Internet DRAFT - draft-ymbk-sidrops-6486bis
draft-ymbk-sidrops-6486bis
Network Working Group R. Austein
Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc.
Updates: 6486 (if approved) G. Huston
Intended status: Standards Track APNIC
Expires: January 7, 2021 S. Kent
Independent
M. Lepinski
New College Florida
July 6, 2020
Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
draft-ymbk-sidrops-6486bis-00
Abstract
This document defines a "manifest" for use in the Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI). A manifest is a signed object (file) that
contains a listing of all the signed objects (files) in the
repository publication point (directory) associated with an authority
responsible for publishing in the repository. For each certificate,
Certificate Revocation List (CRL), or other type of signed objects
issued by the authority that are published at this repository
publication point, the manifest contains both the name of the file
containing the object and a hash of the file content. Manifests are
intended to enable a relying party (RP) to detect certain forms of
attacks against a repository. Specifically, if an RP checks a
manifest's contents against the signed objects retrieved from a
repository publication point, then the RP can detect "stale" (valid)
data and deletion of signed objects.
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 https://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 January 7, 2021.
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Manifest Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Manifest Signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Manifest Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. eContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. eContent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Manifest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Content-Type Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Manifest Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Manifest Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Manifest Generation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Considerations for Manifest Generation . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Relying Party Processing of Manifests . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Manifest Processing Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Acquiring a Manifest for a CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Detecting Stale and or Prematurely-issued Manifests . . . 11
6.4. Acquiring Files Referenced by a Manifest . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. Matching File Names and Hashes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.6. Out of Scope Manifest Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.7. Failed Fetches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Publication Repositories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. ASN.1 Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
1. Introduction
The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6480] makes use of
a distributed repository system [RFC6481] to make available a variety
of objects needed by relying parties (RPs). Because all of the
objects stored in the repository system are digitally signed by the
entities that created them, attacks that modify these published
objects are detectable by RPs. However, digital signatures provide
no protection against attacks that substitute "stale" versions of
signed objects (i.e., objects that were valid and have not expired,
but have since been superseded) or attacks that remove an object that
should be present in the repository. To assist in the detection of
such attacks, the RPKI repository system can make use of a signed
object called a "manifest".
A manifest is a signed object that enumerates all the signed objects
(files) in the repository publication point (directory) that are
associated with an authority responsible for publishing at that
publication point. Each manifest contains both the name of the file
containing the object and a hash of the file content, for every
signed object issued by an authority that is published at the
authority's repository publication point. A manifest is intended to
allow an RP to detect unauthorized object removal or the substitution
of stale versions of objects at a publication point. A manifest also
is intended to allow an RP to detect similar outcomes that may result
from a man-in-the-middle attack on the retrieval of objects from the
repository. Manifests are intended to be used in Certification
Authority (CA) publication points in repositories (directories
containing files that are subordinate certificates and Certificate
Revocation Lists (CRLs) issued by this CA and other signed objects
that are verified by end-entity (EE) certificates issued by this CA).
Manifests are modeled on CRLs, as the issues involved in detecting
stale manifests and potential attacks using manifest replays, etc.,
are similar to those for CRLs. The syntax of the manifest payload
differs from CRLs, since RPKI repositories contain objects not
covered by CRLs, e.g., digitally signed objects, such as Route
Origination Authorizations (ROAs).
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
2. Manifest Scope
A manifest associated with a CA's repository publication point
contains a list of:
o the set of (non-expired, non-revoked) certificates issued and
published by this CA,
o the most recent CRL issued by this CA, and
o all published signed objects that are verifiable using EE
certificates [RFC6487] issued by this CA.
Every RPKI signed object includes, in the Cryptographic Message
Syntax (CMS) [RFC3370] wrapper of the object, the EE certificate used
to verify it [RFC6488]. Thus, there is no requirement to separately
publish that EE certificate at the CA's repository publication point.
Where multiple CA instances share a common publication point, as can
occur when an entity performs a key-rollover operation [RFC6489], the
repository publication point will contain multiple manifests. In
this case, each manifest describes only the collection of published
products of its associated CA instance.
3. Manifest Signing
A CA's manifest is verified using an EE certificate. The
SubjectInfoAccess (SIA) field of this EE certificate contains the
access method OID of id-ad-signedObject.
The CA MAY choose to sign only one manifest with each generated
private key, and generate a new key pair for each new version of the
manifest. This form of use of the associated EE certificate is
termed a "one-time-use" EE certificate.
