<pre>Network Working Group                                        S. Chokhani
Request for Comments: 2527                      CygnaCom Solutions, Inc.
Category: Informational                                          W. Ford
                                                          VeriSign, Inc.
                                                              March 1999


                <span class="h1">Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure</span>
        <span class="h1">Certificate Policy and Certification Practices Framework</span>

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document presents a framework to assist the writers of
   certificate policies or certification practice statements for
   certification authorities and public key infrastructures.  In
   particular, the framework provides a comprehensive list of topics
   that potentially (at the writer's discretion) need to be covered in a
   certificate policy definition or a certification practice statement.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. INTRODUCTION</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>  BACKGROUND</span>

   A public-key certificate (hereinafter "certificate") binds a public-
   key value to a set of information that identifies the entity (such as
   person, organization, account, or site) associated with use of the
   corresponding private key (this entity is known as the "subject" of
   the certificate).  A certificate is used by a "certificate user" or
   "relying party" that needs to use, and rely upon the accuracy of, the
   public key distributed via that certificate (a certificate user is
   typically an entity that is verifying a digital signature from the
   certificate's subject or an entity sending encrypted data to the
   subject).  The degree to which a certificate user can trust the
   binding embodied in a certificate depends on several factors. These
   factors include the practices followed by the certification authority
   (CA) in authenticating the subject; the CA's operating policy,
   procedures, and security controls; the subject's obligations (for
   example, in protecting the private key); and the stated undertakings



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                      [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   and legal obligations of the CA (for example, warranties and
   limitations on liability).

   A Version 3 X.509 certificate may contain a field declaring that one
   or more specific certificate policies applies to that certificate
   [<a href="#ref-ISO1" title="&quot;Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection: The Directory: Authentication Framework,&quot;">ISO1</a>].  According to X.509, a certificate policy is "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." A certificate policy may be used by a certificate user
   to help in deciding whether a certificate, and the binding therein,
   is sufficiently trustworthy for a particular application.  The
   certificate policy concept is an outgrowth of the policy statement
   concept developed for Internet Privacy Enhanced Mail [<a href="#ref-PEM1" title="&quot;Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail, Part II: Certificate-Based Key Management&quot;">PEM1</a>] and
   expanded upon in [<a href="#ref-BAU1" title="NIST-GCR- 94-654">BAU1</a>].

   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 Digital Signature
   Guidelines (hereinafter "ABA Guidelines"), "a CPS is a statement of
   the practices which a certification authority employs in issuing
   certificates." [<a href="#ref-ABA1" title="Digital Signature Guidelines: Legal Infrastructure for Certification Authorities and Electronic Commerce">ABA1</a>]

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.2" href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>  PURPOSE</span>

   The purpose of this document is to establish a clear relationship
   between certificate policies and CPSs, and to present a framework to
   assist the writers of certificate policies or CPSs with their tasks.
   In particular, the framework identifies the elements that may need to
   be considered in formulating a certificate policy or a CPS.  The
   purpose is not to define particular certificate policies or CPSs, per
   se.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.3" href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>  SCOPE</span>

   The scope of this document is limited to discussion of the contents
   of a certificate policy (as defined in X.509) or CPS (as defined in
   the ABA Guidelines).  In particular, this document describes the
   types of information that should be considered for inclusion in a
   certificate policy definition or a CPS.  While the framework as
   presented generally assumes use of the X.509 version 3 certificate
   format, it is not intended that the material be restricted to use of
   that certificate format.  Rather, it is intended that this framework
   be adaptable to other certificate formats 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) beyond the policy elements that are considered



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                      [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   of particular relevance to certificate policies or CPSs.

   This document does not define a specific certificate policy or CPS.

   It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the general concepts
   of digital signatures, certificates, and public-key infrastructure,
   as used in X.509 and the ABA Guidelines.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>.  DEFINITIONS</span>

   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).

      CA-certificate - A certificate for one CA's public key issued by
      another CA.

      Certificate policy - 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 certificate policy might indicate
      applicability of a type of certificate to the authentication of
      electronic data interchange transactions for the trading of goods
      within a given price range.

      Certification path - An ordered sequence of certificates which,
      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 which a certification authority employs in issuing
      certificates.

      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).

      Policy qualifier - Policy-dependent information that accompanies a
      certificate policy identifier in an X.509 certificate.

      Registration authority (RA) - An entity that is responsible for
      identification and authentication of certificate subjects, but
      that does 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 used elsewhere for the same
      concept.]



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                      [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


      Relying party - A recipient of a certificate who acts in reliance
      on that certificate and/or digital signatures verified using that
      certificate.  In this document, the terms "certificate user" and
      "relying party" are used interchangeably.

      Set of provisions - A collection of practice and/or policy
      statements, spanning a range of standard topics, for use in
      expressing a certificate policy definition or CPS employing the
      approach described in this framework.

      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).

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>.  CONCEPTS</span>

   This section explains the concepts of certificate policy and CPS, and
   describes their relationship.  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.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>  CERTIFICATE POLICY</span>

   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 a particular entity (the
   certificate subject).  However, the extent to which the certificate
   user should rely on that statement by the CA needs to be assessed by
   the certificate user.  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 certificate policy 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"[<a href="#ref-ISO1" title="&quot;Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection: The Directory: Authentication Framework,&quot;">ISO1</a>].  An X.509 Version 3 certificate may contain an
   indication of certificate policy, which may be used by a certificate
   user to decide whether or not to trust a certificate for a particular
   purpose.

   A certificate policy, which needs to be recognized by both the issuer
   and user of a certificate, is represented in a certificate by a
   unique, registered Object Identifier.  The registration process
   follows the procedures specified in ISO/IEC and ITU standards.  The



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                      [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   party that registers the Object Identifier also publishes a textual
   specification of the certificate policy, for examination by
   certificate users.  Any one certificate will typically declare a
   single certificate policy or, possibly, be issued consistent with a
   small number of different policies.

   Certificate policies also constitute a basis for accreditation of
   CAs.  Each CA is accredited against one or more certificate policies
   which 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 accreditation 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
   certificate policy indications in its well-defined trust model.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>  CERTIFICATE POLICY EXAMPLES</span>

   For example purposes, suppose that IATA undertakes to define some
   certificate policies for use throughout the airline industry, in a
   public-key infrastructure operated by IATA in combination with
   public-key infrastructures operated by individual airlines.  Two
   certificate policies are defined - the IATA General-Purpose policy,
   and the IATA Commercial-Grade policy.

   The IATA General-Purpose policy is intended for use 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 policy is used to protect financial
   transactions or binding contractual exchanges between airlines.
   Under this policy, IATA requires that certified key pairs be
   generated and stored in approved cryptographic hardware tokens.
   Certificates and tokens are provided to airline employees with
   disbursement authority. These authorized individuals are required to
   present themselves to the corporate security office, show a valid
   identification badge, and sign an undertaking to protect the token
   and use it only for authorized purposes, before a token and a
   certificate are issued.




