--- 1/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-07.txt 2016-03-21 16:25:11.310958987 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-08.txt 2016-03-21 16:25:11.414961563 -0700 @@ -1,21 +1,21 @@ Network Working Group S. Weiler Internet-Draft Parsons Intended status: Standards Track A. Sonalker -Expires: March 28, 2016 Battelle Memorial Institute +Expires: September 22, 2016 TowerSec R. Austein Dragon Research Labs - September 25, 2015 + March 21, 2016 A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) - draft-ietf-sidr-publication-07 + draft-ietf-sidr-publication-08 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 @@ -26,61 +26,62 @@ 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 March 28, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2016 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. General Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.3. Publication and Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.4. Listing the repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.5. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.6. Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 2.7. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 2.2. Publication and Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2.3. Listing the repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.4. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 2.5. Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 2.6. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.1. Query, No Existing Object . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3.1. Query, No Existing Object . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Query, Overwriting Existing Object . . . . . . 10 - 3.3. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 3.4. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 3.5. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 3.6. With Optional Elements . . . . . . . . . 11 - 3.7. Without Optional Elements . . . . . . . . 11 - 3.8. Error Handling With Multi-Element Queries . . . . . . . . 11 - 3.8.1. Multi-Element Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 3.8.2. Successful Multi-Element Response . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 3.8.3. Failure Multi-Element Response . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 3.3. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3.4. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3.5. With Optional Elements . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3.6. Without Optional Elements . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.7. Error Handling With Multi-Element Queries . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.7.1. Multi-Element Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.7.2. Successful Multi-Element Response . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 3.7.3. Failure Multi-Element Response, First Error Only . . 12 + 3.7.4. Failure Multi-Element Response, All Errors . . . . . 13 + 3.8. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 3.9. Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Introduction @@ -118,21 +119,21 @@ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. "Publication engine" and "publication server" are used interchangeably to refer to the server providing the service described in this document. "Business Public Key Infrastructure" ("Business PKI" or "BPKI") refers to a PKI, separate from the RPKI, used to authenticate clients to the publication engine. We use the term "Business PKI" here - because an internet registry might already have a PKI for + because an Internet registry might already have a PKI for authenticating its clients and might wish to reuse that PKI for this protocol. There is, however, no requirement to reuse such a PKI. 2. Protocol Specification The publication protocol uses XML messages wrapped in signed CMS messages, carried over HTTP transport. The publication protocol uses a simple request/response interaction. The client passes a request to the server, and the server generates a @@ -143,488 +144,478 @@ 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 2.7. The basic + The XML schema for this protocol is below in Section 2.6. 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. + protocol. This document describes version 4. type: The possible values of this attribute are "reply" and "query". A query PDU may be one of three types: , , or . - 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) or error(s) MUST have the tag attribute set to the same - value. - -2.2. General Operation + A reply PDU may be one of three types: , , or + . - Processing of a query message is handled atomically: either the - entire query succeeds or none of it does. When a query message - contains multiple PDUs, failure of any PDU may require the server to - roll back actions triggered by earlier PDUs. + The and PDUs include a tag to facilitate bulk + operation. -2.3. Publication and Withdrawal +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 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 have a payload of a 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 + 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 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 + 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. -2.4. Listing the repository + Processing of a query message is handled atomically: either the + entire query succeeds or none of it does. When a query message + contains multiple PDUs, failure of any PDU may require the server to + roll back actions triggered by earlier PDUs. + + When a query messages containing and/or PDUs + succeeds, a single reply is returned. + + When a query fails, one or more reply PDUs are + generated. Typically, only one reply is generated, + corresponding to the first query PDU that failed. Servers are + permitted to return multiple PDUs. + +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 2.3) that they have somehow lost synchronization. + Section 2.2) that they have somehow lost synchronization. - The query consists of a single PDU. + The query consists of a single PDU. A query must be + the only PDU in a query - it may not be combined with any + or queries. 