draft-ietf-sidr-publication-05.txt		draft-ietf-sidr-publication-06.txt
	Network Working Group S. Weiler		Network Working Group S. Weiler
	Internet-Draft SPARTA, Inc.		Internet-Draft SPARTA, Inc.
	Intended status: Standards Track A. Sonalker		Intended status: Standards Track A. Sonalker
	Expires: August 16, 2014 Battelle Memorial Institute		Expires: August 29, 2015 Battelle Memorial Institute
	R. Austein		R. Austein
	Dragon Research Labs		Dragon Research Labs
	February 12, 2014		February 25, 2015
	A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)		A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
	draft-ietf-sidr-publication-05		draft-ietf-sidr-publication-06
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines a protocol for publishing Resource Public Key		This document defines a protocol for publishing Resource Public Key
	Infrastructure (RPKI) objects. Even though the RPKI will have many		Infrastructure (RPKI) objects. Even though the RPKI will have many
	participants issuing certificates and creating other objects, it is		participants issuing certificates and creating other objects, it is
	operationally useful to consolidate the publication of those objects.		operationally useful to consolidate the publication of those objects.
	This document provides the protocol for doing so.		This document provides the protocol for doing so.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 37		skipping to change at page 1, line 37
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on August 16, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2015.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Common XML Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. Common XML Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. Publication and Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2. Publication and Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.3. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.3. Listing the repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.4. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.4. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.5. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.1. <publish/> Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.2. <publish/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.1. <publish/> Query, No Existing Object . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.3. <withdraw/> Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.2. <publish/> Query, Overwriting Existing Object . . . . . . 9
	3.4. <withdraw/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.3. <publish/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.5. <report_error/> With Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.4. <withdraw/> Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	3.6. <report_error/> Without Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.5. <withdraw/> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.6. <report_error/> With Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		3.7. <report_error/> Without Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
			7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document assumes a working knowledge of the Resource Public Key		This document assumes a working knowledge of the Resource Public Key
	Infrastructure (RPKI), which is intended to support improved routing		Infrastructure (RPKI), which is intended to support improved routing
	security on the Internet. [RFC6480]		security on the Internet. [RFC6480]
	In order to make participation in the RPKI easier, it is helpful to		In order to make participation in the RPKI easier, it is helpful to
	have a few consolidated repositories for RPKI objects, thus saving		have a few consolidated repositories for RPKI objects, thus saving
	every participant from the cost of maintaining a new service.		every participant from the cost of maintaining a new service.
	Similarly, relying parties using the RPKI objects will find it faster		Similarly, relying parties using the RPKI objects will find it faster
	and more reliable to retrieve the necessary set from a smaller number		and more reliable to retrieve the necessary set from a smaller number
	of repositories.		of repositories.
	These consolidated RPKI object repositories will in many cases be		These consolidated RPKI object repositories will in many cases be
	outside the administrative scope of the organization issuing a given		outside the administrative scope of the organization issuing a given
	RPKI object. In some cases, outsourcing operation of the repository		RPKI object. In some cases, outsourcing operation of the repository
	will be an explicit goal: some resource holders who stringly wish to		will be an explicit goal: some resource holders who strongly wish to
	control their own RPKI private keys may lack the resources to operate		control their own RPKI private keys may lack the resources to operate
	a 24x7 repository, or may simply not wish to do so.		a 24x7 repository, or may simply not wish to do so.
	The operator of an RPKI publication repository may well be an		The operator of an RPKI publication repository may well be an
	Internet registry which issues certificates to its customers, but it		Internet registry which issues certificates to its customers, but it
	need not be; conceptually, operation of a an RPKI publication		need not be; conceptually, operation of a an RPKI publication
	repository is separate from operation of RPKI CA.		repository is separate from operation of RPKI CA.
