[Docs] [txt|pdf]



[Note that this file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]




Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           S. Kent
Request for Comments: 6484                                       D. Kong
BCP: 173                                                          K. Seo
Category: Best Current Practice                                 R. Watro
ISSN: 2070-1721                                         BBN Technologies
                                                           February 2012


                      Certificate Policy (CP) for
             the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)

Abstract

   This document describes the certificate policy for a Public Key
   Infrastructure (PKI) used to support attestations about Internet
   Number Resource (INR) holdings.  Each organization that distributes
   IP addresses or Autonomous System (AS) numbers to an organization
   will, in parallel, issue a (public key) certificate reflecting this
   distribution.  These certificates will enable verification that the
   resources indicated in the certificate have been distributed to the
   holder of the associated private key and that this organization is
   the current, unique holder of these resources.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6484.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................6
      1.1. Overview ...................................................7
      1.2. Document Name and Identification ...........................7
      1.3. PKI Participants ...........................................7
           1.3.1. Certification Authorities ...........................8
           1.3.2. Registration Authorities ............................8
           1.3.3. Subscribers .........................................8
           1.3.4. Relying Parties .....................................8
           1.3.5. Other Participants ..................................8
      1.4. Certificate Usage ..........................................9
           1.4.1. Appropriate Certificate Uses ........................9
           1.4.2. Prohibited Certificate Uses .........................9
      1.5. Policy Administration ......................................9
           1.5.1. Organization Administering the Document .............9
           1.5.2. Contact Person ......................................9
           1.5.4. CP Approval Procedures ..............................9
      1.6. Definitions and Acronyms ..................................10
   2. Publication and Repository Responsibilities ....................11
      2.1. Repositories ..............................................11
      2.2. Publication of Certification Information ..................11
      2.3. Time or Frequency of Publication ..........................12
      2.4. Access Controls on Repositories ...........................12
   3. Identification and Authentication ..............................12
      3.1. Naming ....................................................12
           3.1.1. Types of Names .....................................12
           3.1.2. Need for Names to Be Meaningful ....................12
           3.1.3. Anonymity or Pseudonymity of Subscribers ...........13
           3.1.4. Rules for Interpreting Various Name Forms ..........13
           3.1.5. Uniqueness of Names ................................13
      3.2. Initial Identity Validation ...............................13
           3.2.1. Method to Prove Possession of the Private Key ......13
           3.2.2. Authentication of Organization Identity ............13
           3.2.3. Authentication of Individual Identity ..............14
           3.2.4. Non-Verified Subscriber Information ................14
           3.2.5. Validation of Authority ............................14
           3.2.6. Criteria for Interoperation ........................14
      3.3. Identification and Authentication for Re-Key Requests .....14
           3.3.1. Identification and Authentication for
                  Routine Re-Key .....................................14
           3.3.2. Identification and Authentication for
                  Re-Key after Revocation ............................15
      3.4. Identification and Authentication for Revocation Request ..15



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


   4. Certificate Life-Cycle Operational Requirements ................16
      4.1. Certificate Application ...................................16
           4.1.1. Who Can Submit a Certificate Application ...........16
           4.1.2. Enrollment Process and Responsibilities ............16
      4.2. Certificate Application Processing ........................16
           4.2.1. Performing Identification and
                  Authentication Functions ...........................16
           4.2.2. Approval or Rejection of Certificate Applications ..16
           4.2.3. Time to Process Certificate Applications ...........17
      4.3. Certificate Issuance ......................................17
           4.3.1. CA Actions during Certificate Issuance .............17
           4.3.2. Notification to Subscriber by the CA of
                  Issuance of Certificate ............................17
      4.4. Certificate Acceptance ....................................17
           4.4.1. Conduct Constituting Certificate Acceptance ........17
           4.4.2. Publication of the Certificate by the CA ...........17
           4.4.3. Notification of Certificate Issuance by the
                  CA to Other Entities ...............................17
      4.5. Key Pair and Certificate Usage ............................18
           4.5.1. Subscriber Private Key and Certificate Usage .......18
           4.5.2. Relying Party Public Key and Certificate Usage .....18
      4.6. Certificate Renewal .......................................18
           4.6.1. Circumstance for Certificate Renewal ...............19
           4.6.2. Who May Request Renewal ............................19
           4.6.3. Processing Certificate Renewal Requests ............19
           4.6.4. Notification of New Certificate Issuance to
                  Subscriber .........................................19
           4.6.5. Conduct Constituting Acceptance of a
                  Renewal Certificate ................................19
           4.6.6. Publication of the Renewal Certificate by the CA ...20
           4.6.7. Notification of Certificate Issuance by the
                  CA to Other Entities ...............................20
      4.7. Certificate Re-Key ........................................20
           4.7.1. Circumstance for Certificate Re-Key ................20
           4.7.2. Who May Request Certification of a New Public Key ..20
           4.7.3. Processing Certificate Re-Keying Requests ..........21
           4.7.4. Notification of New Certificate Issuance to
                  Subscriber .........................................21
           4.7.5. Conduct Constituting Acceptance of a
                  Re-Keyed Certificate ...............................21
           4.7.6. Publication of the Re-Keyed Certificate by the CA ..21
           4.7.7. Notification of Certificate Issuance by the
                  CA to Other Entities ...............................21
      4.8. Certificate Modification ..................................21
           4.8.1. Circumstance for Certificate Modification ..........21
           4.8.2. Who May Request Certificate Modification ...........21
           4.8.3. Processing Certificate Modification Requests .......22




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


           4.8.4. Notification of New Certificate Issuance to
                  Subscriber .........................................22
           4.8.5. Conduct Constituting Acceptance of Modified
                  Certificate ........................................22
           4.8.6. Publication of the Modified Certificate by the CA ..22
           4.8.7. Notification of Certificate Issuance by the
                  CA to Other Entities ...............................22
      4.9. Certificate Revocation and Suspension .....................22
           4.9.1. Circumstances for Revocation .......................22
           4.9.2. Who Can Request Revocation .........................22
           4.9.3. Procedure for Revocation Request ...................23
           4.9.4. Revocation Request Grace Period ....................23
           4.9.5. Time within which CA Must Process the
                  Revocation Request .................................23
           4.9.6. Revocation Checking Requirement for Relying
                  Parties ............................................23
           4.9.7. CRL Issuance Frequency .............................23
           4.9.8. Maximum Latency for CRLs ...........................23
      4.10. Certificate Status Services ..............................24
   5. Facility, Management, and Operational Controls .................24
      5.1. Physical Controls .........................................24
           5.1.1. Site Location and Construction .....................24
           5.1.2. Physical Access ....................................24
           5.1.3. Power and Air Conditioning .........................24
           5.1.4. Water Exposures ....................................24
           5.1.5. Fire Prevention and Protection .....................24
           5.1.6. Media Storage ......................................24
           5.1.7. Waste Disposal .....................................24
           5.1.8. Off-Site Backup ....................................24
      5.2. Procedural Controls .......................................24
           5.2.1. Trusted Roles ......................................25
           5.2.2. Number of Persons Required per Task ................25
           5.2.3. Identification and Authentication for Each Role ....25
           5.2.4. Roles Requiring Separation of Duties ...............25
      5.3. Personnel Controls ........................................25
      5.4. Audit Logging Procedures ..................................25
           5.4.1. Types of Events Recorded ...........................25
           5.4.2. Frequency of Processing Log ........................25
           5.4.3. Retention Period for Audit Log .....................26
           5.4.4. Protection of Audit Log ............................26
           5.4.5. Audit Log Backup Procedures ........................26
           5.4.8. Vulnerability Assessments ..........................26
      5.6. Key Changeover ............................................26
      5.7. CA or RA Termination ......................................26
   6. Technical Security Controls ....................................26
      6.1. Key Pair Generation and Installation ......................27
           6.1.1. Key Pair Generation ................................27
           6.1.2. Private Key Delivery to Subscriber .................27



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


           6.1.3. Public Key Delivery to Certificate Issuer ..........27
           6.1.4. CA Public Key Delivery to Relying Parties ..........27
           6.1.5. Key Sizes ..........................................27
           6.1.6. Public Key Parameters Generation and
                  Quality Checking ...................................28
           6.1.7. Key Usage Purposes (as per X.509 v3 Key
                  Usage Field) .......................................28
      6.2. Private Key Protection and Cryptographic Module
           Engineering Controls ......................................28
           6.2.1. Cryptographic Module Standards and Controls ........28
           6.2.2. Private Key (N out of M) Multi-Person Control ......28
           6.2.3. Private Key Escrow .................................28
           6.2.4. Private Key Backup .................................28
           6.2.5. Private Key Archival ...............................28
           6.2.6. Private Key Transfer into or from a
                  Cryptographic Module ...............................29
           6.2.7. Private Key Storage on Cryptographic Module ........29
           6.2.8. Method of Activating a Private Key .................29
           6.2.9. Method of Deactivating a Private Key ...............29
           6.2.10. Method of Destroying a Private Key ................29
           6.2.11. Cryptographic Module Rating .......................29
      6.3. Other Aspects of Key Pair Management ......................29
           6.3.1. Public Key Archival ................................29
           6.3.2. Certificate Operational Periods and Key
                  Pair Usage Periods .................................29
      6.4. Activation Data ...........................................30
      6.5. Computer Security Controls ................................30
      6.6. Life-Cycle Technical Controls .............................30
           6.6.1. System Development Controls ........................30
           6.6.2. Security Management Controls .......................30
           6.6.3. Life-Cycle Security Controls .......................30
      6.7. Network Security Controls .................................30
      6.8. Timestamping ..............................................30
   7. Certificate and CRL Profiles ...................................31
   8. Compliance Audit and Other Assessments .........................31
   9. Other Business and Legal Matters ...............................31
      9.12.  Amendments ..............................................31
           9.12.1. Procedure for Amendment ...........................31
           9.12.2. Notification Mechanism and Period .................31
           9.12.3. Circumstances under Which OID Must Be Changed .....32
   10. Security Considerations .......................................32
   11. Acknowledgments ...............................................33
   12. References ....................................................33
      12.1. Normative References .....................................33
      12.2. Informative References ...................................33






Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document describes the certificate policy for a Public Key
   Infrastructure (PKI) used to attest to Internet Number Resource (INR)
   holdings (IP addresses or Autonomous System (AS) numbers).  An
   organization that distributes INRs to another organization MAY, in
   parallel, issue a (public key) certificate reflecting this
   distribution.  These certificates will enable verification that the
   resources indicated in the certificate have been distributed to the
   holder of the associated private key and that this organization is
   the current holder of these resources.

   The most important and distinguishing aspect of the PKI for which
   this policy was created is that it does not purport to identify an
   INR holder via the subject name contained in the certificate issued
   to that entity.  Rather, each certificate issued under this policy is
   intended to enable an entity to assert, in a verifiable fashion, that
   it is the current holder of an INR based on the current records of
   the entity responsible for the resources in question.  Verification
   of the assertion is based on two criteria: the ability of the entity
   to digitally sign data that is verifiable using the public key
   contained in the corresponding certificate, and validation of that
   certificate in the context of this PKI.

   This PKI is designed exclusively for use in support of validation of
   claims related to current INR holdings.  This includes any
   certificates issued in support of operation of this infrastructure,
   e.g., for integrity or access control of the repository system
   described in Section 2.4.  Such transitive uses of certificates also
   are permitted under this policy.  Use of the certificates and
   Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) managed under this PKI for any
   other purpose is a violation of this CP, and relying parties (RPs)
   SHOULD reject certificates presented for such uses.

   Note: This document is based on the template specified in RFC 3647
   [RFC3647], a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
   stream.  In the interest of keeping the document as short as
   reasonable, a number of sections contained in the template have been
   omitted from this policy because they do not apply to this PKI.
   However, we have retained the section numbering scheme employed in
   RFC 3647 to facilitate comparison with the outline in Section 6 of
   RFC 3647.  Each of these omitted sections should be read as "No
   stipulation" in Certificate Policy (CP) / Certification Practice
   Statement (CPS) parlance.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


1.1.  Overview

   This PKI is designed to support validation of claims by current
   holders of INRs, in accordance with the records of the organizations
   that act as Certification Authorities (CAs) in this PKI.  The ability
   to verify such claims is essential to ensuring the unambiguous
   distribution of these resources [RFC6480].

   The structure of the RPKI is congruent with the number resource
   allocation framework of the Internet.  The IANA allocates number
   resources to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), to others, and for
   special purposes [RFC5736].  The RIRs, in turn, manage the allocation
   of number resources to end users, Internet Service Providers, and
   others.

   This PKI encompasses several types of certificates (see [RFC6487] for
   more details):

   o  CA certificates for each organization distributing INRs and for
      INR holders

   o  End-entity (EE) certificates for organizations to validate digital
      signatures on RPKI signed objects

1.2.  Document Name and Identification

   The name of this document is "Certificate Policy (CP) for the
   Resource PKI (RPKI)".

   This policy has been assigned the following OID:

   id-cp-ipAddr-asNumber OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)

                         identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)

                         security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) cp(14) 2 }

1.3.  PKI Participants

   Note that in a PKI, the term "subscriber" refers to an individual or
   organization that is a subject of a certificate issued by a CA.  The
   term is used in this fashion throughout this document, without
   qualification, and should not be confused with the networking use of
   the term to refer to an individual or organization that receives
   service from an ISP.  In such cases, the term "network subscriber"
   will be used.  Also note that, for brevity, this document always
   refers to PKI participants as organizations or entities, even though
   some of them are individuals.



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 7]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


1.3.1.  Certification Authorities

   The organizations that distribute IP addresses and AS numbers (IANA,
   RIRs, NIRs, ISPs) act as CAs in this PKI.

   Organizations that do not distribute INRs but hold such resources
   also act as CAs when they create EE certificates.

1.3.2.  Registration Authorities

   This PKI does not require establishment or use of a registration
   authority (RA) function separate from the one provided inherently in
   conjunction with the CA function.  The RA function MUST be provided
   by the same entity operating as a CA, e.g., entities listed in
   Section 1.3.1.  An entity acting as a CA in this PKI already has a
   formal relationship with each organization to which it distributes
   INRs.  These entities (the CAs) already perform the RA function
   implicitly since they already assume responsibility for distributing
   INRs.

1.3.3.  Subscribers

   These are the organizations receiving distributions of INRs: RIRs,
   NIRs, ISPs, and other organizations.

