<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.6.22 (Ruby 3.1.3) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-lamps-caa-issuemail-00" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.16.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="CAA for Email Addresses">Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Processing for Email Addresses</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-lamps-caa-issuemail-00"/>
    <author fullname="Corey Bonnell">
      <organization>DigiCert, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>corey.bonnell@digicert.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2023" month="February" day="10"/>
    <area>Security</area>
    <keyword>caa</keyword>
    <keyword>certification authority authorization</keyword>
    <keyword>email address</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>The Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) DNS resource record type
provides a mechanism for domains to express the allowed set of
Certification Authorities that may issue certificates for the domain.
The core CAA specification (<xref target="RFC8659"/>) solely defines Property Tags that
restrict the issuance of certificates that certify domain names; it does
not define a mechanism for domains to restrict the issuance of
certificates that include email addresses. This specification defines a
Property Tag that grants authorization to Certification Authorities to
issue certificates which certify email addresses.</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>About This Document</name>
      <t>
        The latest revision of this draft can be found at <eref target="https://CBonnell.github.io/caa-issuemail/draft-ietf-lamps-caa-issuemail.html"/>.
        Status information for this document may be found at <eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-caa-issuemail/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
        Discussion of this document takes place on the
        Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME (lamps) Working Group mailing list (<eref target="mailto:spasm@ietf.org"/>),
        which is archived at <eref target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/"/>.
        Subscribe at <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
        <eref target="https://github.com/CBonnell/caa-issuemail"/>.</t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>This document defines a CAA Property Tag which restricts the allowed set
of issuers for electronic email addresses. Its syntax and processing
are similar to the "issue" Property Tag as defined in section 4.2 of
<xref target="RFC8659"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="conventions-and-definitions">
      <name>Conventions and Definitions</name>
      <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="syntax-of-the-issuemail-property-tag">
      <name>Syntax of the "issuemail" Property Tag</name>
      <t>This document defines the "issuemail" Property Tag. The presence of
one or more "issuemail" Properties in the Relevant Resource Record
Set (<xref target="RFC8659"/>) indicates that the domain is requesting that
Certification Authorities restrict the issuance of certificates that
certify email addresses.</t>
      <t>The CAA "issuemail" Property Value has the following sub-syntax
(specified in ABNF as per <xref target="RFC5234"/>):</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
  issuemail-value = *WSP [issuer-domain-name *WSP]
    [";" *WSP [parameters *WSP]]

  issuer-domain-name = label *("." label)
  label = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *( *("-") (ALPHA / DIGIT))

  parameters = (parameter *WSP ";" *WSP parameters) / parameter
  parameter = tag *WSP "=" *WSP value
  tag = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *( *("-") (ALPHA / DIGIT))
  value = *(%x21-3A / %x3C-7E)
]]></artwork>
      <t>Readers who are familiar with the sub-syntax of the "issue" and
"issuewild" Property Tags will recognize that this sub-syntax is
identical.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="processing-of-the-issuemail-property-tag">
      <name>Processing of the "issuemail" Property Tag</name>
      <t>Prior to issuing a certificate that certifies an email address, the
Certification Authority <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> check for publication of a Relevant
Resource Record Set (RRSet). The discovery of such a Relevant RRSet <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
be performed using the algorithm specified in section 3 of <xref target="RFC8659"/>.
The input domain to the discovery algorithm <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> be the domain "part"
(<xref target="RFC5322"/>) of the email address that is being certified. If the domain
"part" of the email address being certified is an Internationalized
Domain Name (<xref target="RFC5890"/>) that contains one or more U-Labels, then all
U-Labels <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be converted to their A-Label representation (<xref target="RFC5891"/>)
for the purpose of discovering the Relevant RRSet for that email
address.</t>
      <t>If the Relevant RRSet is empty, or the Relevant RRSet does not contain
any "issuemail" Properties , then the domain has not requested any
restrictions on the issuance of certificates for email addresses. The
presence of other Property Tags, such as "issue" or "issuewild", does
not restrict the issuance of certificates which certify email addresses.</t>
      <t>For each "issuemail" Property in the Relevant RRSet, the
Certification Authority <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> compare its issuer-domain-name with the
issuer-domain-name as expressed in the Property Value. If there is not
any "issuemail" record whose issuer-domain-name (as expressed in the
Property Value) matches the Certification Authority's
issuer-domain-name, then the Certification Authority <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> issue
the certificate. If the Relevant RRSet contains any "issuemail"
Property whose issuemail-value does not conform to the ABNF syntax as
defined section 3 of this document, then those records <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> be treated
as if the issuer-domain-name in the issuemail-value is the empty string.</t>
      <t>If the certificate certifies more than one email address, then the
Certification Authority <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> perform the above procedure for each
email address being certified.</t>
      <t>The assignment of issuer-domain-names to Certification Authorities is
beyond the scope of this document.</t>
      <t>The processing of parameters in the issuemail-value are beyond the scope
of this document.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="examples-of-the-issuemail-property-tag">
      <name>Examples of the "issuemail" Property Tag</name>
      <t>Several illustrative examples of Relevant RRSets and their expected
processing semantics follow. All examples assume that the
issuer-domain-name for the Certification Authority is "ca.example.com".</t>
      <t>The following RRSet does not contain any "issuemail" Properties,
so there are no restrictions on the issuance of certificates which
certify email addresses for that domain:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
mail.example.com         CAA 0 issue "ca1.example.net"
mail.example.com         CAA 0 issue "ca2.example.org"
]]></artwork>
      <t>The following RRSet contains a single "issuemail" Property where the
issuer-domain-name is the empty string, so the issuance of certificates
certifying email addresses for the domain is prohibited:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
mail.example.com         CAA 0 issuemail ";"
]]></artwork>
      <t>The following RRSet contains multiple "issuemail" Properties,
one of which matches the issuer-domain-name of the example Certification
Authority ("ca.example.com") and one Property which does not match.
