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

Versions: (draft-weiler-sidr-publication) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 8181

Network Working Group                                          S. Weiler
Internet-Draft                                              SPARTA, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                             A. Sonalker
Expires: August 16, 2014                     Battelle Memorial Institute
                                                              R. Austein
                                                    Dragon Research Labs
                                                       February 12, 2014


A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
                     draft-ietf-sidr-publication-05

Abstract

   This document defines a protocol for publishing Resource Public Key
   Infrastructure (RPKI) objects.  Even though the RPKI will have many
   participants issuing certificates and creating other objects, it is
   operationally useful to consolidate the publication of those objects.
   This document provides the protocol for doing so.

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 August 16, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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



Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          RPKI Publication Protocol          February 2014


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Protocol Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Common XML Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Publication and Withdrawal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Error handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  XML Schema  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  <publish/> Query  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  <publish/> Reply  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  <withdraw/> Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  <withdraw/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.5.  <report_error/> With Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.6.  <report_error/> Without Text  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   This document assumes a working knowledge of the Resource Public Key
   Infrastructure (RPKI), which is intended to support improved routing
   security on the Internet.  [RFC6480]

   In order to make participation in the RPKI easier, it is helpful to
   have a few consolidated repositories for RPKI objects, thus saving
   every participant from the cost of maintaining a new service.
   Similarly, relying parties using the RPKI objects will find it faster
   and more reliable to retrieve the necessary set from a smaller number
   of repositories.

   These consolidated RPKI object repositories will in many cases be
   outside the administrative scope of the organization issuing a given
   RPKI object.  In some cases, outsourcing operation of the repository
   will be an explicit goal: some resource holders who stringly wish to
   control their own RPKI private keys may lack the resources to operate
   a 24x7 repository, or may simply not wish to do so.




Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          RPKI Publication Protocol          February 2014


   The operator of an RPKI publication repository may well be an
   Internet registry which issues certificates to its customers, but it
   need not be; conceptually, operation of a an RPKI publication
   repository is separate from operation of RPKI CA.

   This document defines an RPKI publication protocol which allows
   publication either within or across organizational boundaries, and
   which makes fairly minimal demands on either the CA engine or the
   publication service.

1.1.  Terminology

   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].

   "Publication engine" and "publication server" are used
   interchangeably to refer to the server providing the service
   described in this document.

   "Business Public Key Infrastructure" ("Business PKI" or "BPKI")
   refers to a PKI, separate from the RPKI, used to authenticate clients
   to the publication engine.  We use the term "Business PKI" here
   because an internet registry might already have a PKI for
   authenticating its clients and might wish to reuse that PKI for this
   protocol.  There is, however, no requirement to reuse such a PKI.

2.  Protocol Specification

   The publication protocol uses XML messages wrapped in signed CMS
   messages, carried over HTTP transport.

   The publication protocol uses a simple request/response interaction.
   The client passes a request to the server, and the server generates a
   corresponding response.

   A message exchange commences with the client initiating an HTTP POST
   with content type of "application/rpki-publication", with the message
   object as the body.  The server's response will similarly be the body
   of the response with a content type of "application/rpki-
   publication".

   The content of the POST and the server's response will be a well-
   formed Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] object with OID =
   1.2.840.113549.1.7.2 as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC6492].






Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          RPKI Publication Protocol          February 2014


2.1.  Common XML Message Format

   The XML schema for this protocol is below in Section 2.4.  The basic
   XML message format looks like this:

   <msg
       type="query"
       version="3"
       xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
     <!-- Zero or more PDUs -->
   </msg>

   <msg
       type="reply"
       version="3"
       xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
     <!-- Zero or more PDUs -->
   </msg>

   Common attributes:

   version:  The value of this attribute is the version of this
      protocol.  This document describes version 3.

   type:  The possible values of this attribute are "reply" and "query".

   A query PDU may be one of two types: publish_query, or
   withdraw_query.

   A reply PDU may be one of three types: publish_reply, withdraw_reply,
   or report_error_reply.

   Each of these PDUs may include an optional tag to facilitate bulk
   operation.  If a tag is set in a query PDU, the corresponding
   reply(s) MUST have the tag attribute set to the same value.

