2. Informative References
[13] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC
4930, May 2007.
[14] Schaad, J., Kaliski, B., and R. Housley, "Additional Algorithms
and Identifiers for RSA Cryptography for use in the Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate
Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 4055, June 2005.
[15] Mayrhofer, A. and B. Hoeneisen, "ENUM Validation
Architecture", RFC 4725, November 2006.
[16] Hoeneisen, B., "ENUM Validation Information Mapping for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol", RFC 5076, December 2007.
[17] ITU-T, "Computerized Directory Assistance Version 2",
Recommendation E.115v2, October 2005.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Author's Address
Otmar Lendl
enum.at GmbH
Karlsplatz 1/2/9
Wien A-1010
Austria
Phone: +43 1 5056416 33
EMail: otmar.lendl@enum.at
URI: http://www.enum.at/
Lendl Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 5105 ENUM Validation Token December 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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 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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Intellectual Property
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.
Lendl Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC, FYI, BCP