	This document defines an RPKI publication protocol which allows		This document defines an RPKI publication protocol which allows
	publication either within or across organizational boundaries, and		publication either within or across organizational boundaries, and
	skipping to change at page 4, line 7		skipping to change at page 4, line 7
	object as the body. The server's response will similarly be the body		object as the body. The server's response will similarly be the body
	of the response with a content type of "application/rpki-		of the response with a content type of "application/rpki-
	publication".		publication".
	The content of the POST and the server's response will be a well-		The content of the POST and the server's response will be a well-
	formed Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] object with OID =		formed Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] object with OID =
	1.2.840.113549.1.7.2 as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC6492].		1.2.840.113549.1.7.2 as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC6492].
	2.1. Common XML Message Format		2.1. Common XML Message Format
	The XML schema for this protocol is below in Section 2.4. The basic		The XML schema for this protocol is below in Section 2.5. The basic
	XML message format looks like this:		XML message format looks like this:
	<msg		<msg
	type="query"		type="query"
	version="3"		version="3"
	xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">		xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
	<!-- Zero or more PDUs -->		<!-- Zero or more PDUs -->
	</msg>		</msg>
	<msg		<msg
	skipping to change at page 4, line 31		skipping to change at page 4, line 31
	<!-- Zero or more PDUs -->		<!-- Zero or more PDUs -->
	</msg>		</msg>
	Common attributes:		Common attributes:
	version: The value of this attribute is the version of this		version: The value of this attribute is the version of this
	protocol. This document describes version 3.		protocol. This document describes version 3.
	type: The possible values of this attribute are "reply" and "query".		type: The possible values of this attribute are "reply" and "query".
	A query PDU may be one of two types: publish_query, or		A query PDU may be one of three types: <publish/>, <withdraw/>, or
	withdraw_query.		<list/>.
	A reply PDU may be one of three types: publish_reply, withdraw_reply,		A reply PDU may be one of four types: <publish/>, <withdraw/>, <list/
	or report_error_reply.		>, or <report_error/>.
	Each of these PDUs may include an optional tag to facilitate bulk		Each of these PDUs may include an optional tag to facilitate bulk
	operation. If a tag is set in a query PDU, the corresponding		operation. If a tag is set in a query PDU, the corresponding
	reply(s) MUST have the tag attribute set to the same value.		reply(s) MUST have the tag attribute set to the same value.
	2.2. Publication and Withdrawal		2.2. Publication and Withdrawal
	The publication protocol uses a common message format to request		The publication protocol uses a common message format to request
	publication of any RPKI object. This format was chosen specifically		publication of any RPKI object. This format was chosen specifically
	to allow this protocol to accommodate new types of RPKI objects		to allow this protocol to accommodate new types of RPKI objects
	without needing changes to this protocol.		without needing changes to this protocol.
	Both the <publish/> and <withdraw/> objects have a payload of an		Both the <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs have a payload of an
	optional tag and a URI. The <publish/> query also contains the DER		optional tag and a URI. The <publish/> query also contains the DER
	object to be published, encoded in Base64.		object to be published, encoded in Base64.
			Both the <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs also have a "hash"
			attribute, which carries a hash of an existing object at the
			specified repository URI. For <withdraw/> PDUs, the hash is
			mandatory, as this operation makes no sense if there is no existing
			object to withdraw. For <publish/> PDUs, the hash MUST be present if
			the publication operation is overwriting an existing object, and MUST
			be omitted if this publication operation is writing to a new URI
			where no prior object exists. Presence of an object when no hash
			attribute is specified is an error, as is absence of the hash
			attribute or an incorrect hash value when an object is present. Any
			such errors MUST be reported using the <report_error/> PDU.
			The current hash algorithm is SHA-256 [SHS], to simplify comparison
			of publication protocol hashes with RPKI manifest hashes.
			The intent behind the hash attribute is to allow the client and
			server to detect any disagreements about the effect that a <publish/>
			or <withdraw/> PDU will have on the repository.
