idnits 2.17.1 draft-barnes-sidr-tao-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (February 13, 2014) is 3725 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 439 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 440 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Secure Inter-Domain Routing E. Barnes 3 Internet-Draft BBN Technologies 4 Intended status: Standards Track February 13, 2014 5 Expires: August 17, 2014 7 Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Resource Transfer Protocol and 8 Transfer Authorization Object (TAO) 9 draft-barnes-sidr-tao-00 11 Abstract 13 This document defines an extension to the rpki-updown protocol to 14 provide support for transferring Internet Number Resources from one 15 INR holder to another. Such transfers take place external to the 16 RPKI, using procedures defined within and between RIRs. This 17 protocol facilitates automation of the maintenance of RPKI data in 18 the context of INR transfers. The protocol supports asynchronous 19 transfers of live or unused INRs within an RIR or between RIRs. The 20 scope of this protocol is limited to the transfer of Internet Number 21 Resources within the Resource Public Key Infrastructure. In support 22 of this protocol, this document also defines a new signed object type 23 for the RPKI repository system, the Transfer Authorization Object 24 (TAO). 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2014. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3. Protocol Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 3.1. INR Source Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 3.2. INR Recipient Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 3.3. Swing Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 3.4. Transfer Authorization Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 3.4.1. TAO Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 3.4.2. TAO Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 3.5. ASN.1 Specification of the TAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 3.5.1. transferFromSKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 3.5.2. transferToSKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 3.5.3. ipAddrBlocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 3.5.4. asIdentifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 3.5.5. liveXfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 3.5.6. overlapPeriod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 3.6. Common Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 78 3.7. End Entity Certificate Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 79 3.8. INR Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 80 3.8.1. Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 81 3.8.2. Request-Not-Performed Response . . . . . . . . . . . 13 82 3.8.3. Timeout Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 83 3.8.4. Overlap Failure Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 84 3.9. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 85 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 86 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 87 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 88 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 89 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 90 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 92 1. Introduction 94 This document defines an extension to the rpki-updown protocol, 95 defined in [RFC6492], to provide support for transferring Internet 96 Number Resources from one INR holder to another. The protocol 97 supports asynchronous transfers of live or unused INRs. The scope of 98 the protocol is limited to the transfer of Internet Number Resource 99 within the Resource Public Key Infrastructure, defined in [RFC6480]. 100 In support of this protocol, this document also defines a new signed 101 object type, the Transfer Authorization Object (TAO), which makes use 102 of the signed object format defined in [RFC6488]. 104 Many of the messages in this protocol are identical to those in 105 [RFC6488], and the result of the protocol, updated certificates 106 published in the RPKI repository system [RFC6481], is the same for 107 both protocols. To initiate a transfer, an INR holder, or source, 108 creates a TAO and publishes it in its publication point. The TAO is 109 a declaration of the proposed transfer, signed by the transfer 110 source. The source communicates the location of the TAO to the INR 111 recipient. Both entities then pursue the transfer independently, 112 recursively requesting the transfer from their parents until the 113 lowest common ancestor, the swing point is reached. The swing point 114 acts as the ultimate arbiter of the transfer, although any 115 Certification Authority (CA) involved in the transfer is able to deny 116 the transfer. The protocol assumes that the source of the transfer, 117 and the recipient have gained preliminary approval for the transfer, 118 out-of-band (OOB), prior to publishing the TAO and initiating the 119 protocol. 