Rename context handle lifetime to endtime

[heimdal.git] / doc / standardisation / draft-kamada-krb-client-friendly-cross-02.txt

Network Working Group                                    Ken'ichi Kamada
INTERNET-DRAFT                                            Shoichi Sakane
Expires: January 10, 2008                  Yokogawa Electric Corporation
                                                            July 9, 2007


            Client-Friendly Cross-Realm Model for Kerberos 5
             draft-kamada-krb-client-friendly-cross-02.txt




Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft expires on January 10, 2008.


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).










Kamada and Sakane                                               [Page 1]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


Abstract

   This document proposes a cross-realm traversal model, which is
   suitable for resource-limited clients, for Kerberos Version 5.  This
   model provides a way to move the cost of consecutive Ticket-Granting
   Service (TGS) exchanges from clients to Key Distribution Centers
   (KDCs) and a way to reduce the traversal cost by generating a direct
   inter-realm relationship between two realms.  The document describes
   behavior of clients and KDCs, but does not specify any wire format,
   which need to be specified separately.


Table of Contents

    1. Introduction .................................................  3
    2. Problems on Client Performance ...............................  3
       2.1. Long Authentication Path ................................  4
       2.2. Client-Centric Ticketing ................................  4
    3. Proposal of Client-Friendly Cross-Realm Model ................  4
       3.1. Temporary Inter-Realm Relationship Generation Mode ......  5
       3.2. Attorney Ticketing Mode .................................  6
       3.3. Combination of the Two Modes ............................  7
    4. Advantage of The Proposed Model for Deployment ...............  8
       4.1. Compatibility with Traditional Kerberos Deployment ......  8
       4.2. Orthogonality of the Two Modes ..........................  8
    5. Front-End Protocol for Attorney Ticketing Mode ...............  9
    6. Related Protocols Currently Proposed ......................... 10
       6.1. PKCROSS ................................................. 10
       6.2. XTGS .................................................... 10
    7. Interoperability Considerations .............................. 10
    8. Security Considerations ...................................... 11
       8.1. Denial of Service (DoS) ................................. 11
       8.2. Ticketing Policy ........................................ 11
    9. IANA Considerations .......................................... 12
   10. Acknowledgments .............................................. 12
   11. References ................................................... 12
       11.1. Normative References ................................... 12
       11.2. Informative References ................................. 12
   Authors' Addresses ............................................... 13
   Full Copyright Statement ......................................... 13
   Intellectual Property Statement .................................. 13










Kamada and Sakane                                               [Page 2]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


1.  Introduction

   Kerberos Version 5 [RFC4120] has a concept of cross-realm
   authentication so that principals in different realms can
   authenticate each other.  However in the current cross-realm model,
   each client has to traverse the authentication path, and the burden
   of the traversal is not negligible for clients with limited
   resources, e.g., computational speed or power supply [CRPS].

   In the current cross-realm operation, a client obtains a service
   ticket for a remote principal in the following steps:

   1)  N TGSes to get cross-realm TGTs in order to traverse the
       intermediate realms, where N is the number of transit, and

   2)  One TGS to get the final service ticket.

   That is, the client needs to perform N + 1 transactions to obtain a
   ticket for the remote service.

   This document proposes a new cross-realm model, which consists of
   "temporary inter-realm relationship generation mode" and "attorney
   ticketing mode".  The former is intended to reduce transit cost
   itself, and the latter is to move the cost from clients to KDCs.  The
   document describes behavior of clients and KDCs, but does not specify
   any wire format, which need to be specified separately.

   Terms defined in section 1.7 of RFC 4120 are used throughout this
   document.


2.  Problems on Client Performance

   In the current model of cross-realm operation, a client has to
   transit all realms on the path to the destination realm.  When the
   source realm and the destination realm have a direct inter-realm
   relationship, a client is able to obtain a service ticket with two
   TGS transactions (one for a cross-realm TGT and another for the
   service ticket).  When the realms have a multi-hop relationship, a
   client must transit the intermediate realms before it obtains the
   service ticket.  That is, the client's task increases in proportion
   to the distance of the relationship.

   Two issues can be observed here behind the client load, which are
   described in the following subsections.






