draft-ietf-sidr-publication-05.txt   draft-ietf-sidr-publication-06.txt 
Network Working Group S. Weiler Network Working Group S. Weiler
Internet-Draft SPARTA, Inc. Internet-Draft SPARTA, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track A. Sonalker Intended status: Standards Track A. Sonalker
Expires: August 16, 2014 Battelle Memorial Institute Expires: August 29, 2015 Battelle Memorial Institute
R. Austein R. Austein
Dragon Research Labs Dragon Research Labs
February 12, 2014 February 25, 2015
A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
draft-ietf-sidr-publication-05 draft-ietf-sidr-publication-06
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 doing so. This document provides the protocol for doing so.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 August 16, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Common XML Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Common XML Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Publication and Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Publication and Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Listing the repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. <publish/> Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. <publish/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. <publish/> Query, No Existing Object . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. <withdraw/> Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. <publish/> Query, Overwriting Existing Object . . . . . . 9
3.4. <withdraw/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. <publish/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. <report_error/> With Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4. <withdraw/> Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.6. <report_error/> Without Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.5. <withdraw/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.6. <report_error/> With Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.7. <report_error/> Without Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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. [RFC6480] security on the Internet. [RFC6480]
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, relying parties using the RPKI objects will find it faster Similarly, relying parties using the RPKI objects will find it faster
and more reliable to retrieve the necessary set from a smaller number and more reliable to retrieve the necessary set from a smaller number
of 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. In some cases, outsourcing operation of the repository RPKI object. In some cases, outsourcing operation of the repository
will be an explicit goal: some resource holders who stringly wish to will be an explicit goal: some resource holders who strongly wish to
control their own RPKI private keys may lack the resources to operate control their own RPKI private keys may lack the resources to operate
a 24x7 repository, or may simply not wish to do so. a 24x7 repository, or may simply not wish to do so.
The operator of an RPKI publication repository may well be an The operator of an RPKI publication repository may well be an
Internet registry which issues certificates to its customers, but it Internet registry which issues certificates to its customers, but it
need not be; conceptually, operation of a an RPKI publication need not be; conceptually, operation of a an RPKI publication
repository is separate from operation of RPKI CA. repository is separate from operation of RPKI CA.
This document defines an RPKI publication protocol which allows This document defines an RPKI publication protocol which allows
publication either within or across organizational boundaries, and publication either within or across organizational boundaries, and
skipping to change at page 4, line 7 skipping to change at page 4, line 7
object as the body. The server's response will similarly be the body object as the body. The server's response will similarly be the body
of the response with a content type of "application/rpki- of the response with a content type of "application/rpki-
publication". publication".
The content of the POST and the server's response will be a well- 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 [RFC6492]. 1.2.840.113549.1.7.2 as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC6492].
2.1. Common XML Message Format 2.1. Common XML Message Format
The XML schema for this protocol is below in Section 2.4. The basic The XML schema for this protocol is below in Section 2.5. The basic
XML message format looks like this: XML message format looks like this:
<msg <msg
type="query" type="query"
version="3" version="3"
xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"> xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
<!-- Zero or more PDUs --> <!-- Zero or more PDUs -->
</msg> </msg>
<msg <msg
skipping to change at page 4, line 31 skipping to change at page 4, line 31
<!-- Zero or more PDUs --> <!-- Zero or more PDUs -->
</msg> </msg>
Common attributes: Common attributes:
version: The value of this attribute is the version of this version: The value of this attribute is the version of this
protocol. This document describes version 3. protocol. This document describes version 3.
type: The possible values of this attribute are "reply" and "query". type: The possible values of this attribute are "reply" and "query".
A query PDU may be one of two types: publish_query, or A query PDU may be one of three types: <publish/>, <withdraw/>, or
withdraw_query. <list/>.
A reply PDU may be one of three types: publish_reply, withdraw_reply, A reply PDU may be one of four types: <publish/>, <withdraw/>, <list/
or report_error_reply. >, or <report_error/>.
Each of these PDUs may include an optional tag to facilitate bulk Each of these PDUs may include an optional tag to facilitate bulk
operation. If a tag is set in a query PDU, the corresponding operation. If a tag is set in a query PDU, the corresponding
reply(s) MUST have the tag attribute set to the same value. reply(s) MUST have the tag attribute set to the same value.
2.2. Publication and Withdrawal 2.2. Publication and Withdrawal
The publication protocol uses a common message format to request The publication protocol uses a common message format to request
publication of any RPKI object. This format was chosen specifically publication of any RPKI object. This format was chosen specifically
to allow this protocol to accommodate new types of RPKI objects to allow this protocol to accommodate new types of RPKI objects
without needing changes to this protocol. without needing changes to this protocol.
