[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-sidr-s...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Errata]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Errata Exist
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       M. Lepinski
Request for Comments: 6488                                        A. Chi
Category: Standards Track                                        S. Kent
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                      BBN
                                                           February 2012


                       Signed Object Template for
             the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)

Abstract

   This document defines a generic profile for signed objects used in
   the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI).  These RPKI signed
   objects make use of Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) as a standard
   encapsulation format.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   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 Internet Standards 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/rfc6488.

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
   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.





Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         February 2012


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Terminology ................................................3
      1.2. Note on Algorithms .........................................3
   2. Signed Object Syntax ............................................3
      2.1. Signed-Data Content Type ...................................4
           2.1.1. version .............................................4
           2.1.2. digestAlgorithms ....................................4
           2.1.3. encapContentInfo ....................................4
                  2.1.3.1. eContentType ...............................5
                  2.1.3.2. eContent ...................................5
           2.1.4. certificates ........................................5
           2.1.5. crls ................................................5
           2.1.6. signerInfos .........................................5
                  2.1.6.1. version ....................................6
                  2.1.6.2. sid ........................................6
                  2.1.6.3. digestAlgorithm ............................6
                  2.1.6.4. signedAttrs ................................6
                           2.1.6.4.1. Content-Type Attribute ..........7
                           2.1.6.4.2. Message-Digest Attribute ........7
                           2.1.6.4.3. Signing-Time Attribute ..........7
                           2.1.6.4.4. Binary-Signing-Time Attribute ...8
                  2.1.6.5. signatureAlgorithm .........................8
                  2.1.6.6. signatureValue .............................8
                  2.1.6.7. unsigneAttrs ...............................8
   3. Signed Object Validation ........................................8
   4. Definition of Specific Signed Objects ..........................10
   5. Security Considerations ........................................10
   6. IANA Considerations ............................................11
   7. Acknowledgements ...............................................11
   8. Normative References ...........................................11
   9. Informative References .........................................12

1.  Introduction

   The purpose of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is to
   support assertions by current resource holders of IP (v4 and v6)
   address space and AS numbers, based on the records of organizations
   that act as Certification Authorities (CAs).  IP address and AS
   number resource information is carried in X.509 certificates via RFC
   3779 extensions [RFC6487].  Other information assertions about
   resources are expressed via digitally signed, non-X.509 data
   structures that are referred to as "signed objects" in the RPKI
   context [RFC6480].  This document standardizes a template for
   specifying signed objects that can be validated using the RPKI.





Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         February 2012


   RPKI signed objects make use of Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
   [RFC5652] as a standard encapsulation format.  CMS was chosen to take
   advantage of existing open source software available for processing
   messages in this format.  RPKI signed objects adhere to a profile
   (specified in Section 2) of the CMS signed-data object.

   The template defined in this document for RPKI signed objects is not
   a complete specification for any particular type of signed object,
   and instead includes only the items that are common to all RPKI
   signed objects.  That is, fully specifying a particular type of
   signed object requires an additional document that specifies the
   details specific to a particular type of signed object.  Such details
   include Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [X.208-88] for the
   object's payload and any additional steps required to validate the
   particular type of signed object.  Section 4 describes in more detail
   the additional pieces that must be specified in order to define a new
   type of RPKI signed object that uses this template.  Additionally,
   see [RFC6482] for an example of a document that uses this template to
   specify a particular type of signed object, the Route Origination
   Authorization (ROA).

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], "X.509
   Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers" [RFC3779], and
   "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)" [RFC5652].

   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].

1.2.  Note on Algorithms

   CMS is a general format capable of accommodating a wide variety of
   signature and digest algorithms.  The algorithms used in the RPKI
   (and associated key sizes) are specified in [RFC6485].

2.  Signed Object Syntax

   The RPKI signed object is a profile of the CMS [RFC5652] signed-data
   object, with the restriction that RPKI signed objects MUST be encoded
   using the ASN.1 Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) [X.509-88].







Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         February 2012


   The general format of a CMS object is:

      ContentInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
        contentType ContentType,
        content [0] EXPLICIT ANY DEFINED BY contentType }

      ContentType ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER

   The content-type is the signed-data type of id-data, namely the
   id-signedData OID [RFC5652], 1.2.840.113549.1.7.2.