Kamada and Sakane                                               [Page 3]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


2.1.  Long Authentication Path

   When a client wants to get a service ticket for a remote realm, it
   must transit to the remote realm by traversing the intermediate
   realms on the authentication path to the remote realm.  The result of
   traversal is cached as a cross-realm TGT, but it is nothing more than
   a per-client optimization.  Thus all clients accessing a remote realm
   must pay the cost separately, even if their resources are limited.
   For a long authentication path, the cost of the whole system becomes
   large.

2.2.  Client-Centric Ticketing

   In Kerberos, any service tickets or cross-realm TGTs are issued via
   TGS, where a client present a ticket for the TGS and obtains a next
   ticket.  Currently, all TGS transactions are initiated by the client
   and it needs to get all necessary cross-realm TGTs iteratively before
   the final service ticket.  This process is a burden to a resource-
   limited client.


3.  Proposal of Client-Friendly Cross-Realm Model

   In this section, two modes of operation are introduced, "Temporary
   Inter-Realm Relationship Generation Mode" and "Attorney Ticketing
   Mode", to solve the issues described in the previous section.  These
   two modes are designed to be independent, that is, can be used
   separately or in combination.

   Temporary Inter-Realm Relationship Generation Mode solves the issue
   of the long authentication path.  In this mode, if the source realm
   and the destination realm do not have a direct inter-realm
   relationship, the source KDC traverses the authentication path by
   itself, contacts with the remote KDC, and generates a direct inter-
   realm relationship between them.  After that, the source KDC can
   issue direct inter-realm TGTs for the destination realm.  The purpose
   of this mode is to reduce the traversal cost itself by caching the
   result of traversal.

   Attorney Ticketing Mode solves the issue of the client-centric
   ticketing.  Consecutive TGS transactions to get cross-realm TGTs
   and/or a final service ticket are initiated by a client in the
   traditional Kerberos, whereas a KDC undertake that process in this
   mode.  The purpose of this mode is to shift the cost of TGSes from a
   client to a KDC.  This does not reduce the cost itself.






Kamada and Sakane                                               [Page 4]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


3.1.  Temporary Inter-Realm Relationship Generation Mode

   Temporary inter-realm relationship generation mode enables a KDC to
   issue an inter-realm TGT directly to a remote KDC with which the KDC
   doesn't preshare an inter-realm key.  To issue an inter-realm TGT
   directly, a temporary inter-realm key needs to be provided somehow.
   To achieve that, the local KDC obtains a special ticket for the
   remote KDC and uses its session key as an inter-realm key.  This
   methodology was introduced by PKCROSS [PKCROSS].  In this document,
   that special ticket is called as an "inter-KDC ticket", and an inter-
   realm TGT generated from an inter-KDC ticket is called as a "direct
   inter-realm TGT".

   How does the local KDC reach the remote KDC is out of scope of this
   model, but we can easily come up with 1) traversing a long
   authentication path if available or 2) using PKINIT.  In the context
   of this model, PKCROSS is interpreted as a combination of this mode
   and PKINIT.

   This document does not standardize a specific protocol, but an inter-
   KDC ticket will have the following form:

   -  its sname has a special form (PKCROSS proposes
      "pkcross/realm@REALM", but it would be better to use a more
      general name than "pkcross"),

   and a direct inter-realm TGT will have the following form:

   -  its TicketExtensions field [KRBEXT] contains the inter-KDC ticket,
      and

   -  it is protected by the session key (or the sub-session key) of the
      inter-KDC ticket.


















Kamada and Sakane                                               [Page 5]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


         client C                KDC-L          KDC-I          KDC-R
         --------                -----          -----          -----

      1.    --------TGS-REQ-------->
      2.                           [Reach to KDC-R in any way.]
                                   [Below is an example of PKCROSS.]
                                   ------------PKINIT------------>
                                   <----------XTKT(L,R)-----------
      3.    <--TKT(C,R)w/XTKT(L,R)--
      4.    ----------------------TGS-REQ------------------------>
      5.    <---------------------TKT(C,S)------------------------

      [Note: TKT(x,y) means a ticket whose cname is x and sname is y.  ]
      [      XTKT is an inter-KDC ticket.  See PKCROSS.                ]
      [      The client C and KDC-L belong to the local realm L.       ]
      [      The KDC-I is a KDC of an intermediate realm I.            ]
      [      The KDC-R is a KDC of the remote realm R.                 ]

      1. The client C sends a normal TGS-REQ to KDC-L, requesting
         a cross-realm TGT to KDC-R.
      2. KDC-L reaches KDC-R in any way and obtains a XTKT.
         There is no standardized way to achieve this step yet.
         PKCROSS is one candidate.  We could also standardize a way
         in which KDC-L normally transits to KDC-R and obtains an XTKT.
      3. KDC-L generates a cross-realm TGT that is from C to KDC-R
         and returns to it to C.
      4. The same with the traditional cross-realm TGS.
      5. The same with the traditional cross-realm TGS.