   Note that any of these organizations may have received distributions
   from more than one source over time.  This is true even for RIRs,
   which participate in inter-registry exchanges of address space.  This
   PKI accommodates such relationships.

1.3.4.  Relying Parties

   Entities or individuals that act in reliance on certificates or RPKI
   signed objects issued under this PKI are relying parties.  Relying
   parties may or may not be subscribers within this PKI.  (See Section
   1.6 for the definition of an RPKI signed object.)

1.3.5.  Other Participants

   Every organization that undertakes a role as a CA in this PKI is
   responsible for populating the RPKI distributed repository system
   with the certificates, CRLs, and RPKI signed objects that it issues.
   The organization MAY operate its own publication point, or it MAY
   outsource this function (see Sections 2.1 and 2.2).







Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 8]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


1.4.  Certificate Usage

1.4.1.  Appropriate Certificate Uses

   The certificates issued under this hierarchy are for authorization in
   support of validation of claims of current holdings of INRs.

   Additional uses of the certificates, consistent with the basic goal
   cited above, also are permitted under this policy.  For example,
   certificates may be issued in support of integrity and access control
   for the repository system described in Section 2.4.  Such transitive
   uses are permitted under this policy.

1.4.2.  Prohibited Certificate Uses

   Any uses other than those described in Section 1.4.1 are prohibited
   under this policy.

1.5.  Policy Administration

1.5.1.  Organization Administering the Document

   This CP is administered by

   Internet Engineering Steering Group
   c/o Internet Society
   1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 201
   Reston, VA 20190-5108
   U.S.A.

1.5.2.  Contact Person

   The contact information is

   EMail: iesg@ietf.org
   Phone: +1-703-439-2120 (Internet Society)

1.5.4.  CP Approval Procedures

   If a replacement BCP is needed that updates or obsoletes the current
   BCP, then the replacement BCP MUST be approved by the IESG following
   the procedures of the IETF Standards Process as defined in RFC 2026
   [RFC2026].








Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 9]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


1.6.  Definitions and Acronyms

   CPS -  Certification Practice Statement.  A CPS is a document that
          specifies the practices that a Certification Authority (CA)
          employs in issuing certificates in this PKI.

   Distribution of INRs - A process of distribution of the INRs along
          the respective number hierarchy.  IANA distributes blocks of
          IP addresses and AS numbers to the five Regional Internet
          Registries (RIRs).  RIRs distribute smaller address blocks and
          AS numbers to organizations within their service regions, who
          in turn distribute IP addresses to their customers.

   IANA - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.  IANA is responsible for
          global coordination of the IP addressing system and AS numbers
          used for routing Internet traffic.  IANA distributes INRs to
          Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).

   INRs - Internet Number Resources.  INRs are number values for three
          protocol parameter sets, namely:

          o  IP version 4 addresses,

          o  IP version 6 addresses, and

          o  Identifiers used in Internet inter-domain routing,
             currently Border Gateway Protocol-4 AS numbers.

   ISP -  Internet Service Provider.  This is an organization managing
          and providing Internet services to other organizations.

   LIR -  Local Internet Registry.  In some regions, this term is used
          to refer to what is called an ISP in other regions.

   NIR -  National Internet Registry.  This is an organization that
          manages the distribution of INRs for a portion of the
          geopolitical area covered by a Regional Registry.  NIRs form
          an optional second tier in the tree scheme used to manage
          INRs.

   RIR -  Regional Internet Registry.  This is an organization that
          manages the distribution of INRs for a geopolitical area.









Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 10]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


   RPKI signed object - An RPKI signed object is a digitally signed data
          object (other than a certificate or CRL) that is declared to
          be such by a Standards Track RFC, and that can be validated
          using certificates issued under this PKI.  The content and
          format of these data constructs depend on the context in which
          validation of claims of current holdings of INRs takes place.
          Examples of these objects are repository manifests [RFC6486]
          and Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs) [RFC6482].

2.  Publication and Repository Responsibilities

2.1.  Repositories

   Certificates, CRLs, and RPKI signed objects (intended for public
   consumption) MUST be made available for downloading by all relying
   parties, to enable them to validate this data.  This motivates use of
   a robust, distributed repository system.  Each CA MUST maintain a
   publicly accessible online repository and publish all RPKI-signed
   objects (intended for public consumption) via this repository in a
   manner that conforms with "A Profile for Resource Certificate
   Repository Structure" [RFC6481].  (This function MAY be outsourced,
   as noted in Section 2.2 below.)  The collection of repositories forms
   the RPKI distributed repository system.

2.2.  Publication of Certification Information

   Each CA MUST publish the certificates (intended for public
   consumption) that it issues via the repository system.

   Each CA MUST publish the CRLs (intended for public consumption) that
   it issues via the repository system.

   Each CA MUST publish its RPKI signed objects (intended for public
   consumption) via the repository system.

   Each CA that issues certificates to entities outside of its
   administrative domain SHOULD create and publish a CPS that meets the
   requirements set forth in this CP.  Publication means that the
   entities to which the CA issues certificates MUST be able to acquire
   a copy of the CPS, and MUST be able to ascertain when the CPS
   changes.  (An organization that does not allocate or assign INRs does
   not need to create or publish a CPS.)

   An organization MAY choose to outsource publication of RPKI data --
   certificates, CRLs, and other RPKI signed objects.

   The CP will be published as an IETF-stream RFC and will be available
   from the RFC repository.



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 11]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


2.3.  Time or Frequency of Publication

   The CPS for each CA MUST specify the following information:

   The period of time within which a certificate will be published after
   the CA issues the certificate.

   The period of time within which a CA will publish a CRL with an entry
   for a revoked certificate after it revokes that certificate.

   Expired and revoked certificates SHOULD be removed from the RPKI
   repository system, upon expiration or revocation, respectively.
   Also, please note that each CA MUST publish its CRL prior to the
   nextUpdate value in the scheduled CRL previously issued by the CA.

2.4.  Access Controls on Repositories

   Each CA or repository operator MUST implement access controls to
   prevent unauthorized persons from adding, modifying, or deleting
   repository entries.  A CA or repository operator MUST NOT
   intentionally use technical means of limiting read access to its CPS,
   certificates, CRLs, or RPKI signed objects.  This data is intended to
   be accessible to the public.

3.  Identification and Authentication

3.1.  Naming

3.1.1.  Types of Names

   The distinguished name for every CA and end-entity consists of a
   single CommonName (CN) attribute with a value generated by the issuer
   of the certificate.  Optionally, the serialNumber attribute MAY be
   included along with the common name (to form a terminal relative
   distinguished name set), to distinguish among successive instances of
   certificates associated with the same entity.

3.1.2.  Need for Names to Be Meaningful

   The subject name in each certificate SHOULD NOT be "meaningful",
   i.e., the name is not intended to convey the identity of the subject
   to relying parties.  The rationale here is that certificates issued
   under this PKI are used for authorization in support of applications
   that make use of attestations of INR holdings.  They are not used to
   identify subjects.






Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 12]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


3.1.3.  Anonymity or Pseudonymity of Subscribers

   Although subject (and issuer) names need not be meaningful, and may
   appear "random," anonymity is not a function of this PKI; thus, no
   explicit support for this feature is provided.

3.1.4.  Rules for Interpreting Various Name Forms

   None.

3.1.5.  Uniqueness of Names

   There is no guarantee that subject names are globally unique in this
   PKI.  Each CA certifies subject names that MUST be unique among the
   certificates it issues.  Although it is desirable that these subject
   names be unique throughout the PKI, name uniqueness within the RPKI
   cannot be guaranteed.

   However, subject names in certificates SHOULD be constructed in a way
   that minimizes the chances that two entities in the RPKI will be
   assigned the same name.  The RPKI Certificate Profile [RFC6487]
   provides an example of how to generate (meaningless) subject names in
   a way that minimizes the likelihood of collisions.

3.2.  Initial Identity Validation

3.2.1.  Method to Prove Possession of the Private Key

   Each CA operating within the context of this PKI MUST require each
   subject to demonstrate proof of possession (PoP) of the private key
   corresponding to the public key in the certificate, prior to issuing
   the certificate.  The means by which PoP is achieved is determined by
   each CA and MUST be declared in the CPS of that CA.

3.2.2.  Authentication of Organization Identity

   Each CA operating within the context of this PKI MUST employ
   procedures to ensure that each certificate it issues accurately
   reflects its records with regard to the organization to which the CA
   has distributed the INRs identified in the certificate.  The specific
   procedures employed for this purpose MUST be described by the CPS for
   each CA.  Relying parties can expect each CA to employ procedures
   commensurate with those it already employs as a registry or ISP in
   the management of the INRs.  This authentication is solely for use by
   each CA in dealing with the organizations to which it distributes
   INRs, and thus should not be relied upon outside of this
   CA-subscriber relationship.




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 13]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


3.2.3.  Authentication of Individual Identity

   Each CA operating within the context of this PKI MUST employ
   procedures to identify at least one individual as a representative of
   each organization that is an INR holder.  The specific means by which
   each CA authenticates individuals as representatives for an
   organization MUST be described by the CPS for each CA.  Relying
   parties can expect each CA to employ procedures commensurate with
   those it already employs as a registry or ISP in authenticating
   individuals as representatives for INR holders.

3.2.4.  Non-Verified Subscriber Information

   A CA MUST NOT include any non-verified subscriber data in
   certificates issued under this certificate policy except for Subject
   Information Access (SIA) extensions.

3.2.5.  Validation of Authority

   Each CA operating within the context of this PKI MUST employ
   procedures to verify that an individual claiming to represent an
   organization to which a certificate is issued is authorized to
   represent that organization in this context.  The procedures MUST be
   described by the CPS for the CA.  Relying parties can expect each CA
   to employ procedures commensurate with those it already employs as a
   registry or ISP, in authenticating individuals as representatives for
   INR holders.

3.2.6.  Criteria for Interoperation

   This PKI is neither intended nor designed to interoperate with any
   other PKI.

3.3.  Identification and Authentication for Re-Key Requests

3.3.1.  Identification and Authentication for Routine Re-Key

   Each CA operating within the context of this PKI MUST employ
   procedures to ensure that an organization requesting a re-key is the
   legitimate holder of the certificate to be re-keyed and the
   associated INRs, and MUST require PoP of the private key
   corresponding to the new public key.  The procedures employed for
   these purposes MUST be described in the CPS for the CA.  With respect
   to authentication of the holder of the INRs, relying parties can
   expect each CA to employ procedures commensurate with those it
   already employs as a registry or ISP, in the management of INRs.





Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 14]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


   Note: An issuer MAY choose to require periodic re-keying consistent
   with contractual agreements with the recipient.  If so, this MUST be
   described by the CPS for the CA.

3.3.2.  Identification and Authentication for Re-Key after Revocation

   Each CA operating within the context of this PKI MUST employ
   procedures to ensure that an organization requesting a re-key after
   revocation is the same entity to which the revoked certificate was
   issued and is the legitimate holder of the associated INR.  The CA
   MUST require PoP of the private key corresponding to the new public
   key.  The specific procedures employed for these purposes MUST be
   described by the CPS for the CA.  With respect to authentication of
   the holder of the INRs, relying parties can expect each CA to employ
   procedures commensurate with those it already employs as a registry
   or ISP, in the management of INRs.  Note that there MAY be different
   procedures for the case where the legitimate subject still possesses
   the original private key as opposed to the case when it no longer has
   access to that key.

3.4.  Identification and Authentication for Revocation Request

   Each CA operating within the context of this PKI MUST employ
   procedures to ensure that:

   o  an organization requesting revocation is the legitimate holder of
      the certificate to be revoked.

   o  each certificate it revokes accurately reflects its records with
      regard to the organization to which the CA has distributed the
      INRs identified in the certificate.

   o  an individual claiming to represent an organization for which a
      certificate is to be revoked is authorized to represent that
      organization in this context.

   The specific procedures employed for these purposes MUST be described
   by the CPS for the CA.  Relying parties can expect each CA to employ
   procedures commensurate with those it already employs as a registry
   or ISP, in the management of INRs.











Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 15]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


4.  Certificate Life-Cycle Operational Requirements

4.1.  Certificate Application

4.1.1.  Who Can Submit a Certificate Application

   Any entity that distributes INRs SHOULD acquire a certificate.  This
   includes Internet Registries and ISPs.  Additionally, entities that
   hold INRs from an Internet Registry, or that are multi-homed, MAY
   acquire a certificate under this PKI.  The (CA) certificates issued
   to these entities MUST include one or both of the extensions defined
   by RFC 3779 [RFC3779], "X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS
   Identifiers", as appropriate.

   The application procedure MUST be described in the CPS for each CA.

4.1.2.  Enrollment Process and Responsibilities

   The enrollment process and procedures MUST be described by the CPS
   for each CA.  An entity that desires one or more certificates should
   contact the organization from which it receives its INRs.

4.2.  Certificate Application Processing

   CAs SHOULD make use of existing standards for certificate application
   processing.  Section 6 of the Resource Certificate Profile [RFC6487]
   defines the standard certificate request formats that MUST be
   supported.

   Each CA MUST define via its CPS, the certificate request/response
   standards that it employs.

4.2.1.  Performing Identification and Authentication Functions

   Existing practices employed by registries and ISPs to identify and
   authenticate organizations that receive INRs form the basis for
   issuance of certificates to these subscribers.  It is important to
   note that the Resource PKI SHOULD NOT be used to authenticate the
   identity of an organization, but rather to bind subscribers to the
   INRs they hold.  Because identity is not being vouched for by this
   PKI, certificate application procedures need not verify legal
   organization names, etc.

4.2.2.  Approval or Rejection of Certificate Applications

   Certificate applications MUST be approved based on the normal
   business practices of the entity operating the CA, based on the CA's
   records of INR holders.  Each CA MUST follow the procedures specified



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 16]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


   in Section 3.2.1 to verify that the requester holds the private key
   corresponding to the public key that will be bound to the certificate
   the CA issues to the requester.  The details of how certificate
   applications are approved MUST be described in the CPS for the CA in
   question.

4.2.3.  Time to Process Certificate Applications

   No stipulation.  As part of its CPS, each CA MUST declare its
   expected time frame to process (approve, issue, and publish) a
   certificate application.

4.3.  Certificate Issuance

4.3.1.  CA Actions during Certificate Issuance

   If a CA determines that the request is acceptable, it MUST issue the
   corresponding certificate and publish it in the RPKI distributed
   repository system via publication of the certificate at the CA's
   repository publication point.

