[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-huston-sidr-repos-struct) 00 01 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 6481

Secure Inter-Domain Routing                                    G. Huston
Internet-Draft                                                R. Loomans
Intended status: Standards Track                           G. Michaelson
Expires: January 29, 2012                                          APNIC
                                                           July 28, 2011


        A Profile for Resource Certificate Repository Structure
                  draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct-09.txt

Abstract

   This document defines a profile for the structure of the Resource PKI
   distributed repository.  Each individual repository publication point
   is a directory that contains files that correspond to X.509 / PKIX
   Resource Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists and signed
   objects.  This profile defines the object (file) naming scheme, the
   contents of repository publication points (directories), and a
   suggested internal structure of a local repository cache that is
   intended to facilitate synchronization across a distributed
   collection of repository publication points and to facilitate
   certification path construction.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 29, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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



Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


   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.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  RPKI Repository Publication Point Content and Structure  . . .  4
     2.1.  Manifests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  CA Repository Publication Points . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Resource Certificate Publication Repository Considerations . .  8
   4.  Certificate Re-issuance and Repositories . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Synchronising Repositories with a Local Cache  . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.1.  Media Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       7.1.1.  application/rpki-manifest  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       7.1.2.  application/rpki-roa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     7.2.  RPKI Repository Name Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15






















Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


1.  Introduction

   To validate attestations made in the context of the Resource Public
   Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch], relying parties (RPs)
   need access to all the X.509 / PKIX Resource Certificates,
   Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs), and signed objects that
   collectively define the RPKI.

   Each issuer of a certificate, CRL or a signed object makes it
   available for download to RPs through the publication of the object
   in an RPKI repository.

   The repository system is a collection of all signed objects that MUST
   be globally accessible to all RPs.  When certificates, CRLs and
   signed objects are created, they are uploaded to a repository
   publication point, from whence they can be downloaded for use by RPs.

   This profile defines the recommended object (file) naming scheme, the
   recommended contents of repository publication points (directories),
   and a suggested internal structure of a local repository cache that
   is intended to facilitate synchronization across a distributed
   collection of repository publication points and facilitate
   certification path construction.

   A Resource Certificate attests to a binding of an entity's public key
   to a set of IP address blocks and AS numbers.  The Subject of a
   Resource Certificate can demonstrate that it is the holder of the
   resources enumerated in the certificate by using its private key to
   generate a digital signature (that can be verified using the public
   key from the certificate).

1.1.  Terminology

   It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the terms and concepts
   described in "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
   and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile" [RFC5280], and "X.509
   Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers" [RFC3779].

   In addition, the following terms are used in this document:

   Repository Object (or Object):
      This refers to a terminal object in a repository publication
      point.  A terminal object is conventionally implemented as a file
      in a publicly accessible directory, where the file is not a
      directory itself, although other forms of objects that have an
      analogous public appearance to a file are encompassed by this
      term.




Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


   Repository Publication Point:
      This refers to a collection of Repository Objects that are
      published at a common publication point.  This is conventionally
      implemented as a directory in a publicly accessible filesystem
      that is identified by a URI [RFC3986], although other forms of
      local storage that have an analogous public appearance to a simple
      directory of files are also encompassed by this term.

   Repository Instance:
      This refers to a collection of one or more Repository Publication
      Points that share a common publication instance.  This
      conventionally is implemented as a collection of filesystem
      directories that share a common URI prefix, where each directory
      is also identifiable by its own unique URI.

   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].


2.  RPKI Repository Publication Point Content and Structure

   The RPKI does not require that a single repository instance contain
   all published RPKI objects.  Instead, the RPKI repository system is
   comprised of multiple repository instances.  Each individual
   repository instance is composed of one or more repository publication
   points.  Each repository publication point is used by one or more
   entities referenced in RPKI certificates, as defined in the
   certificate's Subject Information Authority (SIA) extension.

   This section describes the collection of objects (RPKI certificates,
   CRLs, manifests and signed objects) held in repository publication
   points.