	Note that every publish and withdraw action requires a new manifest,		Note that every publish and withdraw action requires a new manifest,
	thus every publish or withdraw action will involve at least two		thus every publish or withdraw action will involve at least two
	objects.		objects.
	2.3. Error handling		2.3. Listing the repository
			The <list/> operation allows the client to ask the server for a
			complete listing of objects which the server believes the client has
			published. This is intended primarily to allow the client to recover
			upon detecting (probably via use of the "hash" attribute, see
			Section 2.2) that they have somehow lost synchronization.
			The <list/> query consists of a single PDU.
			The <list/> reply consists of zero or more PDUs, one per object
			published in this repository by this client, each PDU conveying the
			URI and hash of one published object.
			2.4. Error handling
	Errors are handled at two levels.		Errors are handled at two levels.
	Since all messages in this protocol are conveyed over HTTP		Since all messages in this protocol are conveyed over HTTP
	connections, basic errors are indicated via the HTTP response code.		connections, basic errors are indicated via the HTTP response code.
	4xx and 5xx responses indicate that something bad happened. Errors		4xx and 5xx responses indicate that something bad happened. Errors
	that make it impossible to decode a query or encode a response are		that make it impossible to decode a query or encode a response are
	handled in this way.		handled in this way.
	Where possible, errors will result in an XML <report_error/> message		Where possible, errors result in an XML <report_error/> PDU which
	which takes the place of the expected protocol response message.		takes the place of the expected protocol response PDU. Like the rest
	<report_error/> messages are CMS-signed XML messages like the rest of		of this protocol, <report_error/> PDUs are CMS-signed XML messages
	this protocol, and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail.		and thus can be archived to provide an audit trail.
	<report_error/> messages only appear in replies, never in queries.		<report_error/> PDUs only appear in replies, never in queries.
	The <report_error/> message can appear in both the control and
	publication subprotocols.
	Like all other messages in this protocol, the <report_error/> message		Like all other PDUs in this protocol, the <report_error/> PDU
	includes a "tag" attribute to assist in matching the error with a		includes a "tag" attribute to assist in matching the error with a
	particular query when using batching. It is optional to set the tag		particular query when using batching. It is optional to set the tag
	on queries but, if set on the query, it MUST be set on the reply or		on queries but, if set on the query, it MUST be set on the reply or
	error.		error.
	The error itself is conveyed in the error_code attribute. The value		The error itself is conveyed in the error_code attribute. The value
	of this attribute is a token indicating the specific error that		of this attribute is a token indicating the specific error that
	occurred.		occurred.
	The body of the <report_error/> element itself is an optional text		The body of the <report_error/> element itself is an optional text
	string; if present, this is debugging information.		string; if present, this is debugging information.
	2.4. XML Schema		2.5. XML Schema
	The following is a RelaxNG compact form schema describing the		The following is a RelaxNG compact form schema describing the
	Publication Protocol.		Publication Protocol.
	# $Id: rpki-publication.rnc 2698 2013-12-13 23:33:07Z sra $		# $Id: rpki-publication.rnc 3171 2015-02-26 00:09:05Z sra $
	# RelaxNG schema for RPKI publication protocol.		# RelaxNG schema for RPKI publication protocol.
	default namespace =		default namespace =
	"http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"		"http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/"
	# This is version 3 of the protocol.		# This is version 3 of the protocol.
	version = "3"		version = "3"
