--- 1/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-05.txt 2015-02-25 17:14:57.207642284 -0800
+++ 2/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-06.txt 2015-02-25 17:14:57.235642941 -0800
@@ -1,21 +1,21 @@
Network Working Group S. Weiler
Internet-Draft SPARTA, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track A. Sonalker
-Expires: August 16, 2014 Battelle Memorial Institute
+Expires: August 29, 2015 Battelle Memorial Institute
R. Austein
Dragon Research Labs
- February 12, 2014
+ February 25, 2015
A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
- draft-ietf-sidr-publication-05
+ draft-ietf-sidr-publication-06
Abstract
This document defines a protocol for publishing Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI) objects. Even though the RPKI will have many
participants issuing certificates and creating other objects, it is
operationally useful to consolidate the publication of those objects.
This document provides the protocol for doing so.
Status of This Memo
@@ -26,78 +26,80 @@
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
- This Internet-Draft will expire on August 16, 2014.
+ This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2015.
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.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Common XML Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Publication and Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
- 2.3. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 2.4. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
- 3.1. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
- 3.2. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- 3.3. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 3.4. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 3.5. With Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 3.6. Without Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
- 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
- 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
- 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
- 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
- Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
+ 2.3. Listing the repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 2.4. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 2.5. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 3.1. Query, No Existing Object . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 3.2. Query, Overwriting Existing Object . . . . . . 9
+ 3.3. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+ 3.4. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 3.5. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 3.6. With Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 3.7. Without Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+ 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
+ 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
+ 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
+ 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
+ 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
+ Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
This document assumes a working knowledge of the Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI), which is intended to support improved routing
security on the Internet. [RFC6480]
In order to make participation in the RPKI easier, it is helpful to
have a few consolidated repositories for RPKI objects, thus saving
every participant from the cost of maintaining a new service.
Similarly, relying parties using the RPKI objects will find it faster
and more reliable to retrieve the necessary set from a smaller number
of repositories.
These consolidated RPKI object repositories will in many cases be
outside the administrative scope of the organization issuing a given
RPKI object. In some cases, outsourcing operation of the repository
- will be an explicit goal: some resource holders who stringly wish to
+ will be an explicit goal: some resource holders who strongly wish to
control their own RPKI private keys may lack the resources to operate
a 24x7 repository, or may simply not wish to do so.
The operator of an RPKI publication repository may well be an
Internet registry which issues certificates to its customers, but it
need not be; conceptually, operation of a an RPKI publication
repository is separate from operation of RPKI CA.
This document defines an RPKI publication protocol which allows
publication either within or across organizational boundaries, and
@@ -135,21 +137,21 @@
object as the body. The server's response will similarly be the body
of the response with a content type of "application/rpki-
publication".
The content of the POST and the server's response will be a well-
formed Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] object with OID =
1.2.840.113549.1.7.2 as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC6492].
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:
Common attributes:
version: The value of this attribute is the version of this
protocol. This document describes version 3.
type: The possible values of this attribute are "reply" and "query".
- A query PDU may be one of two types: publish_query, or
- withdraw_query.
+ A query PDU may be one of three types: , , or
+
.
- A reply PDU may be one of three types: publish_reply, withdraw_reply,
- or report_error_reply.
+ A reply PDU may be one of four types: , , , or .
Each of these PDUs may include an optional tag to facilitate bulk
operation. If a tag is set in a query PDU, the corresponding
reply(s) MUST have the tag attribute set to the same value.
2.2. Publication and Withdrawal
The publication protocol uses a common message format to request
publication of any RPKI object. This format was chosen specifically
to allow this protocol to accommodate new types of RPKI objects
without needing changes to this protocol.
- Both the and objects have a payload of an
+ Both the and PDUs have a payload of an
optional tag and a URI. The query also contains the DER
object to be published, encoded in Base64.
