draft-ietf-sidr-publication-00.txt		draft-ietf-sidr-publication-01.txt
	Network Working Group S. Weiler		Network Working Group S. Weiler
	Internet-Draft A. Sonalker		Internet-Draft A. Sonalker
	Intended status: Standards Track SPARTA, Inc.		Intended status: Standards Track SPARTA, Inc.
	Expires: April 21, 2011 October 18, 2010		Expires: January 12, 2012 R. Austein
			ISC
			July 11, 2011
	A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)		A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
	draft-ietf-sidr-publication-00		draft-ietf-sidr-publication-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines a protocol for publishing Resource Public Key		This document defines a protocol for publishing Resource Public Key
	Infrastructure (RPKI) objects. Even though the RPKI will have many		Infrastructure (RPKI) objects. Even though the RPKI will have many
	participants issuing certificates and creating other objects, it is		participants issuing certificates and creating other objects, it is
	operationally useful to consolidate the publication of those objects.		operationally useful to consolidate the publication of those objects.
	This document provides the protocol for that.		This document provides the protocol for doing so.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2011.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2012.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.1. Common Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.1. Common Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.1.1. Common XML Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.1.1. Common XML Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.2. Control Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.2. Control Sub-Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.2.1. Config Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.2.1. Config Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.2.2. Client Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.2.2. Client Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.3. Publication Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.3. Publication Sub-Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.4. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.4. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.5. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.5. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document assumes a working knowledge of the Resource Public Key		This document assumes a working knowledge of the Resource Public Key
	Infrastructure (RPKI), which is intended to support improved routing		Infrastructure (RPKI), which is intended to support improved routing
	security on the Internet. [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch]		security on the Internet. [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch]
	In order to make participation in the RPKI easier, it is helpful to		In order to make participation in the RPKI easier, it is helpful to
	have a few consolidated repositories for RPKI objects, thus saving		have a few consolidated repositories for RPKI objects, thus saving
	every participant from the cost of maintaining a new service.		every participant from the cost of maintaining a new service.
	Similarly, clients using the RPKI objects will find it faster and		Similarly, relying parties using the RPKI objects will find it faster
	more reliable to retrieve the necessary set from a smaller number of		and more reliable to retrieve the necessary set from a smaller number
	repositories.		of repositories.
	These consolidated RPKI object repositories will in many cases be		These consolidated RPKI object repositories will in many cases be
	outside the administrative scope of the organization issuing a given		outside the administrative scope of the organization issuing a given
	RPKI object. Hence the need for a protocol to publish RPKI objects.		RPKI object. Hence the need for a protocol to publish RPKI objects.
	This document defines the RPKI publication protocol, including a sub-		This document defines the RPKI publication protocol, including a sub-
	protocol for configuring the publication engine.		protocol for configuring the publication engine.
	1.1. Terminology		1.1. Terminology
	skipping to change at page 3, line 45		skipping to change at page 3, line 45
	"Business Public Key Infrastructure" ("Business PKI" or "BPKI")		"Business Public Key Infrastructure" ("Business PKI" or "BPKI")
	refers to a PKI, separate from the RPKI, used to authenticate clients		refers to a PKI, separate from the RPKI, used to authenticate clients
	to the publication engine.		to the publication engine.
	2. Context		2. Context
	This protocol was designed specifically for the case where an		This protocol was designed specifically for the case where an
	internet registry, already issuing RPKI certificates to its children,		internet registry, already issuing RPKI certificates to its children,
	also wishes to run a publication service for its children.		also wishes to run a publication service for its children.
	We use the term "Business PKI" here to suggest that an internet		We use the term "Business PKI" here because an internet registry
	registry might already have a PKI, separate from the RPKI, for		might already have a PKI, separate from the RPKI, for authenticating
	authenticating its clients and might wish to reuse that PKI for this		its clients and might wish to reuse that PKI for this protocol. Such
	protocol. Such reuse is not a requirement.		reuse is not a requirement.
	3. Protocol Specification		3. Protocol Specification
	In summary, the publication protocol uses XML messages wrapped in		In summary, the publication protocol uses XML messages wrapped in
	CMS, carried over HTTP transport.		CMS, carried over HTTP transport.
	The publication procotol consists of two separate subprotocols. The		The publication procotol consists of two separate subprotocols. The
	first is a control protocol used to configure a publication engine.		first is a control protocol used to configure a publication engine.