	# Top level PDU is either a query or a reply.		# Top level PDU is either a query or a reply.
	start = element msg {		start |= element msg {
	attribute version { version } ,		attribute version { version },
	( ( attribute type { "query" }, query_elt* ) |		attribute type { "query" },
	( attribute type { "reply" }, reply_elt* ) )		query_elt*
	}		}
			start |= element msg {
			attribute version { version },
			attribute type { "reply" },
			reply_elt*
			}
	# PDUs allowed in queries and replies.		# PDUs allowed in queries and replies.
	query_elt = publish_query | withdraw_query		query_elt = publish_query | withdraw_query | list_query
	reply_elt = publish_reply | withdraw_reply | report_error_reply		reply_elt = publish_reply | withdraw_reply | list_reply | error_reply
	# Tag attributes for bulk operations.		# Tag attributes for bulk operations.
	tag = attribute tag { xsd:token { maxLength="1024" } }		tag = attribute tag { xsd:token { maxLength="1024" } }
	# Base64 encoded DER stuff.		# Base64 encoded DER stuff.
	base64 = xsd:base64Binary		base64 = xsd:base64Binary
	# Publication URIs.		# Publication URIs.
	uri = attribute uri { xsd:anyURI { maxLength="4096" } }		uri = attribute uri { xsd:anyURI { maxLength="4096" } }
	# Handles on remote objects (replaces passing raw SQL IDs).		# Digest of an existing object (hexadecimal).
	object_handle = xsd:string {		hash = attribute hash { xsd:string { pattern = "[0-9a-fA-F]+" } }
	maxLength = "255"
	pattern="[\-_A-Za-z0-9/]*"
	}
	# Error codes.		# Error codes.
	error = xsd:token { maxLength="1024" }		error = xsd:token { maxLength="1024" }
	# <publish/> element		# <publish/> element
	publish_query |= element publish { tag?, uri, base64 }		publish_query = element publish { tag?, uri, hash?, base64 }
	publish_reply |= element publish { tag?, uri }		publish_reply = element publish { tag?, uri }
	# <withdraw/> element		# <withdraw/> element
	withdraw_query |= element withdraw { tag?, uri }		withdraw_query = element withdraw { tag?, uri, hash }
	withdraw_reply |= element withdraw { tag?, uri }		withdraw_reply = element withdraw { tag?, uri }
			# <list/> element
			list_query = element list { tag? }
			list_reply = element list { tag?, uri, hash }
	# <report_error/> element		# <report_error/> element
	report_error_reply = element report_error {		error_reply = element report_error {
	tag?,		tag?,
	attribute error_code { error },		attribute error_code { error },
	xsd:string { maxLength="512000" }?		xsd:string { maxLength="512000" }?
	}		}
	3. Examples		3. Examples
	Following are examples of various queries and the corresponding		Following are examples of various queries and the corresponding
	replies for the RPKI publication protocol		replies for the RPKI publication protocol
	3.1. <publish/> Query		3.1. <publish/> Query, No Existing Object
	<msg		<msg
	type="query"		type="query"
	version="3"		version="3"
	xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">		xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
	<publish		<publish
	uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer">		uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer">
	MIIE+jCCA+KgAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAzMTEwLwYDVQQDEyhE		MIIE+jCCA+KgAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAzMTEwLwYDVQQDEyhE
	RjRBODAxN0U2NkE5RTkxNzJFNDYxMkQ4Q0Y0QzgzRjIzOERFMkEzMB4XDTA4		RjRBODAxN0U2NkE5RTkxNzJFNDYxMkQ4Q0Y0QzgzRjIzOERFMkEzMB4XDTA4
	MDUyMjE4MDUxMloXDTA4MDUyNDE3NTQ1M1owMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoOEZCODIx		MDUyMjE4MDUxMloXDTA4MDUyNDE3NTQ1M1owMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoOEZCODIx
	OEYwNkU1MEFCNzAyQTdEOTZEQzhGMENEQ0Q4MjhGN0YxNzCCASIwDQYJKoZI		OEYwNkU1MEFCNzAyQTdEOTZEQzhGMENEQ0Q4MjhGN0YxNzCCASIwDQYJKoZI
	skipping to change at page 8, line 42		skipping to change at page 9, line 5
	AsAAAiwDBQDAAAJkMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQCEhuH7jtI2PJY6+zwv		AsAAAiwDBQDAAAJkMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQCEhuH7jtI2PJY6+zwv
	306vmCuXhtu9Lr2mmRw2ZErB8EMcb5xypMrNqMoKeu14K2x4a4RPJkK4yATh		306vmCuXhtu9Lr2mmRw2ZErB8EMcb5xypMrNqMoKeu14K2x4a4RPJkK4yATh
	M81FPNRsU5mM0acIRnAPtxjHvPME7PHN2w2nGLASRsZmaa+b8A7SSOxVcFUR		M81FPNRsU5mM0acIRnAPtxjHvPME7PHN2w2nGLASRsZmaa+b8A7SSOxVcFUR
	azENztppsolHeTpm0cpLItK7mNpudUg1JGuFo94VLf1MnE2EqARG1vTsNhel		azENztppsolHeTpm0cpLItK7mNpudUg1JGuFo94VLf1MnE2EqARG1vTsNhel
	/SM/UvOArCCOBvf0Gz7kSuupDSZ7qx+LiDmtEsLdbGNQBiYPbLrDk41PHrxd		/SM/UvOArCCOBvf0Gz7kSuupDSZ7qx+LiDmtEsLdbGNQBiYPbLrDk41PHrxd
	x28qIj7ejZkRzNFw/3pi8/XK281h8zeHoFVu6ghRPy5dbOA4akX/KG6b8XIx		x28qIj7ejZkRzNFw/3pi8/XK281h8zeHoFVu6ghRPy5dbOA4akX/KG6b8XIx
	0iwPYdLiDbdWFbtTdPcXBauY		0iwPYdLiDbdWFbtTdPcXBauY
	</publish>		</publish>
	</msg>		</msg>
	3.2. <publish/> Reply		3.2. <publish/> Query, Overwriting Existing Object
			<msg
			type="query"
			version="3"
			xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
			<publish
			hash="deadf00d"
			uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer">
			MIIE+jCCA+KgAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAzMTEwLwYDVQQDEyhE
			RjRBODAxN0U2NkE5RTkxNzJFNDYxMkQ4Q0Y0QzgzRjIzOERFMkEzMB4XDTA4
			MDUyMjE4MDUxMloXDTA4MDUyNDE3NTQ1M1owMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoOEZCODIx
			OEYwNkU1MEFCNzAyQTdEOTZEQzhGMENEQ0Q4MjhGN0YxNzCCASIwDQYJKoZI
			hvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMeziKp0k5nP7v6SZoNsXIMQYRgNtC6F
			r/9Xm/1yQHomiPqHUk47rHhGojYiK5AhkrwoYhkH4UjJl2iwklDYczXuaBU3
			F5qrKlZ4aZnjIxdlP7+hktVpeApL6yuJTUAYeC3UIxnLDVdD6phydZ/FOQlu
			ffiNDjzteCCvoyOUatqt8WB+oND6LToHp028g1YUYLHG6mur0dPdcHOVXLSm
			UDuZ1HDz1nDuYvIVKjB/MpH9aW9XeaQ6ZFIlZVPwuuvI2brR+ThH7Gv27GL/
			o8qFdC300VQfoTZ+rKPGDE8K1cI906BL4kiwx9z0oiDcE96QCz+B0vsjc9mG
