draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal-00.txt   draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal-01.txt 
Network Working Group T. Bruijnzeels Network Working Group G. Huston
Internet-Draft RIPE NCC Internet-Draft APNIC
Obsoletes: 7730 (if approved) G. Michaelson Obsoletes: 7730 (if approved) S. Weiler
Intended status: Standards Track APNIC Intended status: Standards Track Parsons
Expires: September 21, 2018 March 20, 2018 Expires: October 1, 2018 G. Michaelson
APNIC
S. Kent
BBN Technologies
T. Bruijnzeels
RIPE NCC
March 30, 2018
Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator
draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal-00 draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal-01
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) for the Resource This document defines a Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) for the Resource
Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). This document obsoletes RFC 7730 Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). This document obsoletes RFC 7730
by adding support for HTTPS URIs in a TAL. by adding support for HTTPS URIs in a TAL.
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 September 21, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 1, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 11 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Trust Anchor Locator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Trust Anchor Locator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Trust Anchor Locator Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Trust Anchor Locator Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. TAL and Trust Anchor Certificate Considerations . . . . . 3 2.2. TAL and Trust Anchor Certificate Considerations . . . . . 4
2.3. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Relying Party Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Relying Party Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. HTTPS Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. HTTPS Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
skipping to change at page 6, line 21 skipping to change at page 6, line 31
o Creating a prioritized list of URIs based on RP-specific o Creating a prioritized list of URIs based on RP-specific
parameters, such as connection establishment delay parameters, such as connection establishment delay
If the connection to the preferred URI fails, or the retrieved CA If the connection to the preferred URI fails, or the retrieved CA
certificate public key does not match the TAL public key, the RP certificate public key does not match the TAL public key, the RP
SHOULD retrieve the CA certificate from the next URI, according to SHOULD retrieve the CA certificate from the next URI, according to
the local preference ranking of URIs. the local preference ranking of URIs.
4. HTTPS Considerations 4. HTTPS Considerations
REMOVE LATER: The following text is inspired by the equivalent
section in [RFC8182], but adapted for this case.
Note that a Man in the Middle (MITM) cannot produce a CA certificate Note that a Man in the Middle (MITM) cannot produce a CA certificate
that would be considered valid according to the process described in that would be considered valid according to the process described in
Section 3. However, a MITM can perform withhold or replay attacks Section 3. However, a MITM can perform withhold or replay attacks
targeting a Relying Party and keep the Relying Party from learning targeting a Relying Party and keep the Relying Party from learning
about an update CA certificate. Because of this, Relying Parties about an update CA certificate. Because of this, Relying Parties
SHOULD do TLS certificate and host name validation when they fetch a SHOULD do TLS certificate and host name validation when they fetch a
CA certificate using an HTTPS URI on a TAL. CA certificate using an HTTPS URI on a TAL.
Relying Party tools SHOULD log any TLS certificate or host name Relying Party tools SHOULD log any TLS certificate or host name
validation issues found, so that an operator can investigate the validation issues found, so that an operator can investigate the
skipping to change at page 9, line 36 skipping to change at page 9, line 41
[RFC5914] Housley, R., Ashmore, S., and C. Wallace, "Trust Anchor [RFC5914] Housley, R., Ashmore, S., and C. Wallace, "Trust Anchor
Format", RFC 5914, DOI 10.17487/RFC5914, June 2010, Format", RFC 5914, DOI 10.17487/RFC5914, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5914>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5914>.
[RFC6486] Austein, R., Huston, G., Kent, S., and M. Lepinski, [RFC6486] Austein, R., Huston, G., Kent, S., and M. Lepinski,
"Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure "Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI)", RFC 6486, DOI 10.17487/RFC6486, February 2012, (RPKI)", RFC 6486, DOI 10.17487/RFC6486, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6486>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6486>.
[RFC8182] Bruijnzeels, T., Muravskiy, O., Weber, B., and R. Austein,
"The RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)", RFC 8182,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8182, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8182>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Tim Bruijnzeels Geoff Huston
RIPE NCC APNIC
Email: tim@ripe.net Email: gih@apnic.net
URI: https://www.apnic.net
Samuel Weiler
Parsons
7110 Samuel Morse Drive
Columbia, MD 21046
United States
Email: weiler@tislabs.com
George Michaelson George Michaelson
APNIC APNIC
Email: ggm@apnic.net Email: ggm@apnic.net
URI: https://www.apnic.net
Stephen Kent
BBN Technologies
10 Moulton St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States
Email: kent@bbn.com
Tim Bruijnzeels
RIPE NCC
Email: tim@ripe.net
URI: https://www.ripe.net
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 25 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/