Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Manifest Number Handling
draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-09

Internet Engineering Task Force                              T. Harrison
Internet-Draft                                             G. Michaelson
Updates: 9286 (if approved)                                        APNIC
Intended status: Standards Track                             J. Snijders
Expires: 25 July 2026                                    21 January 2026

   Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Manifest Number Handling
                 draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-09

Abstract

   The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) makes use of signed
   objects called manifests, each of which includes a "manifest number".
   This document updates RFC9286 by specifying issuer and RP behaviour
   when a manifest number reaches the largest possible value, a
   situation not considered in RFC9286.

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 25 July 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Harrison, et al.          Expires 25 July 2026                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        RPKI Manifest Number Handling         January 2026

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Manifest Number Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Manifest Filenames  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Manifest SIA Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  RFC8488 Comparison  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  General Repository Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   10. Implementation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     10.1.  rpki-client  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.2.  Routinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6480] makes use of
   signed objects [RFC6488] called manifests [RFC9286].  A manifest
   lists each file that an issuer intends to include within an RPKI
   repository [RFC6481], and can be used to detect certain forms of
   attack against a repository.  Manifests include a "manifest number"
   (manifestNumber), which an issuer must increment by one whenever it
   issues a new manifest, and Relying Parties (RPs) are required to
   verify that a newly-retrieved manifest for a given Certification
   Authority (CA) has a higher manifestNumber than the previously-
   validated manifest (Section 4.2.1 of [RFC9286]).

   However, the manifestNumber field is 20 octets in length (i.e.,
   bounded), and no behaviour is specified for when a manifestNumber
   reaches the largest possible value (2^159-1).  When that value is
   reached, some RP implementations will accept a new manifest for the
   CA only once the current manifest has expired, while others will not
   accept a new manifest at all.

   While it is practically impossible for an issuer to reach the largest
   possible value under normal operating conditions (it would require
   that the issuer issue one manifest per second for
   23,171,956,451,847,141,650,870 quintillion years), there is still a
   chance that it could be reached due to bugs in the issuance or
   publication systems or incorrect/inadvertent use of those systems.
   For example:

Harrison, et al.          Expires 25 July 2026                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        RPKI Manifest Number Handling         January 2026

   *  Incrementing by large values when issuing manifests, such that the
      time to reach that largest value is reduced.

   *  Reissuing new manifests in an infinite delay-free loop, such that
      the manifestNumber increases by a large value in a comparatively
      short period of time.

   *  Inadvertently setting the manifestNumber to the largest possible
      value, such that the issuer will no longer be able to publish
      usable manifests for that repository.

   These scenarios might also arise in combination and be more severe as
   a result.  For example, a CA might increase the manifestNumber by a
   large value on reissuance, and also reissue the manifest more
   frequently than is necessary.

   For a subordinate CA, the risk of repository invalidation due to such
   a problem can be addressed by the issuer using the key rollover
   process [RFC6489] to get a new CA certificate.  RPs will treat this
   new certificate as though it represents a distinct CA, and the
   manifestNumber can be reset at that point.

   However, this option is not available for RPKI Trust Anchors (TAs).
   If a TA publishes a manifest with the largest-possible manifestNumber
   value, then it is difficult to rely on the TA after that point, since
   (as described previously) some RPs will not accept a new manifest
   until the current one has expired, while others will reject all new
   manifests indefinitely.  Particularly in the case of TAs, the
   manifest validity period may be quite long, too.  Issuing a new TA
   and distributing the associated Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) [RFC8630]
   to clients would involve a large amount of work for TA operators and
   RPs.  Additionally, depending on the RP implementation being used,
   there would be a limited degree of RPKI protection by way of that TA
   for the time between the issuance of the problematic manifest and the
   installation of the new TAL.

   In order to avoid these problems, this document updates [RFC9286] by
   defining how issuers and RPs can handle this scenario in order to
   facilitate ongoing use of an affected repository.

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.

