draft-ietf-sidr-publication-09.txt   draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10.txt 
Network Working Group S. Weiler Network Working Group S. Weiler
Internet-Draft Parsons Internet-Draft W3C / MIT
Intended status: Standards Track A. Sonalker Intended status: Standards Track A. Sonalker
Expires: March 25, 2017 TowerSec Expires: July 14, 2017 TowerSec
R. Austein R. Austein
Dragon Research Labs Dragon Research Labs
September 21, 2016 January 10, 2017
A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
draft-ietf-sidr-publication-09 draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10
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. Even in cases where a certificate issuer runs their own publication
repository, it can be useful to run the certificate engine itself on
a different machine from the publication repository. This document
defines a protocol which addresses these needs.
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 March 25, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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. Historical Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Common XML Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Publication and Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Common XML Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Listing the repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Publication and Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. Listing the repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5. Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5. Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.6. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. <publish/> Query, No Existing Object . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. <publish/> Query, Overwriting Existing Object . . . . . . 10 3.1. <publish/> Query, No Existing Object . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. <withdraw/> Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. <publish/> Query, Overwriting Existing Object . . . . . . 11
3.4. <success/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3. <withdraw/> Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. <report_error/> With Optional Elements . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4. <success/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6. <report_error/> Without Optional Elements . . . . . . . . 11 3.5. <report_error/> With Optional Elements . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7. Error Handling With Multi-Element Queries . . . . . . . . 11 3.6. <report_error/> Without Optional Elements . . . . . . . . 13
3.7.1. Multi-Element Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.7. Error Handling With Multi-Element Queries . . . . . . . . 13
3.7.2. Successful Multi-Element Response . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.7.1. Multi-Element Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7.3. Failure Multi-Element Response, First Error Only . . 12 3.7.2. Successful Multi-Element Response . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.7.4. Failure Multi-Element Response, All Errors . . . . . 13 3.7.3. Failure Multi-Element Response, First Error Only . . 14
3.8. <list/> Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.7.4. Failure Multi-Element Response, All Errors . . . . . 15
3.9. <list/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.8. <list/> Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.9. <list/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
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. See [RFC6480] for an overview of the RPKI.
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 strongly 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.
Even in cases where a resource holder operates both a certificate
engine and a publication repository, it can be useful to separate the
two functions, as they have somewhat different operational and
security requirements.
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
which makes fairly minimal demands on either the CA engine or the which makes fairly minimal demands on either the CA engine or the
publication service. publication service.
1.1. Terminology The authentication and message integrity architecture of the
publication protocol is essentially identical to the architecture
used in [RFC6492], because the participants in this protocol are the
same CA engines as in RFC 6492; this allows reuse of the same
"Business PKI" ("BPKI", see Section 1.2) infrastructure used to
support RFC 6492. As in RCC 6492, authorization is a matter of
external configuration: we assume that any given publication
repository has some kind of policy controlling which certificate
engines are allowed to publish, modify, or withdraw particular RPKI
objects, most likely following the recommendation in [RFC6480]
Section 4.4, the details of this policy are a private matter between
the operator of a certificate engine and the operator of the chosen
publication repository.
The following diagram attempts to convey where this publication
protocol fits into the overall data flow between the certificate
issuers and relying parties:
+------+ +------+ +------+
| CA | | CA | | CA |
+------+ +------+ +------+
| | | Publication Protocol
| | | Business relationship
+-------+ | +--------+ perhaps set up by
| | | draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup
+----v---v--v-----+
| |
| Publication |
| Repository |
| |
+-----------------+ Distribution protocols
| rsync or RRDP
+--------------+----------------+
| | |
+-------v-----+ +------v------+ +------v------+
| Relying | | Relying | | Relying |
| Party | | Party | | Party |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
The publication protocol itself is not visible to relying parties: a
relying party sees the public interface of the publication server,
which is an rsync or RRDP ([I-D.ietf-sidr-delta-protocol]) server.
Operators of certificate engines and publication repositories may
find [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup] a useful tool in setting up the
pairwise relationships between these servers, but are not required to
use it.