<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                      [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a> X.509 CERTIFICATE FIELDS</span>

   The following extension fields in an X.509 certificate are used to
   support certificate policies:

      * Certificate Policies extension;
      * Policy Mappings extension; and
      * Policy Constraints extension.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3.1" href="#section-3.3.1">3.3.1</a> Certificate Policies Extension</span>

   The Certificate Policies extension has two variants - one with the
   field flagged non-critical and one with the field flagged critical.
   The purpose of the field is different in the two cases.

   A non-critical Certificate Policies field lists certificate policies
   that the certification authority declares are applicable.  However,
   use of the certificate is not restricted to the purposes indicated by
   the applicable policies.  Using the example of the IATA General-
   Purpose and Commercial-Grade policies defined in <a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a>, the
   certificates issued to regular airline employees will contain the
   object identifier for certificate policy for the General-Purpose
   policy.  The certificates issued to the employees with disbursement
   authority will contain the object identifiers for both the General-
   Purpose policy and the Commercial-Grade policy.  The Certificate
   Policies field may also optionally convey qualifier values for each
   identified policy; use of qualifiers is discussed in <a href="#section-3.4">Section 3.4</a>.

   The non-critical Certificate Policies field is designed to be used by
   applications as follows.  Each application is pre-configured to know
   what policy it requires.  Using the example in <a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a>,
   electronic mail applications and Web servers will be configured to
   require the General-Purpose policy.  However, an airline's financial
   applications will be configured to require the Commercial-Grade
   policy for validating financial transactions over a certain dollar
   value.

   When processing a certification path, a certificate policy that is
   acceptable to the certificate-using 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.  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 one of the listed certificate policies. This field is



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                      [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   intended to protect the certification authority against damage claims
   by a relying party who has used the certificate for an inappropriate
   purpose or in an inappropriate manner, as stipulated in the
   applicable certificate policy definition.

   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
   accidentally issuing a bad certificate, e.g., to a wrongly-
   authenticated person.  However, suppose someone used an Internal
   Revenue Service tax-filing certificate as the basis for encrypting
   multi-million-dollar-value proprietary secrets which subsequently
   fell into the wrong hands because of an error in issuing the Internal
   Revenue Service certificate.  The Internal Revenue Service may want
   to protect itself against claims for damages in such circumstances.
   The critical-flagged Certificate Policies extension is intended to
   mitigate the risk to the certificate issuer in such situations.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3.2" href="#section-3.3.2">3.3.2</a>  Policy Mappings Extension</span>

   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 the ACE Corporation establishes an agreement
   with the ABC Corporation to cross-certify each others' public-key
   infrastructures for the purposes of mutually protecting electronic
   data interchange (EDI). 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.  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).







<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                      [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3.3" href="#section-3.3.3">3.3.3</a>  Policy Constraints Extension</span>

   The Policy Constraints extension supports two optional features.  The
   first is the ability for a certification authority to require that
   explicit certificate policy indications be present in all subsequent
   certificates in a certification path.  Certificates at the start of a
   certification path may be considered by a certificate user to be part
   of a trusted domain, i.e., certification authorities are trusted for
   all purposes so no particular certificate policy is needed in the
   Certificate Policies extension.  Such certificates need not contain
   explicit indications of certificate policy.  However, when a
   certification authority in the trusted domain certifies outside the
   domain, it can activate the requirement for explicit certificate
   policy 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.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4" href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>  POLICY QUALIFIERS</span>

   The Certificate Policies extension field has a provision for
   conveying, along with each certificate policy 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 Part I
   [<a href="#ref-PKI1" title="&quot;Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure, Certificate and CRL Profile&quot;">PKI1</a>]:

      (a) The CPS Pointer qualifier contains a pointer to a
          Certification Practice Statement (CPS) 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 a certificate user (including 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 certficate user
          acknowledge that the applicable terms and conditions have been
          disclosed or accepted.



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                      [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   Policy qualifiers can be used to support the definition of generic,
   or parameterized, certificate policy definitions.  Provided the base
   certificate policy definition 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.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.5" href="#section-3.5">3.5</a>  CERTIFICATION PRACTICE STATEMENT</span>

   The term certification practice statement (CPS) is defined by the ABA
   Guidelines as: "A statement of the practices which a certification
   authority employs in issuing certificates." [<a href="#ref-ABA1" title="Digital Signature Guidelines: Legal Infrastructure for Certification Authorities and Electronic Commerce">ABA1</a>] In the 1995 draft
   of the ABA guidelines, 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, or it may be a
      statute or regulation applicable to the certification authority
      and covering similar subject matter. It may also be part of the
      contract between the certification authority and the subscriber. A
      certification practice statement may also be comprised of multiple
      documents, a combination of public law, private contract, and/or
      declaration.

      Certain forms for legally implementing certification practice
      statements lend themselves to particular relationships. For
      example, when the legal relationship between a certification
      authority and subscriber is consensual, a contract would
      ordinarily be the means of giving effect to a certification
      practice statement.  The certification authority's duties to a
      relying person are generally based on the certification
      authority's representations, which may include a certification
      practice statement.

      Whether a certification practice statement is binding on a relying
      person depends on whether the relying person has knowledge or
      notice of the certification practice statement.  A relying person
      has knowledge or at least notice of the contents of the
      certificate used by the relying person to verify a digital
      signature, including documents incorporated into the certificate
      by reference.  It is therefore advisable to incorporate a
      certification practice statement into a certificate by reference.

      As much as possible, a certification practice statement should
      indicate any of the widely recognized standards to which the
      certification authority's practices conform.  Reference to widely
      recognized standards may indicate concisely the suitability of the



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                      [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


      certification authority's practices for another person's purposes,
      as well as the potential technological compatibility of the
      certificates issued by the certification authority with
      repositories and other systems.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.6" href="#section-3.6">3.6</a> RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CERTIFICATE POLICY AND CERTIFICATION PRACTICE</span>
<span class="h3">    STATEMENT</span>

   The concepts of certificate policy and CPS come from different
   sources and were developed for different reasons.  However, their
   interrelationship is important.

   A certification practice statement is a detailed statement by a
   certification authority as to its practices, that potentially needs
   to be understood and consulted by subscribers and certificate users
   (relying parties).  Although the level of detail may vary among CPSs,
   they will generally be more detailed than certificate policy
   definitions.  Indeed, CPSs may be quite comprehensive, robust
   documents providing a description of the precise service offerings,
   detailed procedures of the life-cycle management of certificates, and
   more - a level of detail which weds the CPS to a particular
   (proprietary) implementation of a service offering.

   Although such detail may be indispensable to adequately disclose, and
   to make a full assessment of trustworthiness in the absence of
   accreditation or other recognized quality metrics, a detailed CPS
   does not form a suitable basis for interoperability between CAs
   operated by different organizations.  Rather, certificate policies
   best serve as the vehicle on which to base common interoperability
   standards and common assurance criteria on an industry-wide (or
   possibly more global) basis.  A CA with a single CPS may support
   multiple certificate policies (used for different application
   purposes and/or by different certificate user communities).  Also,
   multiple different CAs, with non-identical certification practice
   statements, may support the same certificate policy.

