Internet DRAFT - draft-barnes-sidr-tao
draft-barnes-sidr-tao
Secure Inter-Domain Routing E. Barnes
Internet-Draft BBN Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track February 13, 2014
Expires: August 17, 2014
Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Resource Transfer Protocol and
Transfer Authorization Object (TAO)
draft-barnes-sidr-tao-00
Abstract
This document defines an extension to the rpki-updown protocol to
provide support for transferring Internet Number Resources from one
INR holder to another. Such transfers take place external to the
RPKI, using procedures defined within and between RIRs. This
protocol facilitates automation of the maintenance of RPKI data in
the context of INR transfers. The protocol supports asynchronous
transfers of live or unused INRs within an RIR or between RIRs. The
scope of this protocol is limited to the transfer of Internet Number
Resources within the Resource Public Key Infrastructure. In support
of this protocol, this document also defines a new signed object type
for the RPKI repository system, the Transfer Authorization Object
(TAO).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Protocol Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. INR Source Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. INR Recipient Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Swing Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Transfer Authorization Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.1. TAO Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.2. TAO Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. ASN.1 Specification of the TAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.1. transferFromSKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.2. transferToSKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.3. ipAddrBlocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.4. asIdentifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.5. liveXfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.6. overlapPeriod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Common Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.7. End Entity Certificate Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.8. INR Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.8.1. Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.8.2. Request-Not-Performed Response . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.8.3. Timeout Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.8.4. Overlap Failure Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.9. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
1. Introduction
This document defines an extension to the rpki-updown protocol,
defined in [RFC6492], to provide support for transferring Internet
Number Resources from one INR holder to another. The protocol
supports asynchronous transfers of live or unused INRs. The scope of
the protocol is limited to the transfer of Internet Number Resource
within the Resource Public Key Infrastructure, defined in [RFC6480].
In support of this protocol, this document also defines a new signed
object type, the Transfer Authorization Object (TAO), which makes use
of the signed object format defined in [RFC6488].
Many of the messages in this protocol are identical to those in
[RFC6488], and the result of the protocol, updated certificates
published in the RPKI repository system [RFC6481], is the same for
both protocols. To initiate a transfer, an INR holder, or source,
creates a TAO and publishes it in its publication point. The TAO is
a declaration of the proposed transfer, signed by the transfer
source. The source communicates the location of the TAO to the INR
recipient. Both entities then pursue the transfer independently,
recursively requesting the transfer from their parents until the
lowest common ancestor, the swing point is reached. The swing point
acts as the ultimate arbiter of the transfer, although any
Certification Authority (CA) involved in the transfer is able to deny
the transfer. The protocol assumes that the source of the transfer,
and the recipient have gained preliminary approval for the transfer,
out-of-band (OOB), prior to publishing the TAO and initiating the
protocol.
1.1. Terminology
Terms used in this document are:
"Internet Number Resource" (or "resource" or "INR") used in the
context of this document to refer to Autonomous System (AS)
numbers and IP version 4 or IP version 6 addresses.
"swing point" the lowest common ancestor (Certification Authority)
of both the INR source and the INR recipient in the RPKI
hierarchy. It is assumed that the swing point is neither the
source nor the recipient.
"source" (or "INR source") the INR holder that initiates the
transfer
"recipient" (or "INR recipient") the INR holder that is the
destination of the transfer
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
"live" a live INR is a resource that is currently in use
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 BCP 14, [RFC2119].
2. Scope
This Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) INR transfer protocol
defines a basic set of interactions that allows:
o an INR holder to initiate the transfer of Internet Number
Resources,
o the INR source and INR recipient to pursue the transfer
asynchronously,
o and each Certification Authority (CA) along the path between the
source and recipient (including the swing point) to validate and
approve, or deny, any such transfer.
The resource allocation database and INR transfer policies of each CA
along the path are authoritative when determining whether the
resources in question may be transferred.
This protocol specification does not encompass:
o the specification of interactions with the each CA's resource
allocation database, nor the specification of a protocol to manage
the publication repository.
o transfers where the source or recipient is also the swing point.