1.1. Historical Note
This protocol started out as an informal collaboration between
several of the early RPKI implementers, and while it was always the
designers' intention that the resulting protocol end up on the IETF
standards track, it took a few years to get there, because
standardization of other pieces of the overall RPKI protocol space
was more urgent. The standards track version of this publication
protocol preserves the original XML namespace and protocol version
scheme in order to maintain backwards compatibility with running code
implemented against older versions of the specification.
1.2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
"Publication engine" and "publication server" are used "Publication engine" and "publication server" are used
interchangeably to refer to the server providing the service interchangeably to refer to the server providing the service
described in this document. described in this document.
"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. We use the term "Business PKI" here 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 authenticating its clients and might wish to reuse that PKI for this
protocol. There is, however, no requirement to reuse such a PKI. protocol. There is, however, no requirement to reuse such a PKI.
2. Protocol Specification 2. Protocol Specification
The publication protocol uses XML messages wrapped in signed CMS The publication protocol uses XML ([XML]) messages wrapped in signed
messages, carried over HTTP transport. CMS messages, carried over HTTP transport.
The publication protocol uses a simple request/response interaction. The publication protocol uses a simple request/response interaction.
The client passes a request to the server, and the server generates a The client passes a request to the server, and the server generates a
corresponding response. corresponding response.
A message exchange commences with the client initiating an HTTP POST A message exchange commences with the client initiating an HTTP POST
with content type of "application/rpki-publication", with the message with content type of "application/rpki-publication", with the message
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].
The CMS signatures are used to protect the integrity of the protocol
messages and to authenticate the client and server to each other.
Authorization to perform particular operations is a local matter,
perhaps determined by contractual agreements between the operators of
any particular client-server pair, but in any case is beyond the
scope of this specification.
2.1. Common XML Message Format 2.1. Common XML Message Format
The XML schema for this protocol is below in Section 2.6. The basic The XML schema for this protocol is below in Section 2.6. The basic
XML message format looks like this: XML message format looks like this:
<msg <msg
type="query" type="query"
version="4" version="4"
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 -->
skipping to change at page 4, line 44 skipping to change at page 6, line 24
protocol. This document describes version 4. protocol. This document describes version 4.
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 three types: <publish/>, <withdraw/>, or A query PDU may be one of three types: <publish/>, <withdraw/>, or
<list/>. <list/>.
A reply PDU may be one of three types: <success/>, <list/>, or A reply PDU may be one of three types: <success/>, <list/>, or
<report_error/>. <report_error/>.
The <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs include a tag to facilitate bulk The <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs include a "tag" attribute to
operation. facilitate bulk operation. When performing bulk operations, a CA
engine will probably find it useful to specify a distinct tag value
for each <publish/> or <withdraw/> PDU, to simplify matching an error
with the PDU which triggered it. The tag attribute is mandatory, to
simplify parsing, but a CA engine which has no particular use for
tagging MAY use any syntactically legal value, including simply using
the empty string for all tag fields.
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/> PDUs have a payload of a tag and Both the <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs have a payload of a tag and
a URI. The <publish/> query also contains the DER object to be a URI. The <publish/> query also contains the DER object to be
published, encoded in Base64. published, encoded in Base64.
Both the <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs also have a "hash" Both the <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs also have a "hash"
attribute, which carries a hash of an existing object at the attribute, which carries a hash of an existing object at the
specified repository URI. For <withdraw/> PDUs, the hash is specified repository URI, encoded as a hexadecimal string. For
mandatory, as this operation makes no sense if there is no existing <withdraw/> PDUs, the hash MUST be present, as this operation makes
object to withdraw. For <publish/> PDUs, the hash MUST be present if no sense if there is no existing object to withdraw. For <publish/>
the publication operation is overwriting an existing object, and MUST PDUs, the hash is MUST be present if the publication operation is
be omitted if this publication operation is writing to a new URI overwriting an existing object, and MUST NOT be present if this
where no prior object exists. Presence of an object when no "hash" publication operation is writing to a new URI where no prior object
attribute is specified is an error, as is absence of the "hash" exists. Presence of an object when no "hash" attribute has been
attribute or an incorrect hash value when an object is present. Any specified is an error, as is absence of an object or an incorrect
such errors MUST be reported using the <report_error/> PDU. hash value when a "hash" attribute has been specified. Any such
errors MUST be reported using the <report_error/> PDU.