	The second subprotocol, which we refer to by the overloaded term		The second subprotocol, which we refer to by the overloaded term
	"publication protocol", is used to request publication of specific		"publication protocol", is used to request publication of specific
	objects. The publication engine operates a single HTTP server on a		objects. The publication engine operates a single HTTP server on a
	single port. It distinguishes between the two protocols by using		single port. It distinguishes between the two protocols by using
	different URLs for them.		different URLs for them.
	3.1. Common Details		3.1. Common Details
	This section discusses details that the two subprotocols have in		This section discusses details that the two subprotocols have in
	common, including the transport and CMS wrappers. This portion of		common, including the transport and CMS wrappers.
	the protocol is largely inherited from the provisioning protocol
	([I-D.ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning]).
	Both protocols use a simple request/response interaction. The client		Both protocols use a simple request/response interaction. The client
	passes a request to the server, and the server generates a		passes a request to the server, and the server generates a
	corresponding response. A message exchange commences with the client		corresponding response.
	initiating an HTTP POST with content type of "application/x-rpki",
	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/x-rpki".
	The content of the POST, and the server's response, will be a well-		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 =		formed Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] object with OID =
	1.2.840.113549.1.7.2 as described in Section 3.1 of		1.2.840.113549.1.7.2 as described in Section 3.1 of
	[I-D.ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning].		[I-D.ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning].
	3.1.1. Common XML Message Format		3.1.1. Common XML Message Format
	The publication protocol uses the same message passing design as the		The XML schema for this protocol (including both subprotocols) is
	provisioning protocol. The XML schema for this protocol (including		below in Section 3.5. Both subprotocols use the same basic XML
	both subprotocols) is below in Section 3.5. Both subprotocols use		message format, which looks like:
	the same basic XML message format, which looks like:
	<?xml version='1.0' encoding='us-ascii'?>		<?xml version='1.0' encoding='us-ascii'?>
	<msg xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"		<msg xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"
	version="1"		version="2"
	type="message type">		type="message type">
	[one or more PDUs]		[one or more PDUs]
	</msg>		</msg>
	version:
	The value of this attribute is the version of this protocol.
	This document describes version 1.
	type:		version:
	The possible values of this attribute are "reply" and "query".		The value of this attribute is the version of this protocol.
			This document describes version 2.
	3.2. Control Protocol		type:
			The possible values of this attribute are "reply" and "query".
	The control protocol is used to configure a publication server. It		A query PDU may be one of four types: config_query, client_query,
	can set global variables (at the moment, limited to a BPKI CRL) and		publish_query, or withdraw_query. The first two are used by the
	manage clients who are allowed to publish data on the server.		control sub-protocol, the latter two by the publication sub-protocol.
	The control protocol has two objects: the <config/> object, and the		A reply PDU may be one of five types: config_reply, client_reply,
	<client/> object.		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.
			3.2. Control Sub-Protocol
			The control sub-protocol is used to configure a publication server.
			It can set global variables (at the moment, limited to a BPKI CRL)
			and manage clients who are allowed to publish data on the server.
	3.2.1. Config Object		3.2.1. Config Object
	The <config/> object allows configuration of data that apply to the		The <config/> object allows configuration of data that apply to the
	entire publication server rather than a particular client. There is		entire publication server rather than a particular client. There is
	exactly one <config/> object in the publication server, and it only		exactly one <config/> object in the publication server, and it only
	supports the "set" and "get" actions -- it cannot be created or		supports the "set" and "get" actions -- it cannot be created or
	destroyed.		destroyed. Its use is typically restricted to the repository
			operator.
	The <config/> object only has one data element that can be set: the		The <config/> object only has one data element that can be set: the
	bpki_crl. This is used by the publication server when authenticating		bpki_crl. This is used by the publication server when authenticating
	clients.		clients.
	3.2.2. Client Object		3.2.2. Client Object
	Unlike the <config/> object the <client/> object represents one		Unlike the <config/> object, the <client/> object represents one
	client authorized to use the publication server.		client authorized to use the publication server. There may well be
			more than one <client/> object on each publication server. Again,
			its use is typically restricted to the respository operator.