   For every Certification Authority (CA) certificate in the RPKI there
   is a corresponding repository publication point that is the
   authoritative publication point for all current certificates and CRLs
   issued by this CA.  The certificate's SIA extension contains a URI
   [RFC3986] that references this repository publication point and
   identifies the repository access mechanisms.  Additionally, a
   certificate's Authority Information Access (AIA) extension contains a
   URI that references the authoritative location for the Certification
   Authority (CA) certificate under which the given certificate was
   issued.

   For example, if the subject of certificate A has issued certificates
   B and C, then the AIA extensions of certificates B and C both point
   to the publication point for the certificate A object, and the SIA



Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


   extension of certificate A points to a repository publication point
   (directory) containing certificates B and C (see Figure 1).

                      +--------+
           +--------->| Cert A |<----+
           |          |  AIA   |     |
           |  +--------- SIA   |     |
           |  |       +--------+     |
           |  |                      |
           |  |  +-------------------|------------------+
           |  |  |                   |                  |
           |  +->|   +--------+      |   +--------+     |
           |     |   | Cert B |      |   | Cert C |     |
           |     |   | CRLDP-------+ |   | CRLDP-----+  |
           +----------- AIA   |    | +----- AIA   |  |  |
                 |   |  SIA------+ |     |  SIA------------+
                 |   +--------+  | |     +--------+  |  |  |
                 |               | V                 V  |  |
                 |               | +-----------------+  |  |
                 |               | | CRL issued by A |  |  |
                 | A's Repository| +-----------------+  |  |
                 | Directory     |                      |  |
                 +---------------|----------------------+  |
                                 |                         |
       +----------------+        |    +----------------+   |
       | B's Repository |<-------+    | C's Repository |<--+
       |  Directory     |             |  Directory     |
       +----------------+             +----------------+

   Figure 1.  Use of AIA and SIA extensions in the RPKI.

   In Figure 1, certificates B and C are issued by (CA) A. Therefore,
   the AIA extensions of certificates B and C point to (certificate) A,
   and the SIA extension of certificate A points to the repository
   publication point of CA A's subordinate products, which includes
   certificates B and C, as well as the CRL issued by A. The CRL
   Distribution Points (CRLDP) extension in certificates B and C both
   point to the Certificate Revocation List (CRL) issued by A.

   In this distributed repository structure an instance of a CA's
   repository publication point contains all published certificates
   issued by that CA, and the CRL issued by that CA.  This repository
   also contains all published digitally signed objects that are
   verified by an EE certificate issued by this CA.







Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


2.1.  Manifests

   Every repository publication point MUST contain a manifest
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests].  The manifest contains a list of the
   names of all objects, as well as the hash value of each object's
   contents, that are currently published by a CA, or by an EE.

   An authority MAY perform a number of object operations on a
   publication repository within the scope of a repository change before
   issuing a single manifest that covers all the operations within the
   scope of this change.  Repository operators SHOULD implement some
   form of directory management regime function on the repository to
   ensure that RPs who are performing retrieval operations on the
   repository are not exposed to intermediate states during changes to
   the repository and the associated manifest.  (It is noted that if no
   such access regime is in place then RPs MAY be exposed to
   intermediate repository states where the manifest and the repository
   contents may not be precisely aligned.  Specific cases and actions in
   such situation of mis-alignment of the manifest and the repository
   contents are considered in [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests])

2.2.  CA Repository Publication Points

   A CA Certificate has two accessMethod elements specified in its SIA
   field.  The id-ad-caRepository accessMethod element has an associated
   accessLocation element that points to the repository publication
   point of the certificates issued by this CA, as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs].  The id-ad-rpkiManifest accessMethod
   element has an associated accessLocation element that points to the
   manifest object, as an object URI (as distinct to a directory URI),
   that is associated with this CA.

   A CA's publication repository contains the current (non-expired and
   non-revoked) certificates issued by this CA, the most recent CRL
   issued by this CA, the current manifest, and all other current signed
   objects that can be verified using an EE certificate
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs] issued by this CA.