2.1.  Signed-Data Content Type

   According to the CMS standard, the signed-data content type is the
   ASN.1 type SignedData:

      SignedData ::= SEQUENCE {
        version CMSVersion,
        digestAlgorithms DigestAlgorithmIdentifiers,
        encapContentInfo EncapsulatedContentInfo,
        certificates [0] IMPLICIT CertificateSet OPTIONAL,
        crls [1] IMPLICIT RevocationInfoChoices OPTIONAL,
        signerInfos SignerInfos }

      DigestAlgorithmIdentifiers ::= SET OF DigestAlgorithmIdentifier

      SignerInfos ::= SET OF SignerInfo

   Additionally, the SignerInfos set MUST contain only a single
   SignerInfo object.

2.1.1.  version

   The version is the syntax version number.  It MUST be 3,
   corresponding to the signerInfo structure having version number 3.

2.1.2.  digestAlgorithms

   The digestAlgorithms set contains the OIDs of the digest algorithm(s)
   used in signing the encapsulated content.  This set MUST contain
   exactly one digest algorithm OID, and the OID MUST be selected from
   those specified in [RFC6485].

2.1.3.  encapContentInfo

   encapContentInfo is the signed content, consisting of a content type
   identifier and the content itself.  The encapContentInfo represents
   the payload of the RPKI signed object.



Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         February 2012


        EncapsulatedContentInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
          eContentType ContentType,
          eContent [0] EXPLICIT OCTET STRING OPTIONAL }

        ContentType ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER

2.1.3.1.  eContentType

   This field is left undefined by this profile.  The eContentType is an
   OID specifying the type of payload in this signed object and MUST be
   specified by the Internet Standards Track document that defines the
   object.

2.1.3.2.  eContent

   This field is left undefined by this profile.  The eContent is the
   payload of the signed object and MUST be specified by the Internet
   Standards Track document that defines the RPKI object.

   Note that the signed object profile does not provide version numbers
   for signed objects.  Therefore, in order to facilitate transition to
   new versions of the signed objects over time, it is RECOMMENDED that
   each type of signed object defined using this profile include a
   version number within its eContent.

2.1.4.  certificates

   The certificates field MUST be included, and MUST contain exactly one
   certificate, the RPKI end-entity (EE) certificate needed to validate
   this signed object.

2.1.5.  crls

   The crls field MUST be omitted.

2.1.6.  signerInfos

   SignerInfo is defined in CMS as:

         SignerInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
           version CMSVersion,
           sid SignerIdentifier,
           digestAlgorithm DigestAlgorithmIdentifier,
           signedAttrs [0] IMPLICIT SignedAttributes OPTIONAL,
           signatureAlgorithm SignatureAlgorithmIdentifier,
           signature SignatureValue,
           unsignedAttrs [1] IMPLICIT UnsignedAttributes OPTIONAL }




Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         February 2012


2.1.6.1.  version

   The version number MUST be 3, corresponding with the choice of
   SubjectKeyIdentifier for the sid.

2.1.6.2.  sid

   The sid is defined as:

         SignerIdentifier ::= CHOICE {
           issuerAndSerialNumber IssuerAndSerialNumber,
           subjectKeyIdentifier [0] SubjectKeyIdentifier }

   For RPKI signed objects, the sid MUST be the SubjectKeyIdentifier
   that appears in the EE certificate carried in the CMS certificates
   field.

2.1.6.3.  digestAlgorithm

   The digestAlgorithm MUST consist of the OID of a digest algorithm
   that conforms to the RPKI Algorithms and Key Size Profile
   specification [RFC6485].

2.1.6.4.  signedAttrs

   The signedAttrs is defined as:

         SignedAttributes ::= SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Attribute

         Attribute ::= SEQUENCE {
           attrType OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
           attrValues SET OF AttributeValue }

         AttributeValue ::= ANY

   The signedAttrs element MUST be present and MUST include the content-
   type and message-digest attributes [RFC5652].  The signer MAY also
   include the signing-time attribute [RFC5652], the binary-signing-time
   attribute [RFC6019], or both attributes.  Other signed attributes
   MUST NOT be included.

   The signedAttrs element MUST include only a single instance of any
   particular attribute.  Additionally, even though the syntax allows
   for a SET OF AttributeValue, in an RPKI signed object, the attrValues
   MUST consist of only a single AttributeValue.






Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         February 2012


2.1.6.4.1.  Content-Type Attribute

   The content-type attribute MUST be present.  The attrType OID for the
   content-type attribute is 1.2.840.113549.1.9.3.

   The attrValues for the content-type attribute MUST match the
   eContentType in the EncapsulatedContentInfo.  Thus, attrValues MUST
   contain the OID that specifies the payload type of the specific RPKI
   signed object carried in the CMS signed data structure.

2.1.6.4.2.  Message-Digest Attribute

   The message-digest attribute MUST be present.  The attrType OID for
   the message-digest attribute is 1.2.840.113549.1.9.4.

   The attrValues for the message-digest attribute contains the output
   of the digest algorithm applied to the content being signed, as
   specified in Section 5.4 of [RFC5652].

2.1.6.4.3.  Signing-Time Attribute

   The signing-time attribute MAY be present.  Note that the presence or
   absence of the signing-time attribute MUST NOT affect the validity of
   the signed object (as specified in Section 3).  The attrType OID for
   the signing-time attribute is 1.2.840.113549.1.9.5.

         id-signingTime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
             us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 5 }

   The attrValues for the signing-time attribute is defined as:

         SigningTime ::= Time

         Time ::= CHOICE {
           utcTime UTCTime,
           generalizedTime GeneralizedTime }

   The Time element specifies the time, based on the local system clock,
   at which the digital signature was applied to the content.

   The definition of Time matches the one specified in the 1997 version
   of X.509.  Additional information regarding the use of UTCTime and
   GeneralizedTime can be found in [RFC5652].








Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         February 2012


2.1.6.4.4.  Binary-Signing-Time Attribute

   The binary-signing-time attribute MAY be present.  Note that the
   presence or absence of the binary-signing-time attribute MUST NOT
   affect the validity of the signed object (as specified in Section 3).
   The attrType OID for the binary-signing-time attribute is
   1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2.46.

         id-aa-binarySigningTime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
             member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9)
             smime(16) aa(2) 46 }
   The attrValues for the signing-time attribute is defined as:

         BinarySigningTime ::= BinaryTime

         BinaryTime ::= INTEGER (0..MAX)

   The BinaryTime element specifies the time, based on the local system
   clock, at which the digital signature was applied to the content.
   The precise definition of the BinaryTime element can be found in
   [RFC6019].

2.1.6.5.  signatureAlgorithm

   The signatureAlgorithm MUST conform to the RPKI Algorithms and Key
   Size Profile specification [RFC6485].

2.1.6.6.  signature

   The signature value is defined as:

         SignatureValue ::= OCTET STRING

   The signature characteristics are defined by the digest and signature
   algorithms.

2.1.6.7.  unsignedAttrs

   unsignedAttrs MUST be omitted.

3.  Signed Object Validation

   Before a relying party can use a signed object, the relying party
   MUST validate the signed object by verifying that all of the
   following conditions hold.  A relying party may perform these checks
   in any order.  Note that these checks are necessary, but not
   sufficient.  In general, further validation MUST be performed based
   on the specific type of signed object.



Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 8]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         February 2012


   1.  The signed object syntax complies with this specification.  In
       particular, each of the following is true:

      a.  The content-type of the CMS object is SignedData (OID
          1.2.840.113549.1.7.2)

      b.  The version of the SignedData object is 3.

      c.  The certificates field in the SignedData object is present and
          contains one EE certificate, the SubjectKeyIdentifier field of
          which matches the sid field of the SignerInfo object.

      d.  The crls field in the SignedData object is omitted.

      e.  The version of the SignerInfo is 3.

      f.  The signedAttrs field in the SignerInfo object is present and
          contains both the content-type attribute (OID
          1.2.840.113549.1.9.3) and the message-digest attribute (OID
          1.2.840.113549.1.9.4).

      g.  The signedAttrs field in the SignerInfo object does not
          contain any attributes other than the following four: the
          content-type attribute (OID 1.2.840.113549.1.9.3), the
          message-digest attribute (OID 1.2.840.113549.1.9.4), the
          signing-time attribute (OID 1.2.840.113549.1.9.5), and the
          binary-signing-time attribute (OID
          1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2.46).  Note that the signing-time and
          binary-signing-time attributes MAY be present, but they are
          not required.

      h.  The eContentType in the EncapsulatedContentInfo is an OID that
          matches the attrValues in the content-type attribute.

      i.  The unsignedAttrs field in the SignerInfo object is omitted.

      j.  The digestAlgorithm in the SignedData and SignerInfo objects
          conforms to the RPKI Algorithms and Key Size Profile
          specification [RFC6485].

      k.  The signatureAlgorithm in the SignerInfo object conforms to
          the RPKI Algorithms and Key Size Profile specification
          [RFC6485].

      l.  The signed object is DER encoded.






Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 9]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         February 2012


   2.  The public key of the EE certificate (contained within the CMS
       signed-data object) can be used to successfully verify the
       signature on the signed object.

   3.  The EE certificate (contained within the CMS signed-data object)
       is a valid EE certificate in the RPKI as specified by [RFC6487].
       In particular, a valid certification path from a trust anchor to
       this EE certificate exists.

   If the above procedure indicates that the signed object is invalid,
   then the signed object MUST be discarded and treated as though no
   signed object were present.  If all of the conditions above are true,
   then the signed object may be valid.  The relying party MUST then
   perform any additional validation steps required for the particular
   type of signed object.

   Note that a previously valid signed object will cease to be valid
   when the associated EE certificate ceases to be valid (for example,
   when the end of the certificate's validity period is reached, or when
   the certificate is revoked by the authority that issued it).  See
   [RFC6487] for a complete specification of resource certificate
   validity.

4.  Definition of Specific Signed Objects

   Each RPKI signed object MUST be defined in an Internet Standards
   Track document based on this profile, by specifying the following
   data elements and validation procedure:

   1.  eContentType:  A single OID to be used for both the eContentType
       field and the content-type attribute.  This OID uniquely
       identifies the type of signed object.

   2.  eContent:  Define the syntax for the eContent field in
       encapContentInfo.  This is the payload that contains the data
       specific to a given type of signed object.

   3.  Additional Validation:  Define a set of additional validation
       steps for the specific signed object.  Before using this specific
       signed object, a relying party MUST perform both the generic
       validation steps in Section 3 above, as well as these additional
       steps.

5.  Security Considerations

   There is no assumption of confidentiality for the data in an RPKI
   signed object.  The integrity and authenticity of each signed object
   is based on the verification of the object's digital signature, and



Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 10]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         February 2012


   the validation of the EE certificate used to perform that
   verification.  It is anticipated that signed objects will be stored
   in repositories that will be publicly accessible.

   Since RPKI signed objects make use of CMS as an encapsulation format,
   the security considerations for CMS apply [RFC5652].

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has created a registry of "RPKI Signed Objects" types that
   utilize the template defined in this document.  This registry
   contains three fields: an informal name for the signed object, the
   OID for the eContentType of the signed object, and a specification
   pointer that references the RFC in which the signed object is
   specified.  The entries in this registry are managed by IETF
   Standards Action.

   The registry has been initially populated with the following two
   entries.

   Name      |    OID                      | Specification
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   ROA       | 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.24  | RFC 6482
   Manifest  | 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.26  | RFC 6486

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Charles Gardiner, Russ Housley, and Derek
   Kong for their help and contributions.  Additionally, the authors
   would like to thank Rob Austein, Roque Gagliano, Danny McPherson,
   Sean Turner, and Sam Weiler for their careful reviews and helpful
   comments.

8.  Normative References

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

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

   [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.

   [RFC5652]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
              RFC 5652, September 2009.



Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 11]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         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.

   [X.208-88] CCITT.  Recommendation X.208: Specification of Abstract
              Syntax Notation One (ASN.1), 1988.

   [X.509-88] CCITT.  Recommendation X.509: The Directory Authentication
              Framework, 1988.

9.  Informative References

   [RFC6019]  Housley, R., "BinaryTime: An Alternate Format for
              Representing Date and Time in ASN.1", RFC 6019, September
              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.


























Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 12]

RFC 6488               RPKI Signed Object Template         February 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Matt Lepinski
   BBN Technologies
   10 Moulton Street
   Cambridge MA 02138

   EMail: mlepinski@bbn.com


   Andrew Chi
   BBN Technologies
   10 Moulton Street
   Cambridge MA 02138

   EMail: achi@bbn.com


   Stephen Kent
   BBN Technologies
   10 Moulton Street
   Cambridge MA 02138

   EMail: kent@bbn.com



























Lepinski, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 13]


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