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

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                      G. Michaelson
Internet-Draft                                                 G. Huston
Intended status: Experimental                                T. Harrison
Expires: September 8, 2019                                         APNIC
                                                          T. Bruijnzeels
                                                             M. Hoffmann
                                                             opennetlabs
                                                           March 7, 2019


           A profile for Resource Tagged Attestations (RTAs)
                      draft-michaelson-rpki-rta-01

Abstract

   This document defines a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) profile
   for a general purpose Resource Tagged Attestation (RTA), for use with
   the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI).  The objective is to
   allow an attestation, in the form of an arbitrary digital object, to
   be signed "with resources", and for validation to provide an outcome
   of "valid with resources".  The profile is intended to provide for
   the signing of an attestation with an arbitrary set of resources.

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 https://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 September 8, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                     RTA                        March 2019


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  RTA Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  The RTA ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  The RTA eContent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  subjectKeyIdentifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.3.  resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  digestAlgorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.5.  messageDigest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.6.  attestations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  RTA Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Need for Canonicalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  ASCII, UTF-8, and HTML File Canonicalization  . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  XML File Canonicalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.3.  No Canonicalization of Other File Formats . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Standalone Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   12. Revision history  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   13. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   This document defines a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652]
   profile for a general purpose Resource Tagged Attestation (RTA), for
   use with the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6480].  An
   RTA allows an arbitrary digital object to be signed "with resources,"
   and for validation of the digital signature to provide an outcome of
   "valid with resources."  The profile is intended to provide for the
   signing of a arbitrary attestation with a set of resources by the
   duly delegated resource holder(s).

   The RTA makes use of the template for RPKI Digitally Signed Objects
   [RFC6488], which defines a CMS wrapper for the RTA content, as well
   as a generic validation procedure for RPKI signed objects.  However,
   this specification does not comply to the profile in [RFC6488] in all



Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                     RTA                        March 2019


   respects.  This document describes the areas of difference to the
   template profile, the ASN.1 syntax for the RTA eContent, and the
   additional steps required to validate RTAs (in addition to the
   validation steps specified in [RFC6488].

   An RTA is a detached signature CMS model, it leverages concepts
   documented in [RFC8358] and [RFC5485].  Text from these RFCs has been
   repurposed removing references to internet-drafts and RFCs since this
   is a general detached signature signing model.

2.  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] when they
   appear in ALL CAPS.  These words may also appear in this document in
   lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings.

3.  RTA Profile

   An RTA conforms to the template for RPKI Digitally Signed Objects
   [RFC6488], with the exception that in order to allow for arbitrary
   resource sets to be used to sign an RTA, it may be necessary to use
   multiple signatures to sign an RTA.

   The differences between this RTA profile and the profile specified by
   the RPKI Digitally Signed Object template are as follows:

   o  Section 2.1 of [RFC6488] specifies a single SignerInfo object.  An
      RTA MAY contain more than one SignerInfo object.

   o  Section 2.1.4, and Section 3 of [RFC6488] specify that the
      certificates field contains a single EE certificate.  The
      certificates field of an RTA contains precisely the same number of
      EE certificates as there are SignerInfo objects in the RTA, where
      each EE certificate is needed to validate the signature in each
      SignerInfo.  In addition, the certificates field MAY contain a
      collection of CA certificates that would allow a RP to validate
      the EE certificates.

   o  Section 2.1.5 of [RFC6488] specifies that the crls field be
      omitted.  For RTAs the crls field MUST contain the current CRL for
      each CA certificate that has been included in the certificates
      field of the RTA.

   o  Section 3 of [RFC6488] describes the signed object validation
      checks that are to be performed by a Relying Party.  Additional




Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                     RTA                        March 2019


      validation checks for an RTA are required, as described in section
      5 of this profile.

4.  The RTA ContentType

   The ContentType for an RTA is defined as resourceTaggedAttestation,
   and has the numerical value of 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.36

   This OID MUST appear both within the eContentType in the
   encapContentInfo object as well as the ContentType signed attribute
   in the signerInfo object (see [RFC6488]).