Both situations are already handled by rpki-updown as explained in
Section 3.3.
3. Protocol Specifications
The INR source MUST initiate the transfer by creating and publishing
the Transfer Authorization Object (TAO, see Section 3.4) at its
publication point [RFC6481]. The URL of the TAO SHOULD be
communicated to the transfer recipient, e.g., via email. Once the
TAO is published, and the recipient has received the URL of the TAO,
two separate processes begin: the first from the INR source to the
swing point, the second from the transfer recipient to the swing
point. These two processes proceed independently and recursively.
The following steps occur between each parent and child along the
specified paths in the hierarchy.
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
In both cases, when a CA receives an updated certificate from its
immediate parent, it MUST promptly update the certificate for the
child involved in the transfer. This certificate is published in its
publication point and sent to the child using a transfer_response
message (Section 3.8.1.2. If this CA is the INR source or INR
recipient, no updates are necessary since receipt of the updated
certificate indicates that the parent has updated the end point of
the transfer. Similarly, when a CA receives an error message from a
parent, the CA MUST forward the message code to its immediate child
along the path towards the INR source or INR recipient.
Both the INR source and the INR recipient MUST NOT rekey during a
transfer; their SKIs are captured in the TAO and the validity of the
TAO requires the SKIs not change during the process. A new key would
invalidate the TAO and require restarting the transfer process. To
avoid this problem, the source SHOULD NOT initiate a transfer that is
expected to take longer than the notAfter date in its, or the
recipient's, CA certificate. The source should contact (OOB) the
CA's along the path to receive an estimate of the time required to
complete a transfer, to aid in making this determination.
The process described below is used for transferring either live or
unused INRs. The process is identical for both types of transfers
except where otherwise specified.
3.1. INR Source Path
The source MUST NOT request a transfer of any INRs that are delegated
to one of the source's children (i.e., appear in a CA certificate
issued by the source). This requirement avoids one way that a TAO
that is valid at the beginning of a transfer could become invalid
before the end of the transfer. In particular, in the instance where
the source of this transfer is the swing point in another transfer,
this prevents the swing point from transferring INRs to a different
recipient than specified in the first transfer.
Along the path from the INR source to the swing point, with the INR
source as the initial "child", the following messages MUST be
transmitted in the specified order.
1. The child sends a transfer_request (Section 3.8.1.1) to its
parent.
2. The parent confirms the validity of the transfer_request,
responding with an error code 1203 for invalid requests. An
invalid request cancels the transfer. A transfer_request is
valid if all of the following are true:
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
* The attached TAO is valid. See Section 3.4.2 for TAO
validation steps.
* The TAO in the request is identical to the TAO published in
the source's publication point.
* The transfer is allowed by the transfer policy of the CA
3. The parent replies with a transfer_response (Section 3.8.1.2).
For transfers of unused INRs, the transfer_response contains an
updated certificate, which MUST have the same INRs as the
certificate it replaces, minus the INRs specified in the TAO.
For live transfers, the transfer_response contains an error code
1104 response, indicating that the transfer is valid and being
pursued asynchronously.
4. The parent determines if it (the parent) is the swing point. See
Section 3.3 for this procedure. If it is not the swing point,
the parent repeats this process from step 1, acting as the child.
If the parent is not the swing point but is a self-signed CA, an
error code 1401 MUST be returned.
If, after an excessive wait, a child does not receive a response from
its parent, the child SHOULD return error 1402 indicating a timeout.
This error declares cancellation of the transfer request by the
child, and MUST be propagated up AND down the path. This informs any
parents waiting further up the path that the child is no longer
waiting for an updated certificate, and indicates that the parent
MUST time out as well. Ultimately, what constitutes an excessive
wait is determined by each CA. However, it is RECOMMENDED that each
CA not time out a transfer prior to the notAfter value in the TAO.
For live transfers, the source waits until the notAfter value in the
TAO expires. If the recipient has successfully received the INRs at
that point, the source MUST use the following process to relinquish
control of the transferred INRs:
1. The child sends a transfer_request (Section 3.8.1.1) to the
parent.