The hash algorithm is SHA-256 [SHS], to simplify comparison of The hash algorithm is SHA-256 [SHS], to simplify comparison of
publication protocol hashes with RPKI manifest hashes. 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 <publish/> server to detect any disagreements about the effect that a <publish/>
or <withdraw/> PDU will have on the repository. 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.
Processing of a query message is handled atomically: either the Processing of a query message is handled atomically: either the
entire query succeeds or none of it does. When a query message entire query succeeds or none of it does. When a query message
contains multiple PDUs, failure of any PDU may require the server to contains multiple PDUs, failure of any PDU may require the server to
roll back actions triggered by earlier PDUs. roll back actions triggered by earlier PDUs.
When a query messages containing <publish/> and/or <withdraw/> PDUs When a query messages containing <publish/> or <withdraw/> PDUs
succeeds, a single <success/> reply is returned. succeeds, the server returns a single <success/> reply.
When a query fails, one or more <report_error/> reply PDUs are When a query fails, the server returns one or more <report_error/>
generated. Typically, only one <report_error/> reply is generated, reply PDUs. Typically, a server will only generate one
corresponding to the first query PDU that failed. Servers are <report_error/> corresponding to the first query PDU that failed, but
permitted to return multiple <report_error/> PDUs. servers MAY return multiple <report_error/> PDUs at the implementor's
discretion.
2.3. Listing the repository 2.3. Listing the repository
The <list/> operation allows the client to ask the server for a The <list/> operation allows the client to ask the server for a
complete listing of objects which the server believes the client has complete listing of objects which the server believes the client has
published. This is intended primarily to allow the client to recover published. This is intended primarily to allow the client to recover
upon detecting (probably via use of the "hash" attribute, see upon detecting (probably via use of the "hash" attribute, see
Section 2.2) that they have somehow lost synchronization. Section 2.2) that they have somehow lost synchronization.
The <list/> query consists of a single PDU. A <list/> query must be The <list/> query consists of a single PDU. A <list/> query MUST be
the only PDU in a query - it may not be combined with any <publish/> the only PDU in a query - it may not be combined with any <publish/>
or <withdraw/> queries. or <withdraw/> queries.
The <list/> reply consists of zero or more PDUs, one per object The <list/> reply consists of zero or more PDUs, one per object
published in this repository by this client, each PDU conveying the published in this repository by this client, each PDU conveying the
URI and hash of one published object. URI and hash of one published object.
2.4. Error handling 2.4. Error handling
Errors are handled at two levels. Errors are handled at two levels.
skipping to change at page 7, line 45 skipping to change at page 9, line 34
will cause a consistency problem (e.g. an object was deleted, but will cause a consistency problem (e.g. an object was deleted, but
the manifest was not updated). Note that a server is not required 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 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 so. This error code just provides a way for the server to explain
its (in-)action. its (in-)action.
other_error: A meteor fell on the server. other_error: A meteor fell on the server.
2.6. XML Schema 2.6. 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 3785 2016-09-21 22:21:58Z sra $ This schema is normative: in the event of a disagreement between this
schema and the document text above, this schema is authoritative.
# 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 4 of the protocol. # This is version 4 of the protocol.
version = "4" version = "4"
# Top level PDU is either a query or a reply. # Top level PDU is either a query or a reply.
skipping to change at page 9, line 41 skipping to change at page 11, line 33
Note the authors have taken liberties with the Base64, hash, and URI Note the authors have taken liberties with the Base64, hash, and URI
text in these examples in the interest of making the examples fit text in these examples in the interest of making the examples fit
nicely into RFC text format. nicely into RFC text format.