   The CA's manifest contains the names of this collection of objects,
   together with the hash value of each object's contents, with the
   single exception of the manifest itself.

   The RPKI design requires that a CA be uniquely associated with a
   single key pair.  Thus, the administrative entity that is a CA
   performs key rollover by generating a new CA certificate with a new
   Subject name, as well as a new key pair [I-D.ietf-sidr-keyroll].
   (The reason for the new Subject name is that in the context of the
   RPKI the Subject names in all certificates issued by a CA are



Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


   intended to be unique, and because the RPKI key rollover procedure
   creates a new instance of a CA with the new key, the name constraint
   implies the need for a new Subject name for the CA with the new key.)
   In such cases the entity SHOULD continue to use the same repository
   publication point for both CA instances during the key rollover,
   ensuring that the value of the AIA extension in indirect subordinate
   objects that refer to the certificates issued by this CA remain valid
   across the key rollover, and that the re-issuance of subordinate
   certificates in a key rollover is limited to the collection of
   immediate subordinate products of this CA [I-D.ietf-sidr-keyroll].
   In such cases the repository publication point will contain the CRL,
   manifest and subordinate certificates of both CA instances.  (It is
   feasible for the entity to use distinct repository publication points
   for the old and new CA keys, but in such a case very careful
   coordination would be required with subordinate CAs and EEs to ensure
   that the AIA pointers in the indirect subordinate levels of the RPKI
   hierarchy are correctly aligned to the subordinate products of the
   new CA.)

   The following paragraphs provide guidelines for naming objects in a
   CA's repository publication point:

   CRL:
      When a CA issues a new CRL, it replaces the previous CRL (issued
      under the same CA key pair) in the repository publication point.
      CAs MUST NOT continue to publish previous CRLs in the repository
      publication point.  Thus, it MUST replace (overwrite) previous
      CRLs signed by the same CA (instance).  A non-normative guideline
      for naming such objects is that the file name chosen for the CRL
      in the repository be a value derived from the public key of the
      CA.  One such method of generating a CRL publication name is
      described in section 2.1 of [RFC4387]; convert the 160-bit hash of
      a CA's public key value into a 27-character string using a
      modified form of Base64 encoding, with an additional modification
      as proposed in section 5, table 2, of [RFC4648].  The filename
      extension of ".crl" MUST be used, to denote the file as a CRL.
      Each ".crl" file contains exactly one CRL, encoded in DER format.

   Manifest:
      When a new instance of a manifest is published, it MUST replace
      the previous manifest, to avoid confusion.  CAs MUST NOT continue
      to publish previous CA manifests in the repository publication
      point.  A non-normative guideline for naming such objects is that
      the filename chosen for the manifest in the publication repository
      be a value derived from the public key part of the entity's key
      pair, using the algorithm described for CRLs above for generation
      of filenames.  The filename extension of ".mft" MUST be used, to
      denote the object as a manifest.



Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


   Certificates:
      Within the RPKI framework it is possible that a CA MAY issue a
      series of certificates to the same subject name, the same subject
      public key, and the same resource collection.  However, a relying
      party requires access only to the most recently published
      certificate in such a series.  Thus, such a series of certificates
      SHOULD share the same filename.  This ensures that each successive
      issued certificate in such a series effectively overwrites the
      previous instance of the certificate.  It is feasible to use
      different filenames, but this imposes a burden on the validating
      user.  A non-normative guideline for naming such objects is for
      the CA to adopt a (local) policy requiring a subject to use a
      unique key pair for each unique instance of a certificate series
      issued to the same subject, thereby allowing the CA to use a file
      name generation scheme based on the subject's public key, e.g.,
      using the algorithm described above for CRLs above.  Published
      certificates MUST use a filename extension of ".cer" to denote the
      object as a certificate.  Each ".cer" file contains exactly one
      certificate, encoded in DER format.