4.3.2.  Notification to Subscriber by the CA of Issuance of Certificate

   The CA MUST notify the subscriber when the certificate is published.
   The means by which a subscriber is notified MUST be defined by each
   CA in its CPS.

4.4.  Certificate Acceptance

4.4.1.  Conduct Constituting Certificate Acceptance

   Within the timeframe specified in its CPS, the CA MUST place the
   certificate in the repository and notify the subscriber.  This MAY be
   done without subscriber review and acceptance.  Each CA MUST state in
   its CPS the procedures it follows for publishing of the certificate
   and notification to the subscriber.

4.4.2.  Publication of the Certificate by the CA

   Certificates MUST be published in the RPKI distributed repository
   system via publication of the certificate at the CA's repository
   publication point as per the conduct described in Section 4.4.1.  The
   procedures for publication MUST be defined by each CA in its CPS.

4.4.3.  Notification of Certificate Issuance by the CA to Other Entities

   The CPS of each CA MUST indicate whether any other entities will be
   notified when a certificate is issued.



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 17]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


4.5.  Key Pair and Certificate Usage

   A summary of the use model for the RPKI is provided below.

4.5.1.  Subscriber Private Key and Certificate Usage

   Each holder of an INR is eligible to request an X.509 [X.509] CA
   certificate containing appropriate RFC 3779 extensions.  Holders of
   CA resource certificates also MAY issue EE certificates to themselves
   to enable verification of RPKI signed objects that they generate.

4.5.2.  Relying Party Public Key and Certificate Usage

   Reliance on a certificate must be reasonable under the circumstances.
   If the circumstances indicate a need for additional assurances, the
   relying party must obtain such assurances in order for such reliance
   to be deemed reasonable.

   Before any act of reliance, relying parties MUST independently (1)
   verify that the certificate will be used for an appropriate purpose
   that is not prohibited or otherwise restricted by this CP (see
   Section 1.4), and (2) assess the status of the certificate and all
   the certificates in the chain (terminating at a trust anchor (TA)
   accepted by the RP) that issued the certificates relevant to the
   certificate in question.  If any of the certificates in the
   certificate chain have been revoked or have expired, the relying
   party is solely responsible for determining whether reliance on a
   digital signature to be verified by the certificate in question is
   acceptable.  Any such reliance is made solely at the risk of the
   relying party.

   If a relying party determines that use of the certificate is
   appropriate, the relying party must utilize appropriate software
   and/or hardware to perform digital signature verification as a
   condition of relying on the certificate.  Moreover, the relying party
   MUST validate the certificate in a manner consistent with the RPKI
   Certificate Profile [RFC6487], which specifies the extended
   validation algorithm for RPKI certificates.

4.6.  Certificate Renewal

   This section describes the procedures for certificate renewal.
   Certificate renewal is the issuance of a new certificate to replace
   an old one prior to its expiration.  Only the validity dates and the
   serial number (the field in the certificate, not the DN attribute)
   are changed.  The public key and all other information remain the
   same.




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 18]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


4.6.1.  Circumstance for Certificate Renewal

   A certificate MUST be processed for renewal based on its expiration
   date or a renewal request from the subscriber.  Prior to the
   expiration of an existing subscriber's certificate, it is the
   responsibility of the subscriber to renew the certificate to maintain
   continuity of certificate usage.  If the issuing CA initiates the
   renewal process based on the certificate expiration date, then that
   CA MUST notify the holder in advance of the renewal process.  The
   validity interval of the new (renewed) certificate SHOULD overlap
   that of the previous certificate to ensure continuity of certificate
   usage.  It is RECOMMENDED that the renewed certificate be issued and
   published at least 1 week prior to the expiration of the certificate
   it replaces.

   Certificate renewal SHOULD incorporate the same public key as the
   previous certificate, unless the private key has been reported as
   compromised.  If a new key pair is being used, the stipulations of
   Section 4.7 apply.

4.6.2.  Who May Request Renewal

   Only the certificate holder or the issuing CA may initiate the
   renewal process.  The certificate holder MAY request an early
   renewal, for example, if it expects to be unavailable to support the
   renewal process during the normal expiration period.  An issuing CA
   MAY initiate the renewal process based on the certificate expiration
   date.

4.6.3.  Processing Certificate Renewal Requests

   Renewal procedures MUST ensure that the person or organization
   seeking to renew a certificate is in fact the subscriber (or
   authorized by the subscriber) of the certificate and the legitimate
   holder of the INR associated with the renewed certificate.  Renewal
   processing MUST verify that the certificate in question has not been
   revoked.

4.6.4.  Notification of New Certificate Issuance to Subscriber

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.3.2.

4.6.5.  Conduct Constituting Acceptance of a Renewal Certificate

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.4.1.






Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 19]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


4.6.6.  Publication of the Renewal Certificate by the CA

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.4.2.

4.6.7.  Notification of Certificate Issuance by the CA to Other Entities

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.4.3.

4.7.  Certificate Re-Key

   This section describes the procedures for certificate re-key.
   Certificate re-key is the issuance of a new certificate to replace an
   old one because the key needs to be replaced.  Unlike with
   certificate renewal, the public key is changed.

4.7.1.  Circumstance for Certificate Re-Key

   Re-key of a certificate SHOULD be performed only when required, based
   on:

   1. knowledge or suspicion of compromise or loss of the associated
      private key, or

   2. the expiration of the cryptographic lifetime of the associated key
      pair

   A CA re-key operation has dramatic consequences, requiring the
   reissuance of all certificates issued by the re-keyed entity.  So it
   should be performed only when necessary and in a way that preserves
   the ability of relying parties to validate certificates whose
   validation path includes the re-keyed entity.  CA key rollover MUST
   follow the procedures defined in "CA Key Rollover in the RPKI"
   [RFC6489].

   Note that if a certificate is revoked to replace the RFC 3779
   extensions, the replacement certificate MUST incorporate the same
   public key rather than a new key.  This applies when one is adding
   INRs (revocation not required) and when one is removing INRs
   (revocation required (see Section 4.8.1)).

   If the re-key is based on a suspected compromise, then the previous
   certificate MUST be revoked.

4.7.2.  Who May Request Certification of a New Public Key

   The holder of the certificate may request a re-key.  In addition, the
   CA that issued the certificate MAY choose to initiate a re-key based
   on a verified compromise report.



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 20]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


4.7.3.  Processing Certificate Re-Keying Requests

   The re-key process follows the general procedures of certificate
   generation as defined in Section 4.3.

4.7.4.  Notification of New Certificate Issuance to Subscriber

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.3.2.

4.7.5.  Conduct Constituting Acceptance of a Re-Keyed Certificate

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.4.1.

4.7.6.  Publication of the Re-Keyed Certificate by the CA

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.4.2.

4.7.7.  Notification of Certificate Issuance by the CA to Other Entities

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.4.3.

4.8.  Certificate Modification

4.8.1.  Circumstance for Certificate Modification

   Modification of a certificate occurs to implement changes to selected
   attribute values in a certificate.  In the context of the RPKI, the
   only changes that are accommodated by certificate modification are
   changes to the INR holdings described by the RFC 3779 extension(s)
   and changes to the SIA extension.

   When a certificate modification is approved, a new certificate is
   issued.  If no INR holdings are removed from the certificate, the new
   certificate MUST contain the same public key and the same expiration
   date as the original certificate, but with the SIA extension and/or
   the INR set expanded.  In this case, revocation of the previous
   certificate is not required.

   When previously distributed INRs are removed from a certificate, then
   the old certificate MUST be revoked and a new certificate MUST be
   issued, reflecting the changed INR holdings.  (The SIA extension in
   the new certificate will be unchanged, unless the affected INR holder
   supplies a new SIA value.)

4.8.2.  Who May Request Certificate Modification

   Either the certificate holder or the issuer may initiate the
   certificate modification process.



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 21]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


4.8.3.  Processing Certificate Modification Requests

   The CA MUST determine that the requested modification is appropriate
   and that the procedures for the issuance of a new certificate are
   followed (see Section 4.3).

4.8.4.  Notification of New Certificate Issuance to Subscriber

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.3.2.

4.8.5.  Conduct Constituting Acceptance of Modified Certificate

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.4.1.

4.8.6.  Publication of the Modified Certificate by the CA

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.4.2.

4.8.7.  Notification of Certificate Issuance by the CA to Other Entities

   No additional stipulations beyond those of Section 4.4.3.

4.9.  Certificate Revocation and Suspension

4.9.1.  Circumstances for Revocation

   A certificate MUST be revoked (and published on a CRL) if there is
   reason to believe that there has been a compromise of a subscriber's
   private key.  A certificate also MAY be revoked to invalidate a data
   object signed by the private key associated with that certificate.
   Other circumstances that justify revocation of a certificate MAY be
   specified in a CA's CPS.

   Note:  If new INRs are being added to an organization's existing
   distribution, the old certificate need not be revoked.  Instead, a
   new certificate MAY be issued with both the old and the new resources
   and the old key.  If INRs are being removed or if there has been a
   key compromise, then the old certificate MUST be revoked (and a
   re-key MUST be performed in the event of key compromise).

4.9.2.  Who Can Request Revocation

   This MUST be defined in the CPS of the organization that issued the
   certificate.







Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 22]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


4.9.3.  Procedure for Revocation Request

   A subscriber MAY submit a request to the certificate issuer for a
   revocation.  This request MUST identify the certificate to be revoked
   and MUST be authenticated.  The procedures for making the request
   MUST be described in the CPS for each CA.  The RPKI provisioning
   document [RFC6492] describes a protocol that MAY be used to make
   revocation requests.

   A certificate issuer MUST notify the subscriber when revoking a
   certificate.  The notification requirement is satisfied by CRL
   publication.  The CPS for a CA MUST indicate the means by which the
   CA will inform a subscriber of certificate revocation.

4.9.4.  Revocation Request Grace Period

   A subscriber SHOULD request revocation as soon as possible after the
   need for revocation has been identified.  There is no specified grace
   period for the subscriber in this process.

4.9.5.  Time within which CA Must Process the Revocation Request

   No stipulation.  Each CA SHOULD specify its expected revocation
   processing time in its CPS.

4.9.6.  Revocation Checking Requirement for Relying Parties

   A relying party MUST acquire and check the most recent, scheduled CRL
   from the issuer of the certificate, whenever the relying party
   validates a certificate.

4.9.7.  CRL Issuance Frequency

   The CRL issuance frequency MUST be determined by each CA and stated
   in its CPS.  Each CRL carries a nextScheduledUpdate value, and a new
   CRL MUST be published at or before that time.  A CA MUST set the
   nextUpdate value when it issues a CRL to signal when the next
   scheduled CRL will be issued.

4.9.8.  Maximum Latency for CRLs

   The CPS for each CA MUST specify the maximum latency associated with
   posting its CRL to the repository system.








Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 23]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


4.10.  Certificate Status Services

   This PKI does not make provision for use of the Online Certificate
   Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC2560] or Server-Based Certificate
   Validation Protocol (SCVP) [RFC5055].  This is because it is
   anticipated that the primary RPs (ISPs) will acquire and validate
   certificates for all participating resource holders.  These protocols
   are not designed for such large-scale, bulk certificate status
   checking.  RPs MUST check for new CRLs at least daily.  It is
   RECOMMENDED that RPs perform this check several times per day, but no
   more than 8-12 times per day (to avoid excessive repository
   accesses).

5.  Facility, Management, and Operational Controls

5.1.  Physical Controls

   Each CA MUST maintain physical security controls for its operation
   that are commensurate with those employed by the organization in the
   management of INR distribution.  The physical controls employed for
   CA operation MUST be specified in its CPS.  Possible topics to be
   covered in the CPS are shown below.  (These sections are taken from
   [RFC3647].)

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

   Each CA MUST maintain procedural security controls that are
   commensurate with those employed by the organization in the
   management of INR distribution.  The procedural security controls
   employed for CA operation MUST be specified in its CPS.  Possible
   topics to be covered in the CPS are shown below.  (These sections are
   taken from [RFC3647].)



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 24]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


5.2.1.  Trusted Roles

5.2.2.  Number of Persons Required per Task

5.2.3.  Identification and Authentication for Each Role

5.2.4.  Roles Requiring Separation of Duties

5.3.  Personnel Controls

   Each CA MUST maintain personnel security controls that are
   commensurate with those employed by the organization in the
   management of INR distribution.  The details for each CA MUST be
   specified in its CPS.

5.4.  Audit Logging Procedures

   Details of how a CA implements the audit logging described in
   Sections 5.4.1 to 5.4.8 MUST be addressed in its CPS.

5.4.1.  Types of Events Recorded

   Audit records MUST be generated for the basic operations of the
   certification authority computing equipment.  Audit records MUST
   include the date, time, responsible user or process, and summary
   content data relating to the event.  Auditable events include:

   o  Access to CA computing equipment (e.g., logon, logout)

   o  Messages received requesting CA actions  (e.g., certificate
      requests, certificate revocation requests, compromise
      notifications)

   o  Certificate creation, modification, revocation, or renewal actions

   o  Posting of any material to a repository

   o  Any attempts to change or delete audit data

   o  Key generation

   o  Software and/or configuration updates to the CA

   o  Clock adjustments

5.4.2.  Frequency of Processing Log

   Each CA MUST establish its own procedures for review of audit logs.



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 25]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


5.4.3.  Retention Period for Audit Log

   Each CA MUST establish its own polices for retention of audit logs.

5.4.4.  Protection of Audit Log

   The audit log SHOULD be protected based on current industry
   standards.

5.4.5.  Audit Log Backup Procedures

   The audit log SHOULD be backed up based on current industry
   standards.

5.4.8.  Vulnerability Assessments

   The RPKI subsystems of a registry or ISP SHOULD participate in any
   vulnerability assessments that these organizations run as part of
   their normal business practice.

5.6.  Key Changeover

   When a CA wishes to change keys, it MUST acquire a new certificate
   containing its new public key.  See [RFC6489] for a description of
   how key changeover is effected in the RPKI.

5.7.  CA or RA Termination

   In the RPKI, each subscriber acts as a CA for the specified INRs that
   were distributed to that entity.  Procedures associated with the
   termination of a CA MUST be described in the CPS for that CA.  These
   procedures MUST include a provision to notify each entity that issued
   a certificate to the organization that is operating the CA that is
   terminating.

   Since the RA function MUST be provided by the same entity operating
   as the CA (see Section 1.3.2), there are no separate stipulations for
   RAs.