2.2.  Publication and Withdrawal

   The publication protocol uses a common message format to request
   publication of any RPKI object.  This format was chosen specifically
   to allow this protocol to accommodate new types of RPKI objects
   without needing changes to this protocol.

   Both the <publish/> and <withdraw/> objects have a payload of an
   optional tag and a URI.  The <publish/> query also contains the DER
   object to be published, encoded in Base64.





Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          RPKI Publication Protocol          February 2014


   Note that every publish and withdraw action requires a new manifest,
   thus every publish or withdraw action will involve at least two
   objects.

2.3.  Error handling

   Errors are handled at two levels.

   Since all messages in this protocol are conveyed over HTTP
   connections, basic errors are indicated via the HTTP response code.
   4xx and 5xx responses indicate that something bad happened.  Errors
   that make it impossible to decode a query or encode a response are
   handled in this way.

   Where possible, errors will result in an XML <report_error/> message
   which takes the place of the expected protocol response message.
   <report_error/> messages are CMS-signed XML messages like the rest of
   this protocol, and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail.

   <report_error/> messages only appear in replies, never in queries.
   The <report_error/> message can appear in both the control and
   publication subprotocols.

   Like all other messages in this protocol, the <report_error/> message
   includes a "tag" attribute to assist in matching the error with a
   particular query when using batching.  It is optional to set the tag
   on queries but, if set on the query, it MUST be set on the reply or
   error.

   The error itself is conveyed in the error_code attribute.  The value
   of this attribute is a token indicating the specific error that
   occurred.

   The body of the <report_error/> element itself is an optional text
   string; if present, this is debugging information.

2.4.  XML Schema

   The following is a RelaxNG compact form schema describing the
   Publication Protocol.

   # $Id: rpki-publication.rnc 2698 2013-12-13 23:33:07Z sra $
   # RelaxNG schema for RPKI publication protocol.

   default namespace =
       "http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"

   # This is version 3 of the protocol.



Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          RPKI Publication Protocol          February 2014


   version = "3"

   # Top level PDU is either a query or a reply.

   start = element msg {
     attribute version { version } ,
     ( ( attribute type { "query" }, query_elt* ) |
       ( attribute type { "reply" }, reply_elt* ) )
   }

   # PDUs allowed in  queries and replies.

   query_elt = publish_query | withdraw_query
   reply_elt = publish_reply | withdraw_reply | report_error_reply

   # Tag attributes for bulk operations.

   tag = attribute tag { xsd:token { maxLength="1024" } }

   # Base64 encoded DER stuff.

   base64 = xsd:base64Binary

   # Publication URIs.

   uri = attribute uri { xsd:anyURI { maxLength="4096" } }

   # Handles on remote objects (replaces passing raw SQL IDs).

   object_handle = xsd:string {
      maxLength = "255"
      pattern="[\-_A-Za-z0-9/]*"
   }

   # Error codes.

   error = xsd:token { maxLength="1024" }

   # <publish/> element

   publish_query |= element publish { tag?, uri, base64 }
   publish_reply |= element publish { tag?, uri }

   # <withdraw/> element

   withdraw_query |= element withdraw { tag?, uri }
   withdraw_reply |= element withdraw { tag?, uri }




Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          RPKI Publication Protocol          February 2014


   # <report_error/> element

   report_error_reply = element report_error {
     tag?,
     attribute error_code { error },
     xsd:string { maxLength="512000" }?
   }

3.  Examples

   Following are examples of various queries and the corresponding
   replies for the RPKI publication protocol

3.1.  <publish/> Query





































Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          RPKI Publication Protocol          February 2014


