Secure Inter-Domain Routing G. Huston Internet-Draft R. Loomans Intended status: Standards Track B. Ellacott Expires: February 8, 2009 APNIC R. Austein ISC August 7, 2008 A Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning-03.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 8, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document defines a framework for certificate management interactions between a resource issuer ("Internet Registry" or "IR") and a resource recipient ("Internet Service Provider" or "ISP") through the specification of a protocol for interaction between the two parties. The protocol supports the transmission of requests from Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 the ISP, and corresponding responses from the IR encompassing the actions of certificate issuance, certificate revocation and certificate status information reports. This protocol is intended to be limited to the application of resource certificate management and is not intended to be used as part of a more general certificate management framework. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. CMS Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1. SignedData Content Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.2. ASN.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. Common Message format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3. Control - Resource Class Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3.1. Resource Class List Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3.2. Resource Class List Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4. CA - Certificate Issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.4.1. Certificate Issuance Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.4.2. Certificate Issuance Response . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.5. Certificate Revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.5.1. Certificate Revocation Request . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.5.2. Certificate Revocation Response . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.6. Request-Not-Performed Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 29 Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 1. Introduction This document defines a framework for certificate management interactions between a resource issuer ("Internet Registry" or "IR") and a resource recipient ("Internet Service Provider" or "ISP") through the specification of a protocol for interaction between the two parties. The protocol supports the transmission of requests from the ISP, and corresponding responses from the IR encompassing the actions of certificate issuance, certificate revocation and certificate status information reports. This protocol is intended to be limited to the application of resource certificate management and is not intended to be used as part of a more general certificate management framework. 1.1. Terminology It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the terms and concepts described in "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile" [RFC5280], "X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers" [RFC3779], "Internet Protocol" [RFC0791], "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture" [RFC4291], "Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines" [RFC2050], and related regional Internet registry address management policy documents. Additional terms used in this document are: "IR" an abbreviation of "Internet Registry", using in the context of this document as an entity undertaking the role of resource issuer. An IR is a Certificate Authority, and can issue Resource Certificates. "ISP" an abbreviation of "Internet Service Provider", using in the context of this document as an entity undertaking the role of resource recipient who is the subject of a Resource Certificate. An ISP may be issued with a CA-enabled certificate, allowing the entity to also assume the role of an IR. "resource class" a resource class refers to a collection of resources that can be certified in a single resource certificate by an issuer. "server" in the context of this client/server protocol specification, the IR assumes the role of the "server." Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 "client" in the context of this client/server protocol specification, the ISP assumes the role of the "client." The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. 2. Scope This Resource PKI (RPKI) certificate provisioning protocol defines a basic set of interactions that allow an ISP to request certificate issuance, revocation and status information from the IR, and for a IR to maintain an issued certificate set that is aligned to the allocation records relating to each ISP. The IR's resource allocation database, is the authoritative source of what resource allocations the IR may certify for an ISP. A resource recipient (ISP) may also undertake the role of a resource issuer (IR), such as in the case of a Local Internet Registry (LIR). This protocol specification does not encompass: o signing of objects with keys that are certified by resource certificates, nor the issuance of end-entity certificates. o the specification of interaction with the IR's resource allocation database, nor the specification of a protocol to manage the publication repository. o the interactions between client and server that establish identities, exchange the keys used in the protection of the communications channel between client and server, and the exchange of the certificates and validation PKI contexts used in the Cryptographic Message Syntax message exchange. 