   Signed Objects:
      RPKI Signed objects [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object] are published in
      the repository publication point referenced by the SIA of the CA
      certificate that issued the EE certificate used to validate the
      digital signature of the signed object (and are directly
      referenced by the SIA of that EE certificate).  A general non-
      normative guideline for naming such RPKI Signed Objects is for the
      filename of such objects to be derived from the associated EE
      certificate's public key, applying the algorithm described above.
      Published RPKI Signed Objects MUST NOT use the filename extensions
      ".crl", ".mft", or ".cer".

      One form of signed object defined at the time of publication of
      this document is a Route Origination Authorization (ROA)
      [I-D.ietf-sidr-roa-format].  Published ROAs MUST use a filename
      extension of ".roa" to denote the object as a ROA.


3.  Resource Certificate Publication Repository Considerations

   Each issuer MAY publish its issued certificates and CRL in any
   repository.  However, there are a number of considerations that guide
   the choice of a suitable repository publication structure:

      *  The publication repository SHOULD be hosted on a highly
         available service and high capacity publication platform.





Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


      *  The publication repository MUST be available using RSYNC
         [RFC5781] [RSYNC].  Support of additional retrieval mechanisms
         is the choice of the repository operator.  The supported
         retrieval mechanisms MUST be consistent with the accessMethod
         element value(s) specified in the SIA of the associated CA or
         EE certificate.

      *  Each CA repository publication point SHOULD contain the
         products of this CA, including those objects that can be
         verified by EE certificates that have been issued by this CA.
         The signed products of related CA's that are operated by the
         same entity MAY share this CA repository publication point.
         Aside from subdirectories, any other objects SHOULD NOT be
         placed in a repository publication point.

         Any such subdirectory SHOULD be the repository publication
         point of a CA or EE certificate that is contained in the CA
         directory.  These considerations also apply recursively to
         subdirectories of these directories.  Detection of content
         which is not a CA product has the potential to cause confusion
         to RPs, and in such a case RPs should exercise caution in such
         cases not invalidate the valid CA products found at the CA's
         repository publication point.

      *  Signed Objects are published in the location indicated by the
         SIA field of the EE certificate used to verify the signature of
         each object.  Signed objects are published in the repository
         publication point of the CA certificate that issued the EE
         certificate.  The SIA extension of the EE certificate
         references this object rather than the repository publication
         directory[I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs].

      *  Section 2.1 states that repository operators SHOULD implement
         some form of directory management regime function on the
         repository to ensure that RPs who are performing retrieval
         operations on the repository are not exposed to intermediate
         states during changes to the repository and the associated
         manifest.  Notwithstanding the following commentary, RPs SHOULD
         NOT assume that a consistent repository and manifest state is
         assured, and organise their retrieval operations accordingly
         (see Section 5).

         The manner in which a repository operator can implement a
         directory update regime that mitigates the risk of the manifest
         and directory contents being inconsistent, to some extent, is
         dependent on the operational characteristics of the filesystem
         that hosts the repository, so the following comments are non-
         normative in terms of any implicit guidelines for repository



Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


         operators.

         A commonly used technique to avoid exposure to inconsistent
         retrieval states during updates to a large directory, is to
         batch a set of changes to be made, create a working copy of the
         directory's contents, and then perform the batch of changes to
         this local copy of the directory.  On completion, rename the
         filesystem symbolic link of the repository directory name to
         point to this working copy of the directory.  The old
         repository directory contents can be purged at a slightly later
         time.  However, it is noted that the outcomes of this technique
         in terms of ensuring the integrity of client synchronization
         functions performed over the directory depend on the
         interaction between the supported access mechanisms and the
         local filesystem behaviour.  It is probable that this technique
         will not remove all possibilities for RPs to see inconsistent
         states between the manifest and the repository.  Because a
         repository has the potential to be in an partially updated
         state it cannot be guaranteed to be internally self consistent
         all the time.


4.  Certificate Re-issuance and Repositories

   If a CA certificate is re-issued, e.g., due to changes in the set of
   resources contained in the number resource extensions, it should not
   be necessary to re-issue all certificates issued under it.  Because
   these certificates contain AIA extensions that point to the
   publication point for the CA certificate, a CA SHOULD use a name for
   its repository publication point that persists across certificate re-
   issuance events.  That is, re-issued CA certificates SHOULD use the
   same repository publication point as previously issued CA
   certificates having the same subject and subject public key, such
   that certificate re-issuance SHOULD intentionally overwrite the
   previously issued certificate within the repository publication
   point.