Both the <publish/> and <withdraw/> objects have a payload of an Both the <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs have a payload of an
optional tag and a URI. The <publish/> query also contains the DER optional tag and a URI. The <publish/> query also contains the DER
object to be published, encoded in Base64. object to be published, encoded in Base64.
Both the <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs also have a "hash"
attribute, which carries a hash of an existing object at the
specified repository URI. For <withdraw/> PDUs, the hash is
mandatory, as this operation makes no sense if there is no existing
object to withdraw. For <publish/> PDUs, the hash MUST be present if
the publication operation is overwriting an existing object, and MUST
be omitted if this publication operation is writing to a new URI
where no prior object exists. Presence of an object when no hash
attribute is specified is an error, as is absence of the hash
attribute or an incorrect hash value when an object is present. Any
such errors MUST be reported using the <report_error/> PDU.
The current hash algorithm is SHA-256 [SHS], to simplify comparison
of publication protocol hashes with RPKI manifest hashes.
The intent behind the hash attribute is to allow the client and
server to detect any disagreements about the effect that a <publish/>
or <withdraw/> PDU will have on the repository.
Note that every publish and withdraw action requires a new manifest, Note that every publish and withdraw action requires a new manifest,
thus every publish or withdraw action will involve at least two thus every publish or withdraw action will involve at least two
objects. objects.
2.3. Error handling 2.3. Listing the repository
The <list/> operation allows the client to ask the server for a
complete listing of objects which the server believes the client has
published. This is intended primarily to allow the client to recover
upon detecting (probably via use of the "hash" attribute, see
Section 2.2) that they have somehow lost synchronization.
The <list/> query consists of a single PDU.
The <list/> reply consists of zero or more PDUs, one per object
published in this repository by this client, each PDU conveying the
URI and hash of one published object.
2.4. Error handling
Errors are handled at two levels. Errors are 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 result in an XML <report_error/> PDU which
which takes the place of the expected protocol response message. takes the place of the expected protocol response PDU. Like the rest
<report_error/> messages are CMS-signed XML messages like the rest of of this protocol, <report_error/> PDUs are CMS-signed XML messages
this protocol, and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail. and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail.
<report_error/> messages only appear in replies, never in queries. <report_error/> PDUs 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 Like all other PDUs in this protocol, the <report_error/> PDU
includes a "tag" attribute to assist in matching the error with a includes a "tag" attribute to assist in matching the error with a
particular query when using batching. It is optional to set the tag 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 on queries but, if set on the query, it MUST be set on the reply or
error. error.
The error itself is conveyed in the error_code attribute. The value The error itself is conveyed in the error_code attribute. The value
of this attribute is a token indicating the specific error that of this attribute is a token indicating the specific error that
occurred. 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. string; if present, this is debugging information.
2.4. XML Schema 2.5. 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.
# $Id: rpki-publication.rnc 2698 2013-12-13 23:33:07Z sra $ # $Id: rpki-publication.rnc 3171 2015-02-26 00:09:05Z sra $
# RelaxNG schema for RPKI publication protocol. # RelaxNG schema for RPKI publication protocol.
default namespace = default namespace =
"http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/" "http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"
# This is version 3 of the protocol. # This is version 3 of the protocol.
version = "3" version = "3"
# Top level PDU is either a query or a reply. # Top level PDU is either a query or a reply.
start = element msg { start |= element msg {
attribute version { version } , attribute version { version },
( ( attribute type { "query" }, query_elt* ) | attribute type { "query" },
( attribute type { "reply" }, reply_elt* ) ) query_elt*
} }
start |= element msg {
attribute version { version },
attribute type { "reply" },
reply_elt*
}
# PDUs allowed in queries and replies. # PDUs allowed in queries and replies.
query_elt = publish_query | withdraw_query query_elt = publish_query | withdraw_query | list_query
reply_elt = publish_reply | withdraw_reply | report_error_reply reply_elt = publish_reply | withdraw_reply | list_reply | 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 base64 = xsd:base64Binary
# Publication URIs. # Publication URIs.
uri = attribute uri { xsd:anyURI { maxLength="4096" } } uri = attribute uri { xsd:anyURI { maxLength="4096" } }
# Handles on remote objects (replaces passing raw SQL IDs). # Digest of an existing object (hexadecimal).
object_handle = xsd:string { hash = attribute hash { xsd:string { pattern = "[0-9a-fA-F]+" } }
maxLength = "255"
pattern="[\-_A-Za-z0-9/]*"
