< draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-02.txt   draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-03.txt >
Network Working Group R. Bush Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft IIJ & Arrcus Internet-Draft IIJ & Arrcus
Intended status: Standards Track M. Candela Intended status: Standards Track M. Candela
Expires: August 12, 2021 NTT Expires: August 20, 2021 NTT
W. Kumari W. Kumari
Google Google
R. Housley R. Housley
Vigil Security Vigil Security
February 8, 2021 February 16, 2021
Finding and Using Geofeed Data Finding and Using Geofeed Data
draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-02 draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-03
Abstract Abstract
This document describes how to find and authenticate geofeed data. This document describes how to find and authenticate geofeed data.
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 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 August 12, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 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 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 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 17
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Geofeed Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Geofeed Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. inetnum: Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. inetnum: Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Authenticating Geofeed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Authenticating Geofeed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Providers of Internet content and other services may wish to Providers of Internet content and other services may wish to
customize those services based on the geographic location of the user customize those services based on the geographic location of the user
of the service. This is often done using the source IP address used of the service. This is often done using the source IP address used
to contact the service. Also, infrastructure and other services to contact the service. Also, infrastructure and other services
might wish to publish the locale of their services. [RFC8805] might wish to publish the locale of their services. [RFC8805]
defines geofeed, a syntax to associate geographic locales with IP defines geofeed, a syntax to associate geographic locales with IP
addresses. But it does not specify how to find the relevant geofeed addresses. But it does not specify how to find the relevant geofeed
data given an IP address. data given an IP address.
This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy
Specification Language (RPSL) [RFC4012] inetnum: class [INETNUM] to Specification Language (RPSL) [RFC4012] inetnum: class [RFC2725] and
refer to geofeed data, and how to prudently use them. In all places [INETNUM] to refer to geofeed data, and how to prudently use them.
inetnum: is used, inet6num: should also be assumed [INET6NUM]. In all places inetnum: is used, inet6num: should also be assumed
[RFC4012] and [INET6NUM].
An optional, but utterly awesome, means for authenticating geofeed An optional, but utterly awesome, means for authenticating geofeed
data is also defined. data is also defined.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
skipping to change at page 5, line 19 skipping to change at page 5, line 19
certificate with the signature and the digest of the geofeed text. certificate with the signature and the digest of the geofeed text.
[I-D.michaelson-rpki-rta] describes a Cryptographic Message Syntax [I-D.michaelson-rpki-rta] describes a Cryptographic Message Syntax
(CMS) profile for a general purpose Resource Tagged Attestation (RTA) (CMS) profile for a general purpose Resource Tagged Attestation (RTA)
based on the RPKI. While this is expected to become applicable in based on the RPKI. While this is expected to become applicable in
the long run, for the purposes of this document, a self-signed root the long run, for the purposes of this document, a self-signed root
trust anchor is used. trust anchor is used.
Borrowing detached signatures from [RFC5485], after text file Borrowing detached signatures from [RFC5485], after text file
canonicalization (Sec 2.2), the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) canonicalization (Sec 2.2), the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
[RFC3852] would be used to create a detached DER encoded signature [RFC5652] would be used to create a detached DER encoded signature
which is then BASE64 encoded and line wrapped to 72 or fewer which is then BASE64 encoded and line wrapped to 72 or fewer
characters. characters.
Both the address ranges of the signing certificate and of the Both the address ranges of the signing certificate and of the
inetnum: MUST cover all prefixes in the geofeed file; and the address inetnum: MUST cover all prefixes in the geofeed file; and the address
range of the signing certificate must cover that of the inetnum:. range of the signing certificate must cover that of the inetnum:.
An address range A 'covers' address range B if the range of B is An address range A 'covers' address range B if the range of B is
identical to or a subset of A. 'Address range' is used here because identical to or a subset of A. 'Address range' is used here because
inetnum: objects and RPKI certificates need not align on CIDR prefix inetnum: objects and RPKI certificates need not align on CIDR prefix
boundaries, while those of geofeed lines must. boundaries, while those of geofeed lines must.
As the signer would need to specify the covered RPKI resources As the signer would need to specify the covered RPKI resources
relevant to the signature, the RPKI certificate covering the inetnum: relevant to the signature, the RPKI certificate covering the inetnum:
object's address range would be included in the [RFC3852] CMS object's address range would be included in the [RFC5652] CMS
SignedData certificates field. SignedData certificates field.
Identifying the private key associated with the certificate, and Identifying the private key associated with the certificate, and
getting the department with the HSM to sign the CMS blob is left as getting the department with the HSM to sign the CMS blob is left as
an exercise for the implementor. On the other hand, verifying the an exercise for the implementor. On the other hand, verifying the
signature requires no complexity; the certificate, which can be signature requires no complexity; the certificate, which can be
validated in the public RPKI, has the needed public key. validated in the public RPKI, has the needed public key.
Until [RFC8805] is updated to formally define such an appendix, it Until [RFC8805] is updated to formally define such an appendix, it
MUST be 'hidden' as a series of "#" comments at the end of the MUST be 'hidden' as a series of "#" comments at the end of the
skipping to change at page 6, line 24 skipping to change at page 6, line 24
To create the needed inetnum: objects, an operator wishing to To create the needed inetnum: objects, an operator wishing to
register the location of their geofeed file needs to coordinate with register the location of their geofeed file needs to coordinate with
their RIR/NIR and/or any provider LIR which has assigned prefixes to their RIR/NIR and/or any provider LIR which has assigned prefixes to
them. RIRs/NIRs provide means for assignees to create and maintain them. RIRs/NIRs provide means for assignees to create and maintain
inetnum: objects. They also provide means of [sub-]assigning IP inetnum: objects. They also provide means of [sub-]assigning IP
address resources and allowing the assignee to create whois data, address resources and allowing the assignee to create whois data,
including inetnum: objects, and thereby referring to geofeed files. including inetnum: objects, and thereby referring to geofeed files.