Alternatively, the CA MAY elect to use the same private key to sign a
sequence of manifests. Because only a single manifest (issued under
a single CA instance) is current at any point in time, the associated
EE certificate is used to verify only a single object at a time. As
long as the sequence of objects verified by this EE certificate are
published using the same file name, then this sequential, multiple
use of the EE certificate is also valid. This form of use of an EE
certificate is termed a "sequential-use" EE certificate.
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
4. Manifest Definition
A manifest is an RPKI signed object, as specified in [RFC6488]. The
RPKI signed object template requires specification of the following
data elements in the context of the manifest structure.
4.1. eContentType
The eContentType for a manifest is defined as id-ct-rpkiManifest and
has the numerical value of 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.26.
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-rpkiManifest OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ct 26 }
4.2. eContent
The content of a manifest is ASN.1 encoded using the Distinguished
Encoding Rules (DER) [X.690]. The content of a manifest is defined
as follows:
Manifest ::= SEQUENCE {
version [0] INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
manifestNumber INTEGER (0..MAX),
thisUpdate GeneralizedTime,
nextUpdate GeneralizedTime,
fileHashAlg OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
fileList SEQUENCE SIZE (0..MAX) OF FileAndHash
}
FileAndHash ::= SEQUENCE {
file IA5String,
hash BIT STRING
}
4.2.1. Manifest
The manifestNumber, thisUpdate, and nextUpdate fields are modeled
after the corresponding fields in X.509 CRLs (see [RFC5280]).
Analogous to CRLs, a manifest is nominally current until the time
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
specified in nextUpdate or until a manifest is issued with a greater
manifest number, whichever comes first.
If a "one-time-use" EE certificate is employed to verify a manifest,
the EE certificate MUST have a validity period that coincides with
the interval from thisUpdate to nextUpdate, to prevent needless
growth of the CA's CRL.
If a "sequential-use" EE certificate is employed to verify a
manifest, the EE certificate's validity period needs to be no shorter
than the nextUpdate time of the current manifest. The extended
validity time raises the possibility of a substitution attack using a
stale manifest, as described in Section 6.4.
The data elements of the manifest structure are defined as follows:
version:
The version number of this version of the manifest specification
MUST be 0.
manifestNumber:
This field is an integer that is incremented each time a new
manifest is issued for a given publication point. This field
allows an RP to detect gaps in a sequence of published manifests.
As the manifest is modeled on the CRL specification, the
ManifestNumber is analogous to the CRLNumber, and the guidance in
[RFC5280] for CRLNumber values is appropriate as to the range of
number values that can be used for the manifestNumber. Manifest
numbers can be expected to contain long integers. Manifest
verifiers MUST be able to handle number values up to 20 octets.
Conforming manifest issuers MUST NOT use number values longer than
20 octets.
thisUpdate:
This field contains the time when the manifest was created. This
field has the same format constraints as specified in [RFC5280]
for the CRL field of the same name.
nextUpdate:
This field contains the time at which the next scheduled manifest
will be issued. The value of nextUpdate MUST be later than the
value of thisUpdate. The specification of the GeneralizedTime
value is the same as required for the thisUpdate field.
If the authority alters any of the items that it has published in
the repository publication point, then the authority MUST issue a
new manifest before the nextUpdate time. If a manifest
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
encompasses a CRL, the nextUpdate field of the manifest MUST match
that of the CRL's nextUpdate field, as the manifest will be re-
issued when a new CRL is published. If a "one-time-use" EE
certificate is used to verify the manifest, then when a new
manifest is issued before the time specified in nextUpdate of the
current manifest, the CA MUST also issue a new CRL that includes
the EE certificate corresponding to the old manifest.
fileHashAlg:
This field contains the OID of the hash algorithm used to hash the
files that the authority has placed into the repository. The hash
algorithm used MUST conform to the RPKI Algorithms and Key Size
Profile specification [RFC6485].
fileList:
This field is a sequence of FileAndHash objects. There is one
FileAndHash entry for each currently valid signed object that has
been published by the authority (at this publication point). Each
FileAndHash is an ordered pair consisting of the name of the file
in the repository publication point (directory) that contains the
object in question and a hash of the file's contents.
4.3. Content-Type Attribute
The mandatory content-type attribute MUST have its attrValues field
set to the same OID as eContentType. This OID is id-ct-rpkiManifest
and has the numerical value of 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.26.
4.4. Manifest Validation
To determine whether a manifest is valid, the RP MUST perform the
following checks in addition to those specified in [RFC6488]:
1. The eContentType in the EncapsulatedContentInfo is id-ad-
rpkiManifest (OID 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.26).
2. The version of the rpkiManifest is 0.
3. In the rpkiManifest, thisUpdate precedes nextUpdate.
If the above procedure indicates that the manifest is invalid, then
the manifest MUST be discarded and treated as though no manifest were
present.