+ Both the and PDUs also have a "hash"
+ attribute, which carries a hash of an existing object at the
+ specified repository URI. For PDUs, the hash is
+ mandatory, as this operation makes no sense if there is no existing
+ object to withdraw. For 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 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
+ or PDU will have on the repository.
+
Note that every publish and withdraw action requires a new manifest,
thus every publish or withdraw action will involve at least two
objects.
-2.3. Error handling
+2.3. Listing the repository
+
+ The
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
query consists of a single PDU.
+
+ The
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.
Since all messages in this protocol are conveyed over HTTP
connections, basic errors are indicated via the HTTP response code.
4xx and 5xx responses indicate that something bad happened. Errors
that make it impossible to decode a query or encode a response are
handled in this way.
- Where possible, errors will result in an XML message
- which takes the place of the expected protocol response message.
- messages are CMS-signed XML messages like the rest of
- this protocol, and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail.
+ Where possible, errors result in an XML PDU which
+ takes the place of the expected protocol response PDU. Like the rest
+ of this protocol, PDUs are CMS-signed XML messages
+ and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail.
- messages only appear in replies, never in queries.
- The message can appear in both the control and
- publication subprotocols.
+ PDUs only appear in replies, never in queries.
- Like all other messages in this protocol, the message
+ Like all other PDUs in this protocol, the PDU
includes a "tag" attribute to assist in matching the error with a
particular query when using batching. It is optional to set the tag
on queries but, if set on the query, it MUST be set on the reply or
error.
The error itself is conveyed in the error_code attribute. The value
of this attribute is a token indicating the specific error that
occurred.
The body of the element itself is an optional text
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
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.
default namespace =
"http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"
# This is version 3 of the protocol.
version = "3"
# Top level PDU is either a query or a reply.
- start = element msg {
+ start |= element msg {
attribute version { version } ,
- ( ( attribute type { "query" }, query_elt* ) |
- ( attribute type { "reply" }, reply_elt* ) )
+ attribute type { "query" },
+ query_elt*
}
+ start |= element msg {
+ attribute version { version },
+ attribute type { "reply" },
+ reply_elt*
+ }
# PDUs allowed in queries and replies.
- query_elt = publish_query | withdraw_query
- reply_elt = publish_reply | withdraw_reply | report_error_reply
+ query_elt = publish_query | withdraw_query | list_query
+ reply_elt = publish_reply | withdraw_reply | list_reply | error_reply
# Tag attributes for bulk operations.
tag = attribute tag { xsd:token { maxLength="1024" } }
# Base64 encoded DER stuff.
base64 = xsd:base64Binary
# Publication URIs.
uri = attribute uri { xsd:anyURI { maxLength="4096" } }
- # Handles on remote objects (replaces passing raw SQL IDs).
+ # Digest of an existing object (hexadecimal).
- object_handle = xsd:string {
- maxLength = "255"
- pattern="[\-_A-Za-z0-9/]*"
- }
+ hash = attribute hash { xsd:string { pattern = "[0-9a-fA-F]+" } }
# Error codes.
error = xsd:token { maxLength="1024" }
# element
- publish_query |= element publish { tag?, uri, base64 }
- publish_reply |= element publish { tag?, uri }
+ publish_query = element publish { tag?, uri, hash?, base64 }
+ publish_reply = element publish { tag?, uri }
# element
- withdraw_query |= element withdraw { tag?, uri }
- withdraw_reply |= element withdraw { tag?, uri }
+ withdraw_query = element withdraw { tag?, uri, hash }
+ withdraw_reply = element withdraw { tag?, uri }
+
+ #
element
+
+ list_query = element list { tag? }
+ list_reply = element list { tag?, uri, hash }
+
# element
- report_error_reply = element report_error {
+ error_reply = element report_error {
tag?,
attribute error_code { error },
xsd:string { maxLength="512000" }?