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. -2.5. Error handling +2.4. Error handling Errors are handled at two levels. Errors that make it impossible to decode a query or encode a response are handled at the HTTP layer. 4xx and 5xx HTTP response codes indicate that something bad happened. - In all other cases, 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. + In all other cases, errors result in an XML PDU. + Like the rest of this protocol, PDUs are CMS-signed + XML messages and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail. PDUs only appear in replies, never in queries. - Like all other reply PDUs, if a "tag" attribute was set on the query - that generated the error, the PDU MUST have its tag - attribute set to the same value. + The "tag" attribute of the PDU associated with a + or PDU MUST be set to the same value as the + "tag" attribute in the PDU which generated the error. A client can + use the "tag" attribute to determine which PDU caused processing of + an update to fail. - The error itself is conveyed in the error_code attribute. The value - of this attribute is a token indicating the specific error that + 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 contains two sub-elements: 1. An optional text element , which if present, contains a text string with debugging information intended for human consumption. 2. An optional element , which, if present, contains a verbatim copy of the query PDU whose failure triggered the PDU. The quoted element must be syntactically valid. - The position of a element in a reply corresponds to - the point in processing the query message where the error occurred. - In the simple case of a query message containing only a single - element, the element will be the only element in the - reply. If, however, the query message contains more than one - element, the element may be preceeded by normal - responses indicating operations that would have succeeded. - - There are several ways that a client can match up elements in a - response message with the corresponding elements in the query - message: - - o For a one-element query, this is trivial. - - o For multi-element queries, the simplest way of matching resposes - uses the optional tag attribute. The protocol requires tags from - query elements to be copied into reply elements, so simply giving - each query element a unique tag will suffice. - - o If for some reason the client implementation is not able or - willing to use unique tags within a multi-element query message, - the client can still match queries to responses by counting - elements in the reply message. This approach is not recommended. - - See Section 3.8 for examples of a multi-element query and responses. + See Section 3.7 for examples of a multi-element query and responses. -2.6. Error Codes +2.5. Error Codes These are the defined error codes as well as some discussion of each. Text similar to these descriptions may be sent in an element to help explain the error encountered. + xml_error: Encountered an XML problem. Note that some XML errors + may be severe enough to require error reporting at the HTTP layer, + instead. Implementations MAY choose to report any or all XML + errors at the HTTP layer. + permission_failure: Client does not have permission to update this URI. bad_cms_signature: Bad CMS signature. object_already_present: An object is already present at this URI, - yet a hash attribute was not specified. A hash attribute must be - specified when overwriting or deleting an object. Perhaps client - and server are out of sync? + yet a "hash" attribute was not specified. A "hash" attribute must + be specified when overwriting or deleting an object. Perhaps + client and server are out of sync? no_object_present: There is no object present at this URI, yet a - hash attribute was specified. Perhaps client and server are out + "hash" attribute was specified. Perhaps client and server are out of sync? - no_object_matching_hash The hash attribute supplied does not match - the hash attribute of the object at this URI. Perhaps client and - server are out of sync? + no_object_matching_hash The "hash" attribute supplied does not match + the "hash" attribute of the object at this URI. Perhaps client + and server are out of sync? consistency_problem: Server detected an update that looks like it will cause a consistency problem (e.g. an object was deleted, but the manifest was not updated). Note that a server is not required to make such checks. Indeed, it may be unwise for a server to do so. This error code just provides a way for the server to explain its (in-)action. other_error: A meteor fell on the server. -2.7. XML Schema +2.6. XML Schema The following is a RelaxNG compact form schema describing the Publication Protocol. - # $Id: rpki-publication.rnc 3407 2015-09-25 21:05:28Z sra $ + # $Id: rpki-publication.rnc 3595 2016-03-21 21:31:37Z sra $ # RelaxNG schema for RPKI publication protocol. default namespace = "http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/" - # This is version 3 of the protocol. + # This is version 4 of the protocol. - version = "3" + version = "4" # Top level PDU is either a query or a reply. start |= element msg { attribute version { version }, 