	The <client/> object supports five actions: "create", "set", "get",		The <client/> object supports five actions: "create", "set", "get",
	"list", and "destroy". Each client has a "client_handle" attribute,		"list", and "destroy". Each client has a "client_handle" attribute,
	which is used in responses and must be specified in "create", "set",		which is used in responses and must be specified in "create", "set",
	"get", or "destroy" actions.		"get", or "destroy" actions.
	Payload data which can be configured in a <client/> object include:		Payload data which can be configured in a <client/> object include:
	o base_uri (attribute): This attribute represents the base URI below		o base_uri (attribute): This attribute represents the base URI below
	which the client will be allowed to publish data. Additional		which the client will be allowed to publish data. Additional
	constraints may be imposed by the Publication Server in certain		constraints may be imposed by the publication server in certain
	cases, for e.g., a child publishing directly under its parent.		cases, for e.g., a child publishing directly under its parent.
	o bpki_cert (element): This represents the X509 BPKI CA certificate
			o bpki_cert (element): This represents the X.509 BPKI CA certificate
	for this client. This should be used as part of the certificate		for this client. This should be used as part of the certificate
	chain when validating incoming TLS and CMS messages. Two valid		chain when validating incoming CMS messages. Two valid approaches
	approaches exist. If the optional bpki_glue certificate is being		exist. If the optional bpki_glue certificate is being used, then
	used, then the bpki_cert certificate should be issued by the		the bpki_cert certificate should be issued by the bpki_glue
	bpki_glue certificate; otherwise, the bpki_cert certificate should		certificate; otherwise, the bpki_cert certificate should be issued
	be issued by the publication engine's bpki_ta certificate.		by the publication engine's bpki_ta certificate.
	o bpki_glue (element): This is an additional (optional) type of X509
	certificate for this client. It may be used in certain		o bpki_glue (element): This is an additional (optional) type of
			X.509 certificate for this client. It may be used in certain
	pathological cross-certification cases which require a two-		pathological cross-certification cases which require a two-
	certificate chain due to issuer name conflicts. When being used,		certificate chain due to issuer name conflicts. When being used,
	issuing order is that the bpki_glue certificate should be the		issuing order is that the bpki_glue certificate should be the
	issuer of the bpki_cert certificate. Otherwise, it should be		issuer of the bpki_cert certificate. Otherwise, it should be
	issued by the publication engine's bpki_ta certificate. Since		issued by the publication engine's bpki_ta certificate. Since
	this is an optional use certificate, it may be left unset if not		this is an optional use certificate, it may be left unset if not
	needed.		needed.
	3.3. Publication Protocol		3.3. Publication Sub-Protocol
	The publication protocol is structured differently from the control		The sub-publication protocol requests publication or withdrawal from
	protocol in that objects in the publication protocol represent		publication of RPKI objects.
	objects to be published or objects to be withdrawn from publication.
	Each kind of object supports two actions: "publish" and "withdraw".		The publication protocol uses a common message format to request
	In each case the XML element representing the object to be published		publication of any RPKI object. This format was chosen specifically
	or withdrawn has a "uri" attribute which contains the publication		to allow this protocol to accommodate new types of RPKI objects
	URI. For "publish" actions, the XML element body contains the DER		without needing changes to this protocol.
	object to be published, encoded in Base64; for "withdraw" actions,
	the XML element body is empty.
	The publication protocol uses four types of objects:		Both the <publish/> and <withdraw/> objects have a payload of an
	o Certificate Object: The <certificate/> object represents an RPKI		optional tag and a URI. The <publish/> query also contains the DER
	certificate to be published or withdrawn.		object to be published, encoded in Base64.
	o CRL Object: The <crl/> object represents an RPKI CRL to be
	published or withdrawn.
	o Manifest Object: The <manifest/> object represents an RPKI
	publication manifest to be published or withdrawn. See
	[I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests] for more information on manifests.
	o ROA Object: The <roa/> object represents a ROA to be published or
	withdrawn. See [I-D.ietf-sidr-roa-format] for more information on
	ROAs.
	Note that every publication or withdrawal action requires a new		Note that every publish and withdraw action requires a new manifest,
	manifest, thus every publication or withdrawal action will involve at		thus every publish or withdraw action will involve at least two
	least two objects.		objects.
	3.4. Error handling		3.4. Error handling
	Errors are handled similarly in both subprotocols, and they're		Errors are handled similarly in both subprotocols, and they're
	handled at two levels.		handled at two levels.