5.  The RTA eContent

   The content of an RTA indicates that an arbitrary digital object has
   been signed "with resources".  An RTA is formally defined as:

   ResourceTaggedAttestationDefinitions DEFINITIONS ::=
   BEGIN

     -- definition from rfc3029
    id-ct OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
               us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) id-smime(16) 1 }

    id-ct-resourceTaggedAttestation OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
               { id-ct(1) 36 }

     ResourceTaggedAttestation ::= SEQUENCE {
         version  [0]          INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
         subjectKeyIdentifers  SubjectKeys,
         resources             ResourceBlock,
         digestAlgorithm       AlgorithmIdentifer,
         messageDigest         OCTET STRING }

      SubjectKeys         ::= SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF SubjectKeyIdentifier
             -- defined in RFC5280

      ResourceBlock       ::= SEQUENCE {
        asID         [0]       AsList OPTIONAL,
        ipAddrBlocks [1]       IPList OPTIONAL }
            -- at least one of asID or ipAddrBlocks must be present

      AsList              ::= SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..MAX)) OF ASIdOrRange
      ASIdOrRange         ::= CHOICE {
         id                   ASId,
         range                ASRange }

      ASRange             ::= SEQUENCE {



Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                     RTA                        March 2019


         min                  ASId,
         max                  ASId }

      ASId                ::= INTEGER

      IPList              ::= SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..MAX)) OF IPAddressFamily

      IPAddressFamily     ::= SEQUENCE {    -- AFI & optional SAFI --
         addressFamily        OCTET STRING (SIZE (2..3)),
         addressesOrRanges    SEQUENCE OF IPAddressOrRange }

      IPAddressOrRange    ::= CHOICE {
         addressPrefix        IPAddress,
         addressRange         IPAddressRange }

      IPAddressRange      ::= SEQUENCE {
         min                  IPAddress,
         max                  IPAddress }

      IPAddress           ::= BIT STRING

      -- imported from [@!RFC5280]
      AlgorithmIdentifer  ::= SEQUENCE {
         algorithm            OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
         parameters           ANY DEFINED BY algorithm OPTIONAL }
   END

   Note that this content appears as the eContent within the
   encapContentInfo (see [RFC6488]).

   [TODO: this needs some work.  The AttestationSet is from prior pre-00
   state.  What is this referring to?]

   Note that AttestationSet is a SET OF EncapsulatedContentInfo from
   [RFC5485]

5.1.  version

   The version number of the ResourceTaggedAttestation MUST be 0.

5.2.  subjectKeyIdentifiers

   The subjectKeyIdentifiers MUST be the set of SubjectKeyIdentifier
   values contained in each of the EE certificates carried in the CMS
   certificates field.






Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                     RTA                        March 2019


5.3.  resources

   The resources contained here are the resources used to tag the
   attestation, and MUST match the set of resources listed by the set of
   EE certificates carried in the CMS certificates field.

   The ordering of resources is defined in [RFC3779].

5.4.  digestAlgorithm

   The digest algorithm used to create the message digest of the
   attested digital object.  This algorithm MUST be a hashing algorithm
   defined in [RFC7935].

5.5.  messageDigest

   The message digest of the attested digital object using the algorithm
   specified in the digestAlgorithm field.

5.6.  attestations

   The SET OF EncapsulatedContentInfo [RFC5485] which form the
   individual digital signatures, made by each signing party.  For each
   instance in the set, one of the subjectKeyIdentifiers MUST identify a
   certificate which can validate the signature.  This means that there
   will be an instance of a SignedData and SignerInfo for that
   subjectKeyIdentifier (SignerInfo.sid)

   The eContentType is id-ct-anyContentType, which refers to the ASN.1
   ANY octet sequence.

6.  RTA Validation

   To validate an RTA the relying party MUST perform all the validation
   checks specified in [RFC6488] as well as the following additional
   RTA-specific validation steps.

   o  Canonicalization of the attested object MUST be performed.

   o  The message digest of the attested object using the digest
      algorithm specified in the the digestAlgorithm field MUST be
      calculated and MUST match the value given in the messageDigest
      field of the RTA content.

   o  The signature verification process defined section 5.6 of
      [RFC5652] MUST be performed for all public keys referenced in each
      SignerInfo of the CMS.  If any signature cannot be verified, then
      the RTA MUST NOT be validated.  This process includes CRL checks



Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                     RTA                        March 2019


      which may require fetching from the CRLDP of any certificate
      without an embedded CRL in the CMS which is current.

