idnits 2.17.1 draft-madi-sidrops-rush-04.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 seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (May 13, 2021) is 1073 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) == Missing Reference: 'RFC 8416' is mentioned on line 70, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2818 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7540 (Obsoleted by RFC 9113) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 SIDROPS D. Ma 3 Internet-Draft ZDNS 4 Intended status: Standards Track H. Yan 5 Expires: November 14, 2021 CNCERT 6 M. Aelmans 7 Juniper Networks 8 May 13, 2021 10 RPKI validated cache Update in SLURM over HTTPs (RUSH) 11 draft-madi-sidrops-rush-04 13 Abstract 15 This document defines a method for transferring RPKI validated cache 16 update information in JSON object format over HTTPs. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 14, 2021. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 3. RUSH Usecase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4. RUSH Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4.1. Use of SLURM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 4.2. Use of HTTPs as Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 4.3. RUSH Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 1. Introduction 69 This document defines a mechanism called "RPKI validated cache Update 70 in SLURM [RFC 8416] over HTTPs (RUSH)", for the use of SLURM in 71 updating RPKI cache data over HTTP [RFC7540] using HTTPs [RFC2818] 72 URIs (and therefore TLS [RFC8446] security for integrity and 73 confidentiality). Integration with HTTPs provides a secure transport 74 for distributing cache data, which is in alignment with SLURM file 75 format in order to take advantage of using one same API for a cache 76 server to do both remote update and local override. 78 The RPKI validated cache in this document refers to the validated 79 data of assertion information certified by corresponding RPKI signed 80 objects such as ROA [RFC6482] and BGPsec router certificate 81 [RFC8209], which are transferred from the RPKI cache server to 82 routers by RTR protocol [RFC8210] for the use of the RPKI. SLURM 83 offers a standardized method for describing RPKI cache data in JSON 84 format [RFC8259], and SLURM is designed to carry out incremental 85 update. 87 Note that RUSH merely focuses on a standardized transport and data 88 format of the RPKI cache data. RUSH has nothing to do with 89 synchronization at the RUSH end system, that is, more sophisticated 90 functions such as automatic re-synchronization and access control is 91 out of this scope and MAY be left to private implementation. 93 2. Terminology 95 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT","REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 96 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 97 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 98 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 99 capitals, as shown here. 101 3. RUSH Usecase 103 o Cache Distribution 104 RUSH can be used to distribute a RPKI validated cache within a single 105 ASN or network, for example a confederation composed of a number of 106 ASes. A small site or enterprise network MAY also use RUSH by 107 synchronizing with a third-party RPKI cache provider over external 108 networks. 110 o Local Control over Networks 111 Network operators MAY want to inject SLURM Assertions/Filters via an 112 API offered by RPKI validator/cache. RUSH is therefore able to carry 113 out such local control signals inside an administrative bailiwick in 114 a secure manner. 116 To summarize, RUSH MUST be used in scenarios where the authenticity 117 of SLURM files can be assured when carried over multiple 118 administrative domains. Alternatively, RUSH SHOULD be used inside an 119 administrative domain to provide extra security by the virtue of pre- 120 configured trust anchors. 122 4. RUSH Operations 124 4.1. Use of SLURM 126 RUSH uses SLURM file format to indicate the intended update. A SLURM 127 file consists of a single JSON object containing some members. Among 128 others, "validationOutputFilters" [Section 3.3 of [RFC8416]] and 129 "locallyAddedAssertions" [Section 3.4 of [RFC8416]] are defined to 130 describe actions of deleting some of existing data items and adding 131 new data items respectively. 133 Note that RUSH re-uses the JSON members of SLURM object, not implying 134 the very actions are taken locally to any extent. Typically, RUSH 135 takes place over networks remotely while take effects to the cache in 136 question locally. 138 The RUSH-aware HTTPs server/client MUST be prepared to parse SLURM 139 object. 141 4.2. Use of HTTPs as Transport 143 HTTPs is employed by RUSH to transfer RPKI validated cache update 144 information as expressed as a SLURM object. A new data type is 145 therefore defined to identify SLURM object in HTTPs message body. 147 The RUSH-aware HTTPs server/client MUST be prepared to process media 148 type "application/json-slurm". 150 4.3. RUSH Example 152 Figure 1 shows an example of using RUSH to carry out RPKI validated 153 cache by HTTP POST method. 