2. The parent confirms that the transfer_request matches a previous
transfer_request, with the exception that the notAfter MUST be in
the past. The parent responds with an error code 1203 for
invalid requests. A transfer_request is valid if all of the
following are true:
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
* The attached TAO is valid, with the exception of the notAfter
value which MUST be in the past. See Section 3.4.2 for TAO
validation steps.
* The TAO in the request MUST be identical to the TAO published
in the source's publication point.
3. The parent replies with a transfer_response (Section 3.8.1.2).
This response MUST include an updated certificate which MUST have
the same INRs as the certificate it replaces, minus the INRs
specified in the TAO.
4. The parent determines if it (the parent) is the swing point. See
Section 3.3 for this procedure. If it is not the swing point,
the parent repeats this process from step 1, acting as the child.
If the parent is not the swing point but is a self-signed CA, an
error code 1401 MUST be returned.
3.2. INR Recipient Path
A recipient will have multiple parents within the RPKI if it has
received INR allocations from multiple sources. In such cases, the
recipient MUST select the parent via which the resources will be
received. The means by which a recipient makes this decision are
outside the scope of this protocol. (INR transfers require OOB
coordination among the affected organizations. This coordination is
expected to provide the recipient with a basis for selecting a parent
for the transfer.)
Along the path from the transfer recipient to the swing point, with
the INR recipient as the initial "child", the following messages MUST
be transmitted in the order specified below.
1. The child sends a transfer_request, Section 3.8.1.1, to the
parent.
2. The parent confirms the validity of the transfer_request,
responding with an error code 1203 for invalid requests. A
transfer_request is valid only if all of the following are true:
* The attached TAO is valid. See Section 3.4.2 for TAO
validation steps.
* The TAO in the request is identical to the TAO published in
the source's publication point.
* The transfer is allowed by the transfer policy of the CA
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
3. The parent determines if it (the parent) is the swing point. See
Section 3.3 for this procedure.
4. If it is not the swing point, the parent replies with a
transfer_response containing an error code. If the parent is a
self-signed CA and it is not the swing point, an error code 1401
MUST be returned. If the parent is not a self-signed CA, an
error code 1104 response MUST be returned, indicating that the
transfer is valid and being pursued asynchronously. The parent
then repeats this process from step 1, acting as the child.
If, after an excessive wait, a child does not receive a response from
its parent, the child SHOULD return error 1402 indicating a timeout.
This error declares cancellation of the transfer request by the
child, and MUST be propagated up AND down the path by each parent.
See the previous section for a discussion of what constitutes
"excessive".
During live transfers, CAs in the recipient path have an additional
responsibility after receiving an updated certificate. The
overlapPeriod field of the TAO MUST be less than that number of
seconds from the current time to the notAfter value of the TAO. If
this test fails, this CA MUST forward an error code 1403 up and down
the path, ending the transfer. This minimizes the likelihood that
the source and recipient do not have an adequate overlap in ownership
of the INRs in question during a live transfer.
3.3. Swing Point
A CA determines that it is the swing point by verifying that both the
INR source and the INR recipient SKIs, as defined in the TAO, are
below the CA in the hierarchy. Because this determination is
performed for both paths, starting at the source and the recipient,
this will uniquely determine the swing point. This document does not
cover the case where the swing point is the source or the recipient.
If the swing point is the recipient, the INRs are being relinquished
and returned to that organization. If the swing point is the source,
the INRs are being assigned. This procedure is already accommodated
by use of the up/down protocol. Because the RPKI hierarchy is
intended to have a unique root, there should always exist a swing
point.
The swing point MUST behave as follows:
1. Confirm that it is the swing point.
2. Confirm the validity and uniqueness of the Subject Key
Identifiers (SKI) of the CAs (source and recipient)in the TAO.
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
3. Confirm that it controls the INRs to be transferred.
4. Wait to receive both transfer_requests, one from the path to the
source and one from the path to the recipient.
5. Create an updated certificate for the CA on the path from the
swing point to the transfer recipient. Publish this certificate
in the swing point's publication point and send the updated
certificate to the child CA using a transfer_response message.
