draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc.txt   draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-03.txt 
Network Working Group J. Snijders Network Working Group J. Snijders
Internet-Draft Fastly Internet-Draft Fastly
Intended status: Standards Track T. Harrison Intended status: Standards Track T. Harrison
Expires: 2 December 2021 APNIC Expires: November 28, 2021 APNIC
B. Maddison B. Maddison
Workonline Workonline
31 May 2021 May 27, 2021
Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) object profile for Signed Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) object profile for Signed
Checklist (RSC) Checklist (RSC)
draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-04 draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-03
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) profile This document defines a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) profile
for a general purpose listing of checksums (a 'checklist'), for use for a general purpose listing of checksums (a 'checklist'), for use
with the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). The objective is with the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). The objective is
to allow an attestation, in the form of a listing of one or more to allow an attestation, in the form of a listing of one or more
checksums of arbitrary digital objects (files), to be signed "with checksums of arbitrary digital objects (files), to be signed "with
resources", and for validation to provide a means to confirm a resources", and for validation to provide a means to confirm a
specific Internet Resource Holder produced the Signed Checklist. The specific Internet Resource Holder produced the Signed Checklist. The
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 2 December 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 28, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RSC Profile and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. RSC Profile and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The RSC ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. The RSC ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. The RSC eContent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. The RSC eContent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. digestAlgorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. digestAlgorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. checkList . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.4. checkList . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. RSC Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. RSC Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE 8. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 7
PUBLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type 9.1. SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type
(1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. RPKI Signed Objects sub-registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.2. RPKI Signed Objects sub-registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.3. File Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.3. File Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.4. SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier 9.4. SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier
(1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.5. Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.5. Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Document changelog - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE Appendix B. Document changelog - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE
PUBLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 PUBLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B.1. changes from -03 -> -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B.1. changes from -02 -> -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B.2. changes from -02 -> -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B.2. changes from -01 -> -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B.3. changes from -01 -> -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B.3. changes from -00 -> -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.4. changes from -00 -> -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B.4. individual submission phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.5. individual submission phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] This document defines a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652]
profile for a general purpose listing of checksums (a 'checklist'), profile for a general purpose listing of checksums (a 'checklist'),
for use with the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6480]. for use with the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6480].
The objective is to allow an attestation, in the form of a listing of The objective is to allow an attestation, in the form of a listing of
one or more checksums of arbitrary files, to be signed "with one or more checksums of arbitrary files, to be signed "with
resources", and for validation to provide a means to confirm a given resources", and for validation to provide a means to confirm a given
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
OPTIONAL. OPTIONAL.
5. RSC Validation 5. RSC Validation
Before a relying party can use an RSC to validate a set of digital Before a relying party can use an RSC to validate a set of digital
objects, the relying party MUST first validate the RSC. To validate objects, the relying party MUST first validate the RSC. To validate
an RSC, the relying party MUST perform all the validation checks an RSC, the relying party MUST perform all the validation checks
specified in [RFC6488] as well as the following additional RSC- specified in [RFC6488] as well as the following additional RSC-
specific validation steps. specific validation steps.
* The IP Addresses and AS Identifiers extension [RFC3779] is present o The IP address delegation extension [RFC3779] is present in the
in the end-entity (EE) certificate (contained within the RSC), and end-entity (EE) certificate (contained within the RSC), and each
each IP address prefix(es) and/or AS Identifier(s) in the RSC is IP address prefix(es) in the RSC is contained within the set of IP
contained within the set of IP addresses specified by the EE addresses specified by the EE certificate's IP address delegation
certificate's IP address delegation extension. extension.
* For each FilenameAndHash entry in the RSC, if a filename field is o For each FilenameAndHash entry in the RSC, if a filename field is
present, the field's content MUST contain only characters present, the field's content MUST contain only characters
specified in the Portable Filename Character Set as defined in specified in the Portable Filename Character Set as defined in
[POSIX]. [POSIX].
To validate a set of digital objects against an RSC: To validate a set of digital objects against an RSC:
* The message digest of each referenced digital object, using the o The message digest of each referenced digital object, using the
digest algorithm specified in the the digestAlgorithm field, MUST digest algorithm specified in the the digestAlgorithm field, MUST
be calculated and MUST match the value given in the messageDigest be calculated and MUST match the value given in the messageDigest
field of the associated FilenameAndHash, for the digital object to field of the associated FilenameAndHash, for the digital object to
be considered valid as against the RSC. be considered valid as against the RSC.
6. Operational Considerations 6. Operational Considerations
When creating digital objects of a plain-text nature (such as ASCII, When creating digital objects of a plain-text nature (such as ASCII,
UTF-8, HTML, Javascript, XML, etc) it is RECOMMENDED to convert such UTF-8, HTML, Javascript, XML, etc) it is RECOMMENDED to convert such
objects into a lossless compressed form. Distributing plain-text objects into a lossless compressed form. Distributing plain-text
skipping to change at page 7, line 51 skipping to change at page 7, line 51
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist. exist.
According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit". they see fit".
* A signer and validator implementation [rpki-rsc-demo] written in o A signer and validator implementation [rpki-rsc-demo] written in
Perl based on OpenSSL was provided by Tom Harrison from APNIC. Perl based on OpenSSL was provided by Tom Harrison from APNIC.
* A signer implementation [rpkimancer] written in Python was o A signer implementation [rpkimancer] written in Python was
developed by Ben Maddison. developed by Ben Maddison.