6.  Technical Security Controls

   The organizations that distribute INRs to network subscribers are
   authoritative for these distributions.  This PKI is designed to
   enable ISPs and network subscribers to demonstrate that they are the
   holders of the INRs that have been distributed to them.  Accordingly,
   the security controls used by CAs and subscribers for this PKI need
   only to be as secure as those that apply to the procedures for
   administering the distribution of INR data by the extant



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 26]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


   organizations.  Details of each CA's security controls MUST be
   described in the CPS issued by the CA.

6.1.  Key Pair Generation and Installation

6.1.1.  Key Pair Generation

   In most instances, public key pairs will be generated by the subject,
   i.e., the organization receiving the distribution of INRs.  However,
   some CAs MAY offer to generate key pairs on behalf of their subjects
   at the request of the subjects, e.g., to accommodate subscribers who
   do not have the ability to perform key generation in a secure
   fashion.  (The CA has to check the quality of the keys only if it
   generates them; see Section 6.1.6.)  Since the keys used in this PKI
   are not for non-repudiation purposes, generation of key pairs by CAs
   does not inherently undermine the security of the PKI.  Each CA MUST
   describe its key pair generation procedures in its CPS.

6.1.2.  Private Key Delivery to Subscriber

   If a CA provides key pair generation services for subscribers, its
   CPS MUST describe the means by which private keys are delivered to
   subscribers in a secure fashion.

6.1.3.  Public Key Delivery to Certificate Issuer

   When a public key is transferred to the issuing CA to be certified,
   it MUST be delivered through a mechanism ensuring that the public key
   has not been altered during transit and that the subscriber possesses
   the private key corresponding to the transferred public key.

6.1.4.  CA Public Key Delivery to Relying Parties

   CA public keys for all entities (other than trust anchors) are
   contained in certificates issued by other CAs.  These certificates
   MUST be published in the RPKI distributed repository system.  Relying
   parties download these certificates from the repositories.  Public
   key values and associated data for (putative) trust anchors are
   distributed out of band and accepted by relying parties on the basis
   of locally defined criteria.

6.1.5.  Key Sizes

   The algorithms and key sizes used in the RPKI are specified in "A
   Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public
   Key Infrastructure" [RFC6485].





Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 27]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


6.1.6.  Public Key Parameters Generation and Quality Checking

   The public key parameters used in the RPKI are specified in
   [RFC6485].  Each subscriber is responsible for performing checks on
   the quality of its key pair.  A CA is not responsible for performing
   such checks for subscribers except in the case where the CA generates
   the key pair on behalf of the subscriber.

6.1.7.  Key Usage Purposes (as per X.509 v3 Key Usage Field)

   The Key usage extension bit values used in the RPKI are specified in
   RPKI Certificate Profile [RFC6487].

6.2.  Private Key Protection and Cryptographic Module Engineering
      Controls

6.2.1.  Cryptographic Module Standards and Controls

   The cryptographic module standards and controls employed by each CA
   MUST be described in the CPS issued by that CA.

6.2.2.  Private Key (N out of M) Multi-Person Control

   CAs MAY employ multi-person controls to constrain access to their
   private keys, but this is not a requirement for all CAs in the PKI.
   The CPS for each CA MUST describe which, if any, multi-person
   controls it employs.

6.2.3.  Private Key Escrow

   No private key escrow procedures are required for the RPKI.

6.2.4.  Private Key Backup

   Because of the adverse operational implications associated with the
   loss of use of a CA private key in the PKI, each CA MUST employ a
   secure means to back up its private keys.  The details of the
   procedures for backing up a CA's private key MUST be described in the
   CPS issued by the CA.

6.2.5.  Private Key Archival

   The details of the process and procedures used to archive the CA's
   private key MUST be described in the CPS issued by the CA.







Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 28]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


6.2.6.  Private Key Transfer into or from a Cryptographic Module

   The details of the process and procedures used to transfer the CA's
   private key into or from a cryptographic module MUST be described in
   the CPS issued by the CA.

6.2.7.  Private Key Storage on Cryptographic Module

   The details of the process and procedures used to store the CA's
   private key on a cryptographic module and protect it from
   unauthorized use MUST be described in the CPS issued by the CA.

6.2.8.  Method of Activating a Private Key

   The details of the process and procedures used to activate the CA's
   private key MUST be described in the CPS issued by the CA.

6.2.9.  Method of Deactivating a Private Key

   The details of the process and procedures used to deactivate the CA's
   private key MUST be described in the CPS issued by the CA.

6.2.10.  Method of Destroying a Private Key

   The details of the process and procedures used to destroy the CA's
   private key MUST be described in the CPS issued by the CA.

6.2.11.  Cryptographic Module Rating

   The security rating of the cryptographic module MUST be described in
   the CPS issued by the CA.

6.3.  Other Aspects of Key Pair Management

6.3.1.  Public Key Archival

   Because this PKI does not support non-repudiation, there is no need
   to archive public keys.

6.3.2.  Certificate Operational Periods and Key Pair Usage Periods

   The INRs held by a CA may periodically change when it receives new
   distributions.  To minimize disruption, the CA key pair MUST NOT
   change when INRs are added to its certificate.

   If ISP and network-subscriber certificates are tied to the duration
   of service agreements, these certificates should have validity
   periods commensurate with the duration of these agreements.  In any



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 29]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


   case, the validity period for certificates MUST be chosen by the
   issuing CA and described in its CPS.

6.4.  Activation Data

   Each CA MUST document in its CPS how it will generate, install, and
   protect its activation data.

6.5.  Computer Security Controls

   Each CA MUST document the technical security requirements it employs
   for CA computer operation in its CPS.

6.6.  Life-Cycle Technical Controls

6.6.1.  System Development Controls

   The CPS for each CA MUST document any system development controls
   required by that CA, if applicable.

6.6.2.  Security Management Controls

   The CPS for each CA MUST document the security controls applied to
   the software and equipment used for this PKI.  These controls MUST be
   commensurate with those used for the systems used by the CAs for
   managing the INRs.

6.6.3.  Life-Cycle Security Controls

   The CPS for each CA MUST document how the equipment (hardware and
   software) used for this PKI will be procured, installed, maintained,
   and updated.  This MUST be done in a fashion commensurate with the
   way in which equipment for the management and distribution of INRs is
   handled.

6.7.  Network Security Controls

   The CPS for each CA MUST document the network security controls
   employed for CA operation.  These MUST be commensurate with the
   protection it employs for the computers used for managing
   distribution of INRs.

6.8.  Timestamping

   The RPKI does not make use of timestamping.






Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 30]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


7.  Certificate and CRL Profiles

   Please refer to the RPKI Certificate and CRL Profile [RFC6487].

8.  Compliance Audit and Other Assessments

   The certificate policy for a typical PKI defines the criteria against
   which prospective CAs are evaluated and establishes requirements that
   they must meet.  In this PKI, the CAs are already authoritative for
   the management of INRs, and the PKI simply supports verification of
   the distribution of these resources to network subscribers.
   Accordingly, whatever audit and other assessments are already used to
   ensure the security of the management of INRs is sufficient for this
   PKI.  The CPS for each CA MUST describe what audits and other
   assessments are used.

9.  Other Business and Legal Matters

   As noted throughout this certificate policy, the organizations
   managing the distribution of INRs are authoritative in their roles as
   managers of this data.  They MUST operate this PKI to allow the
   holders of INRs to generate digitally signed data that attest to
   these distributions.  Therefore, the manner in which the
   organizations in question manage their business and legal matters for
   this PKI MUST be commensurate with the way in which they already
   manage business and legal matters in their existing roles.  Since
   there is no single set of responses to this section that would apply
   to all organizations, the topics listed in Sections 4.9.1 to 4.9.11
   and 4.9.13 to 4.9.17 of RFC 3647 SHOULD be covered in the CPS issued
   by each CA, although not every CA may choose to address all of these
   topics.  Please note that the topics in the above sections of RFC
   3647 become sections 9.1 to 9.11 and 9.13 to 9.17 in the CPS.

9.12.  Amendments

9.12.1.  Procedure for Amendment

   The procedure for amending this CP is via written notice from the
   IESG in the form of a new (BCP) RFC that updates or obsoletes this
   document.

9.12.2.  Notification Mechanism and Period

   Successive versions of the CP will be published with the following
   statement:

      This CP takes effect on MM/DD/YYYY.




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 31]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


   MM/DD/YYYY MUST be a minimum of 6 months from the date of
   publication.

9.12.3.  Circumstances under Which OID Must Be Changed

   If the IESG judges that changes to the CP do not materially reduce
   the acceptability of certificates issued for RPKI purposes, there
   will be no change to the CP OID.  If the IESG judges that changes to
   the CP do materially change the acceptability of certificates for
   RPKI purposes, then there MUST be a new CP OID.

10.  Security Considerations

   According to X.509, a certificate policy (CP) is "a named set of
   rules that indicates the applicability of a certificate to a
   particular community and/or class of applications with common
   security requirements." A CP may be used by a relying party to help
   in deciding whether a certificate and the binding therein are
   sufficiently trustworthy and otherwise appropriate for a particular
   application.  This document describes the CP for the Resource Public
   Key Infrastructure (RPKI).  There are separate documents (CPSs) that
   cover the factors that determine the degree to which a relying party
   can trust the binding embodied in a certificate.  The degree to which
   such a binding can be trusted depends on several factors, e.g., the
   practices followed by the CA in authenticating the subject; the CA's
   operating policy, procedures, and technical security controls,
   including the scope of the subscriber's responsibilities (for
   example, in protecting the private key), and the stated
   responsibilities and liability terms and conditions of the CA (for
   example, warranties, disclaimers of warranties, and limitations of
   liability).

   Since name uniqueness within the RPKI cannot be guaranteed, there is
   a risk that two or more CAs in the RPKI will issue certificates and
   CRLs under the same issuer name.  Path validation implementations
   that conform to the resource certification path validation algorithm
   (see [RFC6487]) verify that the same key was used to sign both the
   target (the resource certificate) and the corresponding CRL.  So, a
   name collision will not change the result.  Use of the basic X.509
   path validation algorithm, which assumes name uniqueness, could
   result in a revoked certificate being accepted as valid or a valid
   certificate being rejected as revoked.  Relying parties must ensure
   that the software they use to validate certificates issued under this
   policy verifies that the same key was used to sign both the
   certificate and the corresponding CRL, as specified in [RFC6487].






Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 32]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


11.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Geoff Huston, Randy Bush, Andrei
   Robachevsky, and other members of the RPKI community for reviewing
   this document and Matt Lepinski for his help with the formatting.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2026]   Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
               3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC3779]   Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
               Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004.

   [RFC6481]   Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile
               for Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481,
               February 2012.

   [RFC6485]   Huston, G., "The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for
               Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)",
               RFC 6485, February 2012.

   [RFC6487]   Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile
               for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487, February
               2012.

   [RFC6489]   Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and S. Kent, "CA Key Rollover
               in the RPKI", BCP 174, RFC 6489, February 2012.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2560]   Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and C.
               Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
               Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999.

   [RFC3647]   Chokhani, S., Ford, W., Sabett, R., Merrill, C., and S.
               Wu, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
               Policy and Certification Practices Framework", RFC 3647,
               November 2003.

   [RFC5055]   Freeman, T., Housley, R., Malpani, A., Cooper, D., and W.
               Polk, "Server-Based Certificate Validation Protocol
               (SCVP)", RFC 5055, December 2007.



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 33]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


   [RFC5736]   Huston, G., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IANA IPv4 Special
               Purpose Address Registry", RFC 5736, January 2010.

   [RFC6480]   Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
               Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.

   [RFC6482]   Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route
               Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, February 2012.

   [RFC6486]   Austein, R., Huston, G., Kent, S., and M. Lepinski,
               "Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
               (RPKI)", RFC 6486, February 2012.

   [RFC6492]   Huston, G., Loomans, R., Ellacott, B., and R. Austein, "A
               Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates", RFC
               6492, February 2012.

   [X.509]     ITU-T Recommendation X.509 | ISO/IEC 9594-8, "Information
               technology -- Open systems interconnection -- The
               Directory: Public-key and attribute certificate
               frameworks", November 2008.






























Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 34]


RFC 6484             Certificate Policy for the RPKI       February 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Stephen Kent
   BBN Technologies
   10 Moulton Street
   Cambridge MA 02138
   USA

   Phone: +1 617 873 3988
   EMail: skent@bbn.com


   Derrick Kong
   BBN Technologies
   Moulton Street
   Cambridge MA 02138
   USA

   Phone: +1 617 873 1951
   EMail: dkong@bbn.com


   Karen Seo
   BBN Technologies
   10 Moulton Street
   Cambridge MA 02138
   USA

   Phone: +1 617 873 3152
   EMail: kseo@bbn.com


   Ronald Watro
   BBN Technologies
   10 Moulton Street
   Cambridge MA 02138
   USA

   Phone: +1 617 873 2551
   EMail: rwatro@bbn.com











Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 35]

=========================================================================





Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           S. Kent
Request for Comments: 7382                                       D. Kong
BCP: 173                                                          K. Seo
Category: Best Current Practice                         BBN Technologies
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               April 2015


         Template for a Certification Practice Statement (CPS)
                      for the Resource PKI (RPKI)

Abstract

   This document contains a template to be used for creating a
   Certification Practice Statement (CPS) for an organization that is
   part of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), e.g., a
   resource allocation registry or an ISP.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7382.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.






Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


Table of Contents

   Preface ............................................................8
   1. Introduction ....................................................9
      1.1. Overview ..................................................10
      1.2. Document Name and Identification ..........................10
      1.3. PKI Participants ..........................................11
           1.3.1. Certification Authorities ..........................11
           1.3.2. Registration Authorities ...........................11
           1.3.3. Subscribers ........................................11
           1.3.4. Relying Parties ....................................11
           1.3.5. Other Participants .................................12
      1.4. Certificate Usage .........................................12
           1.4.1. Appropriate Certificate Uses .......................12
           1.4.2. Prohibited Certificate Uses ........................12
      1.5. Policy Administration .....................................12
           1.5.1. Organization Administering the Document ............12
           1.5.2. Contact Person .....................................12
           1.5.3. Person Determining CPS Suitability for the Policy ..12
           1.5.4. CPS Approval Procedures ............................13
      1.6. Definitions and Acronyms ..................................13
   2. Publication and Repository Responsibilities ....................14
      2.1. Repositories ..............................................14
      2.2. Publication of Certification Information ..................14
      2.3. Time or Frequency of Publication ..........................14
      2.4. Access Controls on Repositories ...........................15
   3. Identification and Authentication ..............................15
      3.1. Naming ....................................................15
           3.1.1. Types of Names .....................................15
           3.1.2. Need for Names to Be Meaningful ....................15
           3.1.3. Anonymity or Pseudonymity of Subscribers ...........15
           3.1.4. Rules for Interpreting Various Name Forms ..........15
           3.1.5. Uniqueness of Names ................................16
           3.1.6. Recognition, Authentication, and Role of
                  Trademarks .........................................16
      3.2. Initial Identity Validation ...............................16
           3.2.1. Method to Prove Possession of Private Key ..........16
           3.2.2. Authentication of Organization Identity ............16
           3.2.3. Authentication of Individual Identity ..............17
           3.2.4. Non-verified Subscriber Information ................17
           3.2.5. Validation of Authority ............................17
           3.2.6. Criteria for Interoperation ........................17









Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


      3.3. Identification and Authentication for Re-key Requests .....18
           3.3.1. Identification and Authentication for
                  Routine Re-key .....................................18
           3.3.2. Identification and Authentication for
                  Re-key after Revocation ............................18
      3.4. Identification and Authentication for Revocation Request ..18
   4. Certificate Life Cycle Operational Requirements ................18
      4.1. Certificate Application ...................................18
           4.1.1. Who Can Submit a Certificate Application ...........18
           4.1.2. Enrollment Process and Responsibilities ............19
      4.2. Certificate Application Processing ........................19
           4.2.1. Performing Identification and
                  Authentication Functions ...........................19
           4.2.2. Approval or Rejection of Certificate Applications ..19
           4.2.3. Time to Process Certificate Applications ...........19
      4.3. Certificate Issuance ......................................19
           4.3.1. CA Actions during Certificate Issuance .............19
           4.3.2. Notification to Subscriber by the CA of
                  Issuance of Certificate ............................20
           4.3.3. Notification of Certificate Issuance by the
                  CA to Other Entities ...............................20
      4.4. Certificate Acceptance ....................................20
           4.4.1. Conduct Constituting Certificate Acceptance ........20
           4.4.2. Publication of the Certificate by the CA ...........20
           4.4.3. Notification of Certificate Issuance by the
                  CA to Other Entities ...............................20
      4.5. Key Pair and Certificate Usage ............................20
           4.5.1. Subscriber Private Key and Certificate Usage .......20
           4.5.2. Relying Party Public Key and Certificate Usage .....21
      4.6. Certificate Renewal .......................................21
           4.6.1. Circumstance for Certificate Renewal ...............21
           4.6.2. Who May Request Renewal ............................21
           4.6.3. Processing Certificate Renewal Requests ............22
           4.6.4. Notification of New Certificate Issuance to
                  Subscriber .........................................22
           4.6.5. Conduct Constituting Acceptance of a
                  Renewal Certificate ................................22
           4.6.6. Publication of the Renewal Certificate by the CA ...22
           4.6.7. Notification of Certificate Issuance by the
                  CA to Other Entities ...............................22
      4.7. Certificate Re-key ........................................22
           4.7.1. Circumstance for Certificate Re-key ................22
           4.7.2. Who May Request Certification of a New Public Key ..23
           4.7.3. Processing Certificate Re-keying Requests ..........23
           4.7.4. Notification of New Certificate Issuance to
                  Subscriber .........................................23





Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


           4.7.5. Conduct Constituting Acceptance of a
                  Re-keyed Certificate ...............................23
           4.7.6. Publication of the Re-keyed Certificate by the CA ..23
           4.7.7. Notification of Certificate Issuance by the
                  CA to Other Entities ...............................23
      4.8. Certificate Modification ..................................23
           4.8.1. Circumstance for Certificate Modification ..........23
           4.8.2. Who May Request Certificate Modification ...........24
           4.8.3. Processing Certificate Modification Requests .......24
           4.8.4. Notification of Modified Certificate
                  Issuance to Subscriber .............................24
           4.8.5. Conduct Constituting Acceptance of Modified
                  Certificate ........................................24
           4.8.6. Publication of the Modified Certificate by the CA ..24
           4.8.7. Notification of Certificate Issuance by the
                  CA to Other Entities ...............................24
      4.9. Certificate Revocation and Suspension .....................25
           4.9.1. Circumstances for Revocation .......................25
           4.9.2. Who Can Request Revocation .........................25
           4.9.3. Procedure for Revocation Request ...................25
           4.9.4. Revocation Request Grace Period ....................25
           4.9.5. Time within Which CA Must Process the
                  Revocation Request .................................25
           4.9.6. Revocation Checking Requirement for Relying
                  Parties ............................................25
           4.9.7. CRL Issuance Frequency .............................26
           4.9.8. Maximum Latency for CRLs ...........................26
      4.10. Certificate Status Services ..............................26
   5. Facility, Management, and Operational Controls .................26
      5.1. Physical Controls .........................................26
           5.1.1. Site Location and Construction .....................26
           5.1.2. Physical Access ....................................26
           5.1.3. Power and Air Conditioning .........................26
           5.1.4. Water Exposures ....................................26
           5.1.5. Fire Prevention and Protection .....................26
           5.1.6. Media Storage ......................................26
           5.1.7. Waste Disposal .....................................26
           5.1.8. Off-Site Backup ....................................26
      5.2. Procedural Controls .......................................27
           5.2.1. Trusted Roles ......................................27
           5.2.2. Number of Persons Required per Task ................27
           5.2.3. Identification and Authentication for Each Role ....27
           5.2.4. Roles Requiring Separation of Duties ...............27








Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


      5.3. Personnel Controls ........................................27
           5.3.1. Qualifications, Experience, and Clearance
                  Requirements .......................................27
           5.3.2. Background Check Procedures ........................27
           5.3.3. Training Requirements ..............................27
           5.3.4. Retraining Frequency and Requirements ..............27
           5.3.5. Job Rotation Frequency and Sequence ................27
           5.3.6. Sanctions for Unauthorized Actions .................27
           5.3.7. Independent Contractor Requirements ................27
           5.3.8. Documentation Supplied to Personnel ................27
      5.4. Audit Logging Procedures ..................................28
           5.4.1. Types of Events Recorded ...........................28
           5.4.2. Frequency of Processing Log ........................28
           5.4.3. Retention Period for Audit Log .....................28
           5.4.4. Protection of Audit Log ............................28
           5.4.5. Audit Log Backup Procedures ........................28
           5.4.6. Audit Collection System (Internal vs.
                  External) [OMITTED] ................................29
           5.4.7. Notification to Event-Causing Subject [OMITTED] ....29
           5.4.8. Vulnerability Assessments ..........................29
      5.5. Records Archival [OMITTED] ................................29
      5.6. Key Changeover ............................................29
      5.7. Compromise and Disaster Recovery ..........................29
      5.8. CA or RA Termination ......................................29
   6. Technical Security Controls ....................................29
      6.1. Key Pair Generation and Installation ......................29
           6.1.1. Key Pair Generation ................................29
           6.1.2. Private Key Delivery to Subscriber .................30
           6.1.3. Public Key Delivery to Certificate Issuer ..........30
           6.1.4. CA Public Key Delivery to Relying Parties ..........30
           6.1.5. Key Sizes ..........................................30
           6.1.6. Public Key Parameter Generation and Quality
                  Checking ...........................................30
           6.1.7. Key Usage Purposes (as per X.509 v3 Key
                  Usage Field) .......................................30
      6.2. Private Key Protection and Cryptographic Module
           Engineering Controls ......................................31
           6.2.1. Cryptographic Module Standards and Controls ........31
           6.2.2. Private Key (n out of m) Multi-Person Control ......31
           6.2.3. Private Key Escrow .................................31
           6.2.4. Private Key Backup .................................31
           6.2.5. Private Key Archival ...............................31
           6.2.6. Private Key Transfer into or from a
                  Cryptographic Module ...............................31
           6.2.7. Private Key Storage on Cryptographic Module ........31
           6.2.8. Method of Activating Private Key ...................32





Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


           6.2.9. Method of Deactivating Private Key .................32
           6.2.10. Method of Destroying Private Key ..................32
           6.2.11. Cryptographic Module Rating .......................32
      6.3. Other Aspects of Key Pair Management ......................32
           6.3.1. Public Key Archival ................................32
           6.3.2. Certificate Operational Periods and Key
                  Pair Usage Periods .................................32
      6.4. Activation Data ...........................................32
           6.4.1. Activation Data Generation and Installation ........32
           6.4.2. Activation Data Protection .........................32
           6.4.3. Other Aspects of Activation Data ...................33
      6.5. Computer Security Controls ................................33
      6.6. Life Cycle Technical Controls .............................33
           6.6.1. System Development Controls ........................33
           6.6.2. Security Management Controls .......................33
           6.6.3. Life Cycle Security Controls .......................33
      6.7. Network Security Controls .................................33
      6.8. Time-Stamping .............................................33
   7. Certificate and CRL Profiles ...................................33
   8. Compliance Audit and Other Assessments .........................34
   9. Other Business and Legal Matters ...............................34
      9.1. Fees ......................................................34
           9.1.1. Certificate Issuance or Renewal Fees ...............34
           9.1.2. Certificate Access Fees [OMITTED] ..................34
           9.1.3. Revocation or Status Information Access
                  Fees [OMITTED] .....................................34
           9.1.4. Fees for Other Services (if Applicable) ............34
           9.1.5. Refund Policy ......................................34
      9.2. Financial Responsibility ..................................34
           9.2.1. Insurance Coverage .................................34
           9.2.2. Other Assets .......................................34
           9.2.3. Insurance or Warranty Coverage for End-Entities ....34
      9.3. Confidentiality of Business Information ...................34
           9.3.1. Scope of Confidential Information ..................34
           9.3.2. Information Not within the Scope of
                  Confidential Information ...........................34
           9.3.3. Responsibility to Protect Confidential
                  Information ........................................34
      9.4. Privacy of Personal Information ...........................34
           9.4.1. Privacy Plan .......................................34
           9.4.2. Information Treated as Private .....................35
           9.4.3. Information Not Deemed Private .....................35
           9.4.4. Responsibility to Protect Private Information ......35
           9.4.5. Notice and Consent to Use Private Information ......35
           9.4.6. Disclosure Pursuant to Judicial or
                  Administrative Process .............................35
           9.4.7. Other Information Disclosure Circumstances .........35




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


      9.5. Intellectual Property Rights (if Applicable) ..............35
      9.6. Representations and Warranties ............................35
           9.6.1. CA Representations and Warranties ..................35
           9.6.2. Subscriber Representations and Warranties ..........35
           9.6.3. Relying Party Representations and Warranties .......35
      9.7. Disclaimers of Warranties .................................35
      9.8. Limitations of Liability ..................................35
      9.9. Indemnities ...............................................35
      9.10. Term and Termination .....................................35
           9.10.1. Term ..............................................35
           9.10.2. Termination .......................................35
           9.10.3. Effect of Termination and Survival ................35
      9.11. Individual Notices and Communications with Participants ..35
      9.12. Amendments ...............................................35
           9.12.1. Procedure for Amendment ...........................35
           9.12.2. Notification Mechanism and Period .................35
      9.13. Dispute Resolution Provisions ............................35
      9.14. Governing Law ............................................35
      9.15. Compliance with Applicable Law ...........................36
      9.16. Miscellaneous Provisions .................................36
           9.16.1. Entire Agreement ..................................36
           9.16.2. Assignment ........................................36
           9.16.3. Severability ......................................36
           9.16.4. Enforcement (Attorneys' Fees and Waiver of
                   Rights) ...........................................36
           9.16.5. Force Majeure .....................................36
   10. Security Considerations .......................................36
   11. References ....................................................37
      11.1. Normative References .....................................37
      11.2. Informative References ...................................37
   Acknowledgments ...................................................38
   Authors' Addresses ................................................38



















Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 7]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


Preface

   This RFC contains text intended for use as a template as designated
   below by the markers <BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT> and <END TEMPLATE TEXT>.
   Such Template Text is subject to the provisions of Section 9(b) of
   the Trust Legal Provisions.

   This document contains a template to be used for creating a
   Certification Practice Statement (CPS) for an organization that is
   part of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI).  (Throughout
   this document, the term "organization" is used broadly, e.g., the
   entity in question might be a business unit of a larger
   organization.)

   There is no expectation that a CPS will be published as an RFC.  An
   organization will publish the CPS in a manner appropriate for access
   by the users of the RPKI, e.g., on the organization's web site.  As a
   best current practice, organizations are expected to use this
   template instead of creating one from scratch.  This template
   contains both text that SHOULD appear in all Certification Practice
   Statements and places for text specific to the organization in
   question (indicated by <text in angle brackets>).

   The user of this document should:

   1. Extract the text between the <BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT> and
      <END TEMPLATE TEXT> delimiters.

   2. Replace the instructions between the angle brackets with the
      required information.

   This document has been generated to complement the Certificate Policy
   (CP) for the RPKI [RFC6484].  Like RFC 6484, it is based on the
   template specified in RFC 3647 [RFC3647].  A number of sections
   contained in the template were omitted from this CPS because they did
   not apply to this PKI.  However, we have retained the section
   numbering scheme employed in that RFC to facilitate comparison with
   the section numbering scheme employed in that RFC and in RFC 6484.

   Conventions Used in This Document:

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].







Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 8]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


<BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT>

   <Create a title page saying, e.g., "<Name of organization>
   Certification Practice Statement for the Resource Public Key
   Infrastructure (RPKI)" with date, author, etc.>

   <Create a table of contents.>

1.  Introduction

   This document is the Certification Practice Statement (CPS) of <name
   of organization>.  It describes the practices employed by the <name
   of organization> Certification Authority (CA) in the Resource Public
   Key Infrastructure (RPKI).  These practices are defined in accordance
   with the requirements of the Certificate Policy (CP) [RFC6484] for
   the RPKI.

   The RPKI is designed to support validation of claims by current
   holders of Internet Number Resources (INRs) (Section 1.6) in
   accordance with the records of the organizations that act as CAs in
   this PKI.  The ability to verify such claims is essential to ensuring
   the unique, unambiguous distribution of these resources.