}
# Error codes. # Error codes.
error = xsd:token { maxLength="1024" } error = xsd:token { maxLength="1024" }
# <publish/> element # <publish/> element
publish_query |= element publish { tag?, uri, base64 } publish_query = element publish { tag?, uri, hash?, base64 }
publish_reply |= element publish { tag?, uri } publish_reply = element publish { tag?, uri }
# <withdraw/> element # <withdraw/> element
withdraw_query |= element withdraw { tag?, uri } withdraw_query = element withdraw { tag?, uri, hash }
withdraw_reply |= element withdraw { tag?, uri } withdraw_reply = element withdraw { tag?, uri }
# <list/> element
list_query = element list { tag? }
list_reply = element list { tag?, uri, hash }
# <report_error/> element # <report_error/> element
report_error_reply = element report_error { error_reply = element report_error {
tag?, tag?,
attribute error_code { error }, attribute error_code { error },
xsd:string { maxLength="512000" }? xsd:string { maxLength="512000" }?
} }
3. Examples 3. Examples
Following are examples of various queries and the corresponding Following are examples of various queries and the corresponding
replies for the RPKI publication protocol replies for the RPKI publication protocol
3.1. <publish/> Query 3.1. <publish/> Query, No Existing Object
<msg <msg
type="query" type="query"
version="3" version="3"
xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"> xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
<publish <publish
uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"> uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer">
MIIE+jCCA+KgAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAzMTEwLwYDVQQDEyhE MIIE+jCCA+KgAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAzMTEwLwYDVQQDEyhE
RjRBODAxN0U2NkE5RTkxNzJFNDYxMkQ4Q0Y0QzgzRjIzOERFMkEzMB4XDTA4 RjRBODAxN0U2NkE5RTkxNzJFNDYxMkQ4Q0Y0QzgzRjIzOERFMkEzMB4XDTA4
MDUyMjE4MDUxMloXDTA4MDUyNDE3NTQ1M1owMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoOEZCODIx MDUyMjE4MDUxMloXDTA4MDUyNDE3NTQ1M1owMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoOEZCODIx
OEYwNkU1MEFCNzAyQTdEOTZEQzhGMENEQ0Q4MjhGN0YxNzCCASIwDQYJKoZI OEYwNkU1MEFCNzAyQTdEOTZEQzhGMENEQ0Q4MjhGN0YxNzCCASIwDQYJKoZI
skipping to change at page 8, line 42 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
AsAAAiwDBQDAAAJkMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQCEhuH7jtI2PJY6+zwv AsAAAiwDBQDAAAJkMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQCEhuH7jtI2PJY6+zwv
306vmCuXhtu9Lr2mmRw2ZErB8EMcb5xypMrNqMoKeu14K2x4a4RPJkK4yATh 306vmCuXhtu9Lr2mmRw2ZErB8EMcb5xypMrNqMoKeu14K2x4a4RPJkK4yATh
M81FPNRsU5mM0acIRnAPtxjHvPME7PHN2w2nGLASRsZmaa+b8A7SSOxVcFUR M81FPNRsU5mM0acIRnAPtxjHvPME7PHN2w2nGLASRsZmaa+b8A7SSOxVcFUR
azENztppsolHeTpm0cpLItK7mNpudUg1JGuFo94VLf1MnE2EqARG1vTsNhel azENztppsolHeTpm0cpLItK7mNpudUg1JGuFo94VLf1MnE2EqARG1vTsNhel
/SM/UvOArCCOBvf0Gz7kSuupDSZ7qx+LiDmtEsLdbGNQBiYPbLrDk41PHrxd /SM/UvOArCCOBvf0Gz7kSuupDSZ7qx+LiDmtEsLdbGNQBiYPbLrDk41PHrxd
x28qIj7ejZkRzNFw/3pi8/XK281h8zeHoFVu6ghRPy5dbOA4akX/KG6b8XIx x28qIj7ejZkRzNFw/3pi8/XK281h8zeHoFVu6ghRPy5dbOA4akX/KG6b8XIx
0iwPYdLiDbdWFbtTdPcXBauY 0iwPYdLiDbdWFbtTdPcXBauY
</publish> </publish>
</msg> </msg>
3.2. <publish/> Reply 3.2. <publish/> Query, Overwriting Existing Object
<msg
type="query"
version="3"
xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
<publish
hash="deadf00d"
uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer">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</publish>
</msg>
3.3. <publish/> Reply
<msg <msg
type="reply" type="reply"
version="3" version="3"
xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"> xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
<publish <publish
uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/> uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>
</msg> </msg>
3.3. <withdraw/> Query 3.4. <withdraw/> Query
<msg <msg
type="query" type="query"
version="3" version="3"
xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"> xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
<withdraw <withdraw
hash="deadf00d"
uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/> uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>
</msg> </msg>
3.4. <withdraw/> Reply 3.5. <withdraw/> Reply
<msg <msg
type="reply" type="reply"
version="3" version="3"
xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"> xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
<withdraw <withdraw
uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/> uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>
</msg> </msg>
3.5. <report_error/> With Text 3.6. <report_error/> With Text
<msg <msg
type="reply" type="reply"
version="3" version="3"
xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"> xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
<report_error <report_error
error_code="your_hair_is_on_fire"> error_code="your_hair_is_on_fire">
Shampooing with sterno again, are we? Shampooing with sterno again, are we?