3. Protocol Specification This RPKI certificate provisioning protocol is expressed as a simple request/response interaction, where the client passes a request to the server, and the server generates a corresponding response. The protocol is implemented as an exchange of messages. Messages are passed over an HTTPS [RFC2818] transport connection that Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 safeguards against interception and replay attacks. The HTTPS session uses mutually authenticated Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC4346]. The TLS keys and associated certificate chain used to validate TLS transactions is assumed to have been previously communicated between the two entities, through mechanisms not defined in this protocol specification. The HTTPS connection will use 2 way (mutual) identification. A message exchange commences with the client initiating an HTTP POST with content type of "application/ x-rpki", with the message object as the body. The server's response will similarly be the body of the response with a content type of "application/x-rpki". The content of the POST, and the server's response, will be a "well- formed" Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC3852] object, encoded using the Distinguished Encoding Rules for ASN.1 (DER) [X.509-88], formatted in accordance with the CMS profile as specified in the following section. CMS is used as the signing format to sign the message object. The public part of the signing key and the associated certificate chain that is used to validate the CMS digital signature is assumed to have been communicated between the two entities, through mechanisms not defined in this protocol specification. The CMS keys and certificates MAY be the same as those used for TLS. The protocol's request / response interaction is assumed to be reliable, in that all requests will generate a matching response. The protocol requires sequential operation, where the server MUST NOT accept a client's request unless it has generated and sent a response to the client's previous request. Attempts by the client to initiate multiple requests in parallel MUST be detected by the server and rejected with an error response. 3.1. CMS Profile The format of the CMS object is: ContentInfo ::= SEQUENCE { contentType ContentType, content [0] EXPLICIT ANY DEFINED BY contentType } ContentType ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER The protocol objects are all instances of CMS signed-data objects, where the ContentType used is the signed-data type of id-data, namely id-signedData, OID = 1.2.840.113549.1.7.2. Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 3.1.1. SignedData Content Type According to [RFC3852], signed-data content types shall have the ASN.1 type SignedData: SignedData ::= SEQUENCE { version CMSVersion, digestAlgorithms DigestAlgorithmIdentifiers, encapContentInfo EncapsulatedContentInfo, certificates [0] IMPLICIT CertificateSet OPTIONAL, crls [1] IMPLICIT RevocationInfoChoices OPTIONAL, signerInfos SignerInfos } DigestAlgorithmIdentifiers ::= SET OF DigestAlgorithmIdentifier SignerInfos ::= SET OF SignerInfo 3.1.1.1. version The version is the syntax version number. It MUST be 3, corresponding to the signerInfo structure having version number 3. 3.1.1.2. digestAlgorithms The digestAlgorithms set MUST include only SHA-256, the OID for which is 2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1 [RFC4055]. It MUST NOT contain any other algorithms. 3.1.1.3. encapContentInfo encapContentInfo is the signed content, consisting of a content type identifier and the content itself. EncapsulatedContentInfo ::= SEQUENCE { eContentType ContentType, eContent [0] EXPLICIT OCTET STRING OPTIONAL } ContentType ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER 3.1.1.3.1. eContentType The eContentType for the RPKI Protocol Message object is defined as id-ct-xml, and has the numerical value of 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.28. Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } id-ct OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-smime 1 } id-ct-xml OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ct 28 } 3.1.1.3.2. eContent The content of a RPKI XML Protocol Object consists of a single protocol message, structured according to a define XML schema, as defined in subsequent sections of this document. The eContent field of the CMS object is formally defined using ASN.1 as: id-ct-xml ::= OCTET STRING -- XML encoded message 3.1.1.4. certificates The certificates field MUST be present, and MUST contain the EE certificate of the key pair whose private key value was used to sign the CMS. This MUST NOT be an RPKI certificate, and SHOULD be a certificate that is recognised to attest to the identity of the party that created the CMS object. This field MAY contain other certificates that a relying party may use to validate the digital signature of the CMS object. 3.1.1.5. crls This field MUST be present. The contents of the field are specified in [RFC3852]. 