			aA1jgAxlXWsCAwEAAaOCAhcwggITMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSPuCGPBuUKtwKn2W3I
			8M3Ngo9/FzAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBTfSoAX5mqekXLkYS2M9Mg/I43iozBVBgNV
			HR8ETjBMMEqgSKBGhkRyc3luYzovL2xvY2FsaG9zdDo0NDAwL3Rlc3RiZWQv
			UklSLzEvMzBxQUYtWnFucEZ5NUdFdGpQVElQeU9ONHFNLmNybDBFBggrBgEF
			BQcBAQQ5MDcwNQYIKwYBBQUHMAKGKXJzeW5jOi8vbG9jYWxob3N0OjQ0MDAv
			dGVzdGJlZC9XT01CQVQuY2VyMBgGA1UdIAEB/wQOMAwwCgYIKwYBBQUHDgIw
			DwYDVR0TAQH/BAUwAwEB/zAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwgZsGCCsGAQUFBwEL
			BIGOMIGLMDQGCCsGAQUFBzAFhihyc3luYzovL2xvY2FsaG9zdDo0NDAwL3Rl
			c3RiZWQvUklSL1IwLzEvMFMGCCsGAQUFBzAKhkdyc3luYzovL2xvY2FsaG9z
			dDo0NDAwL3Rlc3RiZWQvUklSL1IwLzEvajdnaGp3YmxDcmNDcDlsdHlQRE56
			WUtQZnhjLm1uZjAaBggrBgEFBQcBCAEB/wQLMAmgBzAFAgMA/BUwPgYIKwYB
			BQUHAQcBAf8ELzAtMCsEAgABMCUDAwAKAzAOAwUAwAACAQMFAcAAAiAwDgMF
			AsAAAiwDBQDAAAJkMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQCEhuH7jtI2PJY6+zwv
			306vmCuXhtu9Lr2mmRw2ZErB8EMcb5xypMrNqMoKeu14K2x4a4RPJkK4yATh
			M81FPNRsU5mM0acIRnAPtxjHvPME7PHN2w2nGLASRsZmaa+b8A7SSOxVcFUR
			azENztppsolHeTpm0cpLItK7mNpudUg1JGuFo94VLf1MnE2EqARG1vTsNhel
			/SM/UvOArCCOBvf0Gz7kSuupDSZ7qx+LiDmtEsLdbGNQBiYPbLrDk41PHrxd
			x28qIj7ejZkRzNFw/3pi8/XK281h8zeHoFVu6ghRPy5dbOA4akX/KG6b8XIx
			0iwPYdLiDbdWFbtTdPcXBauY
			</publish>
			</msg>
			3.3. <publish/> Reply
	<msg		<msg
	type="reply"		type="reply"
	version="3"		version="3"
	xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">		xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
	<publish		<publish
	uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>		uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>
	</msg>		</msg>
	3.3. <withdraw/> Query		3.4. <withdraw/> Query
	<msg		<msg
	type="query"		type="query"
	version="3"		version="3"
	xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">		xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
	<withdraw		<withdraw
			hash="deadf00d"
	uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>		uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>
	</msg>		</msg>
	3.4. <withdraw/> Reply		3.5. <withdraw/> Reply
	<msg		<msg
	type="reply"		type="reply"
	version="3"		version="3"
	xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">		xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
	<withdraw		<withdraw
	uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>		uri="rsync://wombat.example/Alice/blCrcCp9ltyPDNzYKPfxc.cer"/>
	</msg>		</msg>
	3.5. <report_error/> With Text		3.6. <report_error/> With Text
	<msg		<msg
	type="reply"		type="reply"
	version="3"		version="3"
	xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">		xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
	<report_error		<report_error
	error_code="your_hair_is_on_fire">		error_code="your_hair_is_on_fire">
	Shampooing with sterno again, are we?		Shampooing with sterno again, are we?