3.1. <publish/> Query, No Existing Object 3.1. <publish/> Query, No Existing Object
<msg <msg
type="query" type="query"
version="4" version="4"
xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"> xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
<!-- body is base64(new-object) -->
<publish <publish
tag="foo" tag=""
uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/01a97a70ac477f06.cer"> uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/01a97a70ac477f06.cer">
SGVsbG8sIG15IG5hbWUgaXMgQWxpY2U= SGVsbG8sIG15IG5hbWUgaXMgQWxpY2U=
</publish> </publish>
</msg> </msg>
3.2. <publish/> Query, Overwriting Existing Object 3.2. <publish/> Query, Overwriting Existing Object
<msg <msg
type="query" type="query"
version="4" version="4"
xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"> xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
<!-- hash is hex(SHA-256(old-object)) -->
<!-- body is base64(new-object) -->
<publish <publish
hash="01a97a70ac477f06" hash="01a97a70ac477f06"
tag="foo" tag="foo"
uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/01a97a70ac477f06.cer"> uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/01a97a70ac477f06.cer">
SGVsbG8sIG15IG5hbWUgaXMgQWxpY2U= SGVsbG8sIG15IG5hbWUgaXMgQWxpY2U=
</publish> </publish>
</msg> </msg>
3.3. <withdraw/> Query 3.3. <withdraw/> Query
<msg <msg
type="query" type="query"
version="4" version="4"
xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"> xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
<!-- hash is hex(SHA-256(old-object)) -->
<withdraw <withdraw
hash="01a97a70ac477f06" hash="01a97a70ac477f06"
tag="foo" tag="foo"
uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/01a97a70ac477f06.cer"/> uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/01a97a70ac477f06.cer"/>
</msg> </msg>
3.4. <success/> Reply 3.4. <success/> Reply
<msg <msg
type="reply" type="reply"
skipping to change at page 14, line 48 skipping to change at page 16, line 48
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 rsync 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 efficiently, particularly
efficiently as possible. for relying party implementations which follow the safety rule of
never retrieving anything from a URI which didn't come directly from
either a signed object or a trust anchor locator.
Given that the mandatory-to-implement retrieval protocol for relying Given that the mandatory-to-implement retrieval protocol for relying
parties is rsync, a more efficient repository structure would be one parties is rsync, a more efficient repository structure would be one
which minimized the number of rsync fetches required. One such which minimized the number of rsync fetches required. One such
structure would be one in which the publication directories for structure would be one in which the publication directories for
subjects were placed underneath the publication directories of their subjects were placed underneath the publication directories of their
issuers: since the normal synchronization tree walk is top-down, this issuers: since the normal synchronization tree walk is top-down, this
can significantly reduce the total number of rsync connections can significantly reduce the total number of rsync connections
required to synchronize. For example: required to synchronize. For example:
rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/ rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/
rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/Bob/ rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/Bob/
rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/Bob/Carol/ rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/Bob/Carol/
Preliminary measurement suggests that, in the case of large numbers Preliminary measurement suggests that, in the case of large numbers
of small publication directories, the time needed to set up and tear of small publication directories, the time needed to set up and tear
down individual rsync connections becomes significant, and that a down individual rsync connections becomes significant, and that a
properly optimized tree structure can reduce synchronization time by properly optimized tree structure can reduce synchronization time by
an order of magnitude. an order of magnitude.
The more complex tree structure does require careful attention to the The more complex tree structure does require careful attention when
"base_uri" attribute values when setting up clients. In the example setting up clients. In the example above, assuming that Alice issues
above, assuming that Alice issues to Bob who in turn issues to Carol, to Bob who in turn issues to Carol, Alice has ceded control of a
Alice has ceded control of a portion of her publication space to Bob, portion of her publication space to Bob, who has in turn ceded a
who has in turn ceded a portion of that to Carol, and the "base_uri" portion of that to Carol.
attributes in the <client/> setup messages should reflect this.