This updated certificate MUST have the same INRs as the
certificate it replaces, plus the INRs specified in the TAO.
(The swing point MUST still control the INRs being transferred,
but this is a side effect of its normal certificate issuance
process.)
Should a swing point receive an error code 1403 message from the CA
in the recipient path, the swing point must forward the error code to
the CA on the source path, indicating a cancellation of the transfer.
3.4. Transfer Authorization Object
The TAO is encapsulated in a CMS object as defined in [RFC6492]
Section 3.1.
3.4.1. TAO Type
TAO OID TBD
3.4.2. TAO Validation
The TAO must be validated by each participant in the process. The
creator of the TAO MUST validate the TAO after creation. All CAs
that receive a Transfer Request MUST perform the following actions:
1. Determine that the TAO is valid as defined by the steps in
[RFC6488] Section 3.
2. Verify that either the transferFromSKI or the transferToSKI (or
both) correspond to CAs that are descendants of this CA
Note: This requires that the transfer recipient hold some
address space and thus hold a valid CA Certificate before this
process is initiated.
3. Verify that the transferFromSKI and the transferToSKI SKIs are
valid, corresponding to the SKI extension of a CA within the
RPKI, and unique, such that only one CA has an SKI extension that
matches each of these values. (This check SHOULD be performed
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
using the RPKI data acquired by the participant in its role as a
relying party [RFC6480].)
4. The parent of the source checks that the source holds the INRs in
question. Each CA above that checks that the INRs are held by
the CA that made the request.
3.5. ASN.1 Specification of the TAO
TransferAuthorization ::= SEQUENCE {
transferFromSKI OCTET STRING,
transferToSKI OCTET STRING,
ipAddrBlocks [0] IPAddrBlocks OPTIONAL,
asIdentifiers [1] ASIdentifiers OPTIONAL,
liveXfer BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
overlapPeriod INTEGER OPTIONAL
}
Either ipAddrBlocks or asIdentifiers, or both, MUST be included.
3.5.1. transferFromSKI
The transferFromSKI MUST be equal to the SKI of the CA that holds the
resources.
3.5.2. transferToSKI
The transferToSKI MUST be equal to the SKI in a valid CA within the
RPKI.
3.5.3. ipAddrBlocks
IPAddrBlocks is specified in [RFC3779] Section 2. If the
ipAddrBlocks attribute is included, it MUST NOT be empty and it MUST
NOT have any resources marked as inherit.
3.5.4. asIdentifiers
ASIdentifiers is specified in [RFC3779] Section 3. If the
asIdentifiers attribute is included, it MUST NOT be empty and the
inherit flag MUST NOT be TRUE.
3.5.5. liveXfer
This flag is set TRUE only for a transfer of live resources.
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
3.5.6. overlapPeriod
overlapPeriod is the minimum number of seconds which the source and
recipient MUST both hold the INRs. This field MUST hold a non-zero
number for live transfers. The value MUST be omitted for transfers
of unused space. Thus this field is present only if liveXfer is
TRUE.
3.6. Common Message Format
This document defines version 2 of the Common Message Format for the
up/down protocol. Version 1 is defined in [RFC6492]. The format in
version 2 is identical to version 1, but with several added
attributes, defined in Section 3.8, and one additional constraint
defined in Section 3.7. The checks specified in [RFC6492]
Section 3.2 still apply and MUST be applied.
3.7. End Entity Certificate Constraint
This section corresponds to Section 3.1.1.4 in [RFC6492]. The End
Entity (EE) certificate that is required here MUST have its resources
marked as inherit. This convention is imposed to ensure that this
certificate remains valid during the life of the TAO before, during,
and after the transfer takes place.
3.8. INR Transfer
3.8.1. Transfer
This query is used for all requests and responses made during a
transfer. This includes messages between the initial sender and its
parent, the receiver and its parent, and between each intermediate CA
and its parent.
3.8.1.1. Request
The value of the message "type" element for this request is:
type="transfer_request"
----------------------
Payload:
<request
tao_url="url">
[tao]
</request>
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
tao_url: value is the pointer to the location where the INR source
has published the TAO.