121 1.1. Terminology 123 Terms used in this document are: 125 "Internet Number Resource" (or "resource" or "INR") used in the 126 context of this document to refer to Autonomous System (AS) 127 numbers and IP version 4 or IP version 6 addresses. 129 "swing point" the lowest common ancestor (Certification Authority) 130 of both the INR source and the INR recipient in the RPKI 131 hierarchy. It is assumed that the swing point is neither the 132 source nor the recipient. 134 "source" (or "INR source") the INR holder that initiates the 135 transfer 137 "recipient" (or "INR recipient") the INR holder that is the 138 destination of the transfer 140 "live" a live INR is a resource that is currently in use 142 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 143 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 144 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC2119]. 146 2. Scope 148 This Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) INR transfer protocol 149 defines a basic set of interactions that allows: 151 o an INR holder to initiate the transfer of Internet Number 152 Resources, 154 o the INR source and INR recipient to pursue the transfer 155 asynchronously, 157 o and each Certification Authority (CA) along the path between the 158 source and recipient (including the swing point) to validate and 159 approve, or deny, any such transfer. 161 The resource allocation database and INR transfer policies of each CA 162 along the path are authoritative when determining whether the 163 resources in question may be transferred. 165 This protocol specification does not encompass: 167 o the specification of interactions with the each CA's resource 168 allocation database, nor the specification of a protocol to manage 169 the publication repository. 171 o transfers where the source or recipient is also the swing point. 172 Both situations are already handled by rpki-updown as explained in 173 Section 3.3. 175 3. Protocol Specifications 177 The INR source MUST initiate the transfer by creating and publishing 178 the Transfer Authorization Object (TAO, see Section 3.4) at its 179 publication point [RFC6481]. The URL of the TAO SHOULD be 180 communicated to the transfer recipient, e.g., via email. Once the 181 TAO is published, and the recipient has received the URL of the TAO, 182 two separate processes begin: the first from the INR source to the 183 swing point, the second from the transfer recipient to the swing 184 point. These two processes proceed independently and recursively. 185 The following steps occur between each parent and child along the 186 specified paths in the hierarchy. 188 In both cases, when a CA receives an updated certificate from its 189 immediate parent, it MUST promptly update the certificate for the 190 child involved in the transfer. This certificate is published in its 191 publication point and sent to the child using a transfer_response 192 message (Section 3.8.1.2. If this CA is the INR source or INR 193 recipient, no updates are necessary since receipt of the updated 194 certificate indicates that the parent has updated the end point of 195 the transfer. Similarly, when a CA receives an error message from a 196 parent, the CA MUST forward the message code to its immediate child 197 along the path towards the INR source or INR recipient. 199 Both the INR source and the INR recipient MUST NOT rekey during a 200 transfer; their SKIs are captured in the TAO and the validity of the 201 TAO requires the SKIs not change during the process. A new key would 202 invalidate the TAO and require restarting the transfer process. To 203 avoid this problem, the source SHOULD NOT initiate a transfer that is 204 expected to take longer than the notAfter date in its, or the 205 recipient's, CA certificate. The source should contact (OOB) the 206 CA's along the path to receive an estimate of the time required to 207 complete a transfer, to aid in making this determination. 209 The process described below is used for transferring either live or 210 unused INRs. The process is identical for both types of transfers 211 except where otherwise specified. 