Harrison, et al.          Expires 25 July 2026                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft        RPKI Manifest Number Handling         January 2026

2.  Manifest Number Handling

   For a given CA, an RP MUST NOT reject a new manifest issued by that
   CA on the basis of it not having a higher manifestNumber than a
   previously-validated manifest if the new manifest has a different
   filename from that of the previously-validated manifest.  In other
   words, an RP has to reset its stored manifestNumber for a given CA if
   the CA changes the filename of its manifest.  This is an update to
   the requirements set out in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC9286].

   With this behaviour, it is possible for a CA to be configured such
   that any time it issues a new manifest, it uses a new filename for
   that manifest.  If a CA were configured in this way, the
   manifestNumber validation set out in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC9286] would
   have no purpose.  To avoid this outcome, CAs SHOULD NOT use new
   filenames for manifests except in situations where such a change is
   necessary to address the invalidity problem described in this
   document.  Similarly, an RP MUST alert its operators when a manifest
   filename changes for a given CA.

   [RFC9286] requires that RPs perform two replay-related checks on
   newly-retrieved manifests: firstly, that the purported new manifest
   has a greater manifestNumber than the cached manifest, and secondly,
   that the purported new manifest has a more recent thisUpdate than the
   cached manifest.  An RP that implements the behaviour in this section
   will momentarily omit the manifestNumber check following a manifest
   filename change.  So long as the RP still performs the second check
   described above, it will be protected against replay attacks.

3.  Manifest Filenames

   A CA specifies its manifest URI by way of an SIA entry with an
   accessMethod of id-ad-rpkiManifest (Section 4.8.8.1 of [RFC6487]).
   For the purposes of this document, the manifest filename is the final
   segment of the path of the accessLocation URI from that SIA entry.

   Section 4.8.8.1 of [RFC6487] states that a CA may include in its
   certificate multiple id-ad-rpkiManifest SIA entries.  For
   comparisons, an RP may use the filename from any one of the id-ad-
   rpkiManifest SIA entries in the previously-validated CA certificate.
   If that filename does not appear in any of the id-ad-rpkiManifest SIA
   entries in the CA certificate that is currently being validated, then
   the manifest filename has changed for the purposes of this document.

   The corollary of the behaviour defined in the previous paragraph is
   that a CA that includes multiple id-ad-rpkiManifest SIA entries in
   its certificate and wants to rely on the behaviour defined in this
   document MUST ensure that none of the manifest filenames in the

Harrison, et al.          Expires 25 July 2026                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft        RPKI Manifest Number Handling         January 2026

   previous CA certificate appear in the newly-issued CA certificate.
   If one of the manifest filenames from the previous CA certificate
   appears in the newly-issued CA certificate, then an RP that is using
   that manifest filename for comparisons will determine that the
   manifest filename for the CA has not changed, and will therefore not
   reset its stored manifestNumber for the CA.

4.  Manifest SIA Verification

   To avoid certain forms of replay attack, RPs MUST verify that the URI
   in the accessLocation in one of the id-ad-signedObject accessMethod
   instances in the manifest's Subject Information Access (SIA)
   extension exactly matches the URI presented in the RPKI Repository
   Delta Protocol (RRDP) [RFC8182] "publish" element or the path
   presented by remote rsync servers.  If this verification check is
   unsuccessful, then the fetch has failed, and the RP MUST proceed per
   Section 6.6 of [RFC9286].

5.  RFC8488 Comparison

   Section 3.2.1 of [RFC8488] describes a manifest selection approach
   for RPs that involves collecting all unexpired, valid manifests for a
   CA, and then selecting from that collection the manifest that has the
   highest manifestNumber.  The approach set out in this document is
   different from that approach.

6.  General Repository Handling

   Section 2 contains a specific update to [RFC9286] for the handling of
   manifest numbers, in order to address one potential permanent
   invalidity scenario.  RPs that encounter other permanent invalidity
   scenarios should also consider how those can be addressed such that
   the scenario does not require the relevant CA or TA to perform a key
   rollover operation.  For example, in the event that an RP recognises
   that a permanent invalidity scenario has occurred, the RP could alert
   the operator and provide an option to the operator to stop relying on
   cached data for the affected repository, so that the CA can rectify
   the problem.