   It is noted in section Section 2.2 that when a CA performs a key
   rollover the entity SHOULD use a name for its repository publication
   point that persists across key rollover.  In such cases the
   repository publication point will contain the CRLs, and manifests of
   both CA instances as a transient state in the key rollover procedure.
   The RPKI key rollover procedure [I-D.ietf-sidr-keyroll] requires that
   the subordinate products of the old CA are overwritten in the common
   repository publication point by subordinate products issued by the
   new CA.





Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


5.  Synchronising Repositories with a Local Cache

   It is possible to perform the validation-related task of certificate
   path construction using retrieval of individual certificates and
   certificate revocation lists using online retrieval of individual
   certificates, sets of candidate certificates and certificate
   revocation lists based on the AIA, SIA and CRLDP certificate fields.
   This is NOT recommended in circumstances where speed and efficiency
   are relevant considerations.

   To enable efficient validation of RPKI certificates, CRLs, and signed
   objects, it is recommended that each relying party maintain a local
   repository containing a synchronized copy of all valid certificates,
   current certificate revocation lists, and all related signed objects.

   The general approach to repository synchronization is one of a "top-
   down" walk of the distributed repository structure.  This commences
   with the collection of locally selected trust anchor material
   corresponding to the local choice of Trust Anchors, which can be used
   to load the initial set of self-signed resource certificate(s) that
   form the "seed" of this process [I-D.ietf-sidr-ta].  The process then
   populates the local repository cache will all valid certificates that
   have been issued by these issuers.  This procedure can be recursively
   applied to each of these subordinate certificates.  Such a repository
   traversal process SHOULD support a locally configured maximal chain
   length from the initial trust anchors.  If this is not done then
   there might be a SIA pointer loop, or other degnerate forms of the
   logical RPKI hierarchy that would cause an RP to malfunction when
   performing a repository synchronization operation with the RP's local
   RPKI cache.

   RPs SHOULD ensure that this local synchronization uses the retrieved
   manifests [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests] to ensure that they are
   synchronizing against a current consistent state of each repository
   publication point.  It is noted in Section 3 that a repository
   operator cannot assure RPs that when the repository publication point
   contents are updated that the manifest contents and the repository
   contents will be precisely aligned at all times.  RPs SHOULD use a
   retrieval algorithm that takes this potential for transient
   inconsistency into account.  Possible algorithms for the RP to
   mitigate this situation include performing the synchronization across
   the repository twice in succession, or performing a manifest
   retrieval both before and after the synchronization of the directory
   contents, and repeating the synchronization function if the second
   copy of the manifest differs from the first.






Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


6.  Security Considerations

   Repositories are not assumed to be integrity-protected databases, and
   repository retrieval operations might be vulnerable to various forms
   of "man-in-the-middle" attacks.  Corruption of retrieved objects is
   detectable by a relying party through the validation of the signature
   associated with each retrieved object.  Replacement of newer
   instances of an object with an older instance of the same object is
   detectable through the use of manifests.  Insertion of revoked,
   deleted certificates is detected through the retrieval and processing
   of CRLs at scheduled intervals.  However, even the use of manifests
   and CRLs will not allow a relying party to detect all forms of
   substitution attacks based on older (but not expired) valid objects.

   Confidentiality is not provided by the repository, or by the signed
   objects published in the repository.  Data that is subject to
   controlled access should not be included in signed objects in the
   repository unless there is some specified mechanism used to ensure
   the confidentiality of the data contained in the signed object.


7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  Media Types

   IANA is requested to register the following two media types:

     application/rpki-manifest
     application/rpki-roa

   This document also uses the .cer and .crl file extensions from
   application/pkix-cert and application/pkix-crl media registries
   defined in [RFC2585].