155 POST /rpki-cache HTTP/2 156 Host: rpki.example.com 157 Content-Type : application/json-slurm 158 Content-Length:964 159 <964 bytes represented by the following json string> 160 { 161 "slurmVersion": 1, 162 "validationOutputFilters": { 163 "prefixFilters": [ 164 { 165 "prefix": "192.0.2.0/24", 166 "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix" 167 }, 168 { 169 "asn": 64496, 170 "comment": "All VRPs matching ASN" 171 }, 172 { 173 "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24", 174 "asn": 64497, 175 "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix, matching ASN" 176 } 177 ], 178 "bgpsecFilters": [ 179 { 180 "asn": 64496, 181 "comment": "All keys for ASN" 182 }, 183 { 184 "SKI": "Zm9v", 185 "comment": "Key matching Router SKI" 186 }, 187 { 188 "asn": 64497, 189 "SKI": "YmFy", 190 "comment": "Key for ASN 64497 matching Router SKI" 191 } 192 ] 193 }, 194 "locallyAddedAssertions": { 195 "prefixAssertions": [ 196 { 197 "asn": 64496, 198 "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24", 199 "comment": "My other important route" 200 }, 201 { 202 "asn": 64496, 203 "prefix": "2001:DB8::/32", 204 "maxPrefixLength": 48, 205 "comment": "My other important de-aggregated routes" 206 } 207 ], 208 "bgpsecAssertions": [ 209 { 210 "asn": 64496, 211 "comment" : "My known key for my important ASN", 212 "SKI": "", 213 "routerPublicKey": "" 214 } 215 ] 216 } 217 } 219 Figure 1.Example of an HTTP message for use of RUSH 221 5. IANA Considerations 223 Type name: application 225 Subtype name: json-slurm 227 Subtype name: json-slurm 229 Optional parameters: N/A 231 Encoding considerations: This is a JSON object. 233 Security considerations: N/A 235 Interoperability considerations: [RFC8416] 237 Published specification: 239 Applications that use this media type: 241 Systems that want to exchange RPKI cache data update information in 242 SLURM file format [RFC8416] over HTTP. 244 Person&email address to contact for further information: Di Ma 245 247 Intended usage: COMMON 249 Restrictions on usage: N/A 251 Author: Di Ma 253 Change controller: IESG 255 6. Security Considerations 257 Note that RPKI offers signed-object-oriented security, which is not 258 provided by RUSH any longer. There are some security issues must be 259 handled properly as per different usecases as described in Section 3. 261 Cache Identity: RUSH is designed to carry out RPKI cache data update 262 from one to another, with out-of-band trust established between those 263 cache servers. That is, the scope of RUSH usage is convergent. 264 Cache subscription management might be employed to implement cache 265 identification and verification. The RPKI cache server security and 266 the trust model for the interaction between cache servers is out of 267 the scope of this document. 269 Transport Security: Updating RPKI validated cache over HTTPs relies 270 on the security of the underlying HTTPs transport. Implementations 271 utilizing HTTP/2 benefit from the TLS profile defined in Section 9.2 272 of [RFC7540]. 274 Data Integrity: An HTTPS connection provides transport security for 275 the interaction between cache servers, but it does not provide data 276 integrity detection. An adversary that can control the cache used by 277 the subscriber can affect that subscriber's view of the RPKI. 279 7. Acknowledgments 281 TBD 283 8. References 284 8.1. Normative References 286 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 287 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 288 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 289 . 291 [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, 292 DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, 293 . 295 [RFC6482] Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route 296 Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, 297 DOI 10.17487/RFC6482, February 2012, 298 . 300 [RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext 301 Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, 302 DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015, 303 . 305 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 306 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 307 May 2017, . 309 [RFC8209] Reynolds, M., Turner, S., and S. Kent, "A Profile for 310 BGPsec Router Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists, 311 and Certification Requests", RFC 8209, 312 DOI 10.17487/RFC8209, September 2017, 313 . 315 [RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data 316 Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, 317 DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, 318 . 320 [RFC8416] Ma, D., Mandelberg, D., and T. Bruijnzeels, "Simplified 321 Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI 322 (SLURM)", RFC 8416, DOI 10.17487/RFC8416, August 2018, 323 . 325 [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol 326 Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, 327 . 329 8.2. Informative References 331 [RFC8210] Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key 332 Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 1", 333 RFC 8210, DOI 10.17487/RFC8210, September 2017, 334 . 336 Authors' Addresses 338 Di Ma 339 ZDNS 340 4 South 4th St. Zhongguancun 341 Haidian, Beijing 100190 342 China 344 Email: madi@zdns.cn 346 Hanbing Yan 347 CNCERT 349 Email: yhb@cert.org.cn 351 Melchior Aelmans 352 Juniper Networks 353 Boeing Avenue 240 354 Schiphol-Rijk 1119 PZ 355 The Netherlands 357 Email: maelmans@juniper.net