}
3. Examples
Following are examples of various queries and the corresponding
replies for the RPKI publication protocol
-3.1. Query
+3.1. Query, No Existing Object
+
MIIE+jCCA+KgAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAzMTEwLwYDVQQDEyhE
RjRBODAxN0U2NkE5RTkxNzJFNDYxMkQ4Q0Y0QzgzRjIzOERFMkEzMB4XDTA4
MDUyMjE4MDUxMloXDTA4MDUyNDE3NTQ1M1owMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoOEZCODIx
OEYwNkU1MEFCNzAyQTdEOTZEQzhGMENEQ0Q4MjhGN0YxNzCCASIwDQYJKoZI
@@ -328,78 +370,118 @@
AsAAAiwDBQDAAAJkMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQCEhuH7jtI2PJY6+zwv
306vmCuXhtu9Lr2mmRw2ZErB8EMcb5xypMrNqMoKeu14K2x4a4RPJkK4yATh
M81FPNRsU5mM0acIRnAPtxjHvPME7PHN2w2nGLASRsZmaa+b8A7SSOxVcFUR
azENztppsolHeTpm0cpLItK7mNpudUg1JGuFo94VLf1MnE2EqARG1vTsNhel
/SM/UvOArCCOBvf0Gz7kSuupDSZ7qx+LiDmtEsLdbGNQBiYPbLrDk41PHrxd
x28qIj7ejZkRzNFw/3pi8/XK281h8zeHoFVu6ghRPy5dbOA4akX/KG6b8XIx
0iwPYdLiDbdWFbtTdPcXBauY
-3.2. Reply
+3.2. Query, Overwriting Existing Object
+
+ MIIE+jCCA+KgAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAzMTEwLwYDVQQDEyhE
+ RjRBODAxN0U2NkE5RTkxNzJFNDYxMkQ4Q0Y0QzgzRjIzOERFMkEzMB4XDTA4
+ MDUyMjE4MDUxMloXDTA4MDUyNDE3NTQ1M1owMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoOEZCODIx
+ OEYwNkU1MEFCNzAyQTdEOTZEQzhGMENEQ0Q4MjhGN0YxNzCCASIwDQYJKoZI
+ hvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMeziKp0k5nP7v6SZoNsXIMQYRgNtC6F
+ r/9Xm/1yQHomiPqHUk47rHhGojYiK5AhkrwoYhkH4UjJl2iwklDYczXuaBU3
+ F5qrKlZ4aZnjIxdlP7+hktVpeApL6yuJTUAYeC3UIxnLDVdD6phydZ/FOQlu
+ ffiNDjzteCCvoyOUatqt8WB+oND6LToHp028g1YUYLHG6mur0dPdcHOVXLSm
+ UDuZ1HDz1nDuYvIVKjB/MpH9aW9XeaQ6ZFIlZVPwuuvI2brR+ThH7Gv27GL/
+ o8qFdC300VQfoTZ+rKPGDE8K1cI906BL4kiwx9z0oiDcE96QCz+B0vsjc9mG
+ aA1jgAxlXWsCAwEAAaOCAhcwggITMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSPuCGPBuUKtwKn2W3I
+ 8M3Ngo9/FzAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBTfSoAX5mqekXLkYS2M9Mg/I43iozBVBgNV
+ HR8ETjBMMEqgSKBGhkRyc3luYzovL2xvY2FsaG9zdDo0NDAwL3Rlc3RiZWQv
+ UklSLzEvMzBxQUYtWnFucEZ5NUdFdGpQVElQeU9ONHFNLmNybDBFBggrBgEF
+ BQcBAQQ5MDcwNQYIKwYBBQUHMAKGKXJzeW5jOi8vbG9jYWxob3N0OjQ0MDAv
+ dGVzdGJlZC9XT01CQVQuY2VyMBgGA1UdIAEB/wQOMAwwCgYIKwYBBQUHDgIw
+ DwYDVR0TAQH/BAUwAwEB/zAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwgZsGCCsGAQUFBwEL
+ BIGOMIGLMDQGCCsGAQUFBzAFhihyc3luYzovL2xvY2FsaG9zdDo0NDAwL3Rl
+ c3RiZWQvUklSL1IwLzEvMFMGCCsGAQUFBzAKhkdyc3luYzovL2xvY2FsaG9z
+ dDo0NDAwL3Rlc3RiZWQvUklSL1IwLzEvajdnaGp3YmxDcmNDcDlsdHlQRE56
+ WUtQZnhjLm1uZjAaBggrBgEFBQcBCAEB/wQLMAmgBzAFAgMA/BUwPgYIKwYB
+ BQUHAQcBAf8ELzAtMCsEAgABMCUDAwAKAzAOAwUAwAACAQMFAcAAAiAwDgMF
+ AsAAAiwDBQDAAAJkMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQCEhuH7jtI2PJY6+zwv
+ 306vmCuXhtu9Lr2mmRw2ZErB8EMcb5xypMrNqMoKeu14K2x4a4RPJkK4yATh
+ M81FPNRsU5mM0acIRnAPtxjHvPME7PHN2w2nGLASRsZmaa+b8A7SSOxVcFUR
+ azENztppsolHeTpm0cpLItK7mNpudUg1JGuFo94VLf1MnE2EqARG1vTsNhel