7.  Operational Considerations

   CA software may opt to support the manifest number reset
   functionality in various ways.  For example, it could change the
   manifest filename when the manifestNumber reaches a certain
   threshold, or it could alert the operator in this scenario and
   request confirmation that the filename should be changed.

Harrison, et al.          Expires 25 July 2026                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft        RPKI Manifest Number Handling         January 2026

8.  Security Considerations

   The RPKI primarily exists to support and improve security of the
   global Internet routing system.  Reliability improvements to the RPKI
   itself, such as outlined in this document, strengthen its
   dependability (see Section 8 of [RFC6480]).

   See Section 2, Paragraph 3 regarding the effect of skipping the
   manifestNumber check with respect to replay attacks.  To protect
   against replay attacks in the absence of this check, RPs should
   ensure that they are verifying the thisUpdate value per the
   requirements of [RFC9286].

   Section 4 describes an additional protection against certain forms of
   replay attack.

   Although this document updates [RFC9286], the security considerations
   from [RFC9286] remain relevant.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

10.  Implementation status

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

Harrison, et al.          Expires 25 July 2026                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft        RPKI Manifest Number Handling         January 2026

10.1.  rpki-client

   *  Responsible Organization: OpenBSD
   *  Location: https://www.rpki-client.org
   *  Description: This implementation supports the behaviour described
      in this document.
   *  Level of Maturity: This is a production implementation.
   *  Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
      described in this specification.
   *  Contact Information: Job Snijders, job@sobornost.net

10.2.  Routinator

   *  Responsible Organization: NLNetLabs
   *  Location: https://github.com/NLnetLabs/routinator
   *  Description: This implementation supports the behaviour described
      in this document.
   *  Level of Maturity: This is a production implementation.
   *  Coverage: This implementation supports the manifest number
      handling changes described in this specification.
   *  Contact Information: NLNetLabs, labs@nlnetlabs.nl

11.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Theo Buehler, Ben Maddison, Rob
   Austein, Tim Bruijnzeels, Russ Housley, Mohamed Boucadair, Luigi
   Iannone, Daniele Ceccarelli, Darren Dukes, Ines Robles, Barry Leiba,
   Éric Vyncke, Gorry Fairhurst, Andy Newton, Roman Danyliw, Mike
   Bishop, and Deb Cooley for their review and feedback on this
   document.

12.  References

12.1.  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>.

   [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>.

Harrison, et al.          Expires 25 July 2026                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft        RPKI Manifest Number Handling         January 2026

   [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>.

   [RFC8182]  Bruijnzeels, T., Muravskiy, O., Weber, B., and R. Austein,
              "The RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)", RFC 8182,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8182, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8182>.

   [RFC9286]  Austein, R., Huston, G., Kent, S., and M. Lepinski,
              "Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
              (RPKI)", RFC 9286, DOI 10.17487/RFC9286, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9286>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

   [RFC8488]  Muravskiy, O. and T. Bruijnzeels, "RIPE NCC's
              Implementation of Resource Public Key Infrastructure
              (RPKI) Certificate Tree Validation", RFC 8488,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8488, December 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8488>.

Harrison, et al.          Expires 25 July 2026                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft        RPKI Manifest Number Handling         January 2026

   [RFC8630]  Huston, G., Weiler, S., Michaelson, G., Kent, S., and T.
              Bruijnzeels, "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
              Trust Anchor Locator", RFC 8630, DOI 10.17487/RFC8630,
              August 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8630>.

Authors' Addresses

   Tom Harrison
   Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
   6 Cordelia St
   South Brisbane QLD 4101
   Australia
   Email: tomh@apnic.net

   George G. Michaelson
   Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre
   6 Cordelia St
   South Brisbane QLD 4101
   Australia
   Email: ggm@apnic.net

   Job Snijders
   Amsterdam
   Netherlands
   Email: job@sobornost.net

Harrison, et al.          Expires 25 July 2026                  [Page 9]