	Since all messages in this protocol are conveyed over HTTP		Since all messages in this protocol are conveyed over HTTP
	connections, basic errors are indicated via the HTTP response code.		connections, basic errors are indicated via the HTTP response code.
	4xx and 5xx responses indicate that something bad happened. Errors		4xx and 5xx responses indicate that something bad happened. Errors
	that make it impossible to decode a query or encode a response are		that make it impossible to decode a query or encode a response are
	handled in this way.		handled in this way.
	Where possible, errors will result in an XML <report_error/> message		Where possible, errors will result in an XML <report_error/> message
	which takes the place of the expected protocol response message.		which takes the place of the expected protocol response message.
	<report_error/> messages are CMS-signed XML messages like the rest of		<report_error/> messages are CMS-signed XML messages like the rest of
	this protocol, and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail.		this protocol, and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail.
	<report_error/> messages only appear in replies, never in queries.		<report_error/> messages only appear in replies, never in queries.
	skipping to change at page 7, line 18		skipping to change at page 7, line 27
	Where possible, errors will result in an XML <report_error/> message		Where possible, errors will result in an XML <report_error/> message
	which takes the place of the expected protocol response message.		which takes the place of the expected protocol response message.
	<report_error/> messages are CMS-signed XML messages like the rest of		<report_error/> messages are CMS-signed XML messages like the rest of
	this protocol, and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail.		this protocol, and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail.
	<report_error/> messages only appear in replies, never in queries.		<report_error/> messages only appear in replies, never in queries.
	The <report_error/> message can appear in both the control and		The <report_error/> message can appear in both the control and
	publication subprotocols.		publication subprotocols.
	The <report_error/> message includes an optional "tag" attribute to		Like all other messages in this protocol, the <report_error/> message
	assist in matching the error with a particular query when using		includes a "tag" attribute to assist in matching the error with a
	batching.		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		The error itself is conveyed in the error_code (attribute). The
	value of this attribute is a token indicating the specific error that		value of this attribute is a token indicating the specific error that
	occurred. [TODO: define these tokens]		occurred.
	The body of the <report_error/> element itself is an optional text		The body of the <report_error/> element itself is an optional text
	string; if present, this is debugging information. At present this		string; if present, this is debugging information.
	capabilty is not used, debugging information goes to syslog.
	3.5. XML Schema		3.5. XML Schema
	The following is a RelaxNG compact form schema describing the		The following is a RelaxNG compact form schema describing the
	Publication Protocol.		Publication Protocol.
	default namespace = "http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"		default namespace = "http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"
	# Top level PDU		# Top level PDU
			start = element msg {
	start = element msg { attribute version { xsd:positiveInteger {		attribute version { "2" } ,
	maxInclusive="1" } }, ((attribute type { "query" }, query_elt*) |		( ( attribute type { "query" }, query_elt*) |
	(attribute type { "reply" }, reply_elt*)) }		(attribute type { "reply" }, reply_elt*))
			}
	# PDUs allowed in a query		# PDUs allowed in a query
	query_elt = ( config_query | client_query | certificate_query |		query_elt = ( config_query | client_query | publish_query |
	crl_query | manifest_query | roa_query )		withdraw_query )
	# PDUs allowed in a reply		# PDUs allowed in a reply
	reply_elt = ( config_reply | client_reply | certificate_reply |		reply_elt = ( config_reply | client_reply | publish_reply |
	crl_reply | manifest_reply | roa_reply | report_error_reply )		withdraw_reply | report_error_reply )
	# Tag attributes for bulk operations		# Tag attributes for bulk operations
	tag = attribute tag { xsd:token {maxLength="1024" } }		tag = attribute tag { xsd:token {maxLength="1024" } }
	# Base64 encoded DER stuff		# Base64 encoded DER stuff
	base64 = xsd:base64Binary { maxLength="512000" }		base64 = xsd:base64Binary
	# Publication URLs		# Publication URLs
	uri_t = xsd:anyURI { maxLength="4096" }		uri_t = xsd:anyURI { maxLength="4096" }
	uri = attribute uri { uri_t }		uri = attribute uri { uri_t }
	# Handles on remote objects (replaces passing raw SQL IDs). NB:		# Handles on remote objects (replaces passing raw SQL IDs). NB:
	# Unlike the up-down protocol, handles in this protocol allow "/" as a		# Unlike the up-down protocol, handles in this protocol allow