</report_error> </report_error>
</msg> </msg>
3.6. <report_error/> Without Text 3.7. <report_error/> Without Text
<msg <msg
type="reply" type="reply"
version="3" version="3"
xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"> xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
<report_error <report_error
error_code="your_hair_is_on_fire"/> error_code="your_hair_is_on_fire"/>
</msg> </msg>
4. Operational Considerations 4. Operational Considerations
There are two basic options open to the repository operator as to how 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 the publication tree is laid out. The first option is simple: each
publication client is given its own directory one level below the top publication client is given its own directory one level below the top
of the rcynic module, and there is no overlap between the publication of the rsync module, and there is no overlap between the publication
spaces used by different clients. For example: spaces used by different clients. For example:
rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/ rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/
rsync://example.org/rpki/Bob/ rsync://example.org/rpki/Bob/
rsync://example.org/rpki/Carol/ rsync://example.org/rpki/Carol/
This has the advantage of being very easy for the publication This has the advantage of being very easy for the publication
operator to manage, but has the drawback of making it difficult for operator to manage, but has the drawback of making it difficult for
relying parties to fetch published objects both safely and as relying parties to fetch published objects both safely and as
efficiently as possible. efficiently as possible.
skipping to change at page 11, line 33 skipping to change at page 12, line 44
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The RPKI publication protocol and the data it publishes use entirely The RPKI publication protocol and the data it publishes use entirely
separate PKIs for authentication. The published data is separate PKIs for authentication. The published data is
authenticated within the RPKI, and this protocol has nothing to do authenticated within the RPKI, and this protocol has nothing to do
with that authentication, nor does it require that the published with that authentication, nor does it require that the published
objects be valid in the RPKI. The publication protocol uses a objects be valid in the RPKI. The publication protocol uses a
separate Business PKI (BPKI) to authenticate its messages. separate Business PKI (BPKI) to authenticate its messages.
Each of the RPKI publication protocol messages is CMS-signed. Each RPKI publication protocol message is CMS-signed. Because of
Because of that protection at the application layer, this protocol that protection at the application layer, this protocol does not
does not require the use of HTTPS or other transport security require the use of HTTPS or other transport security mechanisms.
mechanisms.
Although the hashes used in the <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs are
cryptographic strength, the digest algorithm was selected for
convenience in comparing these hashes with the hashes that appear in
RPKI manifests. The hashes used in the <publish/> and <withdraw/>
PDUs are not particularly security-sensitive, because these PDUs are
protected by the CMS signatures.
Compromise of a publication server, perhaps through mismanagement of Compromise of a publication server, perhaps through mismanagement of
BPKI keys, could lead to a denial-of-service attack on the RPKI. An 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 attacker gaining access to BPKI keys could use this protocol delete
(withdraw) RPKI objects, leading to routing changes or failures. (withdraw) RPKI objects, leading to routing changes or failures.
Accordingly, as in most PKIs, good key management practices are Accordingly, as in most PKIs, good key management practices are
important. important.
7. References 7. References
skipping to change at page 12, line 12 skipping to change at page 13, line 28
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC [RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC
5652, STD 70, September 2009. 5652, STD 70, September 2009.
[RFC6492] Huston, G., Loomans, R., Ellacott, B., and R. Austein, "A [RFC6492] Huston, G., Loomans, R., Ellacott, B., and R. Austein, "A
Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates", RFC Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates", RFC
6492, February 2012. 6492, February 2012.
[SHS] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
Hash Standard", FIPS PUB 180-4, March 2012,
<http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/
fips-180-4.pdf>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support [RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012. Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Samuel Weiler Samuel Weiler
SPARTA, Inc. SPARTA, Inc.
7110 Samuel Morse Drive 7110 Samuel Morse Drive
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
67 lines changed or deleted 160 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/