3.1.1.6. signerInfo SignerInfo is defined under CMS as: SignerInfo ::= SEQUENCE { version CMSVersion, sid SignerIdentifier, digestAlgorithm DigestAlgorithmIdentifier, signedAttrs [0] IMPLICIT SignedAttributes OPTIONAL, signatureAlgorithm SignatureAlgorithmIdentifier, signature SignatureValue, unsignedAttrs [1] IMPLICIT UnsignedAttributes OPTIONAL } Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 3.1.1.6.1. version The version number MUST be 3, corresponding with the choice of SubjectKeyIdentifier for the sid. 3.1.1.6.2. sid The sid is defined as: SignerIdentifier ::= CHOICE { issuerAndSerialNumber IssuerAndSerialNumber, subjectKeyIdentifier [0] SubjectKeyIdentifier } In this profile, the sid MUST be a SubjectKeyIdentifier. 3.1.1.6.3. digestAlgorithm The digestAlgorithm MUST be SHA-256, the OID for which is 2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1. [RFC4055] 3.1.1.6.4. signedAttrs Signed Attributes are defined as: SignedAttributes ::= SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Attribute UnsignedAttributes ::= SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Attribute Attribute ::= SEQUENCE { attrType OBJECT IDENTIFIER, attrValues SET OF AttributeValue } AttributeValue ::= ANY The signer MUST digitally sign a collection of attributes along with the content payload. Each attribute in the collection MUST be DER- encoded. The syntax for attributes is defined in [X.501], and the X.500 Directory provides a rich attribute syntax. A very simple subset of this syntax is used extensively in [RFC3852], where ATTRIBUTE.Type and ATTRIBUTE.id are the only parts of the ATTRIBUTE class that are employed. Each of the attributes used with this CMS profile has a single attribute value. Even though the syntax is defined as a SET OF AttributeValue, there MUST be exactly one instance of AttributeValue present. The SignedAttributes syntax within signerInfo is defined as a SET OF Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 Attribute. The SignedAttributes MUST include only one instance of any particular attribute. The signer MUST include the content-type, message-digest and signing- time signed attributes. The signer MAY also include the binary- signing-time signed attribute. Other signed attributes that are deemed appropriate MAY also be included. The intent is to allow additional signed attributes to be included if a future need is identified. This does not cause an interoperability concern because unrecognized signed attributes are ignored at verification. 3.1.1.6.4.1. Content-Type Attribute id-contentType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 3 } ContentType ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER A content-type attribute is required to contain the same object identifier as the content type contained in the EncapsulatedContentInfo. The signer MUST include a content-type attribute containing the appropriate content type. Section 11.1 of [RFC3852] defines the content-type attribute. 3.1.1.6.4.2. Message-Digest Attribute id-messageDigest OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 4 } MessageDigest ::= OCTET STRING The signer MUST include a message-digest attribute, having as its value the output of a one-way hash function computed on the content that is being signed. Section 11.2 of [RFC3852] defines the message- digest attribute. 3.1.1.6.4.3. Signing-Time Attribute id-signingTime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 5 } SigningTime ::= Time Time ::= CHOICE { utcTime UTCTime, generalizedTime GeneralizedTime } The signing-time attribute MUST be present. Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 The signing-time attribute specifies the time, based on the local system clock, when the digital signature was applied to the content. Section 11.3 of [RFC3852] defines the content-type attribute. 3.1.1.6.4.4. Binary-Signing-Time Attribute id-aa-binarySigningTime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) aa(2) 46 } BinarySigningTime ::= BinaryTime BinaryTime ::= INTEGER (0..MAX) The signer MAY include a binary-signing-time attribute, specifying the time at which the digital signature was applied to the content. If the binary-signing-time is present, the time that is represented MUST represent the same time value as the signing-time attribute. The binary-signing-time attribute is defined in [RFC4049]. 3.1.1.6.5. signatureAlgorithm The signatureAlgorithm MUST be RSA (rsaEncryption), the OID for which is 1.2.840.113549.1.1.1. 3.1.1.6.6. signature The signature value is defined as: SignatureValue ::= OCTET STRING The signature characteristics are defined by the digest and signature algorithms. 3.1.1.6.7. unsignedAttrs unsignedAttrs MUST be omitted. 