Given that there is at least one record whose issuer-domain-name
matches the Certification Authority's issuer-domain-name, issuance is
permitted.</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
mail.example.com         CAA 0 issuemail ";"
mail.example.com         CAA 0 issuemail "ca.example.com"
]]></artwork>
      <t>The following RRSet contains a single "issuemail" Property whose
sub-syntax does not conform to the ABNF as specified in section 3. Given
that "issuemail" Properties with malformed syntax are treated the
same as "issuemail" Properties whose issuer-domain-name is the empty
string, issuance is prohibited.</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
malformed.example.com     CAA 0 issuemail "%%%%%"
]]></artwork>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The security considerations that are expressed in <xref target="RFC8659"/> are relevant
to this specification.</t>
      <t>CAA Properties may have the "critical" flag asserted, which specifies
that the Property is critical and must be processed by conforming
Certification Authorities. If a Certification Authority does not
understand the Property, then it must not issue the certificate in
question.</t>
      <t>If a single CAA RRSet is processed by multiple Certification Authorities
for the issuance of multiple certificate types, then a Certification
Authority's lack of support for a critical CAA Property in the RRSet
will prevent the Certification Authority from issuing any certificates
for that domain.</t>
      <t>For example, assume that an RRSet contains the following Properties:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
example.com         CAA 128 issue "ca2.example.com"
example.com         CAA 0 issuemail "ca.example.com"
]]></artwork>
      <t>In this case, if the Certification Authority whose issuer-domain-name
matches "ca.example.com" does not recognize the "issue" Property Tag,
then that Certification Authority will not be able to issue S/MIME
certificates that certify email addresses for "example.com".</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>The author(s) request the registration of the following "Certification
Authority Restriction Properties":</t>
      <table>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Tag</th>
            <th align="left">Meaning</th>
            <th align="left">Reference</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">issuemail</td>
            <td align="left">Authorization Entry by Email Address</td>
            <td align="left">[This document]</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC5322">
          <front>
            <title>Internet Message Format</title>
            <author fullname="P. Resnick" initials="P." role="editor" surname="Resnick">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date month="October" year="2008"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the Internet Message Format (IMF), a syntax for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the framework of "electronic mail" messages.  This specification is a revision of Request For Comments (RFC) 2822, which itself superseded Request For Comments (RFC) 822, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes that were specified in other RFCs.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5322"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5322"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5234">
          <front>
            <title>Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF</title>
            <author fullname="D. Crocker" initials="D." role="editor" surname="Crocker">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author fullname="P. Overell" initials="P." surname="Overell">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date month="January" year="2008"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Internet technical specifications often need to define a formal syntax.  Over the years, a modified version of Backus-Naur Form (BNF), called Augmented BNF (ABNF), has been popular among many Internet specifications.  The current specification documents ABNF. It balances compactness and simplicity with reasonable representational power.  The differences between standard BNF and ABNF involve naming rules, repetition, alternatives, order-independence, and value ranges.  This specification also supplies additional rule definitions and encoding for a core lexical analyzer of the type common to several Internet specifications.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="STD" value="68"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5234"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5234"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5891">
          <front>
            <title>Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol</title>
            <author fullname="J. Klensin" initials="J." surname="Klensin">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date month="August" year="2010"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document is the revised protocol definition for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).  The rationale for changes, the relationship to the older specification, and important terminology are provided in other documents.  This document specifies the protocol mechanism, called Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA), for registering and looking up IDNs in a way that does not require changes to the DNS itself.  IDNA is only meant for processing domain names, not free text.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5891"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5891"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8659">
          <front>
            <title>DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record</title>
            <author fullname="P. Hallam-Baker" initials="P." surname="Hallam-Baker">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author fullname="R. Stradling" initials="R." surname="Stradling">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author fullname="J. Hoffman-Andrews" initials="J." surname="Hoffman-Andrews">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date month="November" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) DNS Resource Record allows a DNS domain name holder to specify one or more Certification Authorities (CAs) authorized to issue certificates for that domain name. CAA Resource Records allow a public CA to implement additional controls to reduce the risk of unintended certificate mis-issue.  This document defines the syntax of the CAA record and rules for processing CAA records by CAs.</t>
              <t>This document obsoletes RFC 6844.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8659"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8659"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification.  These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents.  This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol  specifications.  This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the  defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC5890">
          <front>
            <title>Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework</title>
            <author fullname="J. Klensin" initials="J." surname="Klensin">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date month="August" year="2010"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document is one of a collection that, together, describe the protocol and usage context for a revision of Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA), superseding the earlier version.  It describes the document collection and provides definitions and other material that are common to the set.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5890"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5890"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>TODO acknowledge.</t>
    </section>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