213 3.1. INR Source Path 215 The source MUST NOT request a transfer of any INRs that are delegated 216 to one of the source's children (i.e., appear in a CA certificate 217 issued by the source). This requirement avoids one way that a TAO 218 that is valid at the beginning of a transfer could become invalid 219 before the end of the transfer. In particular, in the instance where 220 the source of this transfer is the swing point in another transfer, 221 this prevents the swing point from transferring INRs to a different 222 recipient than specified in the first transfer. 224 Along the path from the INR source to the swing point, with the INR 225 source as the initial "child", the following messages MUST be 226 transmitted in the specified order. 228 1. The child sends a transfer_request (Section 3.8.1.1) to its 229 parent. 231 2. The parent confirms the validity of the transfer_request, 232 responding with an error code 1203 for invalid requests. An 233 invalid request cancels the transfer. A transfer_request is 234 valid if all of the following are true: 236 * The attached TAO is valid. See Section 3.4.2 for TAO 237 validation steps. 239 * The TAO in the request is identical to the TAO published in 240 the source's publication point. 242 * The transfer is allowed by the transfer policy of the CA 244 3. The parent replies with a transfer_response (Section 3.8.1.2). 245 For transfers of unused INRs, the transfer_response contains an 246 updated certificate, which MUST have the same INRs as the 247 certificate it replaces, minus the INRs specified in the TAO. 248 For live transfers, the transfer_response contains an error code 249 1104 response, indicating that the transfer is valid and being 250 pursued asynchronously. 252 4. The parent determines if it (the parent) is the swing point. See 253 Section 3.3 for this procedure. If it is not the swing point, 254 the parent repeats this process from step 1, acting as the child. 255 If the parent is not the swing point but is a self-signed CA, an 256 error code 1401 MUST be returned. 258 If, after an excessive wait, a child does not receive a response from 259 its parent, the child SHOULD return error 1402 indicating a timeout. 260 This error declares cancellation of the transfer request by the 261 child, and MUST be propagated up AND down the path. This informs any 262 parents waiting further up the path that the child is no longer 263 waiting for an updated certificate, and indicates that the parent 264 MUST time out as well. Ultimately, what constitutes an excessive 265 wait is determined by each CA. However, it is RECOMMENDED that each 266 CA not time out a transfer prior to the notAfter value in the TAO. 268 For live transfers, the source waits until the notAfter value in the 269 TAO expires. If the recipient has successfully received the INRs at 270 that point, the source MUST use the following process to relinquish 271 control of the transferred INRs: 273 1. The child sends a transfer_request (Section 3.8.1.1) to the 274 parent. 276 2. The parent confirms that the transfer_request matches a previous 277 transfer_request, with the exception that the notAfter MUST be in 278 the past. The parent responds with an error code 1203 for 279 invalid requests. A transfer_request is valid if all of the 280 following are true: 282 * The attached TAO is valid, with the exception of the notAfter 283 value which MUST be in the past. See Section 3.4.2 for TAO 284 validation steps. 286 * The TAO in the request MUST be identical to the TAO published 287 in the source's publication point. 289 3. The parent replies with a transfer_response (Section 3.8.1.2). 290 This response MUST include an updated certificate which MUST have 291 the same INRs as the certificate it replaces, minus the INRs 292 specified in the TAO. 294 4. The parent determines if it (the parent) is the swing point. See 295 Section 3.3 for this procedure. If it is not the swing point, 296 the parent repeats this process from step 1, acting as the child. 297 If the parent is not the swing point but is a self-signed CA, an 298 error code 1401 MUST be returned. 300 3.2. INR Recipient Path 302 A recipient will have multiple parents within the RPKI if it has 303 received INR allocations from multiple sources. In such cases, the 304 recipient MUST select the parent via which the resources will be 305 received. The means by which a recipient makes this decision are 306 outside the scope of this protocol. (INR transfers require OOB 307 coordination among the affected organizations. This coordination is 308 expected to provide the recipient with a basis for selecting a parent 309 for the transfer.) 