3.1.2. ASN.1 The following is the ASN.1 specification of the CMS signed object used by the RPKI provisioning protocol. ContentInfo ::= SEQUENCE { contentType ContentType, content [0] EXPLICIT ANY DEFINED BY contentType } ContentType ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } id-ct OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-smime 1 } id-ct-xml OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ct 28 } id-ct-xml ::= OCTET STRING -- XML encoded message id-signedData OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs7(7) 2 } SignedData ::= SEQUENCE { version CMSVersion, digestAlgorithms DigestAlgorithmIdentifiers, encapContentInfo EncapsulatedContentInfo, certificates [0] IMPLICIT CertificateSet OPTIONAL, crls [1] IMPLICIT RevocationInfoChoices OPTIONAL, signerInfos SignerInfos } DigestAlgorithmIdentifiers ::= SET OF DigestAlgorithmIdentifier SignerInfos ::= SET OF SignerInfo SignerInfo ::= SEQUENCE { version CMSVersion, sid SignerIdentifier, digestAlgorithm DigestAlgorithmIdentifier, signedAttrs [0] IMPLICIT SignedAttributes OPTIONAL, signatureAlgorithm SignatureAlgorithmIdentifier, signature SignatureValue, unsignedAttrs [1] IMPLICIT UnsignedAttributes OPTIONAL } SignerIdentifier ::= CHOICE { issuerAndSerialNumber IssuerAndSerialNumber, subjectKeyIdentifier [0] SubjectKeyIdentifier } SignedAttributes ::= SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Attribute UnsignedAttributes ::= SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Attribute Attribute ::= SEQUENCE { attrType OBJECT IDENTIFIER, attrValues SET OF AttributeValue } AttributeValue ::= ANY SignatureValue ::= OCTET STRING Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 id-contentType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 3 } ContentType ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER id-messageDigest OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 4 } MessageDigest ::= OCTET STRING id-signingTime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 5 } SigningTime ::= Time Time ::= CHOICE { utcTime UTCTime, generalizedTime GeneralizedTime } id-aa-binarySigningTime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) aa(2) 46 } BinarySigningTime ::= BinaryTime BinaryTime ::= INTEGER (0..MAX) 3.2. Common Message format The XML template for all messages is as follows: --------------------------------------------------------------- [payload] --------------------------------------------------------------- Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 version: the value of this attribute is the version of this protocol. This document describes version 1. sender: the value of this attribute is the agreed name of the message sender, as determined between the client and the server by prior arrangement. recipient: the value of this attribute is the agreed name of the message recipient, as determined between the client and the server by prior arrangement. type: the possible values of this attribute are "list", "list_response", "issue", "issue_response", "revoke", "revoke_response", and "error_response". Conforming parsers MUST reject any document with a version number they do not understand, or with any elements or attributes they do not understand. Servers must generate an error response when receiving such a request. Clients should generate an operator alert error when receiving such a response. A message in this protocol is a digitally signed object that makes use of CMS [RFC3852], and is encoded as DER. It uses the signed-data object contentType OID: 1.2.840.113549.1.7.2. The attribute "id- signingTime" (contentType OID: 1.2.840.113549.1.9.5) MUST be present in the CMS object. The encapsulated content of the CMS wrapping is an XML document. The remainder of this protocol specification omits this CMS wrapper and only discusses the XML document. Messages are checked using the following tests: 1. Check the integrity of the HTTPS message and validate the TLS certificate using the PKI that has been determined by prior arrangement between client and server. 2. Check that the CMS is well-formed. 3. Check that the XML is well-formed. 4. Check that the XML sender and recipient attributes reference a known client and this server's system respectively. Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 5. Verify the digital signature using the public key provided in the certificate carried in the CMS wrapper. 6. Validate the CMS-provided certificate using the PKI that has been determined by prior arrangement between client and server. 7. Check that the value of the version number of the message is 1. The checks should generally be applied in the order specified here. Any errors encountered while checking items 1 through 6 would cause the server to generate an "HTTP 400 Bad Data" response to the HTTPS POST operation. An error in step 7 would cause the server to generate a "Request-Not-Performed" error response. 3.3. Control - Resource Class Query 3.3.1. Resource Class List Query The value of the message "type" message attribute for this query is: type="list" --------------------------------------------------------------- Payload: [No message payload is defined for this query] --------------------------------------------------------------- 3.3.2. Resource Class List Response The value of the message "type" element for this response is: type="list_response" Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------- Payload: [certificate] ... (repeated for each current certificate where the client is the certificate's subject) [issuer's certificate] ... (repeated for each of the issuer's resource class where the client has been allocated resources) --------------------------------------------------------------- Where the client has been allocated resources from multiple resource classes, then the response will contain multiple class elements, corresponding to the complete set of the issuer's resource classes where the client holds allocated resources. Those issuer's resource classes where