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
5. Manifest Generation
5.1. Manifest Generation Procedure
For a CA publication point in the RPKI repository system, a CA MUST
perform the following steps to generate a manifest:
1. If no key pair exists, or if using a "one-time-use" EE
certificate with a new key pair, generate a key pair.
2. If using a "one-time-use" EE certificate, or if a key pair was
generated in step 1, or if using a "sequential-use" EE
certificate that will expire before the intended nextUpdate time
of this manifest, issue an EE certificate for this key pair.
This EE certificate MUST have an SIA extension access description
field with an accessMethod OID value of id-ad-signedobject, where
the associated accessLocation references the publication point of
the manifest as an object URL.
This EE certificate MUST describe its Internet Number Resources
(INRs) using the "inherit" attribute, rather than explicit
description of a resource set (see [RFC3779]).
In the case of a "one-time-use" EE certificate, the validity
times of the EE certificate MUST exactly match the thisUpdate and
nextUpdate times of the manifest.
In the case of a "sequential-use" EE certificate, the validity
times of the EE certificate MUST encompass the time interval from
thisUpdate to nextUpdate.
3. The EE certificate MUST NOT be published in the authority's
repository publication point.
4. Construct the manifest content.
The manifest content is described in Section 4.2.1. The
manifest's fileList includes the file name and hash pair for each
object issued by this CA that has been published at this
repository publication point (directory). The collection of
objects to be included in the manifest includes all certificates
issued by this CA that are published at the CA's repository
publication point, the most recent CRL issued by the CA, and all
objects verified by EE certificates that were issued by this CA
that are published at this repository publication point.
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
Note that the manifest does not include a self reference (i.e.,
its own file name and hash), since it would be impossible to
compute the hash of the manifest itself prior to it being signed.
5. Encapsulate the manifest content using the CMS SignedData content
type (as specified Section 4), sign the manifest using the
private key corresponding to the subject key contained in the EE
certificate, and publish the manifest in the repository system
publication point that is described by the manifest.
6. In the case of a key pair that is to be used only once, in
conjunction with a "one-time-use" EE certificate, the private key
associated with this key pair MUST now be destroyed.
5.2. Considerations for Manifest Generation
A new manifest MUST be issued and published on or before the
nextUpdate time.
An authority MUST issue a new manifest in conjunction with the
finalization of changes made to objects in the publication point. An
authority MAY perform a number of object operations on a publication
repository within the scope of a repository change before issuing a
single manifest that covers all the operations within the scope of
this change. Repository operators SHOULD implement some form of
repository update procedure that mitigates, to the extent possible,
the risk that RPs that are performing retrieval operations on the
repository are exposed to inconsistent, transient, intermediate
states during updates to the repository publication point (directory)
and the associated manifest.
Since the manifest object URL is included in the SIA of issued
certificates, a new manifest MUST NOT invalidate the manifest object
URL of previously issued certificates. This implies that the
manifest's publication name in the repository, in the form of an
object URL, is unchanged across manifest generation cycles.
When a CA entity is performing a key rollover, the entity MAY choose
to have two CA instances simultaneously publishing into the same
repository publication point. In this case, there will be one
manifest associated with each active CA instance that is publishing
into the common repository publication point (directory).
6. Relying Party Processing of Manifests
Each RP must determine which signed objects it will use for
validating assertions about INRs and their use (e.g., which ROAs to
use in the construction of route filters). As noted earlier,
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
manifests are designed to allow an RP to detect manipulation of
repository data, errors by a CA or repository manager, and/or active
attacks on the communication channel between an RP and a repository.
Unless all of the files enumerated in a manifest can be obtained by
an RP during a fetch operation, the fetch is considered to have
failed and the RP MUST retry the fetch later.
[RFC6480] suggests (but does not mandate) that the RPKI model employ
fetches that are incremental, e.g., an RP transfers files from a
publication point only if they are new/changed since the previous,
successful, fetch represented in the RP's local cache. This document
avoids language that relies on details of the underlying file
transfer mechanism employed by an RP and a publication point to
effect this operation. Thus the term "fetch" refers to an operation
that attempts to acquire the full set of files at a publication
point, consistent with the id-ad-rpkiManifest URI extracted from a CA
certificate's SIA (see below).
If a fetch fails, it is assumed that a subsequent fetch will resolve
problems encountered during the fetch. Until such time as a
successful fetch is executed, an RP SHOULD use cached data from a
previous, successful fetch. This response is intended to prevent an
RP from misinterpreting data associated with a publication point, and
thus possibly treating invalid routes as valid, or vice versa.