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 | 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" } } # Digest of an existing object (hexadecimal). hash = attribute hash { xsd:string { pattern = "[0-9a-fA-F]+" } } # Error codes. + error |= "xml_error" error |= "permission_failure" error |= "bad_cms_signature" error |= "object_already_present" error |= "no_object_present" error |= "no_object_matching_hash" error |= "consistency_problem" error |= "other_error" - # element + # query - publish_query = element publish { tag?, uri, hash?, base64 } - publish_reply = element publish { tag?, uri } + query_elt |= element publish { tag, uri, hash?, base64 } + # query - # element + query_elt |= element withdraw { tag, uri, hash } - withdraw_query = element withdraw { tag?, uri, hash } - withdraw_reply = element withdraw { tag?, uri } + # reply - # element + reply_elt |= element success { empty } - list_query = element list { tag? } - list_reply = element list { tag?, uri, hash } + # query and reply - # element + query_elt |= element list { empty } + reply_elt |= element list { uri, hash } - error_reply = element report_error { + # reply + + reply_elt |= element report_error { tag?, attribute error_code { error }, element error_text { xsd:string { maxLength="512000" }}?, element failed_pdu { query_elt }? } 3. Examples Following are examples of various queries and the corresponding replies for the RPKI publication protocol. Note the authors have taken liberties with the Base64, hash, and URI text in these examples in the interest of making the examples fit nicely into RFC text format. 3.1. Query, No Existing Object - WW91IGNhbiBoYWNrIGFueXRoaW5nIHlvdSB3YW50Li4u + tag="foo" + uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/01a97a70ac477f06.cer"> + SGVsbG8sIG15IG5hbWUgaXMgQWxpY2U= 3.2. Query, Overwriting Existing Object - WW91IGNhbiBoYWNrIGFueXRoaW5nIHlvdSB3YW50Li4u + hash="01a97a70ac477f06" + tag="foo" + uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/01a97a70ac477f06.cer"> + SGVsbG8sIG15IG5hbWUgaXMgQWxpY2U= -3.3. Reply - - - - - -3.4. Query +3.3. Query + hash="01a97a70ac477f06" + tag="foo" + uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/01a97a70ac477f06.cer"/> -3.5. Reply +3.4. Reply - + -3.6. With Optional Elements - +3.5. With Optional Elements + error_code="no_object_matching_hash" + tag="foo"> Can't delete an object I don't have - WW91IGNhbiBoYWNrIGFueXRoaW5nIHlvdSB3YW50Li4u + hash="01a97a70ac477f06" + tag="foo" + uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/01a97a70ac477f06.cer"> + SGVsbG8sIG15IG5hbWUgaXMgQWxpY2U= -3.7. Without Optional Elements +3.6. Without Optional Elements + error_code="object_already_present" + tag="foo"/> -3.8. Error Handling With Multi-Element Queries +3.7. Error Handling With Multi-Element Queries -3.8.1. Multi-Element Query +3.7.1. Multi-Element Query - QWxpY2U= + uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/01a97a70ac477f06.cer"> + SGVsbG8sIG15IG5hbWUgaXMgQWxpY2U= + uri="rsync://wombat.example/Bob/f46a4198efa3070e.cer"/> - Q2Fyb2w= + uri="rsync://wombat.example/Carol/32e0544eeb510ec0.cer"> + SGVsbG8sIG15IG5hbWUgaXMgQ2Fyb2w= - + uri="rsync://wombat.example/Dave/421ee4ac65732d72.cer"/> - RXZl + uri="rsync://wombat.example/Eve/9dd859b01e5c2ebd.cer"> + SGVsbG8sIG15IG5hbWUgaXMgRXZl -3.8.2. Successful Multi-Element Response +3.7.2. Successful Multi-Element Response + - - - - - - - + + + +3.7.3. Failure Multi-Element Response, First Error Only + + + - + uri="rsync://wombat.example/Dave/421ee4ac65732d72.cer"/> + + -3.8.3. Failure Multi-Element Response +3.7.4. Failure Multi-Element Response, All Errors + - - - - - - - + uri="rsync://wombat.example/Dave/421ee4ac65732d72.cer"/> + + + + + + SGVsbG8sIG15IG5hbWUgaXMgRXZl + +3.8. Query + + + + + +3.9. Reply + + + + + + + + 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 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/ @@ -647,24 +639,24 @@ rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/Bob/ rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/Bob/Carol/ Preliminary measurement suggests that, in the case of large numbers of small publication directories, the time needed to set up and tear down individual rsync connections becomes significant, and that a properly optimized tree structure can reduce synchronization time by an order of magnitude. The more complex tree structure does require careful attention to the - base_uri attribute values when setting up clients. In the example + "base_uri" attribute values when setting up clients. In the example above, assuming that Alice issues to Bob who in turn issues to Carol, Alice has ceded control of a portion of her publication space to Bob, - who has in turn ceded a portion of that to Carol, and the base_uri + who has in turn ceded a portion of that to Carol, and the "base_uri" attributes in the setup messages should reflect this. The details of how the repository operator determines that Alice has given Bob permission to nest Bob's publication directory under Alice's is outside the scope of this protocol. 5. IANA Considerations IANA is asked to register the application/rpki-publication MIME media type as follows: @@ -715,43 +707,43 @@ Accordingly, as in most PKIs, good key management practices are important. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. - [RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC - 5652, STD 70, September 2009. + [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. + 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 Parsons Email: weiler@tislabs.com Anuja Sonalker - Battelle Memorial Institute + TowerSec Automotive Cyber Security - Email: sonalkera@battelle.org + Email: asonalker@tower-sec.com Rob Austein Dragon Research Labs Email: sra@hactrn.net