   [TODO more text needed about CRL/CRLDP and handling expired CRLS]

   o  The set of public keys contained in the subjectKeyIdentifers of
      the RTA MUST exactly match the set of subjectKeyIdentifiers
      contained in the set of SignerInfo objects of the CMS object.

   o  The set of resources contained in resources of the RTA MUST
      exactly match the set of resources contained in the set of EE
      certificates of the CMS object.

   o  The number of certificates in the CMS object MUST equal the number
      of signerInfo objects in the CMS, and the subjectKeyidentifiers in
      these certificates MUST match one and only one
      subjectkeyidentifier of a signerinfo object.

7.  Need for Canonicalization

   As in [RFC5485] and [RFC8358] there is a need for canonicalization.

   The following text is based on section 4 of [RFC8358] with changes to
   remove references to internet-drafts and RFCs.

   In general, the content is treated like a single octet string for the
   generation of the digital signature.  Unfortunately, text and HTML
   files require canonicalization to avoid signature validation
   problems.  The primary concern is the manner in which different
   operating systems indicate the end of a line of text.  Some systems
   use a single new-line character, other systems use the combination of
   the carriage-return character followed by a line-feed character, and
   other systems use fixed-length records padded with space characters.
   For the digital signature to validate properly, a single convention
   must be employed.

7.1.  ASCII, UTF-8, and HTML File Canonicalization

   The canonicalization procedure follows the conventions used for text
   files in the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) [FTP].  Such files must be
   supported by FTP implementations, so code reuse seems likely.

   The canonicalization procedure converts the data from its internal
   character representation to the standard 8-bit NVT-ASCII
   representation (see TELNET [TELNET]).  In accordance with the NVT
   standard, the <CRLF> sequence MUST be used to denote the end of a
   line of text.  Using the standard NVT-ASCII representation means that
   data MUST be interpreted as 8-bit bytes.



Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                     RTA                        March 2019


   Trailing space characters MUST NOT appear on a line of text.  That
   is, the space character must not be followed by the <CRLF> sequence.

   Thus, a blank line is represented solely by the <CRLF> sequence.

   The form-feed nonprintable character (0x0C) is expected.

   Other non-printable characters, such as tab and backspace, are not
   expected, but they do occur.  Non-printable or non-ASCII characters
   (ones outside the range 0x20 to 0x7E) MUST NOT be changed in any way
   not covered by the rules for end-of-line handling in the previous
   paragraph.

   Trailing blank lines MUST NOT appear at the end of the file.  That
   is, the file must not end with multiple consecutive <CRLF> sequences.

   In some environments, a Byte Order Mark (BOM) (U+FEFF) is used at the
   beginning of a file to indicate that it contains non-ASCII
   characters.  In UTF-8 or HTML files, a BOM at the beginning of the
   file is not considered to be part of the file content.  One or more
   consecutive leading BOMs, if present, MUST NOT be processed by the
   digital signature algorithm.

   Any end-of-file marker used by an operating system is not considered
   to be part of the file content.  When present, such end-of-file
   markers MUST NOT be processed by the digital signature algorithm.

   Note: This text file canonicalization procedure is consistent with
   the NVT-ASCII definition offered in Appendix B of RFC 5198 [UFNI].

7.2.  XML File Canonicalization

   Utilities that produce XML files are expected to follow the guidance
   provided by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in Section 2.11 of
   [R20081126].  If this guidance is followed, no canonicalization is
   needed.

   A robust signature generation process MAY perform canonicalization to
   ensure that the W3C guidance has been followed.  This guidance says
   that a <LF> character MUST be used to denote the end of a line of
   text within an XML file.  Therefore, any two-character <CRLF>
   sequence and any <CR> that is not followed by <LF> are to be
   translated to a single <LF> character.








Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                     RTA                        March 2019


7.3.  No Canonicalization of Other File Formats

   No canonicalization is needed for file formats currently used or
   planned other than ASCII, UTF-8, HTML, and XML files.  Other file
   formats, including PDF [PDF], PostScript [PS], and EPUB [EPUB] are
   treated as a simple sequence of octets by the digital signature
   algorithm.

8.  Standalone Use

   An RTA MAY include the set of certificates and CRL which permit the
   RTA and the object which has been signed to be validated
   cryptographically given a set of applicable trust anchors.  The set
   of certificates and CRLs must form a complete path from a trust
   anchor to each end-entity certificate used to sign.

   No publication protocol is specified, or expected.  RTA objects are
   standalone, and intended to be exchanged freely as attachments to
   email or lodged in the web, or other mechanisms.