        Figure 1: Message Flow of Temporary Inter-Realm Relationship
                  Generation

3.2.  Attorney Ticketing Mode

   Traditionally, a Kerberos client repeats TGS transactions until it
   gets the final ticket.  For example, it has a TGT for its own realm
   and wants to get a ticket for a service in 3-hop neighbor realm, then
   it will:

   1)  Present the TGT and get a cross-realm TGT for the next realm,

   2)  Present the 1st cross-realm TGT and get a cross-realm TGT for the
       2nd next realm,

   3)  Present the 2nd cross-realm TGT and get a cross-realm TGT for the
       final realm, and





Kamada and Sakane                                               [Page 6]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


   4)  Present the final cross-realm TGT and get a service ticket.

   Attorney ticketing mode enables the client to delegate the KDC to
   perform all transactions listed above on behalf of the client.  An
   example message flow is shown in Figure 2.  The client entrust the
   KDC with its TGT (step 1).  The KDC "impersonates" the client and
   performs all necessary TGS transactions (steps 2 to 4), and returns
   the final ticket to the client (step 5).

         client C                KDC-L          KDC-I          KDC-R
         --------                -----          -----          -----

      1.    --------TGS-REQ-------->
      2.                        TKT(C,I)
      3.                           ----TGS-REQ---->
                                   <---TKT(C,R)----
      4.                           ------------TGS-REQ----------->
                                   <-----------TKT(C,S)-----------
      5.    <-------TKT(C,S)--------

      1. The client C sends a special TGS-REQ, which indicates attorney
         ticketing mode requesting a service ticket for a server S
         instead of a cross-realm TGT, to KDC-L.
      2. KDC-L internally generates a cross-realm TGT that is from C
         to KDC-I, but does not return it to C.
      3. KDC-L uses the generated cross-realm TGT by itself, and sends
         a TGS-REQ to KDC-I, which requests a cross-realm TGT from C
         to KDC-R.
      4. KDC-L use the obtained cross-realm TGT by itself, and sends
         a TGS-REQ to KDC-R, which requests a service ticket from C
         to S.
      5. KDC-L returns the final service ticket to C.

             Figure 2: Message Flow of Attorney Ticketing Mode

3.3.  Combination of the Two Modes

   Figure 3 shows a typical message flow when the temporary inter-realm
   relationship generation mode and the attorney ticketing mode are used
   in combination.  The figure shows the case of the initial contact, so
   a transaction to obtain an inter-KDC ticket is shown (step 2), but it
   is infrequently used because the XTKT is cached.  Usually, only two
   round-trips do all the work.








Kamada and Sakane                                               [Page 7]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


         client C                KDC-L          KDC-I          KDC-R
         --------                -----          -----          -----

      1.    --------TGS-REQ-------->
      2.                           [Temporary inter-realm relationship
                                   generation mode runs here.]
                                   ------------PKINIT------------>
                                   <----------XTKT(L,R)-----------
      3.                           [Attorney ticketing mode runs here.]
                           TKT(C,R)w/XTKT(L,R)
      4.                           ------------TGS-REQ----------->
                                   <-----------TKT(C,S)-----------
      5.    <-------TKT(C,S)--------

       Figure 3: Message Flow When Temporary Inter-Realm Relationship
                 Generation Mode and Attorney Ticketing Mode
                 Are Combined


4.  Advantage of The Proposed Model for Deployment

4.1.  Compatibility with Traditional Kerberos Deployment

   Temporary inter-realm relationship generation involves only KDCs.
   From the viewpoint of a client (and a server), it seems that there is
   a direct inter-realm relationship between two realms.  This means
   that temporary inter-realm relationship generation mode needs to be
   deployed only in KDCs.  This property is advantageous, because it
   does not affect large installed base of clients.  One impeding factor
   in practice is that some existing implementations cannot handle
   ticket extensions transparently.  This is further discussed in
   Interoperability Considerations section.