	</report_error>		</report_error>
	</msg>		</msg>
	3.6. <report_error/> Without Text		3.7. <report_error/> Without Text
	<msg		<msg
	type="reply"		type="reply"
	version="3"		version="3"
	xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">		xmlns="http://www.hactrn.net/uris/rpki/publication-spec/">
	<report_error		<report_error
	error_code="your_hair_is_on_fire"/>		error_code="your_hair_is_on_fire"/>
	</msg>		</msg>
	4. Operational Considerations		4. Operational Considerations
	There are two basic options open to the repository operator as to how		There are two basic options open to the repository operator as to how
	the publication tree is laid out. The first option is simple: each		the publication tree is laid out. The first option is simple: each
	publication client is given its own directory one level below the top		publication client is given its own directory one level below the top
	of the rcynic module, and there is no overlap between the publication		of the rsync module, and there is no overlap between the publication
	spaces used by different clients. For example:		spaces used by different clients. For example:
	rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/		rsync://example.org/rpki/Alice/
	rsync://example.org/rpki/Bob/		rsync://example.org/rpki/Bob/
	rsync://example.org/rpki/Carol/		rsync://example.org/rpki/Carol/
	This has the advantage of being very easy for the publication		This has the advantage of being very easy for the publication
	operator to manage, but has the drawback of making it difficult for		operator to manage, but has the drawback of making it difficult for
	relying parties to fetch published objects both safely and as		relying parties to fetch published objects both safely and as
	efficiently as possible.		efficiently as possible.
	skipping to change at page 11, line 33		skipping to change at page 12, line 44
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	The RPKI publication protocol and the data it publishes use entirely		The RPKI publication protocol and the data it publishes use entirely
	separate PKIs for authentication. The published data is		separate PKIs for authentication. The published data is
	authenticated within the RPKI, and this protocol has nothing to do		authenticated within the RPKI, and this protocol has nothing to do
	with that authentication, nor does it require that the published		with that authentication, nor does it require that the published
	objects be valid in the RPKI. The publication protocol uses a		objects be valid in the RPKI. The publication protocol uses a
	separate Business PKI (BPKI) to authenticate its messages.		separate Business PKI (BPKI) to authenticate its messages.
	Each of the RPKI publication protocol messages is CMS-signed.		Each RPKI publication protocol message is CMS-signed. Because of
	Because of that protection at the application layer, this protocol		that protection at the application layer, this protocol does not
	does not require the use of HTTPS or other transport security		require the use of HTTPS or other transport security mechanisms.
	mechanisms.
			Although the hashes used in the <publish/> and <withdraw/> PDUs are
			cryptographic strength, the digest algorithm was selected for
			convenience in comparing these hashes with the hashes that appear in
			RPKI manifests. The hashes used in the <publish/> and <withdraw/>
			PDUs are not particularly security-sensitive, because these PDUs are
			protected by the CMS signatures.
	Compromise of a publication server, perhaps through mismanagement of		Compromise of a publication server, perhaps through mismanagement of
	BPKI keys, could lead to a denial-of-service attack on the RPKI. An		BPKI keys, could lead to a denial-of-service attack on the RPKI. An
	attacker gaining access to BPKI keys could use this protocol delete		attacker gaining access to BPKI keys could use this protocol delete
	(withdraw) RPKI objects, leading to routing changes or failures.		(withdraw) RPKI objects, leading to routing changes or failures.
	Accordingly, as in most PKIs, good key management practices are		Accordingly, as in most PKIs, good key management practices are
	important.		important.
	7. References		7. References
	skipping to change at page 12, line 12		skipping to change at page 13, line 28
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
	[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC		[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC
	5652, STD 70, September 2009.		5652, STD 70, September 2009.
	[RFC6492] Huston, G., Loomans, R., Ellacott, B., and R. Austein, "A		[RFC6492] Huston, G., Loomans, R., Ellacott, B., and R. Austein, "A
	Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates", RFC		Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates", RFC
	6492, February 2012.		6492, February 2012.
			[SHS] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
			Hash Standard", FIPS PUB 180-4, March 2012,
			<http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/
			fips-180-4.pdf>.
	7.2. Informative References		7.2. Informative References
	[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support		[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
	Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.		Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Samuel Weiler		Samuel Weiler
	SPARTA, Inc.		SPARTA, Inc.
	7110 Samuel Morse Drive		7110 Samuel Morse Drive
End of changes. 37 change blocks.
	67 lines changed or deleted		160 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/