+ /SM/UvOArCCOBvf0Gz7kSuupDSZ7qx+LiDmtEsLdbGNQBiYPbLrDk41PHrxd
+ x28qIj7ejZkRzNFw/3pi8/XK281h8zeHoFVu6ghRPy5dbOA4akX/KG6b8XIx
+ 0iwPYdLiDbdWFbtTdPcXBauY
+
+
+
+3.3. Reply
+
-3.3. Query
+3.4. Query
-3.4. Reply
+3.5. Reply
-3.5. With Text
+3.6. With Text
Shampooing with sterno again, are we?
-3.6. Without Text
-
+3.7. Without Text
4. Operational Considerations
There are two basic options open to the repository operator as to how
the publication tree is laid out. The first option is simple: each
publication client is given its own directory one level below the top
- 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:
rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/
rsync://example.org/rpki/Bob/
rsync://example.org/rpki/Carol/
This has the advantage of being very easy for the publication
operator to manage, but has the drawback of making it difficult for
relying parties to fetch published objects both safely and as
efficiently as possible.
@@ -460,24 +542,30 @@
6. Security Considerations
The RPKI publication protocol and the data it publishes use entirely
separate PKIs for authentication. The published data is
authenticated within the RPKI, and this protocol has nothing to do
with that authentication, nor does it require that the published
objects be valid in the RPKI. The publication protocol uses a
separate Business PKI (BPKI) to authenticate its messages.
- Each of the RPKI publication protocol messages is CMS-signed.
- Because of that protection at the application layer, this protocol
- does not require the use of HTTPS or other transport security
- mechanisms.
+ Each RPKI publication protocol message is CMS-signed. Because of
+ that protection at the application layer, this protocol does not
+ require the use of HTTPS or other transport security mechanisms.
+
+ Although the hashes used in the and 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 and
+ PDUs are not particularly security-sensitive, because these PDUs are
+ protected by the CMS signatures.
Compromise of a publication server, perhaps through mismanagement of
BPKI keys, could lead to a denial-of-service attack on the RPKI. An
attacker gaining access to BPKI keys could use this protocol delete
(withdraw) RPKI objects, leading to routing changes or failures.
Accordingly, as in most PKIs, good key management practices are
important.
7. References
@@ -486,20 +574,25 @@
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC
5652, STD 70, September 2009.
[RFC6492] Huston, G., Loomans, R., Ellacott, B., and R. Austein, "A
Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates", RFC
6492, February 2012.
+ [SHS] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
+ Hash Standard", FIPS PUB 180-4, March 2012,
+ .
+
7.2. Informative References
[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Samuel Weiler
SPARTA, Inc.
7110 Samuel Morse Drive