   This PKI parallels the existing INR distribution hierarchy.  These
   resources are distributed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
   (IANA) to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).  In some regions,
   National Internet Registries (NIRs) form a tier of the hierarchy
   below the RIRs for INR distribution.  Internet Service Providers
   (ISPs) and network subscribers form additional tiers below
   registries.

   Conventions Used in This Document:

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].















Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                 [Page 9]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


1.1.  Overview

   This CPS describes:

   o  Participants

   o  Publication of the certificates and Certificate Revocation Lists
      (CRLs)

   o  How certificates are issued, managed, re-keyed, renewed, and
      revoked

   o  Facility management (physical security, personnel, audit, etc.)

   o  Key management

   o  Audit procedures

   o  Business and legal issues

   This PKI encompasses several types of certificates (see [RFC6480] for
   more details):

   o  CA certificates for each organization distributing INRs and for
      each subscriber INR holder.

   o  End-entity (EE) certificates for organizations to use to validate
      digital signatures on RPKI-signed objects (see definition in
      Section 1.6).

   o  In the future, the PKI also may include end-entity certificates in
      support of access control for the repository system as described
      in Section 2.4.

1.2.  Document Name and Identification

   The name of this document is "<Name of organization> Certification
   Practice Statement for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
   (RPKI)".  <If this document is available via the Internet, the CA can
   provide the URI for the CPS here.  It SHOULD be the same URI as the
   URI that appears as a policy qualifier in the CA certificate for the
   CA, if the CA elects to make use of that feature.>









Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 10]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


1.3.  PKI Participants

   Note that in a PKI the term "subscriber" refers to an individual or
   organization that is a subject of a certificate issued by a CA.  The
   term is used in this fashion throughout this document, without
   qualification, and should not be confused with the networking use of
   the term to refer to an individual or organization that receives
   service from an ISP.  In such cases, the term "network subscriber"
   will be used.  Also note that, for brevity, this document always
   refers to PKI participants as organizations or entities, even though
   some of them are individuals.

1.3.1.  Certification Authorities

   <Describe the CAs that you will operate for the RPKI.  One approach
   is to operate two CAs: one designated "offline" and the other
   designated "production".  The offline CA is the top-level CA for the
   <name of organization> portion of the RPKI.  It provides a secure
   revocation and recovery capability in case the production CA is
   compromised or becomes unavailable.  Thus, the offline CA issues
   certificates only to instances of the production CA, and the CRLs it
   issues are used to revoke only certificates issued to the production
   CA.  The production CA is used to issue RPKI certificates to <name of
   organization> members, to whom INRs have been distributed.>

1.3.2.  Registration Authorities

   <Describe how the Registration Authority (RA) function is handled for
   the CA(s) that you operate.  The RPKI does not require establishment
   or use of a separate Registration Authority in addition to the CA
   function.  The RA function MUST be provided by the same entity
   operating as a CA, e.g., entities listed in Section 1.3.1.  An entity
   acting as a CA in this PKI already has a formal relationship with
   each organization to which it distributes INRs.  These organizations
   already perform the RA function implicitly, since they already assume
   responsibility for distributing INRs.>

1.3.3.  Subscribers

   Organizations receiving INR allocations from this CA are subscribers
   in the RPKI.

1.3.4.  Relying Parties

   Entities or individuals that act in reliance on certificates or
   RPKI-signed objects issued under this PKI are relying parties.
   Relying parties may or may not be subscribers within this PKI.
   (See Section 1.6 for the definition of an RPKI-signed object.)



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 11]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


1.3.5.  Other Participants

   <Specify one or more entities that operate a repository holding
   certificates, CRLs, and other RPKI-signed objects issued by this
   organization, and provide a URL for the repository.>

1.4.  Certificate Usage

1.4.1.  Appropriate Certificate Uses

   The certificates issued under this hierarchy are for authorization in
   support of validation of claims of current holdings of INRs.

   Additional uses of the certificates, consistent with the basic goal
   cited above, are also permitted under RFC 6484.

   Some of the certificates that may be issued under this PKI could be
   used to support operation of this infrastructure, e.g., access
   control for the repository system as described in Section 2.4.  Such
   uses also are permitted under the RPKI certificate policy.

1.4.2.  Prohibited Certificate Uses

   Any uses other than those described in Section 1.4.1 are prohibited.

1.5.  Policy Administration

1.5.1.  Organization Administering the Document

   This CPS is administered by <name of organization>.  <Include the
   mailing address, email address, and similar contact info here.>

1.5.2.  Contact Person

   <Insert organization contact info here.>

1.5.3.  Person Determining CPS Suitability for the Policy

   Not applicable.  Each organization issuing a certificate in this PKI
   is attesting to the distribution of INRs to the holder of the private
   key corresponding to the public key in the certificate.  The issuing
   organizations are the same organizations as the ones that perform the
   distribution; hence, they are authoritative with respect to the
   accuracy of this binding.







Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 12]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


1.5.4.  CPS Approval Procedures

   Not applicable.  Each organization issuing a certificate in this PKI
   is attesting to the distribution of INRs to the holder of the private
   key corresponding to the public key in the certificate.  The issuing
   organizations are the same organizations as the ones that perform the
   distribution; hence, they are authoritative with respect to the
   accuracy of this binding.

1.6.  Definitions and Acronyms

   BPKI   Business PKI.  A BPKI is an optional additional PKI used by an
          organization to identify members to whom RPKI certificates can
          be issued.  If a BPKI is employed by a CA, it may have its own
          CP, separate from the RPKI CP.

   CP     Certificate Policy.  A CP is a named set of rules that
          indicates the applicability of a certificate to a particular
          community and/or class of applications with common security
          requirements.  The CP for the RPKI is [RFC6484].

   CPS    Certification Practice Statement.  A CPS is a document that
          specifies the practices that a Certification Authority employs
          in issuing certificates.

   Distribution of INRs   A process of distribution of the INRs along
          the respective number hierarchy.  IANA distributes blocks of
          IP addresses and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) to the five
          Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).  RIRs distribute smaller
          address blocks and Autonomous System Numbers to organizations
          within their service regions, who in turn distribute IP
          addresses to their customers.

   IANA   Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.  IANA is responsible for
          global coordination of the Internet Protocol addressing
          systems and ASNs used for routing Internet traffic.  IANA
          distributes INRs to RIRs.

   INRs   Internet Number Resources.  INRs are number values for three
          protocol parameter sets, namely:

          o  IP version 4 addresses,

          o  IP version 6 addresses, and

          o  Identifiers used in Internet inter-domain routing,
             currently Border Gateway Protocol-4 ASNs.




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 13]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


   ISP    Internet Service Provider.  An ISP is an organization managing
          and selling Internet services to other organizations.

   NIR    National Internet Registry.  An NIR is an organization that
          manages the distribution of INRs for a portion of the
          geopolitical area covered by a Regional Internet Registry.
          NIRs form an optional second tier in the tree scheme used to
          manage INR distribution.

   RIR    Regional Internet Registry.  An RIR is an organization that
          manages the distribution of INRs for a geopolitical area.

   RPKI-signed object   An RPKI-signed object is a digitally signed data
          object (other than a certificate or CRL) declared to be such
          an object by a Standards Track RFC.  An RPKI-signed object can
          be validated using certificates issued under this PKI.  The
          content and format of these data constructs depend on the
          context in which validation of claims of current holdings of
          INRs takes place.  Examples of these objects are repository
          manifests [RFC6486] and Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)
          [RFC6482].

2.  Publication and Repository Responsibilities

2.1.  Repositories

   As per the CP, certificates, CRLs, and RPKI-signed objects MUST be
   made available for downloading by all relying parties, to enable them
   to validate this data.

   The <name of organization> RPKI CA will publish certificates, CRLs,
   and RPKI-signed objects via a repository that is accessible via
   <insert IETF-designated protocol name here> at <insert URL here>.
   This repository will conform to the structure described in [RFC6481].

2.2.  Publication of Certification Information

   <Name of organization> will publish certificates, CRLs, and
   RPKI-signed objects issued by it to a repository that operates as
   part of a worldwide distributed system of RPKI repositories.

2.3.  Time or Frequency of Publication

   <Describe here your procedures for publication (to the global
   repository system) of the certificates, CRLs, and RPKI-signed objects
   that you issue.  If you choose to outsource publication of PKI data,
   you still need to provide this information for relying parties.  This
   MUST include the period of time within which a certificate will be



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 14]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


   published after the CA issues the certificate, and the period of time
   within which a CA will publish a CRL with an entry for a revoked
   certificate, after the CA revokes that certificate.>

   The <name of organization> CA will publish its CRL prior to the
   nextUpdate value in the scheduled CRL previously issued by the CA.

2.4.  Access Controls on Repositories

   <Describe the access controls used by the organization to ensure that
   only authorized parties can modify repository data, and any controls
   used to mitigate denial-of-service attacks against the repository.
   If the organization offers repository services to its subscribers,
   then describe here the protocol(s) that it supports for publishing
   signed objects from subscribers.>

3.  Identification and Authentication

3.1.  Naming

3.1.1.  Types of Names

   The subject of each certificate issued by this organization is
   identified by an X.500 Distinguished Name (DN).  The distinguished
   name will consist of a single Common Name (CN) attribute with a value
   generated by <name of organization>.  Optionally, the serialNumber
   attribute may be included along with the common name (to form a
   terminal relative distinguished name set), to distinguish among
   successive instances of certificates associated with the same entity.

3.1.2.  Need for Names to Be Meaningful

   The Subject name in each certificate SHOULD NOT be "meaningful", in
   the conventional, human-readable sense.  The rationale here is that
   these certificates are used for authorization in support of
   applications that make use of attestations of INR holdings.  They are
   not used to identify subjects.

3.1.3.  Anonymity or Pseudonymity of Subscribers

   Although Subject names in certificates issued by this organization
   SHOULD NOT be meaningful and may appear "random", anonymity is not a
   function of this PKI; thus, no explicit support for this feature is
   provided.

3.1.4.  Rules for Interpreting Various Name Forms

   None



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 15]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


3.1.5.  Uniqueness of Names

   <Name of organization> certifies Subject names that are unique among
   the certificates that it issues.  Although it is desirable that these
   Subject names be unique throughout the PKI, to facilitate certificate
   path discovery, such uniqueness is not required, nor is it enforced
   through technical means.  <Name of organization> generates Subject
   names to minimize the chances that two entities in the RPKI will be
   assigned the same name.  Specifically, <insert Subject name
   generation description here, or cite RFC 6487>.

3.1.6.  Recognition, Authentication, and Role of Trademarks

   Because the Subject names are not intended to be meaningful, <name of
   organization> makes no provision either to recognize or to
   authenticate trademarks, service marks, etc.

3.2.  Initial Identity Validation

3.2.1.  Method to Prove Possession of Private Key

   <Describe the method whereby each subscriber will be required to
   demonstrate proof-of-possession (PoP) of the private key
   corresponding to the public key in the certificate, prior to
   certificate issuance.>

3.2.2.  Authentication of Organization Identity

   Certificates issued under this PKI do not attest to the
   organizational identity of subscribers.  However, certificates are
   issued to subscribers in a fashion that preserves the accuracy of
   distributions of INRs as represented in <name of organization>
   records.

   <Describe the procedures that will be used to ensure that each RPKI
   certificate that is issued accurately reflects your records with
   regard to the organization to which you have distributed (or
   sub-distributed) the INRs identified in the certificate.  For
   example, a BPKI certificate could be used to authenticate a
   certificate request that serves as a link to the <name of
   organization> subscriber database that maintains the INR distribution
   records.  The certificate request could be matched against the
   database record for the subscriber in question, and an RPKI
   certificate would be issued only if the INRs requested were a subset
   of those held by the subscriber.  The specific procedures employed
   for this purpose should be commensurate with any you already employ
   in the maintenance of INR distribution.>




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 16]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


3.2.3.  Authentication of Individual Identity

   Certificates issued under this PKI do not attest to the individual
   identity of a subscriber.  However, <name of organization> maintains
   contact information for each subscriber in support of certificate
   renewal, re-key, and revocation.

   <Describe the procedures that are used to identify at least one
   individual as a representative of each subscriber.  This is done in
   support of issuance, renewal, and revocation of the certificate
   issued to the organization.  For example, one might say "The <name of
   organization> BPKI (see Section 3.2.6) issues certificates that MUST
   be used to identify individuals who represent <name of organization>
   subscribers."  The procedures should be commensurate with those you
   already employ in authenticating individuals as representatives for
   INR holders.  Note that this authentication is solely for use by you
   in dealing with the organizations to which you distribute (or
   sub-distribute) INRs and thus MUST NOT be relied upon outside of this
   CA/subscriber relationship.>

3.2.4.  Non-verified Subscriber Information

   No non-verified subscriber data is included in certificates issued
   under this certificate policy except for Subject Information Access
   (SIA) extensions [RFC6487].

3.2.5.  Validation of Authority

   <Describe the procedures used to verify that an individual claiming
   to represent a subscriber is authorized to represent that subscriber
   in this context.  For example, one could say "Only an individual to
   whom a BPKI certificate (see Section 3.2.6) has been issued may
   request issuance of an RPKI certificate.  Each certificate issuance
   request is verified using the BPKI."  The procedures should be
   commensurate with those you already employ in authenticating
   individuals as representatives of subscribers.>

3.2.6.  Criteria for Interoperation

   The RPKI is neither intended nor designed to interoperate with any
   other PKI.  <If you operate a separate, additional PKI for business
   purposes, e.g., a BPKI, then describe (or reference) how the BPKI is
   used to authenticate subscribers and to enable them to manage their
   resource distributions.>







Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 17]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


3.3.  Identification and Authentication for Re-key Requests

3.3.1.  Identification and Authentication for Routine Re-key

   <Describe the conditions under which routine re-key is required and
   the manner by which it is requested.  Describe the procedures that
   are used to ensure that a subscriber requesting routine re-key is the
   legitimate holder of the certificate to be re-keyed.  State the
   approach for establishing PoP of the private key corresponding to the
   new public key.  If you operate a BPKI, describe how that BPKI is
   used to authenticate routine re-key requests.>

3.3.2.  Identification and Authentication for Re-key after Revocation

   <Describe the procedures used to ensure that an organization
   requesting a re-key after revocation is the legitimate holder of the
   INRs in the certificate being re-keyed.  This MUST also include the
   method employed for verifying PoP of the private key corresponding to
   the new public key.  If you operate a BPKI, describe how that BPKI is
   used to authenticate re-key requests.  With respect to authentication
   of the subscriber, the procedures should be commensurate with those
   you already employ in the maintenance of INR distribution records.>

3.4.  Identification and Authentication for Revocation Request

   <Describe the procedures used by an RPKI subscriber to make a
   revocation request.  Describe the manner by which it is ensured that
   the subscriber requesting revocation is the subject of the
   certificate (or an authorized representative thereof) to be revoked.
   Note that there may be different procedures for the case where the
   legitimate subject still possesses the original private key as
   opposed to the case when it no longer has access to that key.  These
   procedures should be commensurate with those you already employ in
   the maintenance of subscriber records.>

4.  Certificate Life Cycle Operational Requirements

4.1.  Certificate Application

4.1.1.  Who Can Submit a Certificate Application

   Any subscriber in good standing who holds INRs distributed by <name
   of organization> may submit a certificate application to this CA.
   (The exact meaning of "in good standing" is in accordance with the
   policy of <name of organization>.)






Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 18]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


4.1.2.  Enrollment Process and Responsibilities

   <Describe your enrollment process for issuing certificates both for
   initial deployment of the PKI and as an ongoing process.  Note that
   most of the certificates in this PKI are issued as part of your
   normal business practices, as an adjunct to INR distribution, and
   thus a separate application to request a certificate may not be
   necessary.  If so, reference should be made to where these practices
   are documented.>

4.2.  Certificate Application Processing

   <Describe the certificate request/response processing that you will
   employ.  You should make use of existing standards for certificate
   application processing (see [RFC6487]).>

4.2.1.  Performing Identification and Authentication Functions

   <Describe your practices for identification and authentication of
   certificate applicants.  Often, existing practices employed by you to
   identify and authenticate organizations can be used as the basis for
   issuance of certificates to these subscribers.  Reference can be made
   to documentation of such existing practices.>

4.2.2.  Approval or Rejection of Certificate Applications

   <Describe your practices for approval or rejection of applications,
   and refer to documentation of existing business practices relevant to
   this process.  Note that according to the CP, certificate
   applications will be approved based on the normal business practices
   of the entity operating the CA, based on the CA's records of
   subscribers.  The CP also says that each CA will follow the procedure
   specified in Section 3.2.1 to verify that the requester holds the
   private key corresponding to the public key that will be bound to the
   certificate the CA issues to the requester.>

4.2.3.  Time to Process Certificate Applications

   <Specify here your expected time frame for processing certificate
   applications.>

4.3.  Certificate Issuance

4.3.1.  CA Actions during Certificate Issuance

   <Describe your procedures for issuance and publication of a
   certificate.>




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 19]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


4.3.2.  Notification to Subscriber by the CA of Issuance of Certificate

   <Name of organization> will notify the subscriber when the
   certificate is published.  <Describe here your procedures for
   notifying a subscriber when a certificate has been published.>

4.3.3.  Notification of Certificate Issuance by the CA to Other Entities

   <Describe here any other entities that will be notified when a
   certificate is published.>

4.4.  Certificate Acceptance

4.4.1.  Conduct Constituting Certificate Acceptance

   When a certificate is issued, the <name of organization> CA will
   publish it to the repository and notify the subscriber.  <This may be
   done without subscriber review and acceptance.  State your policy
   with respect to subscriber certificate acceptance here.>

4.4.2.  Publication of the Certificate by the CA

   Certificates will be published at <insert repository URL here> once
   issued, following the conduct described in Section 4.4.1.  This will
   be done within <specify the time frame within which the certificate
   will be placed in the repository and the subscriber will be
   notified>.  <Describe any additional procedures with respect to
   publication of the certificate here.>

4.4.3.  Notification of Certificate Issuance by the CA to Other Entities

   <Describe here any other entities that will be notified when a
   certificate is published.>

4.5.  Key Pair and Certificate Usage

   A summary of the use model for the RPKI is provided below.

4.5.1.  Subscriber Private Key and Certificate Usage

   The certificates issued by <name of organization> to subordinate INR
   holders are CA certificates.  The private key associated with each of
   these certificates is used to sign subordinate (CA or EE)
   certificates and CRLs.







Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 20]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


4.5.2.  Relying Party Public Key and Certificate Usage

   The primary relying parties in this PKI are organizations that use
   RPKI EE certificates to verify RPKI-signed objects.  Relying parties
   are referred to Section 4.5.2 of [RFC6484] for additional guidance
   with respect to acts of reliance on RPKI certificates.

4.6.  Certificate Renewal

4.6.1.  Circumstance for Certificate Renewal

   As per RFC 6484, a certificate will be processed for renewal based on
   its expiration date or a renewal request from the certificate
   Subject.  The request may be implicit, a side effect of renewing a
   resource holding agreement, or explicit.  If <name of organization>
   initiates the renewal process based on the certificate expiration
   date, then <name of organization> will notify the subscriber <insert
   the period of advance warning, e.g., "2 weeks in advance of the
   expiration date", or the general policy, e.g., "in conjunction with
   notification of service expiration">.  The validity interval of the
   new (renewed) certificate will overlap that of the previous
   certificate by <insert length of overlap period, e.g., 1 week>, to
   ensure uninterrupted coverage.

   Certificate renewal will incorporate the same public key as the
   previous certificate, unless the private key has been reported as
   compromised (see Section 4.9.1).  If a new key pair is being used,
   the stipulations of Section 4.7 will apply.

4.6.2.  Who May Request Renewal

   The subscriber or <name of organization> may initiate the renewal
   process.  <For the case of the subscriber, describe the procedures
   that will be used to ensure that the requester is the legitimate
   holder of the INRs in the certificate being renewed.  This MUST also
   include the method employed for verifying PoP of the private key
   corresponding to the public key in the certificate being renewed or
   the new public key if the public key is being changed.  With respect
   to authentication of the subscriber, the procedures should be
   commensurate with those you already employ in the maintenance of INR
   distribution records.  If you operate a BPKI for this, describe how
   that business-based PKI is used to authenticate renewal requests, and
   refer to Section 3.2.6.>








Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 21]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


4.6.3.  Processing Certificate Renewal Requests

   <Describe your procedures for handling certificate renewal requests.
   Describe how you verify that the requester is the subscriber or is
   authorized by the subscriber, and that the certificate in question
   has not been revoked.>

4.6.4.  Notification of New Certificate Issuance to Subscriber

   <Name of organization> will notify the subscriber when the
   certificate is published.  <Describe your procedure for notification
   of new certificate issuance to the subscriber.  This should be
   consistent with Section 4.3.2.>

4.6.5.  Conduct Constituting Acceptance of a Renewal Certificate

   See Section 4.4.1.  <If you employ a different policy from that
   specified in Section 4.4.1, describe it here.>

4.6.6.  Publication of the Renewal Certificate by the CA

   See Section 4.4.2.

4.6.7.  Notification of Certificate Issuance by the CA to Other Entities

   See Section 4.4.3.

4.7.  Certificate Re-key

4.7.1.  Circumstance for Certificate Re-key

   As per RFC 6484, re-key of a certificate will be performed only when
   required, based on:

   1. knowledge or suspicion of compromise or loss of the associated
      private key, or

   2. the expiration of the cryptographic lifetime of the associated key
      pair

   If a certificate is revoked to replace the RFC 3779 extensions, the
   replacement certificate will incorporate the same public key, not a
   new key.

   If the re-key is based on a suspected compromise, then the previous
   certificate will be revoked.





Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 22]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


4.7.2.  Who May Request Certification of a New Public Key

   Only the holder of a certificate may request a re-key.  In addition,
   <name of organization> may initiate a re-key based on a verified
   compromise report.  <If the subscriber (certificate Subject) requests
   the re-key, describe how authentication is effected, e.g., using the
   <name of registry> BPKI.  Describe how a compromise report received
   from other than a subscriber is verified.>

4.7.3.  Processing Certificate Re-keying Requests

   <Describe your process for handling re-keying requests.  As per the
   RPKI CP, this should be consistent with the process described in
   Section 4.3, so reference can be made to that section.>

4.7.4.  Notification of New Certificate Issuance to Subscriber

   <Describe your policy for notifying the subscriber regarding
   availability of the new re-keyed certificate.  This should be
   consistent with the notification process for any new certificate
   issuance (see Section 4.3.2).>

4.7.5.  Conduct Constituting Acceptance of a Re-keyed Certificate

   When a re-keyed certificate is issued, the CA will publish it in the
   repository and notify the subscriber.  See Section 4.4.1.

4.7.6.  Publication of the Re-keyed Certificate by the CA

   <Describe your policy regarding publication of the new certificate.
   This should be consistent with the publication process for any new
   certificate (see Section 4.4.2).>

4.7.7.  Notification of Certificate Issuance by the CA to Other Entities

   See Section 4.4.3.

4.8.  Certificate Modification

4.8.1.  Circumstance for Certificate Modification

   As per RFC 6484, modification of a certificate occurs to implement
   changes to the RFC 3779 extension values or the SIA extension in a
   certificate.  A subscriber can request a certificate modification
   when this information in a currently valid certificate has changed,
   as a result of changes in the INR holdings of the subscriber, or as a
   result of change of the repository publication point data.




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 23]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


   If a subscriber is to receive a distribution of INRs in addition to a
   current distribution, and if the subscriber does not request that a
   new certificate be issued containing only these additional INRs, then
   this is accomplished through a certificate modification.  When a
   certificate modification is approved, a new certificate is issued.
   The new certificate will contain the same public key and the same
   expiration date as the original certificate, but with the incidental
   information corrected and/or the INR distribution expanded.  When
   previously distributed INRs are to be removed from a certificate,
   then the old certificate will be revoked and a new certificate
   (reflecting the new distribution) issued.

4.8.2.  Who May Request Certificate Modification

   The subscriber or <name of organization> may initiate the certificate
   modification process.  <For the case of the subscriber, state here
   what steps will be taken to verify the identity and authorization of
   the entity requesting the modification.>

4.8.3.  Processing Certificate Modification Requests

   <Describe your procedures for verification of the modification
   request and procedures for the issuance of a new certificate.  These
   should be consistent with the processes described in Sections 4.2
   and 4.3.1.>

4.8.4.  Notification of Modified Certificate Issuance to Subscriber

   <Describe your procedure for notifying the subscriber about the
   issuance of a modified certificate.  This should be consistent
   with the notification process for any new certificate (see
   Section 4.3.2).>

4.8.5.  Conduct Constituting Acceptance of Modified Certificate

   When a modified certificate is issued, <name of organization> will
   publish it to the repository and notify the subscriber.  See
   Section 4.4.1.

4.8.6.  Publication of the Modified Certificate by the CA

   <Describe your procedure for publication of a modified certificate.
   This should be consistent with the publication process for any new
   certificate (see Section 4.4.2).>

4.8.7.  Notification of Certificate Issuance by the CA to Other Entities

   See Section 4.4.3.



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 24]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


4.9.  Certificate Revocation and Suspension

4.9.1.  Circumstances for Revocation

   As per RFC 6484, certificates can be revoked for several reasons.
   Either <name of organization> or the subject may choose to end the
   relationship expressed in the certificate, thus creating cause to
   revoke the certificate.  If one or more of the INRs bound to the
   public key in the certificate are no longer associated with the
   subject, that too constitutes a basis for revocation.  A certificate
   also may be revoked due to loss or compromise of the private key
   corresponding to the public key in the certificate.  Finally, a
   certificate may be revoked in order to invalidate data signed by the
   private key associated with that certificate.

4.9.2.  Who Can Request Revocation

   The subscriber or <name of organization> may request a revocation.
   <For the case of the subscriber, describe what steps will be taken to
   verify the identity and authorization of the entity requesting the
   revocation.>

4.9.3.  Procedure for Revocation Request

   <Describe your process for handling a certificate revocation request.
   This should include:

   o  Procedure to be used by the subscriber to request a revocation.

   o  Procedure for notification of the subscriber when the revocation
      is initiated by <name of organization>.>

4.9.4.  Revocation Request Grace Period

   A subscriber is required to request revocation as soon as possible
   after the need for revocation has been identified.

4.9.5.  Time within Which CA Must Process the Revocation Request

   <Describe your policy on the time period within which you will
   process a revocation request.>

4.9.6.  Revocation Checking Requirement for Relying Parties

   As per RFC 6484, a relying party is responsible for acquiring and
   checking the most recent, scheduled CRL from the issuer of the
   certificate, whenever the relying party validates a certificate.




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 25]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


4.9.7.  CRL Issuance Frequency

   <State the CRL issuance frequency for the CRLs that you publish.>
   Each CRL contains a nextUpdate value, and a new CRL will be published
   at or before that time.  <Name of organization> will set the
   nextUpdate value when it issues a CRL, to signal when the next
   scheduled CRL will be issued.

4.9.8.  Maximum Latency for CRLs

   A CRL will be published to the repository system within <state the
   maximum latency> after generation.

4.10.  Certificate Status Services

   <Name of organization> does not support the Online Certificate Status
   Protocol (OCSP) or the Server-Based Certificate Validation Protocol
   (SCVP).  <Name of organization> issues CRLs.

5.  Facility, Management, and Operational Controls

5.1.  Physical Controls

   <As per RFC 6484, describe the physical controls that you employ for
   certificate management.  These should be commensurate with those used
   in the management of INR distribution.>

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









Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 26]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


5.2.  Procedural Controls

   <As per RFC 6484, describe the procedural security controls that you
   employ for certificate management.  These should be commensurate with
   those used in the management of INR distribution.>

5.2.1.  Trusted Roles

5.2.2.  Number of Persons Required per Task

5.2.3.  Identification and Authentication for Each Role

5.2.4.  Roles Requiring Separation of Duties

5.3.  Personnel Controls

   <As per RFC 6484, describe the personnel security controls that you
   employ for individuals associated with certificate management.  These
   should be commensurate with those used in the management of INR
   distribution.>

5.3.1.  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.  Independent Contractor Requirements

5.3.8.  Documentation Supplied to Personnel















Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 27]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


5.4.  Audit Logging Procedures

   <As per the CP, describe in the following sections the details of how
   you implement audit logging.>

5.4.1.  Types of Events Recorded

   Audit records will be generated for the basic operations of the
   Certification Authority computing equipment.  Audit records will
   include the date, time, responsible user or process, and summary
   content data relating to the event.  Auditable events include:

   o  Access to CA computing equipment (e.g., logon, logout)

   o  Messages received requesting CA actions (e.g., certificate
      requests, certificate revocation requests, compromise
      notifications)

   o  Certificate creation, modification, revocation, or renewal actions

   o  Posting of any material to a repository

   o  Any attempts to change or delete audit data

   o  Key generation

   o  Software and/or configuration updates to the CA

   o  Clock adjustments

   <List here any additional types of events that will be audited.>

5.4.2.  Frequency of Processing Log

   <Describe your procedures for review of audit logs.>

5.4.3.  Retention Period for Audit Log

   <Describe your policies for retention of audit logs.>

5.4.4.  Protection of Audit Log

   <Describe your policies for protection of the audit logs.>

5.4.5.  Audit Log Backup Procedures

   <Describe your policies for backup of the audit logs.>




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 28]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


5.4.6.  Audit Collection System (Internal vs. External) [OMITTED]

5.4.7.  Notification to Event-Causing Subject [OMITTED]

5.4.8.  Vulnerability Assessments

   <Describe any vulnerability assessments that you will apply (or have
   already applied) to the PKI subsystems.  This should include whether
   such assessments have taken place and any procedures or plans to
   perform or repeat/reassess vulnerabilities in the future.>

5.5.  Records Archival [OMITTED]

5.6.  Key Changeover

   The <name of organization> CA certificate will contain a validity
   period that is at least as long as that of any certificate being
   issued under that certificate.  When <name of organization> CA
   changes keys, it will follow the procedures described in [RFC6489].

