< draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-03.txt   draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-04.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: November 28, 2021 APNIC Expires: December 2, 2021 APNIC
B. Maddison B. Maddison
Workonline Workonline
May 27, 2021 May 31, 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-03 draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-04
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 November 28, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 2, 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 49 skipping to change at page 2, line 49
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 -02 -> -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B.1. changes from -03 -> -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B.2. changes from -01 -> -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B.2. changes from -02 -> -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B.3. changes from -00 -> -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B.3. changes from -01 -> -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.4. individual submission phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B.4. changes from -00 -> -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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.
o The IP address delegation extension [RFC3779] is present in the o The IP Addresses and AS Identifiers extension [RFC3779] is present
end-entity (EE) certificate (contained within the RSC), and each in the end-entity (EE) certificate (contained within the RSC), and
IP address prefix(es) in the RSC is contained within the set of IP each IP address prefix(es) and/or AS Identifier(s) in the RSC is
addresses specified by the EE certificate's IP address delegation contained within the set of IP addresses specified by the EE
extension. certificate's IP address delegation extension.
o 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:
o 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
skipping to change at page 8, line 14 skipping to change at page 8, line 14
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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)", draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00 (work Attestations (RTAs)", draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00 (work
in progress), January 2021. in progress), January 2021.
[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", draft-ymbk-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-00 Identity", draft-ymbk-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-00
(work in progress), March 2021. (work in progress), March 2021.
skipping to change at page 11, line 36 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, and Tim Bruijnzeels for The authors would like to thank Nimrod Levy, Tim Bruijnzeels, and
document review and suggestions. Alberto Leiva for 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 -02 -> -03 B.1. changes from -03 -> -04
o Alberto pointed out the asID validation also needs to be
documented.
B.2. changes from -02 -> -03
o Reference the IANA assigned OID o Reference the IANA assigned OID
o Clarify validation rules o Clarify validation rules
B.2. changes from -01 -> -02 B.3. changes from -01 -> -02
o Clarify RSC is part of a puzzle, not panacea. Thanks Randy & Russ o Clarify RSC is part of a puzzle, not panacea. Thanks Randy & Russ
B.3. changes from -00 -> -01 B.4. changes from -00 -> -01
o Readability improvements o Readability improvements
o Update document category to match the registry allocation policy o Update document category to match the registry allocation policy
requirement. requirement.
B.4. individual submission phase B.5. individual submission phase
o 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
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 31 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/