The geofeed files SHOULD be published over and fetched using https The geofeed files SHOULD be published over and fetched using https
[RFC2818]. [RFC8446].
When using data from a geofeed file, one MUST ignore data outside of When using data from a geofeed file, one MUST ignore data outside of
the referring inetnum: object's inetnum: attribute address range. the referring inetnum: object's inetnum: attribute address range.
Iff the geofeed file is not signed per Section 4, then multiple Iff the geofeed file is not signed per Section 4, then multiple
inetnum: objects MAY refer to the same geofeed file, and the consumer inetnum: objects MAY refer to the same geofeed file, and the consumer
MUST use only geofeed lines where the prefix is covered by the MUST use only geofeed lines where the prefix is covered by the
address range of the inetnum: object they have followed. address range of the inetnum: object they have followed.
To minimize the load on RIR whois [RFC3912] services, use of the To minimize the load on RIR whois [RFC3912] services, use of the
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 39
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to register object identifiers for one content type in IANA is asked to register object identifiers for one content type in
the "SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type the "SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type
(1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1)" registry as follows: (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1)" registry as follows:
Description OID Specification Description OID Specification
----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
id-ct-geofeedCSVwithCRLF 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.47 [RFC-TBD] id-ct-geofeedCSVwithCRLF 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.47 [RFC-TBD]
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Rob Austein for CMS and detached signature clue. George Thanks to Rob Austein for CMS and detached signature clue. George
Michaelson for the first, and a substantial, external review. Erik Michaelson for the first, and a substantial, external review. Erik
Kline who was too shy to agree to co-authorship. Additionally, we Kline who was too shy to agree to co-authorship. Additionally, we
express our gratitude to early implementors, including Menno express our gratitude to early implementors, including Menno
Schepers, Flavio Luciani, Eric Dugas, Job Snijders who provided a CLI Schepers, Flavio Luciani, Eric Dugas, Job Snijders who provided a CLI
demo, and Kevin Pack. Also to geolocation providers that are demo, and Kevin Pack. Also to geolocation providers that are
consuming geofeeds with this described solution, Jonathan Kosgei consuming geofeeds with this described solution, Jonathan Kosgei
(ipdata.co), and Ben Dowling (ipinfo.io). For reviews, we thank (ipdata.co), Ben Dowling (ipinfo.io), and Pol Nisenblat
Antonio Prado. (bigdatacloud.com). For reviews, we thank Adrian Farrel Antonio
Prado, and George Michaelson, the document shepherd.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[INET6NUM]
RIPE, "Description of the INET6NUM Object",
<https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-
asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/
rpsl-object-types/4-2-descriptions-of-primary-
objects/4-2-3-description-of-the-inet6num-object>.
[INETNUM] RIPE, "Description of the INETNUM Object",
<https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-
asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/
rpsl-object-types/4-2-descriptions-of-primary-
objects/4-2-4-description-of-the-inetnum-object>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, [RFC2725] Villamizar, C., Alaettinoglu, C., Meyer, D., and S.
DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, Murphy, "Routing Policy System Security", RFC 2725,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>. DOI 10.17487/RFC2725, December 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2725>.
[RFC3852] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)",
RFC 3852, DOI 10.17487/RFC3852, July 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3852>.
[RFC4012] Blunk, L., Damas, J., Parent, F., and A. Robachevsky, [RFC4012] Blunk, L., Damas, J., Parent, F., and A. Robachevsky,
"Routing Policy Specification Language next generation "Routing Policy Specification Language next generation
(RPSLng)", RFC 4012, DOI 10.17487/RFC4012, March 2005, (RPSLng)", RFC 4012, DOI 10.17487/RFC4012, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4012>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4012>.
[RFC5485] Housley, R., "Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft [RFC5485] Housley, R., "Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft
Documents", RFC 5485, DOI 10.17487/RFC5485, March 2009, Documents", RFC 5485, DOI 10.17487/RFC5485, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5485>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5485>.
[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.
[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>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8805] Kline, E., Duleba, K., Szamonek, Z., Moser, S., and W. [RFC8805] Kline, E., Duleba, K., Szamonek, Z., Moser, S., and W.
Kumari, "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation Kumari, "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation
Feeds", RFC 8805, DOI 10.17487/RFC8805, August 2020, Feeds", RFC 8805, DOI 10.17487/RFC8805, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8805>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8805>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[geofeed-finder] [geofeed-finder]
Massimo Candela, "geofeed-finder", Massimo Candela, "geofeed-finder",
<https://github.com/massimocandela/geofeed-finder>. <https://github.com/massimocandela/geofeed-finder>.
[I-D.michaelson-rpki-rta] [I-D.michaelson-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)", draft-michaelson-rpki-rta-02 (work Attestations (RTAs)", draft-michaelson-rpki-rta-02 (work
in progress), November 2020. in progress), November 2020.
[INET6NUM]
RIPE, "Description of the INET6NUM Object",
<https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-
asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/
rpsl-object-types/4-2-descriptions-of-primary-
objects/4-2-3-description-of-the-inet6num-object>.
[INETNUM] RIPE, "Description of the INETNUM Object",
<https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-
asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/
rpsl-object-types/4-2-descriptions-of-primary-
objects/4-2-4-description-of-the-inetnum-object>.
[RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", [RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
STD 9, RFC 959, DOI 10.17487/RFC0959, October 1985, STD 9, RFC 959, DOI 10.17487/RFC0959, October 1985,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc959>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc959>.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, [RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>.
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, [RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
35 lines changed or deleted 42 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/