311 Along the path from the transfer recipient to the swing point, with 312 the INR recipient as the initial "child", the following messages MUST 313 be transmitted in the order specified below. 315 1. The child sends a transfer_request, Section 3.8.1.1, to the 316 parent. 318 2. The parent confirms the validity of the transfer_request, 319 responding with an error code 1203 for invalid requests. A 320 transfer_request is valid only if all of the following are true: 322 * The attached TAO is valid. See Section 3.4.2 for TAO 323 validation steps. 325 * The TAO in the request is identical to the TAO published in 326 the source's publication point. 328 * The transfer is allowed by the transfer policy of the CA 330 3. The parent determines if it (the parent) is the swing point. See 331 Section 3.3 for this procedure. 333 4. If it is not the swing point, the parent replies with a 334 transfer_response containing an error code. If the parent is a 335 self-signed CA and it is not the swing point, an error code 1401 336 MUST be returned. If the parent is not a self-signed CA, an 337 error code 1104 response MUST be returned, indicating that the 338 transfer is valid and being pursued asynchronously. The parent 339 then repeats this process from step 1, acting as the child. 341 If, after an excessive wait, a child does not receive a response from 342 its parent, the child SHOULD return error 1402 indicating a timeout. 343 This error declares cancellation of the transfer request by the 344 child, and MUST be propagated up AND down the path by each parent. 345 See the previous section for a discussion of what constitutes 346 "excessive". 348 During live transfers, CAs in the recipient path have an additional 349 responsibility after receiving an updated certificate. The 350 overlapPeriod field of the TAO MUST be less than that number of 351 seconds from the current time to the notAfter value of the TAO. If 352 this test fails, this CA MUST forward an error code 1403 up and down 353 the path, ending the transfer. This minimizes the likelihood that 354 the source and recipient do not have an adequate overlap in ownership 355 of the INRs in question during a live transfer. 357 3.3. Swing Point 359 A CA determines that it is the swing point by verifying that both the 360 INR source and the INR recipient SKIs, as defined in the TAO, are 361 below the CA in the hierarchy. Because this determination is 362 performed for both paths, starting at the source and the recipient, 363 this will uniquely determine the swing point. This document does not 364 cover the case where the swing point is the source or the recipient. 365 If the swing point is the recipient, the INRs are being relinquished 366 and returned to that organization. If the swing point is the source, 367 the INRs are being assigned. This procedure is already accommodated 368 by use of the up/down protocol. Because the RPKI hierarchy is 369 intended to have a unique root, there should always exist a swing 370 point. 372 The swing point MUST behave as follows: 374 1. Confirm that it is the swing point. 376 2. Confirm the validity and uniqueness of the Subject Key 377 Identifiers (SKI) of the CAs (source and recipient)in the TAO. 379 3. Confirm that it controls the INRs to be transferred. 381 4. Wait to receive both transfer_requests, one from the path to the 382 source and one from the path to the recipient. 384 5. Create an updated certificate for the CA on the path from the 385 swing point to the transfer recipient. Publish this certificate 386 in the swing point's publication point and send the updated 387 certificate to the child CA using a transfer_response message. 388 This updated certificate MUST have the same INRs as the 389 certificate it replaces, plus the INRs specified in the TAO. 390 (The swing point MUST still control the INRs being transferred, 391 but this is a side effect of its normal certificate issuance 392 process.) 394 Should a swing point receive an error code 1403 message from the CA 395 in the recipient path, the swing point must forward the error code to 396 the CA on the source path, indicating a cancellation of the transfer. 398 3.4. Transfer Authorization Object 400 The TAO is encapsulated in a CMS object as defined in [RFC6492] 401 Section 3.1. 403 3.4.1. TAO Type 405 TAO OID TBD 407 3.4.2. TAO Validation 409 The TAO must be validated by each participant in the process. The 410 creator of the TAO MUST validate the TAO after creation. All CAs 411 that receive a Transfer Request MUST perform the following actions: 413 1. Determine that the TAO is valid as defined by the steps in 414 [RFC6488] Section 3. 