The details of how the repository operator determines that Alice has The details of how the repository operator determines that Alice has
given Bob permission to nest Bob's publication directory under given Bob permission to nest Bob's publication directory under
Alice's is outside the scope of this protocol. Alice's is outside the scope of this protocol.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to register the application/rpki-publication MIME media IANA is asked to register the application/rpki-publication MIME media
type as follows: type as follows:
skipping to change at page 16, line 22 skipping to change at page 18, line 22
Interoperability considerations: None Interoperability considerations: None
Published specification: This document Published specification: This document
Applications which use this media type: HTTP Applications which use this media type: HTTP
Additional information: Additional information:
Magic number(s): None Magic number(s): None
File extension(s): File extension(s):
Macintosh File Type Code(s): Macintosh File Type Code(s):
Person & email address to contact for further information: Person & email address to contact for further information:
Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net> Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
Intended usage: COMMON Intended usage: COMMON
Author/Change controller: Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net> Author/Change controller: IETF
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 RPKI publication protocol message is CMS-signed. Because of Each RPKI publication protocol message is CMS-signed. Because of
that protection at the application layer, this protocol does not that protection at the application layer, this protocol does not
require the use of HTTPS or other transport security mechanisms. require the use of HTTPS or other transport security mechanisms.
Although the hashes used in the <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs are Although the hashes used in the <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs are
cryptographic strength, the digest algorithm was selected for cryptographically strong, the digest algorithm was selected for
convenience in comparing these hashes with the hashes that appear in convenience in comparing these hashes with the hashes that appear in
RPKI manifests. The hashes used in the <publish/> and <withdraw/> RPKI manifests. The hashes used in the <publish/> and <withdraw/>
PDUs are not particularly security-sensitive, because these PDUs are PDUs are not particularly security-sensitive, because these PDUs are
protected by the CMS signatures. 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 private keys, could lead to a denial-of-service attack on the
attacker gaining access to BPKI keys could use this protocol delete RPKI. An attacker gaining access to BPKI private keys could use this
(withdraw) RPKI objects, leading to routing changes or failures. protocol to delete (withdraw) RPKI objects, leading to routing
Accordingly, as in most PKIs, good key management practices are changes or failures. Accordingly, as in most PKIs, good key
important. management practices are important.
7. References 7. Acknowledgements
7.1. Normative References The authors would like to thank: Geoff Huston, George Michaelson,
Oleg Muravskiy, Paul Wouters, Randy Bush, Rob Loomans, Robert
Kisteleki, Tim Bruijnzeels, Tom Petch, and anybody else who helped
along the way but whose name(s) the authors have temporarily
forgotten.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[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)", [RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)",
RFC 5652, STD 70, September 2009. RFC 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", Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates",
RFC 6492, February 2012. RFC 6492, February 2012.
[SHS] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure [SHS] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
Hash Standard", FIPS PUB 180-4, March 2012, Hash Standard", FIPS PUB 180-4, March 2012,
<http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/ <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/
fips-180-4.pdf>. fips-180-4.pdf>.
7.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sidr-delta-protocol]
Bruijnzeels, T., Muravskiy, O., Weber, B., and R. Austein,
"RPKI Repository Delta Protocol", draft-ietf-sidr-delta-
protocol-04 (work in progress), September 2016.
[I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup]
Austein, R., "An Out-Of-Band Setup Protocol For RPKI
Production Services", draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-05
(work in progress), December 2016.
[RelaxNG] Clark, J., "RELAX NG Compact Syntax", OASIS , November
2002, <https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/
compact-20021121.html>.
[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.
[XML] Cowan, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1", W3C CR
CR-xml11-20021015, October 2002.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Samuel Weiler Samuel Weiler
Parsons W3C / MIT
Email: weiler@tislabs.com Email: weiler@csail.mit.edu
Anuja Sonalker Anuja Sonalker
TowerSec Automotive Cyber Security TowerSec Automotive Cyber Security
Email: asonalker@tower-sec.com Email: asonalker@tower-sec.com
Rob Austein Rob Austein
Dragon Research Labs Dragon Research Labs
Email: sra@hactrn.net Email: sra@hactrn.net
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
82 lines changed or deleted 198 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/