   For example, the Federal Government might define a government-wide
   certificate policy for handling confidential human resources
   information.  The certificate policy definition will be a broad
   statement of the general characteristics of that certificate policy,
   and an indication of the types of applications for which it is
   suitable for use.  Different departments or agencies that operate
   certification authorities with different certification practice
   statements might support this certificate policy.  At the same time,
   such certification authorities may support other certificate
   policies.





<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   The main difference between certificate policy and CPS can therefore
   be summarized as follows:

      (a) Most organizations that operate public or inter-
          organizational certification authorities will document their
          own practices in CPSs or similar statements.  The CPS is one
          of the organization's means of protecting itself and
          positioning its business relationships with subscribers and
          other entities.

      (b) There is strong incentive, on the other hand, for a
          certificate policy to apply more broadly than to just a single
          organization.  If a particular certificate policy is widely
          recognized and imitated, it has great potential as the basis
          of automated certificate acceptance in many systems, including
          unmanned systems and systems that are manned by people not
          independently empowered to determine the acceptability of
          different presented certificates.

   In addition to populating the certificate policies field with the
   certificate policy 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 certificate policy
   qualifier, is described in <a href="#section-3.4">Section 3.4</a>.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.7" href="#section-3.7">3.7</a>  SET OF PROVISIONS</span>

   A set of provisions is a collection of practice and/or policy
   statements, spanning a range of standard topics, for use in
   expressing a certificate policy definition or CPS employing the
   approach described in this framework.

   A certificate policy 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 certificate policy in (a), a set of provisions which
          contains statements that refine that certificate policy by
          filling in details not stipulated in that policy or expressly
          left to the discretion of the CPS by that certificate policy;
          such statements serve to state how this particular CPS
          implements the requirements of the particular certificate



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


          policy;

      (c) a set of provisions that contains statements regarding the
          certification practices on the CA, regardless of certificate
          policy.

   The statements provided in (b) and (c) may augment or refine the
   stipulations of the applicable certificate policy definition, but
   must not conflict with any of the stipulations of such certificate
   policy definition.

   This framework outlines the contents of a set of provisions, in terms
   of eight primary components, as follows:

      * Introduction;

      * General Provisions;

      * Identification and Authentication;

      * Operational Requirements;

      * Physical, Procedural, and Personnel Security Controls;

      * Technical Security Controls;

      * Certificate and CRL Profile; and

      * Specification Administration.

   Components can be further divided into subcomponents, and a
   subcomponent may comprise multiple elements.  <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a> provides a
   more detailed description of the contents of the above components,
   and their subcomponents.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>.  CONTENTS OF A SET OF PROVISIONS</span>

   This section expands upon the contents of a set of provisions, as
   introduced in <a href="#section-3.7">Section 3.7</a>.  The topics identified in this section
   are, consequently, candidate topics for inclusion in a certificate
   policy definition or CPS.

   While many topics are identified, it is not necessary for a
   certificate policy or a CPS to include a concrete statement for every
   such topic.  Rather, a particular certificate policy or CPS may state
   "no stipulation" for a component, subcomponent, or element on which
   the particular certificate policy or CPS imposes no requirements.  In
   this sense, the list of topics can be considered a checklist of



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   topics for consideration by the certificate policy or CPS writer.  It
   is recommended that each and every component and subcomponent be
   included in a certificate policy or CPS, even if there is "no
   stipulation"; this will indicate to the reader that a conscious
   decision was made to include or exclude that topic.  This 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 certificate policy definition, 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.  Such certificate policy definitions 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.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a> INTRODUCTION</span>

   This component identifies and introduces the set of provisions, and
   indicates the types of entities and applications for which the
   specification is targeted.

   This component has the following subcomponents:

      * Overview;

      * Identification;

      * Community and Applicability; and

      * Contact Details.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.1" href="#section-4.1.1">4.1.1</a>  Overview</span>

   This subcomponent provides a general introduction to the
   specification.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.2" href="#section-4.1.2">4.1.2</a>  Identification</span>

   This subcomponent provides any applicable names or other identifiers,
   including ASN.1 object identifiers, for the set of provisions.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.3" href="#section-4.1.3">4.1.3</a>  Community and Applicability</span>

   This subcomponent describes the types of entities that issue
   certificates or that are certified as subject CAs (2, 3), the types
   of entities that perform RA functions (4), and the types of entities



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   that are certified as subject end entities or subscribers. (5, 6)

   This subcomponent also contains:

      * A list of applications for which the issued certificates are
        suitable.  (Examples of application in this case are: electronic
        mail, retail transactions, contracts, travel order, etc.)

      * A list of applications for which use of the issued certificates
        is restricted.  (This list implicitly prohibits all other uses
        for the certificates.)

      * A list of applications for which use of the issued certificates
        is prohibited.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.4" href="#section-4.1.4">4.1.4</a>  Contact Details</span>

   This subcomponent includes the name and mailing address of the
   authority that is responsible for the registration, maintenance, and
   interpretation of this certificate policy or CPS.  It also includes
   the name, electronic mail address, telephone number, and fax number
   of a contact person.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>  GENERAL PROVISIONS</span>

   This component specifies any applicable presumptions on a range of
   legal and general practices topics.

   This component contains the following subcomponents:

      * Obligations;

      * Liability;

      * Financial Responsibility;

      * Interpretation and Enforcement;

      * Fees;

      * Publication and Repositories;

      * Compliance Audit;

      * Confidentiality; and

      * Intellectual Property Rights.




<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   Each subcomponent may need to separately state provisions applying to
   the entity types: CA, repository, RA, subscriber, and relying party.
   (Specific provisions regarding subscribers and relying parties are
   only applicable in the Liability and Obligations subcomponents.)

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.1" href="#section-4.2.1">4.2.1</a>  Obligations</span>

   This subcomponent contains, for each entity type, any applicable
   provisions regarding the entity's obligations to other entities.
   Such provisions may include:

      * CA and/or RA obligations:
         *  Notification of issuance of a certificate to the
            subscriber who is the subject of the certificate being
            issued;
         *  Notification of issuance of a certificate to others
            than the subject of the certificate;
         *  Notification of revocation or suspension of a
            certificate to the subscriber whose certificate is being
            revoked or suspended; and
         *  Notification of revocation or suspension of a
            certificate to others than the subject whose certificate
            is being revoked or suspended.

      * Subscriber obligations:

         *  Accuracy of representations in certificate application;
         *  Protection of the entity's private key;
         *  Restrictions on private key and certificate use; and
         *  Notification upon private key compromise.

      * Relying party obligations:

         *  Purposes for which certificate is used;
         *  Digital signature verification responsibilities;
         *  Revocation and suspension checking responsibilities;
            and
         *  Acknowledgment of applicable liability caps and
            warranties.

      * Repository obligations

         *  Timely publication of certificates and revocation
            information







<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.2" href="#section-4.2.2">4.2.2</a>  Liability</span>

   This subcomponent contains, for each entity type, any applicable
   provisions regarding apportionment of liability, such as:

      * Warranties and limitations on warranties;

      * Kinds of damages covered (e.g., indirect, special,
        consequential, incidental, punitive, liquidated damages,
        negligence and fraud) and disclaimers;

      * Loss limitations (caps) per certificate or per transaction; and

      * Other exclusions (e.g., Acts of God, other party
        responsibilities).