the client holds no allocated resources will not be included in the response. Where the issuer has issued multiple certificates in a resource class signed with different keys (as may occur during a staged issuer-key rollover), only the most recent certificate issued with the currently "active" issuer's key will be listed in the response. Each "class" element describes a set of resources that are certified Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 within the scope of a single certificate, referring to a single resource class with a common validation path. class_name: the value of this attribute is the issuer-assigned name of the issuer's Resource Class. cert_url: in the context of a class element, the value of this attribute is a pointer to the issuer's CA certificate (i.e. a reference to the immediate superior certificate, being the CA-enabled certificate where the issuer is the certificate's subject). Its value is a comma-separated list of URIs, of which at least one MUST be an RSYNC URI. Any comma values within a URI MUST be escaped ("%2C"). The ordering of the list may be interpreted by the client as a relative preference for access methods as expressed by the publisher of this certificate. resource_set_as: in the context of a class element, the value of this attribute is the set of AS numbers and AS number ranges that the issuer has allocated to the client within the scope of this resource class, presented in ASCII as a comma-separated list. The list elements are decimal integer values and ranges of decimal integers specified by the low and high value of the range with a hyphen delimiter, using the canonical order as described in [RFC3779], without leading zeros, and with no white space or punctuation other than the comma and the hyphen range designator (e.g.: resource_set_as="123,456-789,123456"). If there are no AS numbers in this Resource Class the empty set will be represented by a null string value ("") for this attribute. resource_set_ipv4: in the context of a class element, the value of this attribute is the set of IPv4 addresses that the issuer has allocated to the client within the scope of this resource class. The value is presented in ASCII as a comma-separated list of elements. Each element is either an address prefix using the notation of /mask length, or a range specified as low and high range values in dotted quad notation with a hyphen delimiter. The list is presented in canonical order, as described in [RFC3779]. The dotted quad notation is without leading zeros, and the list contains no white space or punctuation other than the period, forward slash, hyphen and comma. (e.g. resource_set_ipv4="192.0.2.0/26,192.0.2.66-192.0.2.76") If there are no IPv4 addresses in this resource class the empty set will be represented by a null string value ("") for this attribute. Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 resource_set_ipv6: in the context of a class element, the value of this attribute is the set of IPv6 addresses that the issuer has allocated to the client within the scope of this resource class. The value is presented in ASCII as a comma-separated list of elements. Each element is either an address prefix using the notation of /mask length, or a range specified as low and high range values in hex nibble notation with a hyphen delimiter. Trailing zero nibbles are truncated and represented by '::'. The list is presented in canonical order, as described in [RFC3779]. The hex nibble sequence notation is without leading zeros, and the list contains no white space or punctuation other than the colon, forward slash, hyphen and comma (e.g. resource_set_ipv6="2001: 0DB8::/48,2001:0DB8:002::-2001:0DB8:005::"). The XML Schema data type is "http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#hexBinary" and value is case insensitive, with the canonical form being upper case. If there are no IPv6 addresses in this resource class the empty set will be represented by a null string value ("") for this attribute. resource_set_notafter: The value of this attribute specified the date/time that would be set in the Validity notAfter field in any new certificate issued for this particular client within the scope of this resource class, should the client request a new certificate. The time format used for the value of this attribute is specified as ISO 8601 [ISO.8601:2004], and MUST use UTC time (i.e. YYYY-MM- DDThh:mm:ssZ, e.g. 2007-11-29T04:40:00Z). If the client's certificate has a validity notAfter time that is different to this this time then the client SHOULD request a new certificate to be issued for this resource class. suggested_sia_head: (OPTIONAL) If this field is present then it indicates a publication namespace which the server has made available to the client to use for its own collection of published products. Presence of this field does not mean that the client has permission from the repository operator to lodge under this URI, only that the client has permission from the server to lodge under this URI. [issuer's certificate] value is the Base64 encoding of the DER-encoded issuer's CA certificate (the CA-enabled certificate where the issuer is the certificate's subject). Each certificate element describes the most recently issued current certificate where the certificate's subject refers to the client for each active client