[tao] value is the Base64 encoding of the DER-encoded TAO. After
decoding, this object MUST be identical to the object published by
the source in its publication point.
3.8.1.2. Response
The value of the message "type" element for this response is:
type="transfer_response"
--------------------
Payload:
<class
tao_url="url"
cert_url="url"
resource_set_as="as resource set"
resource_set_ipv4="ipv4 resource set"
resource_set_ipv6="ipv6 resource set"
resource_set_notafter="datetime"
suggested_sia_head="[directory uri]">
<certificate cert_url="url"
req_resource_set_as="as resource set"
req_resource_set_ipv4="ipv4 resource set"
req_resource_set_ipv6="ipv6 resource set" >
[certificate]
</certificate>
<issuer>[issuer's certificate]</issuer>
</class>
In the case where the transfer is for live resources, not all
responses will contain a certificate. For the CAs in the path with
the INR source, an updated certificate, with the transferred INR
removed, will be available once the transfer is complete and the INR
source is prepared to relinquish control of the INRs. In contrast,
the CAs along the path to the transfer recipient each receive a new
certificate after the swing point receives and approves the messages
from both the source and the recipient.
tao_url is identical to the tao_url in the request. The definition
of all other attributes can be found in [RFC6492] Section 3.3.2.
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
3.8.2. Request-Not-Performed Response
This response is an extension of [RFC6492] Section 3.6. In addition
to the error codes defined there, Error Code 1401 is used when a
self-signed CA determines that it is not an ancestor of both the
source and the recipient. This indicates a failure of the automated
transfer and a manual transfer must take place.
3.8.3. Timeout Response
This response is an extension of [RFC6492] Section 3.6. In addition
to the error codes defined there, Error Code 1402 is used when a CA
determines that it has waited an excessive duration for a response
from its parent. This indicates a failure of the transfer.
3.8.4. Overlap Failure Response
This response is an extension of [RFC6492] Section 3.6. In addition
to the error codes defined there, Error Code 1403 is used when a CA
in the recipient path determines that the overlapPeriod value is less
than the number of seconds between the current time and the notAfter
value in the TAO. This indicates a failure of the transfer.
3.9. XML Schema
The following is a RELAX NG compact form schema [ISO.19757-2.2003]
describing version 2 of this protocol.
Note: As discussed in [W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208], "the namespace
name, to serve its intended purpose, SHOULD have the
characteristics of uniqueness and persistence. It is not a goal
that it be directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if any
exists)".
default namespace = "http://www.apnic.net/specs/rescerts/up-down/"
grammar {
resource_set_as = xsd:string { maxLength="512000"
pattern="[\-,0-9]*" }
resource_set_ip4 = xsd:string { maxLength="512000"
pattern="[\-,/.0-9]*" }
resource_set_ip6 = xsd:string { maxLength="512000"
pattern="[\-,/:0-9a-fA-F]*" }
class_name = xsd:token { minLength="1" maxLength="1024" }
ski = xsd:token { minLength="27" maxLength="1024" }
label = xsd:token { minLength="1" maxLength="1024" }
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
cert_url = xsd:string { minLength="10" maxLength="4096" }
base64_binary = xsd:base64Binary { minLength="4"
maxLength="512000" }
tao_url = xsd:string { minLength="10" maxLength="4096" }
start = element message {
attribute version { xsd:positiveInteger {
maxInclusive="1" } },
attribute sender { label },
attribute recipient { label },
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
payload |= attribute type { "transfer_response"},
transfer_response
list_request = empty
list_response = class*
class = element class {
attribute class_name { class_name },
attribute cert_url { cert_url },
attribute resource_set_as { resource_set_as },
attribute resource_set_ipv4 { resource_set_ip4 },
attribute resource_set_ipv6 { resource_set_ip6 },
attribute resource_set_notafter { xsd:dateTime },
attribute suggested_sia_head { xsd:anyURI { maxLength="1024"
pattern="rsync://.+"} }?,
element certificate {
attribute cert_url { cert_url },
attribute req_resource_set_as { resource_set_as }?,
attribute req_resource_set_ipv4 { resource_set_ip4 }?,
attribute req_resource_set_ipv6 { resource_set_ip6 }?,
base64_binary
}*,
element issuer { base64_binary }
}
issue_request = element request {
attribute class_name { class_name },
attribute req_resource_set_as { resource_set_as }?,
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