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.3" href="#section-4.2.3">4.2.3</a>  Financial Responsibility</span>

   This subcomponent contains, for CAs, repository, and RAs, any
   applicable provisions regarding financial responsibilities, such as:

      * Indemnification of CA and/or RA by relying parties;

      * Fiduciary relationships (or lack thereof) between the various
        entities; and

      * Administrative processes (e.g., accounting, audit).

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.4" href="#section-4.2.4">4.2.4</a>  Interpretation and Enforcement</span>

   This subcomponent contains any applicable provisions regarding
   interpretation and enforcement of the certificate policy or CPS,
   addressing such topics as:

      * Governing law;

      * Severability of provisions, survival, merger, and notice; and

      * Dispute resolution procedures.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.5" href="#section-4.2.5">4.2.5</a>  Fees</span>

   This subcomponent contains any applicable provisions regarding fees
   charged by CAs, repositories, or RAs, such as:

      * Certificate issuance or renewal fees;

      * Certificate access fee;



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


      * Revocation or status information access fee;

      * Fees for other services such as policy information; and

      * Refund policy.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.6" href="#section-4.2.6">4.2.6</a>  Publication and Repositories</span>

   This subcomponent contains any applicable provisions regarding:

      * A CA's obligations to publish information regarding its
        practices, its certificates, and the current status of such
        certificates;

      * Frequency of publication;

      * Access control on published information objects including
        certificate policy definitions, CPS, certificates, certificate
        status, and CRLs; and

      * Requirements pertaining to the use of repositories operated by
        CAs or by other independent parties.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.7" href="#section-4.2.7">4.2.7</a>  Compliance Audit</span>

   This subcomponent addresses the following:

      * Frequency of compliance audit for each entity;

      * Identity/qualifictions of the auditor;

      * Auditor's relationship to the entity being audited; (30)

      * List of topics covered under the compliance audit; (31)

      * Actions taken as a result of a deficiency found during
        compliance audit; (32)

      * Compliance audit results: who they are shared with (e.g.,
        subject CA, RA, and/or end entities), who provides them (e.g.,
        entity being audited or auditor), how they are communicated.










<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.8" href="#section-4.2.8">4.2.8</a>  Confidentiality Policy</span>

   This subcomponent addresses the following:

      * Types of information that must be kept confidential by CA or RA;

      * Types of information that are not considered confidential;

      * Who is entitled to be informed of reasons for revocation and
        suspension of certificates;

      * Policy on release of information to law enforcement officials;

      * Information that can be revealed as part of civil discovery;

      * Conditions upon which CA or RA may disclose upon owner's
        request; and

      * Any other circumstances under which confidential information may
        be disclosed.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.9" href="#section-4.2.9">4.2.9</a>  Intellectual Property Rights</span>

   This subcomponent addresses ownership rights of certificates,
   practice/policy specifications, names, and keys.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>  IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION</span>

   This component describes the procedures used to authenticate a
   certificate applicant to a CA or RA prior to certificate issuance.
   It also describes how parties requesting rekey or revocation are
   authenticated.  This component also addresses naming practices,
   including name ownership recognition and name dispute resolution.

   This component has the following subcomponents:

      * Initial Registration;

      * Routine Rekey;

      * Rekey After Revocation; and

      * Revocation Request.








<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.1" href="#section-4.3.1">4.3.1</a>  Initial Registration</span>

   This subcomponent includes the following elements regarding
   identification and authentication procedures during entity
   registration or certificate issuance:

      * Types of names assigned to the subject (7);

      * Whether names have to be meaningful or not (8);

      * Rules for interpreting various name forms;

      * Whether names have to be unique;

      * How name claim disputes are resolved;

      * Recognition, authentication, and role of trademarks;

      * If and how the subject must prove possession of the companion
        private key for the public key being registered (9);

      * Authentication requirements for organizational identity of
        subject (CA, RA, or end entity) (10);

      * Authentication requirements for a person acting on behalf of a
        subject (CA, RA, or end entity) (11), including:

         * Number of pieces of identification required;
         * How a CA or RA validates the pieces of identification
           provided;
         * If the individual must present personally to the
           authenticating CA or RA;
         * How an individual as an organizational person is
           authenticated (12).

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.2" href="#section-4.3.2">4.3.2</a> Routine Rekey</span>

   This subcomponent describes the identification and authentication
   procedures for routine rekey for each subject type (CA, RA, and end
   entity). (13)

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.3" href="#section-4.3.3">4.3.3</a> Rekey After Revocation -- No Key Compromise</span>

   This subcomponent describes the identification and authentication
   procedures for rekey for each subject type (CA, RA, and end entity)
   after the subject certificate has been revoked.  (14)





<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.4" href="#section-4.3.4">4.3.4</a> Revocation Request</span>

   This subcomponent describes the identification and authentication
   procedures for a revocation request by each subject type (CA, RA, and
   end entity). (16)

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a> OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS</span>

   This component is used to specify requirements imposed upon issuing
   CA, subject CAs, RAs, or end entities with respect to various
   operational activities.

   This component consists of the following subcomponents:

      * Certificate Application;

      * Certificate Issuance;

      * Certificate Acceptance;

      * Certificate Suspension and Revocation;

      * Security Audit Procedures;

      * Records Archival;

      * Key Changeover;

      * Compromise and Disaster Recovery; and

      * CA Termination.

   Within each subcomponent, separate consideration may need to be given
   to issuing CA, repository, subject CAs, RAs, and end entities.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.1" href="#section-4.4.1">4.4.1</a> Certificate Application</span>

   This subcomponent is used to state requirements regarding subject
   enrollment and request for certificate issuance.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.2" href="#section-4.4.2">4.4.2</a> Certificate Issuance</span>

   This subcomponent is used to state requirements regarding issuance of
   a certificate and notification to the applicant of such issuance.







<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.3" href="#section-4.4.3">4.4.3</a> Certificate Acceptance</span>

   This subcomponent is used to state requirements regarding acceptance
   of an issued certificate and for consequent publication of
   certificates.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.4" href="#section-4.4.4">4.4.4</a> Certificate Suspension and Revocation</span>

   This subcomponent addresses the following:

      * Circumstances under which a certificate may be revoked;

      * Who can request the revocation of the entity certificate;

      * Procedures used for certificate revocation request;

      * Revocation request grace period available to the subject;

      * Circumstances under which a certificate may be suspended;

      * Who can request the suspension of a certificate;

      * Procedures to request certificate suspension;

      * How long the suspension may last;

      * If a CRL mechanism is used, the issuance frequency;

      * Requirements on relying parties to check CRLs;

      * On-line revocation/status checking availability;

      * Requirements on relying parties to perform on-line
        revocation/status checks;

      * Other forms of revocation advertisements available; and

      * Requirements on relying parties to check other forms of
        revocation advertisements.

      * Any variations on the above stipulations when the suspension or
        revocation is the result of private key compromise (as opposed
        to other reasons for suspension or revocation).








<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.5" href="#section-4.4.5">4.4.5</a>  Security Audit Procedures</span>

   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; (28)

      * Frequency with which audit logs are processed or audited;

      * Period for which audit logs are kept;

      * Protection of audit logs:

         - Who can view audit logs;
         - Protection against modification of audit log; and
         - Protection against deletion of audit log.