key pair. A "current" certificate is a non- Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 expired, non-revoked certificate. If no current certificate has been issued, then no certificate element will be included in the response. cert_url: in the context of a certificate element, this is a pointer to the location where the certificate issuer has published this certificate. This field is the issuer's suggestion for the AIA field for the subject to use in subordinate certificates that are issued by the subject. According to the Resource Certificate Profile [insert ref here] the AIA field is a non-empty (contains a minimum of 1 element) list of URI's, one of which MUST be an RSYNC URI. The order of URI's in the AIA field may be interpreted as the publisher's relative preference for access methods for this certificate. The cert_url conforms to this AIA specification. Its value is a comma-separated list of URIs, one of which MUST be an RSYNC URI. Any comma values within a URI MUST be escaped ("%2C"). req_resource_set_as: the set of AS numbers that were specified in the corresponding original certificate request that defined the maximal requested span of the certified AS number set, following the syntax described above. If this attribute was present in the certificate request, then the attribute MUST be present in this response, otherwise it MUST NOT be present. req_resource_set_ipv4: the set of IPv4 addresses that were specified in the corresponding original certificate request that defined the maximal requested span of the certified IPv4 address set, following the syntax described above. If this attribute was present in the certificate request, then the attribute MUST be present in this response, otherwise it MUST NOT be present. req_resource_set_ipv6: the set of IPv6 addresses that were specified in the corresponding original certificate request that defined the maximal requested span of the certified IPv6 address set, following the syntax described above. If this attribute was present in the certificate request, then the attribute MUST be present in this response, otherwise it MUST NOT be present. [certificate] value is the Base64 encoding of the DER-encoded certificate. Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 3.4. CA - Certificate Issuance 3.4.1. Certificate Issuance Request The value of the message "type" element for this request is: type="issue" --------------------------------------------------------------- Payload: [Certificate request] --------------------------------------------------------------- The client must use different key pairs for each distinct resource class. If any of the req_resource_set attributes are specified in the request, then any missing req_resource_set attributes are to be interpreted as specifying the complete set of the corresponding resource type that match the client's current resource allocation. If the value of any req_resource_set attributes is the null value (""), then this indicates that no resources of that resource type are to be certified with this request. The requested resource set values are held as a local record by the issuer against the resource class and the client's public key. Any subsequent Certificate Issuance Requests that specify the same Resource Class and the same client's public key will (re)set the issuer's local record of the requested resource sets to the most recently specified values. class_name: value is the server's identifier of a Resource Class. Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 req_resource_set_as: (OPTIONAL) the set of AS numbers that define the maximal requested span of the certified AS number set, formatted as per the resource_set_as attribute of the Resource Class List Response. req_resource_set_ipv4: (OPTIONAL) the set of IPv4 addresses that define the maximal requested span of the certified IPv4 address set, formatted as per the resource_set_ipv4 attribute of the Resource Class List Response. req_resource_set_ipv6: (OPTIONAL) the set of IPv6 addresses that define the maximal requested span of the certified IPv6 address set, formatted as per the resource_set_ipv6 attribute of the Resource Class List Response. [Certificate request] value is the certificate request. This is a Base-64 encoded DER version of a request formatted using PKCS#10. 3.4.2. Certificate Issuance Response The value of the message "type" element for this response is: type="issue_response" --------------------------------------------------------------- Payload: [certificate] [issuer's certificate] --------------------------------------------------------------- Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 If the certificate issuer determines that the issued certificate would be identical in all respects to the most recently issued certificate for this client, other than the certificate's serial number, were the certificate to be issued, the issuer may choose to respond with the most recently issued certificate and not issue a new certificate for this request. The definition of the attributes and syntax of the values is the same as the resource class list response, but the response only references the (single) named resource class, and the (single) certificate issued against the client's public key as provided in the corresponding certificate request. 