The processing described below is designed to cause all RPs with
access to the same local cache and RPKI repository data to achieve
the same results with regard to validation of RPKI data. However, in
operation, different RPs will access repositories at different times,
and some RPs may experience local cache failures, so there is no
guarantee that all RPs will achieve the same results with regard to
validation of RPKI data.
Note that there is a "chicken and egg" relationship between the
manifest and the CRL for a given CA instance. If the EE certificate
for the current manifest is revoked, i.e., it appears in the current
CRL, then the CA or publication point manager has made a serious
error. In this case the fetch has failed; proceed to Section 6.7.
Similarly, if the CRL is not listed on a valid, current manifest,
acquired during a fetch, the fetch has failed; proceed to
Section 6.7, because the CRL is considered missing.
Note that if a CA and its associated publication point are operating
properly, there will always be exactly one manifest and one
associated CRL at the publication point identified in the CA's SIA
(see below).
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
6.1. Manifest Processing Overview
For a given publication point, an RP MUST perform a series of tests
to determine which signed object files at the publication point are
acceptable. The tests described below (Section 6.2 to Section 6.6)
are to be performed using the manifest identified by the id-ad-
rpkiManifest URI extracted from a CA certificate's SIA. All of the
files referenced by the manifest MUST be be located at the
publication point specified by the id-ad-caRepository URI from the
(same) CA certificate's SIA. The manifest and the files it
references MUST reside at the same publication point. If an RP
encounters any files that appear on a manifest but do not reside at
the same publication point as the manifest the RP MUST treat the
fetch as failed, and a warning MUST be issued (see Section 6.7
below).
A manifest SHOULD contain exactly one CRL (.crl) file and it MUST be
at the location specified in the CRLDP in the manifest's EE
certificate. If more than one .crl file appears in the manifest, the
fetch has failed and the RP MUST proceed to Section 6.7; otherwise
proceed to Section 6.2.
Note that, during CA key rollover [RFC6489], signed objects for two
or more different CA instances will appear at the same publication
point. Manifest processing is to be performed separately for each CA
instance, guided by the SIA id-ad-rpkiManifest URI in each CA
certificate.
6.2. Acquiring a Manifest for a CA
The RP MUST fetch the manifest identified by the SIA id-ad-
rpkiManifest URI in the CA certificate. If an RP cannot retrieve a
manifest using this URI, or if the manifest is not valid
(Section 4.4), an RP MUST treat this as a failed fetch and, proceed
to Section 6.7; otherwise proceed to Section 6.3.
6.3. Detecting Stale and or Prematurely-issued Manifests
The RP MUST check that the current time (translated to UTC) is
between thisUpdate and nextUpdate. If the current time lies within
this interval, proceed to Section 6.4. If the current time is
earlier than thisUpdate, the CA has made an error; this is a failed
fetch and the RP MUST proceed to Section 6.7. If the current time is
later than nextUpdate, then the manifest is stale; this is a failed
fetch and RP MUST proceed to Section 6.7; otherwise proceed to
Section 6.4.
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
6.4. Acquiring Files Referenced by a Manifest
The RP MUST acquire all of the files enumerated in the manifest
(fileList) from the publication point. This includes the CRL, each
object containing an EE certificate issued by the CA, and any
subordinate CA and EE certificates. If there are files listed in the
manifest that cannot be retrieved from the publication point, or if
they fail the validity tests specified in [RFC6488], the fetch has
failed and the RP MUST proceed to Section 6.7; otherwise, proceed to
Section 6.5.
6.5. Matching File Names and Hashes
The RP MUST verify that the hash value of each file listed in the
manifest matches the value obtained by hashing the file acquired from
the publication point. If the computed hash value of a file listed
on the manifest does not match the hash value contained in the
manifest, then the fetch has failed and the RP MUST proceed to
Section 6.7; otherwise proceed to Section 6.6.
6.6. Out of Scope Manifest Entries
If a current manifest contains entries for objects that are not
within the scope of the manifest (Section 6.2), the fetch has failed
and the RP SHOULD proceed to Section 6.7; otherwise the fetch is
deemed successful and the RP will process the fetched objects.
6.7. Failed Fetches
If an RP does not acquire a current valid manifest, or does not
acquire current valid instances of all of the objects enumerated in a
current valid manifest as a result of a fetch, then processing of the
signed objects associated with the CA instance has failed for this
fetch cycle. The RP MUST issue a warning indicating the reason(s)
for termination of processing with regard to this CA instance. It is
RECOMMENDED that a human operator be notified of this warning.