7.1.1.  application/rpki-manifest

   MIME media type name:  application
   MIME subtype name:  rpki-manifest
   Required parameters:  None
   Optional parameters:  None
   Encoding considerations:  binary
   Security considerations:  Carries a RPKI Manifest
      [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests].
   Interoperability considerations:  None







Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


   Published specification:  This document
   Applications which use this media type:  Any MIME-complaint transport
   Additional information:
      Magic number(s):  None
      File extension(s):  .mft
      Macintosh File Type Code(s):
   Person & email address to contact for further information:  Geoff
      Huston <gih@apnic.net>
   Intended usage:  COMMON
   Author/Change controller:  Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>

7.1.2.  application/rpki-roa

   MIME media type name:  application>
   MIME subtype name:  rpki-roa
   Required parameters:  None
   Optional parameters:  None
   Encoding considerations:  binary
   Security considerations:  Carries a RPKI ROA
      [I-D.ietf-sidr-roa-format]
   Interoperability considerations:  None
   Published specification:  This document
   Applications which use this media type:  Any MIME-complaint transport
   Additional information:
      Magic number(s):  None
      File extension(s):  .roa
      Macintosh File Type Code(s):
   Person & email address to contact for further information:  Geoff
      Huston <gih@apnic.net>
   Intended usage:  COMMON
   Author/Change controller:  Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>

7.2.  RPKI Repository Name Scheme Registry

   IANA is requested to create the "RPKI Repository Name Scheme"
   registry.  The registry will contain three-letter filename extensions
   for RPKI repository objects.  The registry's contents is to be
   managed by IETF Review [RFC5226].  The initial contents of this
   register will include the following:

   Filename extension  RPKI Object                                       Reference
      .cer             Certificate                     [RFC-to-be]
      .crl             Certificate Revocation List     [RFC-to-be]
      .mft             Manifest                        [RFC-to-be]
      .roa             Route Origination Authorization [RFC-to-be]






      Expires January 29, 2012               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


8.  Acknowledgements

   This document has benefitted from helpful review comments and input
   from Stephen Kent, Matt Lepenski, Michael Elkins, Russ Housley and
   Sean Turner.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-res-certs]
              Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for
              X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates",
              draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs-21.txt (work in progress),
              December 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-roa-format]
              Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route
              Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", draft-ietf-sidr-roa-format
              (work in progress), October 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests]
              Austein, R., Huston, G., Kent, S., and M. Lepinski,
              "Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure",
              draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests-13.txt (work in progress),
              June 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object]
              Lepinski, M., Chi, A., and S. Kent, "Signed Object
              Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure",
              draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-01.txt (work in progress),
              October 2010.

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

   [RSYNC]    Tridgell, A., "rsync", March 2008,
              <http://rsync.samba.org/>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch]
              Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
              Secure Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-12.txt
              (work in progress), February 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-keyroll]



Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


              Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and S. Kent, "CA Key Rollover
              in the RPKI", draft-ietf-sidr-keyroll-07.txt (work in
              progress), June 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-ta]
              Huston, G., Weiler, S., Michaelson, G., and S. Kent, "A
              Profile for Trust Anchor Material for the Resource
              Certificate PKI", draft-ietf-sidr-ta-07.txt (work in
              progress), Aprril 2011.

   [RFC2585]  Housley, R. and P. Hoffman, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP",
              RFC 2585, May 1999.

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

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC4387]  Gutmann, P., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
              Operational Protocols: Certificate Store Access via HTTP",
              RFC 4387, February 2006.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

   [RFC5781]  Weiler, S., Ward, D., and R. Housley, "The rsync URI
              Scheme", RFC 5781, February 2010.












Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        ResCert Repository Structure             July 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Geoff Huston
   APNIC

   Email: gih@apnic.net
   URI:   http://www.apnic.net


   Robert Loomans
   APNIC

   Email: robertl@apnic.net
   URI:   http://www.apnic.net


   George Michaelson
   APNIC

   Email: ggm@apnic.net
   URI:   http://www.apnic.net






























Huston, et al.          Expires January 29, 2012               [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/