3.5. Certificate Revocation 3.5.1. Certificate Revocation Request The value of the message "type" element for this request is: type="revoke" --------------------------------------------------------------- Payload: --------------------------------------------------------------- This command 'retires' a client's key pair by requesting the issuer to revoke all certificates for this client that contain the matching public key, within the scope of a named Resource Class. Individual issued certificates cannot be revoked within the scope of this protocol. This command directs the issuer to immediately mark all issued valid certificates issued by this issuer within the named Resource Class with this client's SKI value to be marked as revoked, causing the issued certificates to be withdrawn from the publication repository and to be listed in the server's subsequent CRLs within this Resource Class. Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 class_name: value is the issuer-assigned name of the issuer's Resource Class. ski: value is the encoded hash of the client's public key that is to be revoked. The algorithm for the encoding is to generate the 160- bit SHA-1 hash of the client's public key, as defined in method (1) of section 4.2.1.2 of [RFC5280], and encode this value using the Base 64 encoding with URL and Filename Safe Alphabet, as defined in section 5 of [RFC4648]. 3.5.2. Certificate Revocation Response The value of the message "type" element for this response is: type="revoke_response" --------------------------------------------------------------- Payload: --------------------------------------------------------------- class_name: value is the issuer-assigned name of the server's Resource Class. ski: value is the encoded hash of the client's public key that is to be revoked. The algorithm for the encoding is to generate the 160- bit SHA-1 hash of the client's public key, as defined in method (1) of section 4.2.1.2 of [RFC5280], and encode this value using the Base 64 encoding with URL and Filename Safe Alphabet, as defined in section 5 of [RFC4648]. 3.6. Request-Not-Performed Response The value of the message "type" element for this response is: type="error_response" Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------- Payload: [Code] [Readable text] --------------------------------------------------------------- All states where an error response if to be generated, either due to detected errors or inconsistencies in the content of the request or server-side states that prevent the request being performed, generate a Request-Not-Performed response. description: value is a text field. This element MAY be present. It's value has no defined meaning within the scope of this protocol, and implementations may assume that some form of human-readable text may be used here. If the HTTP request that triggered this error response includes an Accept-Language header as defined in section 14.4 of the HTTP/1.1 specification [insert reference to RFC2616] then the server will make a best effort to include a second description element using the highest ranked preferred language of the client. The en-US description will always be included if the element is present. The error code set is: Code Value Description 1101 already processing request 1102 version number error 1103 unrecognised request type 1201 request - no such resource class 1202 request - no resources allocated in resource class 1203 request - badly formed certificate request 1301 revoke - no such resource class 1302 revoke - no such key 2000+ Server Error 2001 Internal Server Error - Request not performed 4. XML Schema The following is a RelaxNG compact form schema describing the IR-ISP Protocol, version 1. Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 default namespace = "http://www.apnic.net/specs/rescerts/up-down/" grammar { start = element message { attribute version { xsd:positiveInteger { maxInclusive="1" } }, attribute sender { xsd:token { maxLength="1024" } }, attribute recipient { xsd:token { maxLength="1024" } }, payload } payload |= attribute type { "list" }, list_request payload |= attribute type { "list_response"}, list_response payload |= attribute type { "issue" }, issue_request payload |= attribute type { "issue_response"}, issue_response payload |= attribute type { "revoke" }, revoke_request payload |= attribute type { "revoke_response"}, revoke_response payload |= attribute type { "error_response"}, error_response list_request = empty list_response = class* class = element class { attribute class_name { xsd:token { maxLength="1024" } }, attribute cert_url { xsd:string { maxLength="4096" } }, attribute resource_set_as { xsd:string { maxLength="512000" pattern="[\-,0-9]*" } }, attribute resource_set_ipv4 { xsd:string { maxLength="512000" pattern="[\-,/.0-9]*" } }, attribute resource_set_ipv6 { xsd:string { maxLength="512000" pattern="[\-,/:0-9a-fA-F]*" } }, attribute resource_set_notafter { xsd:dateTime }, attribute suggested_sia_head { xsd:anyURI { maxLength="1024" pattern="rsync://.