416 2. Verify that either the transferFromSKI or the transferToSKI (or 417 both) correspond to CAs that are descendants of this CA 419 Note: This requires that the transfer recipient hold some 420 address space and thus hold a valid CA Certificate before this 421 process is initiated. 423 3. Verify that the transferFromSKI and the transferToSKI SKIs are 424 valid, corresponding to the SKI extension of a CA within the 425 RPKI, and unique, such that only one CA has an SKI extension that 426 matches each of these values. (This check SHOULD be performed 427 using the RPKI data acquired by the participant in its role as a 428 relying party [RFC6480].) 430 4. The parent of the source checks that the source holds the INRs in 431 question. Each CA above that checks that the INRs are held by 432 the CA that made the request. 434 3.5. ASN.1 Specification of the TAO 436 TransferAuthorization ::= SEQUENCE { 437 transferFromSKI OCTET STRING, 438 transferToSKI OCTET STRING, 439 ipAddrBlocks [0] IPAddrBlocks OPTIONAL, 440 asIdentifiers [1] ASIdentifiers OPTIONAL, 441 liveXfer BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE, 442 overlapPeriod INTEGER OPTIONAL 443 } 445 Either ipAddrBlocks or asIdentifiers, or both, MUST be included. 447 3.5.1. transferFromSKI 449 The transferFromSKI MUST be equal to the SKI of the CA that holds the 450 resources. 452 3.5.2. transferToSKI 454 The transferToSKI MUST be equal to the SKI in a valid CA within the 455 RPKI. 457 3.5.3. ipAddrBlocks 459 IPAddrBlocks is specified in [RFC3779] Section 2. If the 460 ipAddrBlocks attribute is included, it MUST NOT be empty and it MUST 461 NOT have any resources marked as inherit. 463 3.5.4. asIdentifiers 465 ASIdentifiers is specified in [RFC3779] Section 3. If the 466 asIdentifiers attribute is included, it MUST NOT be empty and the 467 inherit flag MUST NOT be TRUE. 469 3.5.5. liveXfer 471 This flag is set TRUE only for a transfer of live resources. 473 3.5.6. overlapPeriod 475 overlapPeriod is the minimum number of seconds which the source and 476 recipient MUST both hold the INRs. This field MUST hold a non-zero 477 number for live transfers. The value MUST be omitted for transfers 478 of unused space. Thus this field is present only if liveXfer is 479 TRUE. 481 3.6. Common Message Format 483 This document defines version 2 of the Common Message Format for the 484 up/down protocol. Version 1 is defined in [RFC6492]. The format in 485 version 2 is identical to version 1, but with several added 486 attributes, defined in Section 3.8, and one additional constraint 487 defined in Section 3.7. The checks specified in [RFC6492] 488 Section 3.2 still apply and MUST be applied. 490 3.7. End Entity Certificate Constraint 492 This section corresponds to Section 3.1.1.4 in [RFC6492]. The End 493 Entity (EE) certificate that is required here MUST have its resources 494 marked as inherit. This convention is imposed to ensure that this 495 certificate remains valid during the life of the TAO before, during, 496 and after the transfer takes place. 498 3.8. INR Transfer 500 3.8.1. Transfer 502 This query is used for all requests and responses made during a 503 transfer. This includes messages between the initial sender and its 504 parent, the receiver and its parent, and between each intermediate CA 505 and its parent. 507 3.8.1.1. Request 509 The value of the message "type" element for this request is: 511 type="transfer_request" 513 ---------------------- 515 Payload: 517 519 [tao] 520 521 tao_url: value is the pointer to the location where the INR source 522 has published the TAO. 524 [tao] value is the Base64 encoding of the DER-encoded TAO. After 525 decoding, this object MUST be identical to the object published by 526 the source in its publication point. 528 3.8.1.2. Response 530 The value of the message "type" element for this response is: 532 type="transfer_response" 534 -------------------- 536 Payload: 538 546 550 [certificate] 551 552 [issuer's certificate] 553 555 In the case where the transfer is for live resources, not all 556 responses will contain a certificate. For the CAs in the path with 557 the INR source, an updated certificate, with the transferred INR 558 removed, will be available once the transfer is complete and the INR 559 source is prepared to relinquish control of the INRs. In contrast, 560 the CAs along the path to the transfer recipient each receive a new 561 certificate after the swing point receives and approves the messages 562 from both the source and the recipient. 