5.7.  Compromise and Disaster Recovery

   <Describe your plans for dealing with CA key compromise and how you
   plan to continue/restore operation of your RPKI CA in the event of a
   disaster.>

5.8.  CA or RA Termination

   <Describe your policy for management of your CA's INR distributions
   in case of its own termination.>

6.  Technical Security Controls

   This section describes the security controls used by <name of
   organization>.

6.1.  Key Pair Generation and Installation

6.1.1.  Key Pair Generation

   <Describe the procedures used to generate the CA key pair and, if
   applicable, key pairs for subscribers.  In most instances, public-key
   pairs will be generated by the subscriber, i.e., the organization
   receiving the distribution of INRs.  However, your procedures may
   include one for generating key pairs on behalf of your subscribers if
   they so request.>





Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 29]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


6.1.2.  Private Key Delivery to Subscriber

   <If the procedures in Section 6.1.1 include providing key pair
   generation services for subscribers, describe the means by which
   private keys are delivered to subscribers in a secure fashion.
   Otherwise, say this is not applicable.>

6.1.3.  Public Key Delivery to Certificate Issuer

   <Describe the procedures that will be used to deliver a subscriber's
   public keys to the <name of organization> RPKI CA.  These procedures
   MUST ensure that the public key has not been altered during transit
   and that the subscriber possesses the private key corresponding to
   the transferred public key.>  See RFC 6487 for details.

6.1.4.  CA Public Key Delivery to Relying Parties

   CA public keys for all entities (other than trust anchors) are
   contained in certificates issued by other CAs and will be published
   to the RPKI repository system.  Relying parties will download these
   certificates from this system.  Public key values and associated data
   for (putative) trust anchors will be distributed out of band and
   accepted by relying parties on the basis of locally defined criteria,
   e.g., embedded in path validation software that will be made
   available to the Internet community.

6.1.5.  Key Sizes

   The key sizes used in this PKI are as specified in [RFC6485].

6.1.6.  Public Key Parameter Generation and Quality Checking

   The public key algorithms and parameters used in this PKI are as
   specified in [RFC6485].

   <If the procedures in Section 6.1.1 include subscriber key pair
   generation, EITHER insert here text specifying that the subscriber is
   responsible for performing checks on the quality of its key pair and
   saying that <name of organization> is not responsible for performing
   such checks for subscribers OR describe the procedures used by the CA
   for checking the quality of these subscriber key pairs.>

6.1.7.  Key Usage Purposes (as per X.509 v3 Key Usage Field)

   The KeyUsage extension bit values employed in RPKI certificates are
   specified in [RFC6487].





Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 30]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


6.2.  Private Key Protection and Cryptographic Module Engineering
      Controls

6.2.1.  Cryptographic Module Standards and Controls

   <Describe the standards and controls employed for the CA
   cryptographic module, e.g., it was evaluated under FIPS 140-2/3, at
   level 2 or 3.  See [FIPS] for details.>

6.2.2.  Private Key (n out of m) Multi-Person Control

   <If you choose to use multi-person controls to constrain access to
   your CA's private keys, then insert the following text.  "There will
   be private key <insert here n> out of <insert here m> multi-person
   control.">

6.2.3.  Private Key Escrow

   <No private key escrow procedures are required for the RPKI, but if
   the CA chooses to employ escrow, state so here.>

6.2.4.  Private Key Backup

   <Describe the procedures used for backing up your CA's private key.
   The following aspects should be included.  (1) The copying should be
   done under the same multi-party control as is used for controlling
   the original private key.  (2) At least one copy should be kept at an
   off-site location for disaster recovery purposes.>

6.2.5.  Private Key Archival

   See Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4.

6.2.6.  Private Key Transfer into or from a Cryptographic Module

   The private key for the <name of organization> production CA <if
   appropriate, change "production CA" to "production and offline CAs">
   will be generated by the cryptographic module specified in
   Section 6.2.1.  The private keys will never leave the module except
   in encrypted form for backup and/or transfer to a new module.

6.2.7.  Private Key Storage on Cryptographic Module

   The private key for the <name of organization> production CA <if
   appropriate, change "production CA" to "production and offline CAs">
   will be stored in the cryptographic module.  It will be protected
   from unauthorized use <say how here>.




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 31]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


6.2.8.  Method of Activating Private Key

   <Describe the mechanisms and data used to activate your CA's private
   key.>

6.2.9.  Method of Deactivating Private Key

   <Describe the process and procedure for private key deactivation
   here.>

6.2.10.  Method of Destroying Private Key

   <Describe the method used for destroying your CA's private key, e.g.,
   when it is superseded.  This will depend on the particular module.>

6.2.11.  Cryptographic Module Rating

   <Describe the rating of the cryptographic module used by the CA, if
   applicable.>

6.3.  Other Aspects of Key Pair Management

6.3.1.  Public Key Archival

   <Because this PKI does not support non-repudiation, there is no need
   to archive public keys.  If keys are not archived, say so.  If they
   are, describe the archive processes and procedures.>

6.3.2.  Certificate Operational Periods and Key Pair Usage Periods

   The <name of organization> CA's key pair will have a validity
   interval of <insert number of years>.  <These key pairs and
   certificates should have reasonably long validity intervals, e.g.,
   10 years, to minimize the disruption caused by key changeover.  Note
   that the CA's key lifetime is under the control of its issuer, so the
   CPS MUST reflect the key lifetime imposed by the issuer.>

6.4.  Activation Data

6.4.1.  Activation Data Generation and Installation

   <Describe how activation data for your CA will be generated.>

6.4.2.  Activation Data Protection

   Activation data for the CA private key will be protected by <describe
   your procedures here>.




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 32]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


6.4.3.  Other Aspects of Activation Data

   <Add here any details you wish to provide with regard to the
   activation data for your CA.  If there are none, say "None".>

6.5.  Computer Security Controls

   <Describe your security requirements for the computers used to
   support this PKI, e.g., requirements for authenticated logins, audit
   capabilities, etc.  These requirements should be commensurate with
   those used for the computers used for managing distribution of INRs.>

6.6.  Life Cycle Technical Controls

6.6.1.  System Development Controls

   <Describe any system development controls that apply to the PKI
   systems, e.g., use of Trusted System Development Methodology (TSDM).>

6.6.2.  Security Management Controls

   <Describe the security management controls that will be used for the
   RPKI software and equipment employed by the CA.  These security
   measures should be commensurate with those used for the systems used
   by the CAs for managing and distributing INRs.>

6.6.3.  Life Cycle Security Controls

   <Describe how the equipment (hardware and software) used for RPKI
   functions will be procured, installed, maintained, and updated.  This
   should be done in a fashion commensurate with the way in which
   equipment for the management and distribution of INRs is handled.>

6.7.  Network Security Controls

   <Describe the network security controls that will be used for CA
   operation.  These should be commensurate with the network security
   controls employed for the computers used for managing distribution of
   INRs.>

6.8.  Time-Stamping

   The RPKI does not make use of time-stamping.

7.  Certificate and CRL Profiles

   See [RFC6487].




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 33]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


8.  Compliance Audit and Other Assessments

   <List here any audit and other assessments used to ensure the
   security of the administration of INRs.  These are sufficient for the
   RPKI systems.  However, additional forms of security assessments are
   a good idea and should be listed if performed.>

9.  Other Business and Legal Matters

   <The sections below are optional.  Fill them in as appropriate for
   your organization.  The CP says that CAs should cover Sections 9.1
   to 9.11 and 9.13 to 9.16, although not every CA will choose to do so.
   Note that the manner in which you manage your business and legal
   matters for this PKI should be commensurate with the way in which you
   manage business and legal matters for the distribution of INRs.>

9.1.  Fees

9.1.1.  Certificate Issuance or Renewal Fees

9.1.2.  Certificate Access Fees [OMITTED]

9.1.3.  Revocation or Status Information Access Fees [OMITTED]

9.1.4.  Fees for Other Services (if Applicable)

9.1.5.  Refund Policy

9.2.  Financial Responsibility

9.2.1.  Insurance Coverage

9.2.2.  Other Assets

9.2.3.  Insurance or Warranty Coverage for End-Entities

9.3.  Confidentiality of Business Information

9.3.1.  Scope of Confidential Information

9.3.2.  Information Not within the Scope of Confidential Information

9.3.3.  Responsibility to Protect Confidential Information

9.4.  Privacy of Personal Information

9.4.1.  Privacy Plan




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 34]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


9.4.2.  Information Treated as Private

9.4.3.  Information Not Deemed Private

9.4.4.  Responsibility to Protect Private Information

9.4.5.  Notice and Consent to Use Private Information

9.4.6.  Disclosure Pursuant to Judicial or Administrative Process

9.4.7.  Other Information Disclosure Circumstances

9.5.  Intellectual Property Rights (if Applicable)

9.6.  Representations and Warranties

9.6.1.  CA Representations and Warranties

9.6.2.  Subscriber Representations and Warranties

9.6.3.  Relying Party Representations and Warranties

9.7.  Disclaimers of Warranties

9.8.  Limitations of Liability

9.9.  Indemnities

9.10.  Term and Termination

9.10.1.  Term

9.10.2.  Termination

9.10.3.  Effect of Termination and Survival

9.11.  Individual Notices and Communications with Participants

9.12.  Amendments

9.12.1.  Procedure for Amendment

9.12.2.  Notification Mechanism and Period

9.13.  Dispute Resolution Provisions

9.14.  Governing Law




Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 35]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


9.15.  Compliance with Applicable Law

9.16.  Miscellaneous Provisions

9.16.1.  Entire Agreement

9.16.2.  Assignment

9.16.3.  Severability

9.16.4.  Enforcement (Attorneys' Fees and Waiver of Rights)

9.16.5.  Force Majeure

<END TEMPLATE TEXT>

10.  Security Considerations

   The degree to which a relying party can trust the binding embodied in
   a certificate depends on several factors.  These factors can include

   o  the practices followed by the Certification Authority (CA) in
      authenticating the subject

   o  the CA's operating policy, procedures, and technical security
      controls, including the scope of the subscriber's responsibilities
      (for example, in protecting the private key)

   o  the stated responsibilities and liability terms and conditions of
      the CA (for example, warranties, disclaimers of warranties, and
      limitations of liability)

   This document provides a framework to address the technical,
   procedural, personnel, and physical security aspects of Certification
   Authorities, Registration Authorities, repositories, subscribers, and
   relying party cryptographic modules, in order to ensure that the
   certificate generation, publication, renewal, re-key, usage, and
   revocation are done in a secure manner.  Specifically, the following
   sections are oriented towards ensuring the secure operation of the
   PKI entities such as CA, RA, repository, subscriber systems, and
   relying party systems:

      Section 3 ("Identification and Authentication" (I&A))
      Section 4 ("Certificate Life Cycle Operational Requirements")
      Section 5 ("Facility, Management, and Operational Controls")
      Section 6 ("Technical Security Controls")
      Section 7 ("Certificate and CRL Profiles")
      Section 8 ("Compliance Audit and Other Assessments")



Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 36]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6484]  Kent, S., Kong, D., Seo, K., and R. Watro, "Certificate
              Policy (CP) for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
              (RPKI)", BCP 173, RFC 6484, February 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6484>.

   [RFC6485]  Huston, G., "The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for
              Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)",
              RFC 6485, February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/
              info/rfc6485>.

   [RFC6487]  Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for
              X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487,
              February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6487>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [FIPS]     Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 140-3
              (FIPS-140-3), "Security Requirements for Cryptographic
              Modules", Information Technology Laboratory, National
              Institute of Standards and Technology, Work in Progress.

   [RFC3647]  Chokhani, S., Ford, W., Sabett, R., Merrill, C., and S.
              Wu, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
              Policy and Certification Practices Framework", RFC 3647,
              November 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3647>.

   [RFC6480]  Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
              Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>.

   [RFC6481]  Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for
              Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481,
              February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6481>.

   [RFC6482]  Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route
              Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, February 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6482>.






Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 37]


RFC 7382                Template CPS for the RPKI             April 2015


   [RFC6486]  Austein, R., Huston, G., Kent, S., and M. Lepinski,
              "Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
              (RPKI)", RFC 6486, February 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6486>.

   [RFC6489]  Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and S. Kent, "Certification
              Authority (CA) Key Rollover in the Resource Public Key
              Infrastructure (RPKI)", BCP 174, RFC 6489, February 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6489>.

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Matt Lepinski for help with the
   formatting, Ron Watro for assistance with the editing, and other
   members of the SIDR working group for reviewing this document.

Authors' Addresses

   Stephen Kent
   BBN Technologies
   10 Moulton Street
   Cambridge, MA  02138
   United States

   Phone: +1 (617) 873-3988
   EMail: skent@bbn.com


   Derrick Kong
   BBN Technologies
   10 Moulton Street
   Cambridge, MA  02138
   United States

   Phone: +1 (617) 873-1951
   EMail: dkong@bbn.com


   Karen Seo
   BBN Technologies
   10 Moulton Street
   Cambridge, MA  02138
   United States

   Phone: +1 (617) 873-3152
   EMail: kseo@bbn.com





Kent, et al.              Best Current Practice                [Page 38]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.114, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/