< draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-08.txt		draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-09.txt >
	SIDR Working Group M. Reynolds		SIDR Working Group M. Reynolds
	Internet-Draft IPSw		Internet-Draft IPSw
	Updates: 6487 (if approved) S. Turner		Updates: 6487 (if approved) S. Turner
	Intended status: Standards Track IECA, Inc.		Intended status: Standards Track IECA, Inc.
	Expires: February 14, 2015 S. Kent		Expires: May 14, 2015 S. Kent
	BBN		BBN
	August 13, 2014		November 10, 2014
	A Profile for BGPSEC Router Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists,		A Profile for BGPSEC Router Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists,
	and Certification Requests		and Certification Requests
	draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-08		draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-09
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines a standard profile for X.509 certificates for		This document defines a standard profile for X.509 certificates for
	the purposes of supporting validation of Autonomous System (AS) paths		the purposes of supporting validation of Autonomous System (AS) paths
	in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), as part of an extension to that		in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), as part of an extension to that
	protocol known as BGPSEC. BGP is a critical component for the proper		protocol known as BGPSEC. BGP is a critical component for the proper
	operation of the Internet as a whole. The BGPSEC protocol is under		operation of the Internet as a whole. The BGPSEC protocol is under
	development as a component to address the requirement to provide		development as a component to address the requirement to provide
	security for the BGP protocol. The goal of BGPSEC is to design a		security for the BGP protocol. The goal of BGPSEC is to design a
	skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶
	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 February 14, 2015.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 14, 2015.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 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
	skipping to change at page 5, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 26 ¶
	This field identifies the router to which the certificate has been		This field identifies the router to which the certificate has been
	issued. Consistent with [RFC6487], only two attributes are allowed		issued. Consistent with [RFC6487], only two attributes are allowed
	in the Subject field: common name and serial number. Moreover, the		in the Subject field: common name and serial number. Moreover, the
	only common name encoding options that are supported are		only common name encoding options that are supported are
	printableString and UTF8String. For BGPSEC Router Certificates, it		printableString and UTF8String. For BGPSEC Router Certificates, it
	is RECOMMENDED that the common name attribute contain the literal		is RECOMMENDED that the common name attribute contain the literal
	string "ROUTER-" followed by the 32-bit AS Number [RFC3779] encoded		string "ROUTER-" followed by the 32-bit AS Number [RFC3779] encoded
	as eight hexadecimal digits and that the serial number attribute		as eight hexadecimal digits and that the serial number attribute
	contain the 32-bit BGP Identifier [RFC4271] (i.e., the router ID)		contain the 32-bit BGP Identifier [RFC4271] (i.e., the router ID)
	encoded as eight hexadecimal digits. If more than one certificate		encoded as eight hexadecimal digits. Routers can support multiple
	for an AS is issued (i.e., more than one router gets a certificate		ASs with separate keys pairs, one for each AS. Note that router IDs
	for the AS and hence the private key is shared among more than one		are not guaranteed to be unique across the Internet, and thus the
	router), the choice of the router ID used in Subject name is at the		Subject name in a BGPSEC Router Certificate issued using this
	discretion of the Issuer. Note that router IDs are not guaranteed to		convention also is not guaranteed to be unique across different
	be unique across the Internet, and thus the Subject name in a BGPSEC		issuers. However, each certificate issued by an individual CA MUST
	Router Certificate issued using this convention also is not		contain a Subject name that is unique within that context.
	guaranteed to be unique across different issuers. However, each
	certificate issued by an individual CA MUST contain a Subject name
	that is unique within that context.
	3.1.2. Subject Public Key Info		3.1.2. Subject Public Key Info
	Refer to section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs].		Refer to section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs].
	3.1.3. BGPSEC Router Certificate Version 3 Extension Fields		3.1.3. BGPSEC Router Certificate Version 3 Extension Fields
	The following X.509 V3 extensions MUST be present (or MUST be absent,		The following X.509 V3 extensions MUST be present (or MUST be absent,
	if so stated) in a conforming BGPSEC Router Certificate, except where		if so stated) in a conforming BGPSEC Router Certificate, except where
	explicitly noted otherwise. No other extensions are allowed in a		explicitly noted otherwise. No other extensions are allowed in a
	skipping to change at page 9, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 42 ¶
	(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.		(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.
	[RFC6487] Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for		[RFC6487] Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for
	X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487, February		X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487, February
	2012.		2012.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]		[I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]
	Lepinski, M., "BGPSEC Protocol Specification", draft-ietf-		Lepinski, M., "BGPSEC Protocol Specification", draft-ietf-
	sidr-bgpsec-protocol-09 (work in progress), July 2014.		sidr-bgpsec-protocol-10 (work in progress), October 2014.
	[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC		[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC
	4272, January 2006.		4272, January 2006.
	[RFC5123] White, R. and B. Akyol, "Considerations in Validating the		[RFC5123] White, R. and B. Akyol, "Considerations in Validating the
	Path in BGP", RFC 5123, February 2008.		Path in BGP", RFC 5123, February 2008.
	[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement		[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
	with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009.		with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009.
End of changes. 6 change blocks.
	15 lines changed or deleted		12 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/