* Example .sig files were created by Job Snijders with the use of o Example .sig files were created by Job Snijders with the use of
OpenSSL. OpenSSL.
* A validator implementation based on OpenBSD rpki-client and o A validator implementation based on OpenBSD rpki-client and
LibreSSL was developed by Job Snijders. LibreSSL was developed by Job Snijders.
* A validator implementation [FORT] based on the FORT validator was
developed by Alberto Leiva.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
9.1. SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1) 9.1. SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1)
The IANA has permanently allocated for this document in the SMI The IANA has permanently allocated for this document in the SMI
Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1) Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1)
registry: registry:
Decimal Description References Decimal Description References
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
skipping to change at page 10, line 40 skipping to change at page 10, line 40
Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public
Key Infrastructure", RFC 7935, DOI 10.17487/RFC7935, Key Infrastructure", RFC 7935, DOI 10.17487/RFC7935,
August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7935>. August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7935>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[FORT] LACNIC and NIC.MX, "FORT", May 2021,
<https://github.com/NICMx/FORT-validator>.
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta] [I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta]
Michaelson, G., Huston, G., Harrison, T., Bruijnzeels, T., Michaelson, G., Huston, G., Harrison, T., Bruijnzeels, T.,
and M. Hoffmann, "A profile for Resource Tagged and M. Hoffmann, "A profile for Resource Tagged
Attestations (RTAs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, Attestations (RTAs)", draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00 (work
draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00, 21 January 2021, in progress), January 2021.
<https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sidrops-
rpki-rta-00.txt>.
[I-D.ymbk-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity] [I-D.ymbk-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity]
Bush, R. and R. Housley, "The I in RPKI does not stand for Bush, R. and R. Housley, "The I in RPKI does not stand for
Identity", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ymbk- Identity", draft-ymbk-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-00
sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-00, March 2021, (work in progress), March 2021.
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ymbk-sidrops-rpki-
has-no-identity-00.txt>.
[POSIX] IEEE and The Open Group, "The Open Group's Base [POSIX] IEEE and The Open Group, "The Open Group's Base
Specifications, Issue 7", 2016, Specifications, Issue 7", 2016,
<https://publications.opengroup.org/standards/unix/c165>. <https://publications.opengroup.org/standards/unix/c165>.
[RFC1952] Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3", [RFC1952] Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3",
RFC 1952, DOI 10.17487/RFC1952, May 1996, RFC 1952, DOI 10.17487/RFC1952, May 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1952>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1952>.
[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support [RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 11, line 36
[signify] Unangst, T. and M. Espie, "signify - cryptographically [signify] Unangst, T. and M. Espie, "signify - cryptographically
sign and verify files", May 2014, sign and verify files", May 2014,
<https://man.openbsd.org/signify>. <https://man.openbsd.org/signify>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank George Michaelson, Tom Harrison, Geoff The authors wish to thank George Michaelson, Tom Harrison, Geoff
Huston, Randy Bush, Stephen Kent, Matt Lepinski, Rob Austein, Ted Huston, Randy Bush, Stephen Kent, Matt Lepinski, Rob Austein, Ted
Unangst, and Marc Espie for prior art. The authors thank Russ Unangst, and Marc Espie for prior art. The authors thank Russ
Housley for reviewing the ASN.1 notation and providing suggestions. Housley for reviewing the ASN.1 notation and providing suggestions.
The authors would like to thank Nimrod Levy, Tim Bruijnzeels, and The authors would like to thank Nimrod Levy, and Tim Bruijnzeels for
Alberto Leiva for document review and suggestions. document review and suggestions.
Appendix B. Document changelog - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION Appendix B. Document changelog - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION
B.1. changes from -03 -> -04 B.1. changes from -02 -> -03
* Alberto pointed out the asID validation also needs to be o Reference the IANA assigned OID
documented.
B.2. changes from -02 -> -03 o Clarify validation rules
* Reference the IANA assigned OID B.2. changes from -01 -> -02
* Clarify validation rules o Clarify RSC is part of a puzzle, not panacea. Thanks Randy & Russ
B.3. changes from -01 -> -02 B.3. changes from -00 -> -01
* Clarify RSC is part of a puzzle, not panacea. Thanks Randy & Russ o Readability improvements
B.4. changes from -00 -> -01 o Update document category to match the registry allocation policy
* Readability improvements
* Update document category to match the registry allocation policy
requirement. requirement.
B.5. individual submission phase B.4. individual submission phase
* On-the-wire change: the 'Filename' switched from 'required' to o On-the-wire change: the 'Filename' switched from 'required' to
'optional'. Some SIDROPS Working Group participants proposed a 'optional'. Some SIDROPS Working Group participants proposed a
checksum itself is the most minimal information required to checksum itself is the most minimal information required to
address digital objects. address digital objects.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Job Snijders Job Snijders
Fastly Fastly
Amsterdam Amsterdam
Netherlands Netherlands
Email: job@fastly.com Email: job@fastly.com
Tom Harrison Tom Harrison
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
6 Cordelia St 6 Cordelia St
South Brisbane QLD 4101 South Brisbane, QLD 4101
Australia Australia
Email: tomh@apnic.net Email: tomh@apnic.net
Ben Maddison Ben Maddison
Workonline Communications Workonline Communications
Cape Town Cape Town
South Africa South Africa
Email: benm@workonline.africa Email: benm@workonline.africa
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
62 lines changed or deleted 47 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/