Termination of processing means that the RP SHOULD continue to use
cached versions of the objects associated with this CA instance,
until such time as they become stale or they can be replaced by
objects from a successful fetch. This implies that the RP MUST not
try to acquire and validate subordinate signed objects, e.g.,
subordinate CA certificates, until the next interval when the RP is
scheduled to fetch and process data for this CA instance.
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
7. Publication Repositories
The RPKI publication system model requires that every publication
point be associated with one or more CAs, and be non-empty. Upon
creation of the publication point associated with a CA, the CA MUST
create and publish a manifest as well as a CRL. A CA's manifest will
always contain at least one entry, namely, the CRL issued by the CA
upon repository creation [RFC6481].
Every published signed object in the RPKI [RFC6488] is published in
the repository publication point of the CA that issued the EE
certificate, and is listed in the manifest associated with that CA
certificate.
8. Security Considerations
Manifests provide an additional level of protection for RPKI RPs.
Manifests can assist an RP to determine if a repository object has
been deleted, occluded, or otherwise removed from view, or if a
publication of a newer version of an object has been suppressed (and
an older version of the object has been substituted).
Manifests cannot repair the effects of such forms of corruption of
repository retrieval operations. However, a manifest enables an RP
to determine if a locally maintained copy of a repository is a
complete and up-to-date copy, even when the repository retrieval
operation is conducted over an insecure channel. In cases where the
manifest and the retrieved repository contents differ, the manifest
can assist in determining which repository objects form the
difference set in terms of missing, extraneous, or superseded
objects.
The signing structure of a manifest and the use of the nextUpdate
value allows an RP to determine if the manifest itself is the subject
of attempted alteration. The requirement for every repository
publication point to contain at least one manifest allows an RP to
determine if the manifest itself has been occluded from view. Such
attacks against the manifest are detectable within the time frame of
the regular schedule of manifest updates. Forms of replay attack
within finer-grained time frames are not necessarily detectable by
the manifest structure.
9. IANA Considerations
As [RFC6488] created and populated the registries "RPKI Signed
Object" and three-letter filename extensions for "RPKI Repository
Name Schemes," no new action is requested of the IANA.
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions from George
Michelson and Randy Bush in the preparation of the manifest
specification. Additionally, the authors would like to thank Mark
Reynolds and Christopher Small for assistance in clarifying manifest
validation and RP behavior. The authors also wish to thank Job
Snijders, Oleg Muravskiy, and Sean Turner for their helpful review of
this document.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC6481] Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for
Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6481, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6481>.
[RFC6485] Huston, G., "The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for
Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)",
RFC 6485, DOI 10.17487/RFC6485, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6485>.
[RFC6487] Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for
X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6487, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6487>.
[RFC6488] Lepinski, M., Chi, A., and S. Kent, "Signed Object
Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI)", RFC 6488, DOI 10.17487/RFC6488, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6488>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
[X.690] International International Telephone and Telegraph
Consultative Committee, "ASN.1 encoding rules:
Specification of basic encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
encoding rules (CER) and Distinguished encoding rules
(DER)", CCITT Recommendation X.690, July 2002.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC3370] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Algorithms", RFC 3370, DOI 10.17487/RFC3370, August 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3370>.
[RFC3779] Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3779, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3779>.
[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480,
February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>.
[RFC6489] Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and S. Kent, "Certification
Authority (CA) Key Rollover in the Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI)", BCP 174, RFC 6489,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6489, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6489>.
Appendix A. ASN.1 Module
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
RPKIManifest { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) mod(0) 60 }
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
-- EXPORTS ALL --
-- IMPORTS NOTHING --
-- Manifest Content Type: OID
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-rpkiManifest OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ct 26 }
-- Manifest Content Type: eContent
Manifest ::= SEQUENCE {
version [0] INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
manifestNumber INTEGER (0..MAX),
thisUpdate GeneralizedTime,
nextUpdate GeneralizedTime,
fileHashAlg OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
fileList SEQUENCE SIZE (0..MAX) OF FileAndHash
}
FileAndHash ::= SEQUENCE {
file IA5String,
hash BIT STRING
}
END
Authors' Addresses
Rob Austein
Arrcus, Inc.
Email: sra@hactrn.net
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RPKI Manifests July 2020
Geoff Huston
APNIC
6 Cordelia St
South Brisbane QLD 4101
Australia
Email: gih@apnic.net
Stephen Kent
Independent
Email: kkent@alum.mit.edu
Matt Lepinski
New College Florida
5800 Bay Shore Rd.
Sarasota, FL 34243
USA
Email: mlepinski@ncf.edu
Austein, et al. Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 17]