	# hierarchy delimiter.		# "/" as a hierarchy delimiter.
	object_handle = xsd:string { maxLength="255" pattern="[\-_A-Za-z0-9/]*" }		object_handle = xsd:string {
			maxLength="255" pattern="[\-_A-Za-z0-9/]*" }
	# <config/> element (use restricted to repository operator)		# <config/> element (use restricted to repository operator)
	# config_handle attribute, create, list, and destroy commands omitted		# config_handle attribute: create, list, and destroy commands
	# deliberately, see code for details		# omitted deliberately.
	config_payload = (element bpki_crl { base64 }?)		config_payload = (element bpki_crl { base64 }?)
	config_query |= element config { attribute action { "set" }, tag?,		config_query |= element config { attribute action { "set" }, tag?,
	config_payload }		config_payload }
	config_reply |= element config { attribute action { "set" }, tag? }		config_reply |= element config { attribute action { "set" }, tag? }
	config_query |= element config { attribute action { "get" }, tag? }		config_query |= element config { attribute action { "get" }, tag? }
	config_reply |= element config { attribute action { "get" }, tag?,		config_reply |= element config { attribute action { "get" }, tag?,
	config_payload }		config_payload }
	# <client/> element (use restricted to repository operator)		# <client/> element (use restricted to repository operator)
	client_handle = attribute client_handle { object_handle }		client_handle = attribute client_handle { object_handle }
	client_payload = (attribute base_uri { uri_t }?, element bpki_cert {		client_payload = (attribute base_uri { uri_t }?, element bpki_cert {
	base64 }?, element bpki_glue { base64 }?)		base64 }?, element bpki_glue { base64 }?)
			client_query |= element client { attribute action { "create" },
	client_query |= element client { attribute action { "create" }, tag?,		tag?, client_handle, client_payload }
	client_handle, client_payload }		client_reply |= element client { attribute action { "create" },
	client_reply |= element client { attribute action { "create" }, tag?,		tag?, client_handle }
	client_handle }
	client_query |= element client { attribute action { "set" }, tag?,		client_query |= element client { attribute action { "set" }, tag?,
	client_handle, client_payload }		client_handle, client_payload }
	client_reply |= element client { attribute action { "set" }, tag?,		client_reply |= element client { attribute action { "set" }, tag?,
	client_handle }		client_handle }
	client_query |= element client { attribute action { "get" }, tag?,		client_query |= element client { attribute action { "get" }, tag?,
	client_handle }		client_handle }
	client_reply |= element client { attribute action { "get" }, tag?,		client_reply |= element client { attribute action { "get" }, tag?,
	client_handle, client_payload }		client_handle, client_payload }
	client_query |= element client { attribute action { "list" }, tag? }		client_query |= element client { attribute action { "list" }, tag? }
	client_reply |= element client { attribute action { "list" }, tag?,		client_reply |= element client { attribute action { "list" }, tag?,
	client_handle, client_payload }		client_handle, client_payload }
	client_query |= element client { attribute action { "destroy" }, tag?,		client_query |= element client { attribute action { "destroy" },
	client_handle }		tag?, client_handle }
	client_reply |= element client { attribute action { "destroy" }, tag?,		client_reply |= element client { attribute action { "destroy" },
	client_handle }		tag?, client_handle }
	# <certificate/> element
	certificate_query |= element certificate { attribute action {
	"publish" }, tag?, uri, base64 }
	certificate_reply |= element certificate { attribute action {
	"publish" }, tag?, uri }
	certificate_query |= element certificate { attribute action {
	"withdraw" }, tag?, uri }
	certificate_reply |= element certificate { attribute action {
	"withdraw" }, tag?, uri }
	# <crl/> element
	crl_query |= element crl { attribute action { "publish" }, tag?, uri,
	base64 }
	crl_reply |= element crl { attribute action { "publish" }, tag?, uri }
	crl_query |= element crl { attribute action { "withdraw" }, tag?, uri }
	crl_reply |= element crl { attribute action { "withdraw" }, tag?, uri }
	# <manifest/> element
	manifest_query |= element manifest { attribute action { "publish" },
	tag?, uri, base64 }
	manifest_reply |= element manifest { attribute action { "publish" },
	tag?, uri }
	manifest_query |= element manifest { attribute action { "withdraw" },
	tag?, uri }
	manifest_reply |= element manifest { attribute action { "withdraw" },
	tag?, uri }
	# <roa/> element		# <publish/> element
			publish_query |= element publish { tag?, uri, base64 }
			publish_reply |= element publish { tag?, uri }
	roa_query |= element roa { attribute action { "publish" }, tag?, uri,		# <withdraw/> element
	base64 }		withdraw_query |= element withdraw { tag?, uri }
	roa_reply |= element roa { attribute action { "publish" }, tag?, uri }		withdraw_reply |= element withdraw { tag?, uri }
	roa_query |= element roa { attribute action { "withdraw" }, tag?, uri }
	roa_reply |= element roa { attribute action { "withdraw" }, tag?, uri }
	# <report_error/> element		# <report_error/> element
	error = xsd:token { maxLength="1024" }		error = xsd:token { maxLength="1024" }
	report_error_reply = element report_error {		report_error_reply = element report_error {
	tag?,		tag?,
	attribute error_code { error },		attribute error_code { error },
	xsd:string { maxLength="512000" }?		xsd:string { maxLength="512000" }?