   The EE certificates generated and used to sign MAY omit the Subject
   Information Access (SIA) extension mandated by RFC 6487 as that
   extension requires an rsync URI for the accessLocation form and the
   RTA method does not require repository access via rsync.

   An RTA and its associated EE certificates MAY appear on an RPKI
   Manifest and MAY be published in a repository.

9.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is entirely off the hook on this one.

10.  Security Considerations

   Security is explicitly a consideration in the whole of this draft.

   The intent is to make testable digital signatures over data to
   associate the data with specific INR.

   o  If the private key of any RPKI certificate leaks, anyone could in
      theory make signatures.

   o  The applicability of the INR to the INR in the data is not
      specified.  Validity is taken to mean the cryptographic validity
      of the certification chains, and associated signatures.  The
      applicability of the specific RFC3779 resources to the signed data
      is out of scope.




Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                     RTA                        March 2019


   o  Given the lack of constraint on signed objects, there is no
      intention to have the signed object placed in a repository or
      appear on a manifest, or in any other way interfere with the
      operations of the distributed RPKI system.  RTA objects themselves
      may appear in repositories, and are constrained in size to the
      ASN.1 encoded burden of the set of certificates which are
      sufficient to describe the RFC3779 resources associated with the
      signatures.

   o  By design, each signing party signs the RTA object discretely.
      Since the RTA object includes the set of subjectKeyIdentifiers
      there is partial closure over the question "who agrees to sign"
      since the object is only valid if the set of signing parties
      matches the list of expected signing keys.  However, in principle
      a sub-set (down to one) of these signing parties can assert an RTA
      which specifies only that subset, or itself solely to sign, and
      make a valid RTA which cannot be disproved.  Since the RTA can
      only refer to RFC3779 data which is within scope of the set of
      signers, the impact of this is to refine (narrow down) the
      relevant set of internet resources which can relate to the
      (detached) signed object.  However, this places the burden of
      semantic validation of the meaning of those resources,
      contextually, on the consumer.  Caveat Emptor.

11.  Acknowledgments

   Russ Housely advised informally on the use of CMS signed objects
   around 2012.

   Russ's work on CMS signed internet drafts in [RFC8358] and [RFC5485]
   has been re-purposed here to apply to arbitrary signed objects, not
   just internet-drafts and text documents.

   An early implementation of RTA was coded by Robert Loomans and Gary
   Kennedy at APNIC before 2011 which used simpler ASN.1 semantics to
   specify the signed object.

   Jamie Gillespie (APNIC) provided valuable feedback and critique of
   the 00 draft.

12.  Revision history

   o  00 draft initial upload from older text, inclusion of CMS
      references.

   o  01 draft explicit language for the lack of repository references,
      use of CRL, spellcheck nits.




Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                     RTA                        March 2019


13.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3779]  Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
              Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3779, June 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3779>.

   [RFC5485]  Housley, R., "Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft
              Documents", RFC 5485, DOI 10.17487/RFC5485, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5485>.

   [RFC5652]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
              RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.

   [RFC6488]  Lepinski, M., Chi, A., and S. Kent, "Signed Object
              Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
              (RPKI)", RFC 6488, DOI 10.17487/RFC6488, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6488>.

   [RFC7935]  Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, Ed., "The Profile for
              Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public
              Key Infrastructure", RFC 7935, DOI 10.17487/RFC7935,
              August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7935>.

   [RFC8358]  Housley, R., "Update to Digital Signatures on Internet-
              Draft Documents", RFC 8358, DOI 10.17487/RFC8358, March
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8358>.

Authors' Addresses

   George G. Michaelson
   Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
   6 Cordelia St
   South Brisbane, QLD  4101
   Australia

   Email: ggm@apnic.net








Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                     RTA                        March 2019


   Geoff Huston
   Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
   6 Cordelia St
   South Brisbane, QLD  4101
   Australia

   Email: gih@apnic.net


   Tom Harrison
   Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
   6 Cordelia St
   South Brisbane, QLD  4101
   Australia

   Email: tomh@apnic.net


   Tim Bruijnzeels
   Open Netlabs B.V.
   Science Park 400
   Amsterdam  1098 XH
   The Netherlands

   Email: timb@opennetlabs.nl


   Martin Hoffmann
   Open Netlabs B.V.
   Science Park 400
   Amsterdam  1098 XH
   The Netherlands

   Email: martin@nlnetlabs.nl

















Michaelson, et al.      Expires September 8, 2019              [Page 12]


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