      * 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

      * Vulnerability assessments.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.6" href="#section-4.4.6">4.4.6</a>  Records Archival</span>

   This subcomponent is used to describe general records archival (or
   records retention) policies, including the following:

      * Types of events recorded; (29)

      * Retention period for archive;

      * Protection of archive:

         - Who can view the archive;
         - Protection against modification of archive; and
         - Protection against deletion of archive.

      * Archive backup procedures;

      * Requirements for time-stamping of records;

      * Whether the archive collection system is internal or external;



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


        and

      * Procedures to obtain and verify archive information.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.7" href="#section-4.4.7">4.4.7</a>  Key Changeover</span>

   This subcomponent describes the procedures to provide a new public
   key to a CA's users.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.8" href="#section-4.4.8">4.4.8</a>  Compromise and Disaster Recovery</span>

   This subcomponent describes requirements relating to notification and
   recovery procedures in the event of compromise or disaster.  Each of
   the following circumstances may need to be addressed separately:

      * 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 reestablished,

        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 recertified.

      * The recovery procedures used if the entity public key is
        revoked.  These procedures describe how a secure environment is
        reestablished, how the new entity public key is provided to the
        users, and how the subjects are recertified.

      * The recovery procedures used if the entity key is compromised.
        These procedures describe how a secure environment is
        reestablished, how the new entity public key is provided to the
        users, and how the subjects are recertified.

      * The CA's procedures for securing its facility during the period
        of time following a natural or other disaster and before a
        secure environment is reestablished either at the original site
        or a remote hot-site.  For example, procedures to protect
        against theft of sensitive materials from an earthquake-damaged
        site.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.9" href="#section-4.4.9">4.4.9</a> CA Termination</span>

   This subcomponent describes requirements relating to procedures for
   termination and for termination notification of a CA or RA, including
   the identity of the custodian of CA and RA archival records.






<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a> PHYSICAL, PROCEDURAL, AND PERSONNEL SECURITY CONTROLS</span>

   This component describes non-technical security controls (that is,
   physical, procedural, and personnel controls) used by the issuing CA
   to perform securely the functions of key generation, subject
   authentication, certificate issuance, certificate revocation, audit,
   and archival.

   This component can also be used to define non-technical security
   controls on repository, subject CAs, RAs, and end entities.  The non
   technical security controls for the subject CAs, RAs, and end
   entities 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 the compromise of the CA private key.

   This component consists of three subcomponents:

      * Physical Security Controls;

      * Procedural Controls; and

      * Personnel Security Controls.

   Within each subcomponent, separate consideration will, in general,
   need to be given to each entity type, that is, issuing CA,
   repository, subject CAs, RAs, and end entities.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5.1" href="#section-4.5.1">4.5.1</a> Physical Security Controls</span>

   In this subcomponent, the physical controls on the facility housing
   the entity systems are described.(21) Topics addressed may include:

      * Site location and construction;

      * Physical access;

      * Power and air conditioning;

      * Water exposures;

      * Fire prevention and protection;

      * Media storage;

      * Waste disposal; and



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 24]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


      * Off-site backup.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5.2" href="#section-4.5.2">4.5.2</a> Procedural Controls</span>

   In this subcomponent, requirements for recognizing trusted roles are
   described, together with the responsibilities for each role.(22)

   For each task identified for each role, it should also be stated how
   many individuals are required to perform the task (n out m rule).
   Identification and authentication requirements for each role may also
   be defined.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5.3" href="#section-4.5.3">4.5.3</a> Personnel Security Controls</span>

   This subcomponent addresses the following:

      * Background checks and clearance procedures required for the
        personnel filling the trusted roles; (23)

      * Background checks and clearance procedures requirements for
        other personnel, including janitorial staff; (24)

      * Training requirements and training procedures for each role;

      * Any retraining period and retraining procedures for each role;

      * 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; (25)

        * Controls on contracting personnel, including:

         - Bonding requirements on contract personnel;
         - Contractual requirements including indemnification  for
           damages due to the actions of the contractor personnel;
         - Audit and monitoring of contractor personnel; and
         - Other controls on contracting personnel.

      * Documentation to be supplied to personnel.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6" href="#section-4.6">4.6</a> TECHNICAL SECURITY CONTROLS</span>

   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



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 25]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   and end entities to protect their cryptographic 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, audit, and archival.  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, and end entities.

   This component has the following subcomponents:

      * Key Pair Generation and Installation;

      * Private Key Protection;

      * Other Aspects of Key Pair Management;

      * Activation Data;

      * Computer Security Controls;

      * Life-Cycle Security Controls;

      * Network Security Controls; and

      * Cryptographic Module Engineering Controls.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6.1" href="#section-4.6.1">4.6.1</a> Key Pair Generation and Installation</span>

   Key pair generation and installation need to be considered for the
   issuing CA, repositories, subject CAs, RAs, and subject end entities.
   For each of these types of entities, the following questions
   potentially need to be answered:

      1. Who generates the entity public, private key pair?

      2. How is the private key provided securely to the entity?

      3. How is the entity's public key provided securely to the
         certificate issuer?




<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 26]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


      4. If the entity is a CA (issuing or subject) how is the entity's
         public key provided securely to the users?

      5. What are the key sizes?

      6. Who generates the public key parameters?

      7. Is the quality of the parameters checked during key generation?

      8. Is the key generation performed in hardware or software?

      9. 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 the Version
         3, X.509 certificates)?

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6.2" href="#section-4.6.2">4.6.2</a> Private Key Protection</span>

   Requirements for private key protection need to be considered for the
   issuing CA, repositories, subject CAs, RAs, and subject end entities.
   For each of these types of entity, the following questions
   potentially need to be answered:

      1. What standards, if any, are required for the module used to
         generate the keys?  For example, are the keys certified by the
         infrastructure required to be generated using modules complaint
         with the US FIPS 140-1?  If so, what is the required FIPS 140-1
         level of the module?

      2. Is the private key under n out of m multi-person control?(18)
         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?  (19) 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?

      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?




<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 27]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


      6. Who enters the private key in the cryptographic module?  In
         what form (i.e., plaintext, encrypted, or split key)?  How is
         the private key stored in the module (i.e., plaintext,
         encrypted, or split key)?

      7. 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?

      8. Who can deactivate the private key and how? Example of how
         might include, logout, power off, remove token/key, automatic,
         or time expiration.

      9. Who can destroy the private key and how?  Examples of how might
         include token surrender, token destruction, or key overwrite.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6.3" href="#section-4.6.3">4.6.3</a> Other Aspects of Key Pair Management</span>

   Other aspects of key management need to be considered for the issuing
   CA, repositories, subject CAs, RAs, and subject end entities.  For
   each of these types of entity, 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?  The
         archival system should provide integrity controls other than
         digital signatures since: the archival period may be greater
         than the cryptanalysis period for the key and the archive
         requires tamper protection, which is not provided by digital
         signatures.

