Tiebreaking Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchors
draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker-00

SIDROPS                                                      J. Snijders
Internet-Draft                                                    Fastly
Updates: 8630 (if approved)                                   T. Buehler
Intended status: Standards Track                                 OpenBSD
Expires: 8 May 2025                                           T. de Kock
                                                                RIPE NCC
                                                         4 November 2024

  Tiebreaking Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchors
                draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker-00

Abstract

   A Trust Anchor (TA) in the RPKI is represented by a self-signed X.509
   Certification Authority (CA) certificate.  Over time, Relying Parties
   (RP) may have acquired multiple different issuances of valid TA
   certificates from the same TA operator.  This document proposes a
   tiebreaking scheme to be used by RPs to select one TA certificate for
   certification path validation.  This document updates RFC 8630.

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 8 May 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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

Snijders, et al.           Expires 8 May 2025                   [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Tiebreaking RPKI Trust Anchors        November 2024

   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Related Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Updates to RFC 8630 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Implementation status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) hierarchical
   structure, a Trust Anchor is an authority for which trust is assumed
   and not derived.  TA operators periodically reissue TA certificates
   to introduce changes to, for example, modify the set of IP Address
   Delegations and/or Autonomous System Identifier Delegations included
   in the [RFC3779] extension(s), the content of the Subject Information
   Access extension (Section 4.2.2.2 of [RFC5280]), and the certificate
   validity period (Section 4.1.2.5 of [RFC5280]).

   Relying Parties periodically fetch Trust Anchor certificates from
   well-known, remote locations and verify that the key of the self-
   signed certificate matches the key embedded in its associated Trust
   Anchor Locator [RFC8630].  This transfer may happen via an
   unauthenticated channel, and the certificate is verified by checking
   that it is signed by the public key in the TAL.  After retrieving a
   TA certificate Relying Parties have a choice between using a
   previously retrieved locally cached copy of the TA certificate and
   the newly-retrieved instance of the TA certificate.

   Periodic reissuance of TA certificates is a way of ensuring that the
   RPKI remains healthy at its root by avoiding ossification and
   retaining agility, consequently RPs refetch the certificates to adopt
   changes in the TA's INR [RFC3779] and SIA [RFC5280] extensions.  In
   the past, some Trust Anchor certificates were issued with
   unreasonably long validity periods, in some cases up to a century.
   Since TA certificates are the root, and thus have no CRL covering
   them, Trust Anchor operators cannot revoke previously issued TA

Snijders, et al.           Expires 8 May 2025                   [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       Tiebreaking RPKI Trust Anchors        November 2024

   certificates.  This means that an on-path adversary or caching
   network element could present Relying Parties with an older instance
   of the TA certificate than the TA operator intends Relying Parties to
   use.

   This document proposes a tiebreaking scheme for Relying Parties,
   preferring (1) the 'more recently' issued certificate, and (2) the
   certificate with the shortest validity period among certificates with
   equal notBefore.  This establishes a partial order over TA
   certificates issued by the same TA, permitting the issuance of a
   certificate that is preferred over any previous certificate.

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.

1.2.  Related Work

   It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the terms and concepts
   described in "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
   and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile" [RFC5280] and "A
   Profile for Resource Certificate Repository Structure" [RFC6481].

2.  Updates to RFC 8630

   This section updates [RFC8630].

   *  In Section 3, this paragraph is replaced as follows.

      OLD

      |  1.  Retrieve the object referenced by (one of) the TA URI(s)
      |      contained in the TAL.
      |  
      |  2.  Confirm that the retrieved object is a current, self-signed
      |      RPKI CA certificate that conforms to the profile as
      |      specified in [RFC6487].
      |  
      |  3.  Confirm that the public key in the TAL matches the public
      |      key in the retrieved object.
      |  
      |  4.  Perform other checks, as deemed appropriate (locally), to
      |      ensure that the RP is willing to accept the entity
      |      publishing this self-signed CA certificate to be a TA.

Snijders, et al.           Expires 8 May 2025                   [Page 3]
Internet-Draft       Tiebreaking RPKI Trust Anchors        November 2024

      |      These tests apply to the validity of attestations made in
      |      the context of the RPKI relating to all resources described
      |      in the INR extension(s) of this certificate.

      NEW

      |  1.  Retrieve the object referenced by (one of) the TA URI(s)
      |      contained in the TAL.  If this step fails, use the locally
      |      cached copy of the TA referenced by the TAL previously
      |      retrieved.
      |  
      |  2.  Confirm that the retrieved object is a current, validly
      |      self-signed RPKI CA certificate that conforms to the
      |      profile as specified in [RFC6487].  If this step fails, use
      |      the locally cached copy of the retrieved TA.
      |  
      |  3.  Confirm that the public key in the TAL matches the public
      |      key in the retrieved object.  If this step fails, use the
      |      locally cached copy of the retrieved TA.
      |  
      |  4.  Check whether the retrieved object has a more recent
      |      notBefore than the locally cached copy of the retrieved TA.
      |      If the notBefore of the retrieved object is less recent,
      |      use the locally cached copy of the retrieved TA.
      |  
      |  5.  If the notBefore dates are equal, check whether the
      |      retrieved object has a shorter validity period than the
      |      locally cached copy of the retrieved TA.  If the validity
      |      period of the retrieved object is longer, use the locally
      |      cached copy of the retrieved TA.
      |  
      |  6.  If the validity period is equal, and the newly-retrieved
      |      certificate differs from the cached copy, use the newly-
      |      retrieved certificate.

3.  Security Considerations

   When Relying Parties inadvertently use a different instance of the TA
   certificate than the TA operator intended for RPs to use, the
   certification path validation process will yield an unexpected
   outcome.  Some examples of unexpected outcomes are validation
   failures, or replay attacks.  Standardization of a tiebreaking scheme
   helps both RP and TA operators arrive at deterministic outcomes.  The
   proposed tiebreaking scheme prevents RPs from accepting a previous
   certificate presented by an on-path adversary in the presence of
   other TA certificate material.

Snijders, et al.           Expires 8 May 2025                   [Page 4]
Internet-Draft       Tiebreaking RPKI Trust Anchors        November 2024

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

5.  References

5.1.  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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

5.2.  Informative References

Snijders, et al.           Expires 8 May 2025                   [Page 5]
Internet-Draft       Tiebreaking RPKI Trust Anchors        November 2024

   [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>.

   [rpki-client]
              Jeker, C., Snijders, J., Dzonsons, K., and T. Buehler,
              "rpki-client 9.1", June 2024,
              <https://www.rpki-client.org/>.

   [rpki-prover]
              Puzanov, M., "rpki-prover", August 2024,
              <https://github.com/lolepezy/rpki-prover/pull/218>.

Appendix A.  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".

   *  OpenBSD [rpki-client]

   *  Mikhail Puzanov's [rpki-prover]

Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Tim Bruijnzeels and George Michaelson.

Authors' Addresses

Snijders, et al.           Expires 8 May 2025                   [Page 6]
Internet-Draft       Tiebreaking RPKI Trust Anchors        November 2024

   Job Snijders
   Fastly
   Amsterdam
   The Netherlands
   Email: job@fastly.com

   Theo Buehler
   OpenBSD
   Switzerland
   Email: tb@openbsd.org

   Ties de Kock
   RIPE NCC
   Amsterdam
   Netherlands
   Email: tdekock@ripe.net

Snijders, et al.           Expires 8 May 2025                   [Page 7]