564 tao_url is identical to the tao_url in the request. The definition 565 of all other attributes can be found in [RFC6492] Section 3.3.2. 567 3.8.2. Request-Not-Performed Response 569 This response is an extension of [RFC6492] Section 3.6. In addition 570 to the error codes defined there, Error Code 1401 is used when a 571 self-signed CA determines that it is not an ancestor of both the 572 source and the recipient. This indicates a failure of the automated 573 transfer and a manual transfer must take place. 575 3.8.3. Timeout Response 577 This response is an extension of [RFC6492] Section 3.6. In addition 578 to the error codes defined there, Error Code 1402 is used when a CA 579 determines that it has waited an excessive duration for a response 580 from its parent. This indicates a failure of the transfer. 582 3.8.4. Overlap Failure Response 584 This response is an extension of [RFC6492] Section 3.6. In addition 585 to the error codes defined there, Error Code 1403 is used when a CA 586 in the recipient path determines that the overlapPeriod value is less 587 than the number of seconds between the current time and the notAfter 588 value in the TAO. This indicates a failure of the transfer. 590 3.9. XML Schema 592 The following is a RELAX NG compact form schema [ISO.19757-2.2003] 593 describing version 2 of this protocol. 595 Note: As discussed in [W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208], "the namespace 596 name, to serve its intended purpose, SHOULD have the 597 characteristics of uniqueness and persistence. It is not a goal 598 that it be directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if any 599 exists)". 601 default namespace = "http://www.apnic.net/specs/rescerts/up-down/" 603 grammar { 604 resource_set_as = xsd:string { maxLength="512000" 605 pattern="[\-,0-9]*" } 606 resource_set_ip4 = xsd:string { maxLength="512000" 607 pattern="[\-,/.0-9]*" } 608 resource_set_ip6 = xsd:string { maxLength="512000" 609 pattern="[\-,/:0-9a-fA-F]*" } 611 class_name = xsd:token { minLength="1" maxLength="1024" } 612 ski = xsd:token { minLength="27" maxLength="1024" } 613 label = xsd:token { minLength="1" maxLength="1024" } 614 cert_url = xsd:string { minLength="10" maxLength="4096" } 615 base64_binary = xsd:base64Binary { minLength="4" 616 maxLength="512000" } 617 tao_url = xsd:string { minLength="10" maxLength="4096" } 619 start = element message { 620 attribute version { xsd:positiveInteger { 621 maxInclusive="1" } }, 622 attribute sender { label }, 623 attribute recipient { label }, 624 payload 625 } 627 payload |= attribute type { "list" }, list_request 628 payload |= attribute type { "list_response"}, list_response 629 payload |= attribute type { "issue" }, issue_request 630 payload |= attribute type { "issue_response"}, issue_response 631 payload |= attribute type { "revoke" }, revoke_request 632 payload |= attribute type { "revoke_response"}, revoke_response 633 payload |= attribute type { "error_response"}, error_response 634 payload |= attribute type { "transfer_response"}, 635 transfer_response 637 list_request = empty 638 list_response = class* 640 class = element class { 641 attribute class_name { class_name }, 642 attribute cert_url { cert_url }, 643 attribute resource_set_as { resource_set_as }, 644 attribute resource_set_ipv4 { resource_set_ip4 }, 645 attribute resource_set_ipv6 { resource_set_ip6 }, 646 attribute resource_set_notafter { xsd:dateTime }, 647 attribute suggested_sia_head { xsd:anyURI { maxLength="1024" 648 pattern="rsync://.+"} }?, 649 element certificate { 650 attribute cert_url { cert_url }, 651 attribute req_resource_set_as { resource_set_as }?, 652 attribute req_resource_set_ipv4 { resource_set_ip4 }?, 653 attribute req_resource_set_ipv6 { resource_set_ip6 }?, 654 base64_binary 655 }*, 656 element issuer { base64_binary } 657 } 659 issue_request = element request { 660 attribute class_name { class_name }, 661 attribute req_resource_set_as { resource_set_as }?, 662 attribute req_resource_set_ipv4 { resource_set_ip4 }?, 663 attribute req_resource_set_ipv6 { resource_set_ip6 }?, 664 base64_binary 665 } 666 issue_response = class 668 revoke_request = revocation 669 revoke_response = revocation 671 revocation = element key { 672 attribute class_name { class_name }, 673 attribute ski { ski } 674 } 676 error_response = 677 element status { xsd:positiveInteger { maxInclusive="9999" } }, 678 element description { attribute xml:lang { xsd:language }, 679 xsd:string { maxLength="1024" } }* 680 } 682 transfer_request = element request { 683 attribute tao_url { tao_url }, 684 element tao { base64_binary } 685 } 687 transfer_response = element response { 688 attribute tao_url { tao_url }, 689 attribute cert_url { cert_url }, 690 attribute resource_set_as { resource_set_as }, 691 attribute resource_set_ipv4 { resource_set_ip4 }, 692 attribute resource_set_ipv6 { resource_set_ip6 }, 693 attribute resource_set_notafter { xsd:dateTime }, 694 attribute suggested_sia_head { xsd:anyURI { maxLength="1024" 695 pattern="rsync://.