	}		}
	4. Operational Considerations		4. Operational Considerations
	Placeholder section to talk about nesting children under parents in		Placeholder section to talk about nesting children under parents in
	the sameso repository, to allow for a single rsync to fetch both		the same repository, to allow for a single rsync to fetch both
	(observing that the rsync setup times tends to dominate over the sync		(observing that the rsync setup times tends to dominate over the sync
	time). And, more distressingly, talk about the access control		time). And, more distressingly, talk about the access control
	impacts of that nesting.		impacts of that nesting.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	This document specifies no IANA Actions.		IANA is asked to register the application/rpki-publication MIME media
			type as follows:
			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@isc.org>
			Intended usage: COMMON
			Author/Change controller: Rob Austein <sra@isc.org>
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	7. References		7. References
	7.1. Normative References		7.1. 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-19 (work in progress),
	October 2010.
	[I-D.ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning]		[I-D.ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning]
	Huston, G., Loomans, R., Ellacott, B., and R. Austein, "A		Huston, G., Loomans, R., Ellacott, B., and R. Austein, "A
	Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates",		Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates",
	draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning-07 (work in		draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning-10 (work in
	progress), October 2010.		progress), June 2011.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
	[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
	(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 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.
	[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,		[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
	RFC 5652, September 2009.		RFC 5652, September 2009.
	[X.690] Postel, J., "ITU-T Recommendation X.690: ISO/IEC 8825-
	1:2002, Information technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
	Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
	Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
	(DER)", 2002.
	7.2. Informative References		7.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-sidr-arch]		[I-D.ietf-sidr-arch]
	Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support		Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
	Secure Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-11 (work in		Secure Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-13 (work in
	progress), September 2010.		progress), May 2011.
	[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-07 (work in progress),
	July 2010.
	[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-08 (work in progress),
	October 2010.
	Appendix A. Acknowledgments
	We acknowledge the editors of [I-D.ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning]
	(Geoff Huston, Robert Loomans, Byron Ellacott, and Rob Austein), from
	whom we took some of the text for this document.
	We especially thank Rob Austein, who implemented the publication
	protocol and helped us to understand it.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Samuel Weiler		Samuel Weiler
	SPARTA, Inc.		SPARTA, Inc.
	7110 Samuel Morse Drive		7110 Samuel Morse Drive
	Columbia, Maryland 21046		Columbia, Maryland 21046
	US		US
	Email: weiler@sparta.com		Email: weiler@tislabs.com
	Anuja Sonalker		Anuja Sonalker
	SPARTA, Inc.		SPARTA, Inc.
	7110 Samuel Morse Drive		7110 Samuel Morse Drive
	Columbia, Maryland 21046		Columbia, Maryland 21046
	US		US
	Email: Anuja.Sonalker@sparta.com		Email: Anuja.Sonalker@sparta.com
			Rob Austein
			ISC
			950 Charter Street
			Redwood City, CA 94063
			USA
			Email: sra@isc.org
End of changes. 60 change blocks.
	211 lines changed or deleted		156 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/