   Attorney ticketing mode involves only a client and its local KDC.
   From the viewpoint of the remote KDC, TGS-REQs from a KDC as an
   attorney cannot be distinguished from those from a "genuine" client
   (except caddr; see Interoperability Considerations section).
   Resulting service ticket is identical to the traditional one, so the
   remote server has nothing to do with this mode.  In short, attorney
   ticketing mode can be deployed in local realm, independently of the
   remote deployment.  The merit of this property is large, because
   remote realms are often in different administration.

4.2.  Orthogonality of the Two Modes

   Temporary inter-realm relationship generation mode and attorney
   ticketing mode are independent concepts.  Both can be implemented
   separately or can be used in combination.  When they are combined,



Kamada and Sakane                                               [Page 8]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


   the load of clients are shifted to KDCs and additional load of KDCs
   are minimized, thus efficient cross-realm environment is achieved.


5.  Front-End Protocol for Attorney Ticketing Mode

   This document does not specify wire-level protocol, which will be
   done in another document.  This section provides some candidates for
   the protocol, which is used to request attorney ticketing mode from a
   KDC (Figure 4).  This protocol can be used for other than attorney
   ticketing mode, as long as the KDC's behavior for clients is
   identical to the mode.

     +------+             +-------+
     |client|------------>|  KDC  |-------------> cross-realm cloud
     +------+             +-------+  Cross-realm
        Front-end protocol           traversal by KDC
        to request a final           (Attorney Ticketing Mode)
        ticket in one shot
                                       or

                                   -------------> remote KDC (directly)
                                     XTGSP

                                       or

                                   ------------->
                                     Whatever the KDC chooses

          Figure 4: Front-End Protocol for Attorney Ticketing Mode

   Candidate 1: Implicit Signaling

      A client simply requests a final ticket to the local KDC.  If the
      KDC supports this implicit protocol, it will process the request.
      If not, KDC_ERR_S_PRINCIPAL_UNKNOWN will be returned.  A possible
      drawback is that if a requested final ticket is for a TGS, the KDC
      does not know whether the client expects normal mode or attorney
      mode.  In addition, implicit signaling can conflict with future
      extensions.

   Candidate 2: Explicit Signaling

      A flag in KDCOptions or pre-authentication can be used to request
      attorney mode.
      [[what happens if not supported?]]





Kamada and Sakane                                               [Page 9]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


6.  Related Protocols Currently Proposed

6.1.  PKCROSS

   PKCROSS will be usable as a protocol for temporary inter-realm
   relationship generation mode.

6.2.  XTGS

   The purpose of XTGS protocol is similar to that of this model, but
   the behavior is somewhat different [XTGS].  If XTGS is viewed from
   the perspective of this model, it blends the two modes indivisibly to
   reduce the number of messages between KDCs as far as possible at the
   price of the abstraction of cross-realm TGTs and inter-KDC tickets.

   Once a front-end (i.e., between a client and a KDC) protocol to
   request attorney ticketing mode is standardized, XTGS can be used as
   an opaque back-end.


7.  Interoperability Considerations

   User-to-user mode
      The protocol for the attorney mode should be able to indicate
      user-to-user authentication.

   The addresses field in TGS-REQ
      This field is copied into the caddr field in EncTicketPart, so if
      this field is used in a TGS-REQ, the resulting ticket can be used
      only from the specified addresses.  When the local KDC receives a
      TGS-REQ requesting attorney mode, it should copy the addresses
      field only into the final TGS-REQ in the attorney process.  It
      must not copy the field into TGS-REQs to intermediate KDCs,
      because resulting tickets are to be used by the local KDC instead
      of the client.

   Opacity of ticket extensions
      The ticket extensions defined in rfc1510ter [KRBEXT] extends the
      Ticket ASN.1 type, which is visible to clients.  This is not a
      problem if a client implementation treats a Ticket as an opaque
      data, and there are such implementations, but unfortunately the
      major free implementations do not.  On the other hand, there is a
      proposal of etype-based ticket extensions [TKTEXTALT].  It
      encapsulates cleartext bits in the enc-part component of a Ticket.
      It should not have any problems of opacity.