attribute req_resource_set_ipv4 { resource_set_ip4 }?,
attribute req_resource_set_ipv6 { resource_set_ip6 }?,
base64_binary
}
issue_response = class
revoke_request = revocation
revoke_response = revocation
revocation = element key {
attribute class_name { class_name },
attribute ski { ski }
}
error_response =
element status { xsd:positiveInteger { maxInclusive="9999" } },
element description { attribute xml:lang { xsd:language },
xsd:string { maxLength="1024" } }*
}
transfer_request = element request {
attribute tao_url { tao_url },
element tao { base64_binary }
}
transfer_response = element response {
attribute tao_url { tao_url },
attribute cert_url { cert_url },
attribute resource_set_as { resource_set_as },
attribute resource_set_ipv4 { resource_set_ip4 },
attribute resource_set_ipv6 { resource_set_ip6 },
attribute resource_set_notafter { xsd:dateTime },
attribute suggested_sia_head { xsd:anyURI { maxLength="1024"
pattern="rsync://.+"} }?,
element certificate {
attribute cert_url { cert_url },
attribute req_resource_set_as { resource_set_as }?,
attribute req_resource_set_ipv4 { resource_set_ip4 }?,
attribute req_resource_set_ipv6 { resource_set_ip6 }?,
base64_binary
}*,
element issuer { base64_binary }
}
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
4. Security Considerations
The checks described at each stage are designed to ensure that these
four security goals are met:
o the TAO was generated by the indicated INR source, that source
holds the INRs being transferred, and the TAO has not been
modified by another party
o the transfer recipient is the intended recipient of the resources
as per the INR source
o each CA that processes a transfer request either holds the
resources being transferred, or it is on the path between the
swing point and the transfer recipient
o each CA along the path approved the transfer (or has rejected it)
Up/down protocol messages contain a time-based anti-reply feature, so
replays of these signed messages can be detected. If a request
message is redirected, a CA receiving it will detect and reject this
because the request will not be from one of its children. A
redirected response message also will be detected because the
response will not be from the child's immediate parent. Because all
messages (both requests and responses) are contained within a CMS
object, the sender of a message is validated through signature
verification.
For live transfers, the source initiates the relinquishment of the
INRs that were transferred. If they fail to initiate the
relinquishment in a timely manner, the recipient may choose to
contact any or all of the source's ancestors (up to the swing point)
to pursue a forced relinquishment of resources. Any legal or
contractual processes used are outside the scope of this document.
5. IANA Considerations
An OID is requested for the TAO object defined above.
6. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the valued contribution of Steve
Kent for providing a top level description of the TAO protocol, David
Mandelberg for his contributions to the security of the protocol, and
the authors of the rpki-updown protocol ([RFC6492]) Geoff Huston,
Robert Loomans, Byron Ellacott, and Rob Austein.
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC6492] Huston, G., Loomans, R., Ellacott, B., and R. Austein, "A
Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates", RFC
6492, February 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3779] Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004.
[RFC6481] Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for
Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481,
February 2012.
[RFC6488] Lepinski, M., Chi, A., and S. Kent, "Signed Object
Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI)", RFC 6488, February 2012.
7.2. Informative References
[W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208]
Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Tobin, R., and H.
Thompson, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", World
Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208,
December 2009,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208>.
[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.
[ISO.19757-2.2003]
International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology -- Document Schema Definition
Language (DSDL) -- Part 2: Regular-grammar-based
validation -- RELAX NG", ISO International Standard
19757-2, December 2003.
Author's Address
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Transfer Authorization Object February 2014
Edric Barnes
BBN Technologies
10 Moulton St
Cambridge, MA
US
EMail: ebarnes@bbn.com
Barnes Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 18]