      2. What are the usage periods, or active lifetimes, for the public
         and the private key respectively?

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6.4" href="#section-4.6.4">4.6.4</a> Activation Data</span>

   Activation data refers to data values other than keys that are
   required to operate cryptographic modules and that need to be
   protected.  (20) Protection of activation data potentially needs to
   be considered for the issuing CA, subject CAs, RAs, and end entities.
   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, and end entity) 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.



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 28]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6.5" href="#section-4.6.5">4.6.5</a> Computer Security Controls</span>

   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 reuse, audit,
   identification and authentication, trusted path, security testing,
   and penetration testing.  Product assurance may also be addressed.

   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.  This subcomponent can also address
   requirements for product evaluation analysis, testing, profiling,
   product certification, and/or product accreditation related activity
   undertaken.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6.6" href="#section-4.6.6">4.6.6</a> Life Cycle Security Controls</span>

   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).

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6.7" href="#section-4.6.7">4.6.7</a> Network Security Controls</span>

   This subcomponent addresses network security related controls,
   including firewalls.






<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 29]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-30" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6.8" href="#section-4.6.8">4.6.8</a> Cryptographic Module Engineering Controls (26)</span>

   This subcomponent addresses the following aspects of a cryptographic
   module: 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.
   Requirements may be expressed through reference to a standard such as
   U.S. FIPS 140-1. (27)

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.7" href="#section-4.7">4.7</a> CERTIFICATE AND CRL PROFILES</span>

   This component is used to specify the certificate format and, if CRLs
   are used, the CRL format.  Assuming use of the X.509 certificate and
   CRL formats, this includes information on profiles, versions, and
   extensions used.

   This component has two subcomponents:

      * Certificate Profile; and

      * CRL Profile.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.7.1" href="#section-4.7.1">4.7.1</a> Certificate Profile</span>

   This subcomponent addresses such topics as the following (potentially
   by reference to a separate profile definition, such as the PKIX Part
   I profile):

      * Version number(s) supported;

      * Certificate extensions populated and their criticality;

      * Cryptographic algorithm object identifiers;

      * Name forms used for the CA, RA, and end entity names;

      * Name constraints used and the name forms used in the  name
        constraints;

      * Applicable certificate policy Object Identifier(s);

      * Usage of the policy constraints extension;

      * Policy qualifiers syntax and semantics; and

      * Processing semantics for the critical certificate policy
        extension.



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 30]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-31" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.7.2" href="#section-4.7.2">4.7.2</a> CRL Profile</span>

   This subcomponent addresses such topics as the following (potentially
   by reference to a separate profile definition, such as the PKIX Part
   I profile):

      * Version numbers supported for CRLs; and

      * CRL and CRL entry extensions populated and their criticality.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.8" href="#section-4.8">4.8</a> SPECIFICATION ADMINISTRATION</span>

   This component is used to specify how this particular certificate
   policy definition or CPS will be maintained.

   It contains the following subcomponents:

      * Specification Change Procedures;

      * Publication and Notification Procedures; and

      * CPS Approval Procedures.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.8.1" href="#section-4.8.1">4.8.1</a> Specification Change Procedures</span>

   It will occasionally be necessary to change certificate policies and
   Certification Practice Statements.  Some of these changes will not
   materially reduce the assurance that a certificate policy or its
   implementation provides, and will be judged by the policy
   administrator as not changing the acceptability of certificates
   asserting the policy for the purposes for which they have been used.
   Such changes to certificate policies and Certification Practice
   Statements need not require a change in the certificate policy Object
   Identifier or the CPS pointer (URL).  Other changes to a
   specification will change the acceptability of certificates for
   specific purposes, and these changes will require changes to the
   certificate policy Object Identifier or CPS pointer (URL).

   This subcomponent contains the following information:

      * A list of specification components, subcomponents, and/or
        elements thereof that can be changed without notification and
        without changes to the certificate policy Object Identifier or
        CPS pointer (URL).

      * A list of specification components, subcomponents, and/or
        elements thereof that may change following a notification period
        without changing the certificate policy Object Identifier or CPS



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 31]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-32" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


        pointer (URL).  The procedures to be used to notify interested
        parties (relying parties, certification authorities, etc.) of
        the certificate policy or CPS changes are described.  The
        description of notification procedures includes the notification
        mechanism, notification period for comments, mechanism to
        receive, review and incorporate the comments, mechanism for
        final changes to the policy, and the period before final changes
        become effective.

      * A list of specification components, subcomponents, and/or
        elements, changes to which require a change in certificate
        policy Object Identifier or CPS pointer (URL)..

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.8.2" href="#section-4.8.2">4.8.2</a> Publication and Notification Procedures</span>

   This subcomponent contains the following elements:

      * A list of components, subcomponents, and elements thereof that
        exist but that are not made publicly available; (33)

      * Descriptions of mechanisms used to distribute the certificate
        policy definition or CPS, including access controls on such
        distribution.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.8.3" href="#section-4.8.3">4.8.3</a> CPS Approval Procedures</span>

   In a certificate policy definition, this subcomponent describes how
   the compliance of a specific CPS with the certificate policy can be
   determined.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. OUTLINE OF A SET OF PROVISIONS</span>

   This section contains a possible outline for a set of provisions,
   intended to serve as a checklist or (with some further development) a
   standard template for use by certificate policy or CPS writers.  Such
   a common outline will facilitate:

      (a) Comparison of two certificate policies during cross-
          certification (for the purpose of equivalency mapping).

      (b) Comparison of a CPS with a certificate policy definition to
          ensure that the CPS faithfully implements the policy.

      (c) Comparison of two CPSs.







<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 32]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-33" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   1.   INTRODUCTION

   1.1  Overview

   1.2  Identification

   1.3  Community and Applicability
      1.3.1  Certification authorities
      1.3.2  Registration authorities
      1.3.3  End entities
      1.3.4  Applicability

   1.4  Contact Details
      1.4.1  Specification administration organization
      1.4.2  Contact person
      1.4.3  Person determining CPS suitability for the policy

   2.  GENERAL PROVISIONS

   2.1  Obligations

      2.1.1  CA obligations
      2.1.2  RA obligations
      2.1.3  Subscriber obligations
      2.1.4  Relying party obligations
      2.1.5  Repository obligations

   2.2  Liability

      2.2.1  CA liability
      2.2.2  RA liability

   2.3  Financial responsibility

      2.3.1  Indemnification by relying parties
      2.3.2  Fiduciary relationships
      2.3.3  Administrative processes

   2.4  Interpretation and Enforcement

      2.4.1  Governing law
      2.4.2  Severability, survival, merger, notice
      2.4.3  Dispute resolution procedures

   2.5  Fees

      2.5.1  Certificate issuance or renewal fees
      2.5.2  Certificate access fees



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 33]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-34" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


      2.5.3  Revocation or status information access fees
      2.5.4  Fees for other services such as policy information
      2.5.5  Refund policy

   2.6  Publication and Repository

      2.6.1  Publication of CA information
      2.6.2  Frequency of publication
      2.6.3  Access controls
      2.6.4  Repositories

   2.7  Compliance audit

      2.7.1  Frequency of entity compliance audit
      2.7.2  Identity/qualifications of auditor
      2.7.3  Auditor's relationship to audited party
      2.7.4  Topics covered by audit
      2.7.5  Actions taken as a result of deficiency
      2.7.6  Communication of results