+"} }?, element certificate { attribute cert_url { xsd:string { maxLength="4096" } }, attribute req_resource_set_as { xsd:string { maxLength="512000" pattern="[\-,0-9]*" } }?, attribute req_resource_set_ipv4 { xsd:string { maxLength="512000" pattern="[\-,/.0-9]*" } }?, attribute req_resource_set_ipv6 { xsd:string { maxLength="512000" pattern="[\-,/:0-9a-fA-F]*" } }?, xsd:base64Binary { maxLength="512000" } }*, element issuer { xsd:base64Binary { maxLength="512000" } } } issue_request = element request { attribute class_name { xsd:token { maxLength="1024" } }, Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 attribute req_resource_set_as { xsd:string { maxLength="512000" pattern="[\-,0-9]*" } }?, attribute req_resource_set_ipv4 { xsd:string { maxLength="512000" pattern="[\-,/.0-9]*" } }?, attribute req_resource_set_ipv6 { xsd:string { maxLength="512000" pattern="[\-,/:0-9a-fA-F]*" } }?, xsd:base64Binary { maxLength="512000" } } issue_response = class revoke_request = revocation revoke_response = revocation revocation = element key { attribute class_name { xsd:token { maxLength="1024" } }, attribute ski { xsd:token { maxLength="1024" } } } error_response = element status { xsd:positiveInteger { maxInclusive="999999999999999" } }, element description { attribute xml:lang { xsd:language }, xsd:string { maxLength="1024" } }? } 5. Security Considerations The intent of this protocol is to define a protocol to support the maintenance of Resource Certificates that the IR issues for an ISP in certifying resources that have been allocated or assigned by the IR to the ISP [ID.SIDR-RES-CERTS]. This protocol assumes that the IR and ISP are known to each other and have exchanged credentials so as to support the operation of a TLS channel with mutual identification. The mechanisms used to perform this credential exchange are not described in this specification. The primary objective of this provisioning protocol is to ensure that attempts to disrupt the interaction between client and server are identifiable by both parties. The mechanisms used to support this level of integrity of protocol operation include the use of TLS with mutual identification, and the use of message objects that are Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 digitally signed and dated using CMS. This is intended to ensure that the communication is resistant to attempts to disrupt the communication or to replay earlier communication fragments (man-in- the middle disruption and replay attacks). The protocol is a minimal query / response protocol, that imposes strict serialization on each query / response transaction, reducing the potential for the ISP and the IR to lose synchronization over the issued certificate state. The inner protocol elements explicitly reference the intended sender and receiver to present an IR or an ISP attempting to masquerade as another party within the secure channel. 6. IANA Considerations [Note to IANA, to be removed prior to publication: there are no IANA considerations stated in this version of the document.] 7. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the valued contributions from Russ Housley, Steve Kent, Randy Bush, George Michaelson, and Robert Kisteleki in the preparation of the protocol described in this document. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [ISO.8601:2004] ISO, "ISO 8601:2004 Representation of dates and Times", 2004. [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. [RFC2050] Hubbard, K., Kosters, M., Conrad, D., Karrenberg, D., and J. Postel, "INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES", BCP 12, RFC 2050, November 1996. [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000. [RFC3779] Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004. Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 [RFC3852] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 3852, July 2004. [RFC4049] Housley, R., "BinaryTime: An Alternate Format for Representing Date and Time in ASN.1", RFC 4049, April 2005. [RFC4055] Schaad, J., Kaliski, B., and R. Housley, "Additional Algorithms and Identifiers for RSA Cryptography for use in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 4055, June 2005. [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. [RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006. [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006. [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008. [X.501] CCITT, "Recommendation X.501: The Directory - Models", 1988. [X.509-88] CCITT, "Recommendation X.509: The Directory - Authentication Framework", 1988. 8.2. Informative References [ID.SIDR-RES-CERTS] Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", Work in progress: Internet Drafts draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs-11.txt, August 2008. Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 Authors' Addresses Geoff Huston Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 33 Park Rd Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Email: gih@apnic.net URI: http://www.apnic.net Robert Loomans Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 33 Park Rd Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Email: robertl@apnic.net URI: http://www.apnic.net Byron Ellacott Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 33 Park Rd Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Email: bje@apnic.net URI: http://www.apnic.net Rob Austein Internet Systems Consortium 950 Charter St Redwood City, CA 94063 USA Email: sra@isc.org Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Rescert Provisioning August 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Huston, et al. Expires February 8, 2009 [Page 29]