+"} }?, 696 element certificate { 697 attribute cert_url { cert_url }, 698 attribute req_resource_set_as { resource_set_as }?, 699 attribute req_resource_set_ipv4 { resource_set_ip4 }?, 700 attribute req_resource_set_ipv6 { resource_set_ip6 }?, 701 base64_binary 702 }*, 703 element issuer { base64_binary } 704 } 706 4. Security Considerations 708 The checks described at each stage are designed to ensure that these 709 four security goals are met: 711 o the TAO was generated by the indicated INR source, that source 712 holds the INRs being transferred, and the TAO has not been 713 modified by another party 715 o the transfer recipient is the intended recipient of the resources 716 as per the INR source 718 o each CA that processes a transfer request either holds the 719 resources being transferred, or it is on the path between the 720 swing point and the transfer recipient 722 o each CA along the path approved the transfer (or has rejected it) 724 Up/down protocol messages contain a time-based anti-reply feature, so 725 replays of these signed messages can be detected. If a request 726 message is redirected, a CA receiving it will detect and reject this 727 because the request will not be from one of its children. A 728 redirected response message also will be detected because the 729 response will not be from the child's immediate parent. Because all 730 messages (both requests and responses) are contained within a CMS 731 object, the sender of a message is validated through signature 732 verification. 734 For live transfers, the source initiates the relinquishment of the 735 INRs that were transferred. If they fail to initiate the 736 relinquishment in a timely manner, the recipient may choose to 737 contact any or all of the source's ancestors (up to the swing point) 738 to pursue a forced relinquishment of resources. Any legal or 739 contractual processes used are outside the scope of this document. 741 5. IANA Considerations 743 An OID is requested for the TAO object defined above. 745 6. Acknowledgements 747 The author would like to acknowledge the valued contribution of Steve 748 Kent for providing a top level description of the TAO protocol, David 749 Mandelberg for his contributions to the security of the protocol, and 750 the authors of the rpki-updown protocol ([RFC6492]) Geoff Huston, 751 Robert Loomans, Byron Ellacott, and Rob Austein. 753 7. References 755 7.1. Normative References 757 [RFC6492] Huston, G., Loomans, R., Ellacott, B., and R. Austein, "A 758 Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates", RFC 759 6492, February 2012. 761 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 762 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 764 [RFC3779] Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP 765 Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004. 767 [RFC6481] Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for 768 Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481, 769 February 2012. 771 [RFC6488] Lepinski, M., Chi, A., and S. Kent, "Signed Object 772 Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure 773 (RPKI)", RFC 6488, February 2012. 775 7.2. Informative References 777 [W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208] 778 Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Tobin, R., and H. 779 Thompson, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", World 780 Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208, 781 December 2009, 782 . 784 [RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support 785 Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012. 787 [ISO.19757-2.2003] 788 International Organization for Standardization, 789 "Information technology -- Document Schema Definition 790 Language (DSDL) -- Part 2: Regular-grammar-based 791 validation -- RELAX NG", ISO International Standard 792 19757-2, December 2003. 794 Author's Address 795 Edric Barnes 796 BBN Technologies 797 10 Moulton St 798 Cambridge, MA 799 US 801 EMail: ebarnes@bbn.com