   2.8  Confidentiality

      2.8.1  Types of information to be kept confidential
      2.8.2  Types of information not considered confidential
      2.8.3  Disclosure of certificate revocation/suspension information
      2.8.4  Release to law enforcement officials
      2.8.5  Release as part of civil discovery
      2.8.6  Disclosure upon owner's request
      2.8.7  Other information release circumstances

   2.9  Intellectual Property Rights

   3.   IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION (34)

   3.1  Initial Registration
      3.1.1  Types of names
      3.1.2  Need for names to be meaningful
      3.1.3  Rules for interpreting various name forms
      3.1.4  Uniqueness of names
      3.1.5  Name claim dispute resolution procedure
      3.1.6  Recognition, authentication and role of trademarks
      3.1.7  Method to prove possession of private key
      3.1.8  Authentication of organization identity
      3.1.9  Authentication of individual identity

   3.2  Routine Rekey

   3.3  Rekey after Revocation



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 34]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-35" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   3.4  Revocation Request

   4.  OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS (34)

   4.1  Certificate Application

   4.2  Certificate Issuance

   4.3  Certificate Acceptance

   4.4  Certificate Suspension and Revocation
      4.4.1  Circumstances for revocation
      4.4.2  Who can request revocation
      4.4.3  Procedure for revocation request
      4.4.4  Revocation request grace period
      4.4.5  Circumstances for suspension
      4.4.6  Who can request suspension
      4.4.7  Procedure for suspension request
      4.4.8  Limits on suspension period
      4.4.9  CRL issuance frequency (if applicable)
      4.4.10  CRL checking requirements
      4.4.11  On-line revocation/status checking availability
      4.4.12  On-line revocation checking requirements
      4.4.13  Other forms of revocation advertisements available
      4.4.14  Checking  requirements  for  other  forms  of  revocation
              advertisements
      4.4.15  Special requirements re key compromise

   4.5  Security Audit Procedures
      4.5.1  Types of event recorded
      4.5.2  Frequency of processing log
      4.5.3  Retention period for audit log
      4.5.4  Protection of audit log
      4.5.5  Audit log backup procedures
      4.5.6  Audit collection system (internal vs external)
      4.5.7  Notification to event-causing subject
      4.5.8  Vulnerability assessments

   4.6  Records Archival

      4.6.1  Types of event recorded
      4.6.2  Retention period for archive
      4.6.3  Protection of archive
      4.6.4  Archive backup procedures
      4.6.5  Requirements for time-stamping of records
      4.6.6  Archive collection system (internal or external)
      4.6.7  Procedures to obtain and verify archive information




<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 35]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-36" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   4.7  Key changeover

   4.8  Compromise and Disaster Recovery
      4.8.1 Computing resources, software, and/or data are corrupted
      4.8.2 Entity public key is revoked
      4.8.3 Entity key is compromised
      4.8.4 Secure facility after a natural or other type of disaster

   4.9  CA Termination

   5.  PHYSICAL, PROCEDURAL, AND PERSONNEL SECURITY CONTROLS (34)

   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

   5.3  Personnel Controls
      5.3.1  Background, 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  Contracting personnel requirements
      5.3.8  Documentation supplied to personnel

   6.  TECHNICAL SECURITY CONTROLS (34)

   6.1  Key Pair Generation and Installation
      6.1.1  Key pair generation
      6.1.2  Private key delivery to entity
      6.1.3  Public key delivery to certificate issuer
      6.1.4  CA public key delivery to users
      6.1.5  Key sizes
      6.1.6  Public key parameters generation
      6.1.7  Parameter quality checking



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 36]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-37" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


      6.1.8  Hardware/software key generation
      6.1.9  Key usage purposes (as per X.509 v3 key usage field)

   6.2  Private Key Protection
      6.2.1  Standards for cryptographic module
      6.2.2  Private key (n out of m) multi-person control
      6.2.3  Private key escrow
      6.2.4  Private key backup
      6.2.5  Private key archival
      6.2.6  Private key entry into cryptographic module
      6.2.7  Method of activating private key
      6.2.8  Method of deactivating private key
      6.2.9  Method of destroying private key

   6.3  Other Aspects of Key Pair Management
      6.3.1  Public key archival
      6.3.2  Usage periods for the public and private keys

   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 ratings

   6.7  Network Security Controls

   6.8  Cryptographic Module Engineering Controls

   7.  CERTIFICATE AND CRL 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



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 37]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-38" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


      7.1.9  Processing  semantics  for  the critical certificate policy
             extension

   7.2  CRL Profile

      7.2.1  Version number(s)
      7.2.2  CRL and CRL entry extensions

   8.  SPECIFICATION ADMINISTRATION

   8.1  Specification change procedures

   8.2  Publication and notification policies

   8.3  CPS approval procedures




































<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 38]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-39" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</span>

   The development of this document 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 Technical Working Group. Special thanks are
   due to Dave Fillingham, Jim Brandt, and Edmond Van Hees for their
   inspiration, support, and valuable inputs.

   The following individuals also deserve credit for their review and
   input:

      Teresa Acevedo, A&amp;N Associates;
      Michael Baum; VeriSign;
      Sharon Boeyen, Entrust;
      Bob Burger, McCarter &amp; English;
      Bill Burr, NIST;
      Patrick Cain, BBN;
      Michael Harrop, Government of Canada Treasury Board;
      Rick Hornbeck, Digital Commerce Services;
      Francois Marinier, Domus Software;
      John Morris, CygnaCom Solutions;
      Tim Moses, Entrust;
      Noel Nazario, NIST;
      John Nicolletos, A&amp;N Associates;
      Jean Petty, CygnaCom Solutions;
      Denis Pinkas, Bull;
      J.-F. Sauriol, Domus Software;
      Robert Shirey, BBN;
      Mark Silvern, VeriSign;
      David Simonetti, Booz, Allen and Hamilton; and
      Darryl Stal, Entrust.

   Johnny Hsiung, and Chris Miller assisted in the preparation of the
   manuscript.















<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 39]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-40" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>.  REFERENCES</span>

   [<a id="ref-ABA1">ABA1</a>] American Bar Association, Digital Signature Guidelines: Legal
          Infrastructure for Certification Authorities and Electronic
          Commerce, 1995.

   [<a id="ref-BAU1">BAU1</a>] Michael. S. Baum, Federal Certification Authority Liability
          and Policy, NIST-GCR- 94-654, June 1994.

   [<a id="ref-ISO1">ISO1</a>] ISO/IEC 9594-8/ITU-T Recommendation X.509, "Information
          Technology - Open Systems Interconnection: The Directory:
          Authentication Framework," 1997 edition. (Pending publication
          of 1997 edition, use 1993 edition with the following amendment
          applied: Final Text of Draft Amendment DAM 1 to ISO/IEC 9594-8
          on Certificate Extensions, June 1996.)

   [<a id="ref-PEM1">PEM1</a>] Kent, S., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail,
          Part II: Certificate-Based Key Management", <a href="./rfc1422">RFC 1422</a>, February
          1993.