   <msg
       type="query"
       version="3"
       xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
     <publish
         uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer">
         MIIE+jCCA+KgAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAzMTEwLwYDVQQDEyhE
         RjRBODAxN0U2NkE5RTkxNzJFNDYxMkQ4Q0Y0QzgzRjIzOERFMkEzMB4XDTA4
         MDUyMjE4MDUxMloXDTA4MDUyNDE3NTQ1M1owMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoOEZCODIx
         OEYwNkU1MEFCNzAyQTdEOTZEQzhGMENEQ0Q4MjhGN0YxNzCCASIwDQYJKoZI
         hvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMeziKp0k5nP7v6SZoNsXIMQYRgNtC6F
         r/9Xm/1yQHomiPqHUk47rHhGojYiK5AhkrwoYhkH4UjJl2iwklDYczXuaBU3
         F5qrKlZ4aZnjIxdlP7+hktVpeApL6yuJTUAYeC3UIxnLDVdD6phydZ/FOQlu
         ffiNDjzteCCvoyOUatqt8WB+oND6LToHp028g1YUYLHG6mur0dPdcHOVXLSm
         UDuZ1HDz1nDuYvIVKjB/MpH9aW9XeaQ6ZFIlZVPwuuvI2brR+ThH7Gv27GL/
         o8qFdC300VQfoTZ+rKPGDE8K1cI906BL4kiwx9z0oiDcE96QCz+B0vsjc9mG
         aA1jgAxlXWsCAwEAAaOCAhcwggITMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSPuCGPBuUKtwKn2W3I
         8M3Ngo9/FzAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBTfSoAX5mqekXLkYS2M9Mg/I43iozBVBgNV
         HR8ETjBMMEqgSKBGhkRyc3luYzovL2xvY2FsaG9zdDo0NDAwL3Rlc3RiZWQv
         UklSLzEvMzBxQUYtWnFucEZ5NUdFdGpQVElQeU9ONHFNLmNybDBFBggrBgEF
         BQcBAQQ5MDcwNQYIKwYBBQUHMAKGKXJzeW5jOi8vbG9jYWxob3N0OjQ0MDAv
         dGVzdGJlZC9XT01CQVQuY2VyMBgGA1UdIAEB/wQOMAwwCgYIKwYBBQUHDgIw
         DwYDVR0TAQH/BAUwAwEB/zAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwgZsGCCsGAQUFBwEL
         BIGOMIGLMDQGCCsGAQUFBzAFhihyc3luYzovL2xvY2FsaG9zdDo0NDAwL3Rl
         c3RiZWQvUklSL1IwLzEvMFMGCCsGAQUFBzAKhkdyc3luYzovL2xvY2FsaG9z
         dDo0NDAwL3Rlc3RiZWQvUklSL1IwLzEvajdnaGp3YmxDcmNDcDlsdHlQRE56
         WUtQZnhjLm1uZjAaBggrBgEFBQcBCAEB/wQLMAmgBzAFAgMA/BUwPgYIKwYB
         BQUHAQcBAf8ELzAtMCsEAgABMCUDAwAKAzAOAwUAwAACAQMFAcAAAiAwDgMF
         AsAAAiwDBQDAAAJkMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQCEhuH7jtI2PJY6+zwv
         306vmCuXhtu9Lr2mmRw2ZErB8EMcb5xypMrNqMoKeu14K2x4a4RPJkK4yATh
         M81FPNRsU5mM0acIRnAPtxjHvPME7PHN2w2nGLASRsZmaa+b8A7SSOxVcFUR
         azENztppsolHeTpm0cpLItK7mNpudUg1JGuFo94VLf1MnE2EqARG1vTsNhel
         /SM/UvOArCCOBvf0Gz7kSuupDSZ7qx+LiDmtEsLdbGNQBiYPbLrDk41PHrxd
         x28qIj7ejZkRzNFw/3pi8/XK281h8zeHoFVu6ghRPy5dbOA4akX/KG6b8XIx
         0iwPYdLiDbdWFbtTdPcXBauY
       </publish>
   </msg>

3.2.  <publish/> Reply

   <msg
       type="reply"
       version="3"
       xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
     <publish
         uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>
   </msg>




Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          RPKI Publication Protocol          February 2014


3.3.  <withdraw/> Query

   <msg
       type="query"
       version="3"
       xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
     <withdraw
         uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>
   </msg>

3.4.  <withdraw/> Reply

   <msg
       type="reply"
       version="3"
       xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
     <withdraw
         uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>
   </msg>