   [[negotiation of various parameters]]




Kamada and Sakane                                              [Page 10]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


   [[If there are multiple authentication paths and a client has enough
   knowledge, it could choose which path to take.  With attorney
   ticketing mode, it cannot because it is up to the KDC to select the
   path.  Is this a problem?  With temporary inter-realm relationship
   generation mode, it can as before.]]

   [[co-existence with the plain Kerberos; attorney ticketing mode
   client vs. non-attorney KDC; inter-realm generating local KDC vs.
   non-generating remote KDC]]

   [[anything to do with referral?]]

   [[when a KDC in attorney mode receives a KRB-ERROR?]]


8.  Security Considerations

8.1.  Denial of Service (DoS)

   A KDC that implements attorney ticketing mode needs to initiate
   multiple TGS-REQ upon a request from a client.  This means that the
   KDC will have some states in it and may suffer from DoS attacks.

   Fortunately, attorney ticketing mode can be requested in TGS-REQ,
   which is only available to authenticated clients, thus, any untrusted
   party cannot exploit this statefulness.

8.2.  Ticketing Policy

   Attorney ticketing mode changes nothing about the messages sent to
   the intermediate and remote KDCs.  Those KDCs will not notice the
   difference and their ticketing process have nothing to be changed.

   Temporary inter-realm relationship generation mode dynamically
   generates new authentication paths.  This means that KDCs that are
   involved in the transit of a client are different from those that
   would be involved if this mode were not used.

   -  Parameters of cross-realm TGTs (lifetime and flags) for a new
      relationship need to be dynamically transferred (a la PKCROSS).

   -  How to handle the transited fields in inter-KDC tickets, direct
      inter-realm tickets, and service tickets?

   -  Where the remote KDC adds AuthorizationData and the end-server
      checks it: there is no problem because it is a local matter of the
      remote realm.




Kamada and Sakane                                              [Page 11]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


   -  Where an intermediate KDC adds AuthorizationData: traditionally it
      is added in a cross-realm TGT and propagated to the service
      ticket; now it will be propagated to the inter-KDC ticket.  Should
      AuthorizationData in an inter-KDC ticket be copied into a cross-
      realm TGT or not?  Even if it is copied, AuthorizationData on
      inter-KDC ticket cannot represent per-client information, so if it
      is necessary, temporary inter-realm relationship generation mode
      must not be used.


9.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.


10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to acknowledge Saber Zrelli, Masahiro
   Ishiyama, Atsushi Inoue, Kazunori Miyazawa, and Nobuo Okabe for
   contributions to this document.


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [KRBEXT]      Yu, T., "The Kerberos Network Authentication Service
                 (Version 5)", draft-ietf-krb-wg-rfc1510ter-04, Work in
                 Progress, March 2007.

   [RFC4120]     Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The
                 Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC
                 4120, July 2005.

11.2.  Informative References

   [CRPS]        Sakane, S., Zrelli, S., M. Ishiyama, "Problem statement
                 on the cross-realm operation of Kerberos in a specific
                 system", draft-sakane-krb-cross-problem-statement-02,
                 Work in Progress, April 2007.

   [PKCROSS]     Hur, M. et al., "Public Key Cryptography for Cross-
                 Realm Authentication in Kerberos", draft-ietf-cat-
                 kerberos-pk-cross-08 (expired), Work in Progress,
                 November 2001.

   [TKTEXTALT]   Message-ID: <tslfy54akcb.fsf@mit.edu>.




Kamada and Sakane                                              [Page 12]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


   [XTGS]        Zrelli, S. et al., "XTGSP, the Inter-TGS protocol for
                 cross-realm operations in Kerberos", draft-zrelli-krb-
                 xtgsp-01, Work in Progress, March 2007.

Authors' Addresses

   Ken'ichi Kamada
   Shoichi Sakane
   Yokogawa Electric Corporation
   2-9-32 Nakacho, Musashino-shi,
   Tokyo 180-8750 Japan
   E-mail: Ken-ichi.Kamada@jp.yokogawa.com,
           Shouichi.Sakane@jp.yokogawa.com


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property Statement

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

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



Kamada and Sakane                                              [Page 13]
\f
Internet-Draft         Client-Friendly Cross-Realm             July 2007


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














































Kamada and Sakane                                              [Page 14]
\f