   [<a id="ref-PKI1">PKI1</a>] Housley, R., Ford, W., Polk, W. and D. Solo, "Internet X.509
          Public Key Infrastructure, Certificate and CRL Profile", <a href="./rfc2459">RFC</a>
          <a href="./rfc2459">2459</a>, January 1999.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>.  AUTHORS' ADDRESSES</span>

   Santosh Chokhani
   CygnaCom Solutions, Inc.
   Suite 100 West
   7927 Jones Branch Drive
   McLean, VA 22102

   Phone: (703) 848-0883
   Fax: (703) 848-0960
   EMail: chokhani@cygnacom.com


   Warwick Ford
   VeriSign, Inc.
   301 Edgewater Place, Suite 210
   Wakefield, MA 01880

   Phone: (781) 245-6996 x225
   Fax: (781) 245-6006
   EMail: wford@verisign.com






<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 40]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-41" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


NOTES

   1 The ABA Digital Signature Guidelines can be purchased from the ABA.
     See <a href="http://www.abanet.com">http://www.abanet.com</a> for ordering details.

   2 Examples of types of entity for subject CAs are a subordinate
     organization (e.g., branch or division), a federal government
     agency, or a state or provincial government department.

   3 This statement can have significant implications.  For example,
     suppose a bank claims that it issues CA certificates to its
     branches only.  Now, the user of a CA certificate issued by the
     bank can assume that the subject CA in the certificate is a branch
     of the bank

   4 Examples of the types of subject RA entities are branch and
     division of an organization.

   5 Examples of types of subject end entities are bank customers,
     telephone company subscribers, and employees of a government
     department

   6 This statement can have significant implications.  For example,
     suppose Government CA claims that it issues certificates to
     Government employees only.  Now, the user of a certificate issued
     by the Government CA can assume that the subject of the certificate
     is a Government employee.

   7 Examples include X.500 distinguished name, Internet e-mail address,
     and URL.

   8 The term "meaningful" means that the name form has commonly
     understood semantics to determine identity of the person and/or
     organization.  Directory names and <a href="./rfc822">RFC 822</a> names may be more or
     less meaningful.

   9 Examples of proof include the issuing CA generating the key, or
     requiring the subject to send an electronically signed request or
     to sign a challenge.

   10 Examples of organization identity authentication are: articles of
      incorporation, duly signed corporate resolutions, company seal,
      and notarized documents.

   11 Examples of individual identity authentication are: biometrics
      (thumb print, ten finger print, face, palm, and retina scan),
      driver's license, passport, credit card, company badge, and
      government badge.



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 41]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-42" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   12 Examples include duly signed authorization papers or corporate ID
      badge.

   13 The identification policy for routine rekey should be the same as
      the one for initial registration since the same subject needs
      rekeying.  The rekey authentication may be accomplished using the
      techniques for initial I&amp;A or using digitally signed requests.

   14 This identification and authentication policy could be the same as
      that for initial registration.

   15 This policy could be the same as the one for initial registration.

   16 The identification policy for Revocation request could be the same
      as that for initial registration since the same subject
      certificate needs to be revoked.  The authentication policy could
      accept a Revocation request digitally signed by subject.  The
      authentication information used during initial registration could
      be acceptable for Revocation request. Other less stringent
      authentication policy could be defined.

   17 The identification policy for key compromise notification could be
      the same as the one for initial registration since the same
      subject certificate needs to be revoked.  The authentication
      policy could accept a Revocation request digitally signed by
      subject.  The authentication information used during initial
      registration could be acceptable for key compromise notification.
      Other less stringent authentication policy could be defined.

   18 The n out of m rule allows a 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 key, but having
      any n- 1 parts provides one with no information about the key.

   19 A key may be escrowed, backed up or archived.  Each of these
      functions have different purpose.  Thus, a 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 legally obtain the key without the
      cooperation of the subject.  The purpose of back up is to allow
      the subject to reconstitute the key in case of the destruction of
      the key.  The purpose of archive is to provide for reuse of the
      key in future, e.g., use the private key to decrypt a document.

   20 An example of activation data is a PIN or passphrase.

   21 Examples of physical access controls are: monitored facility ,
      guarded facility, locked facility, access controlled using tokens,



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 42]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-43" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


      access controlled using biometrics, and access controlled through
      an access list.

   22 Examples of the roles include system administrator, system
      security officer, and system auditor.  The duties of the system
      administrator are to configure, generate, boot, and operate the
      system.  The duties of the system security officer are to assign
      accounts and privileges.  The duties of the system auditor are to
      set up system audit profile, perform audit file management, and
      audit review.

   23 The background checks may include clearance level (e.g., none,
      sensitive, confidential, secret, top secret, etc.) and the
      clearance granting authority name.  In lieu of or in addition to a
      defined clearance, the background checks may include types of
      background information (e.g., name, place of birth, date of birth,
      home address, previous residences, previous employment, and any
      other information that may help determine trustworthiness).  The
      description should also include which information was verified and
      how.

   24 For example, the certificate policy may impose personnel security
      requirements on the network system administrator responsible for a
      CA's network access.

   25 Regardless of whether authorized persons are employees, practices
      should be implemented to ensure that each authorized person is
      held accountable for his/her actions.

   26 A cryptographic module is hardware, software, or firmware or any
      combination of them.

   27 The compliance description should be specific and detailed.  For
      example, for each FIPS 140-1 requirement, describe the level and
      whether the level has been certified by an accredited laboratory.

   28 Example of audit events are: request to create a certificate,
      request to revoke a certificate, key compromise notification,
      creation of a certificate, revocation of a certificate, issuance
      of a certificate, issuance of a CRL, issuance of key compromise
      CRL, establishment of trusted roles on the CA, actions of truste
      personnel, changes to CA keys, etc.

   29 Example of archive events are: request to create a certificate,
      request to revoke a certificate, key compromise notification,
      creation of a certificate, revocation of a certificate, issuance
      of a certificate, issuance of a CRL, issuance of key compromise
      CRL, and changes to CA keys.



<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 43]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-44" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


   30 A parent CA is an example of audit relationship.

   31 Example of compliance audit topics: sample check on the various
      I&amp;A policies, comprehensive checks on key management policies,
      comprehensive checks on system security controls, comprehensive
      checks on operations policy, and comprehensive checks on
      certificate profiles.

   32 The examples include, temporary suspension of operations until
      deficiencies are corrected, revocation of entity certificate,
      change in personnel, invocation of liability policy, more frequent
      compliance audit, etc.

   33 An organization may choose not to make public some of its security
      controls, clearance procedures, or some others elements due to
      their sensitivity.

   34 All or some of the following items may be different for the
      various types of entities, i.e., CA, RA, and end entities.

LIST OF ACRONYMS

   ABA - American Bar Association
   CA - Certification Authority
   CPS - Certification Practice Statement
   CRL - Certificate Revocation List
   DAM - Draft Amendment
   FIPS - Federal Information Processing Standard
   I&amp;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








<span class="grey">Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 44]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-45" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2527">RFC 2527</a>                          PKIX                        March 1999</span>


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  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 assigns.

   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.
























Chokhani &amp; Ford              Informational                     [Page 45]
</pre>