3.5.  <report_error/> With Text

   <msg
       type="reply"
       version="3"
       xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
     <report_error
         error_code="your_hair_is_on_fire">
       Shampooing with sterno again, are we?
     </report_error>
   </msg>

3.6.  <report_error/> Without Text

   <msg
       type="reply"
       version="3"
       xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
     <report_error
         error_code="your_hair_is_on_fire"/>
   </msg>

4.  Operational Considerations

   There are two basic options open to the repository operator as to how
   the publication tree is laid out.  The first option is simple: each
   publication client is given its own directory one level below the top




Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          RPKI Publication Protocol          February 2014


   of the rcynic module, and there is no overlap between the publication
   spaces used by different clients.  For example:

   rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/
   rsync://example.org/rpki/Bob/
   rsync://example.org/rpki/Carol/

   This has the advantage of being very easy for the publication
   operator to manage, but has the drawback of making it difficult for
   relying parties to fetch published objects both safely and as
   efficiently as possible.

   Given that the mandatory-to-implement retrieval protocol for relying
   parties is rsync, a more efficient repository structure would be one
   which minimized the number of rsync fetches required.  One such
   structure would be one in which the publication directories for
   subjects were placed underneath the publication directories of their
   issuers: since the normal synchronization tree walk is top-down, this
   can significantly reduce the total number of rsync connections
   required to synchronize.  For example:

   rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/
   rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/Bob/
   rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/Bob/Carol/

   Preliminary measurement suggests that, in the case of large numbers
   of small publication directories, the time needed to set up and tear
   down individual rsync connections becomes significant, and that a
   properly optimized tree structure can reduce synchronization time by
   an order of magnitude.

   The more complex tree structure does require careful attention to the
   base_uri attribute values when setting up clients.  In the example
   above, assuming that Alice issues to Bob who in turn issues to Carol,
   Alice has ceded control of a portion of her publication space to Bob,
   who has in turn ceded a portion of that to Carol, and the base_uri
   attributes in the <client/> setup messages should reflect this.

   The details of how the repository operator determines that Alice has
   given Bob permission to nest Bob's publication directory under
   Alice's is outside the scope of this protocol.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is asked to register the application/rpki-publication MIME media
   type as follows:





Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          RPKI Publication Protocol          February 2014


      MIME media type name:  application
      MIME subtype name:  rpki-publication
      Required parameters:  None
      Optional parameters:  None
      Encoding considerations:  binary
      Security considerations:  Carries an RPKI Publication Protocol
         Message, as defined in this document.
      Interoperability considerations:  None
      Published specification:  This document
      Applications which use this media type: HTTP
      Additional information:
         Magic number(s):  None
         File extension(s):
         Macintosh File Type Code(s):
      Person & email address to contact for further information:
         Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
      Intended usage:  COMMON
      Author/Change controller: Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>

6.  Security Considerations

   The RPKI publication protocol and the data it publishes use entirely
   separate PKIs for authentication.  The published data is
   authenticated within the RPKI, and this protocol has nothing to do
   with that authentication, nor does it require that the published
   objects be valid in the RPKI.  The publication protocol uses a
   separate Business PKI (BPKI) to authenticate its messages.

   Each of the RPKI publication protocol messages is CMS-signed.
   Because of that protection at the application layer, this protocol
   does not require the use of HTTPS or other transport security
   mechanisms.

   Compromise of a publication server, perhaps through mismanagement of
   BPKI keys, could lead to a denial-of-service attack on the RPKI.  An
   attacker gaining access to BPKI keys could use this protocol delete
   (withdraw) RPKI objects, leading to routing changes or failures.
   Accordingly, as in most PKIs, good key management practices are
   important.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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





Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          RPKI Publication Protocol          February 2014


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

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

7.2.  Informative References

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

Authors' Addresses

   Samuel Weiler
   SPARTA, Inc.
   7110 Samuel Morse Drive
   Columbia, Maryland  21046
   US

   Email: weiler@tislabs.com


   Anuja Sonalker
   Battelle Memorial Institute

   Email: sonalkera@battelle.org


   Rob Austein
   Dragon Research Labs

   Email: sra@hactrn.net


















Weiler, et al.           Expires August 16, 2014               [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/