Network Working Group T. Bruijnzeels
Internet-Draft O. Muravskiy
Intended status: Standards Track RIPE NCC
Expires: September 22, 2016 B. Weber
Cobenian
R. Austein
Dragon Research Labs
D. Mandelberg
BBN Technologies
March 21, 2016
RPKI Repository Delta Protocol
draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-02
Abstract
In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), certificate
authorities publish certificates, including end entity certificates,
Certificate Revocation Lists (CRL), and RPKI signed objects to
repositories. Relying Parties (RP) retrieve the published
information from those repositories. This document specifies a delta
protocol which provides relying parties with a mechanism to query a
repository for incremental updates, thus enabling the RP to keep its
state in sync with the repository.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. RPKI Repository Delta Protocol Implementation . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Informal Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Certificate Authority Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Repository Server Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.1. Initialisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.2. Publishing Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Relying Party Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.1. Processing the Update Notification File . . . . . . . 7
3.4.2. Processing a Snapshot File . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.3. Processing Delta Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.4. Polling the Update Notification File . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. File Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5.1. Update Notification File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5.2. Snapshot File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.3. Delta File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.4. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction
In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), Certificate
Authorities (CAs) publish certificates [RFC6487], RPKI signed objects
[RFC6488], manifests [RFC6486], and CRLs to repositories. CAs may
have an embedded mechanism to publish to these repositories, or they
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
may use a separate repository server and publication protocol. RPKI
repositories are currently accessible using the rsync protocol,
allowing Relying Parties (RPs) to synchronise a local copy of the
RPKI repository used for validation with the remote repositories
[RFC6481].
This document specifies an alternative repository access protocol
based on notification, snapshot and delta files that a RP can
retrieve over the HTTPS protocol. This allows RPs to perform either
a full (re-)synchronisation of their local copy of the repository
using snapshot files, or use delta files to keep their local
repository updated after initial synchronisation.
This protocol is designed to be consistent (in terms of data
structures) with the publication protocol [I-D.ietf-sidr-publication]
and treats publication events of one or more repository objects as
discrete events that can be communicated to relying parties. This
approach helps to minimize the amount of data that traverses the
network and thus helps minimize the amount of time until repository
convergence occurs. This protocol also provides a standards based
way to obtain consistent, point in time views of a single repository,
eliminating a number of consistency related issues. Finally, this
approach allows these discrete events to be communicated as immutable
files, so that caching infrastructure can be used to reduce the load
on a repository server when a large number of relying parties are
querying it.
3. RPKI Repository Delta Protocol Implementation
3.1. Informal Overview
Certification Authorities (CA) in the RPKI use a repository server to
publish their RPKI products, such as manifests, CRLs, signed
certificates and RPKI signed objects. This repository server may be
remote, or embedded in the CA engine itself. Certificates in the
RPKI that use a repository server that supports this delta protocol
include a special Subject Information Access (SIA) pointer referring
to a notification file.
The notification file includes a globally unique session_id in the
form of a version 4 UUID, and serial number that can be used by the
Relying Party (RP) to determine if it and the repository are
synchronised. Furthermore it includes a link to the most recent
complete snapshot of current objects that are published by the
repository server, and a list of links to delta files, for each
revision starting at a point determined by the repository server, up
to the current revision of the repository.
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
A RP that learns about a notification file location for the first
time can download it, and then proceed to download the latest
snapshot file, and thus create a local copy of the repository that is
in sync with the repository server. The RP should remember the
location of this notification file, the session_id and current serial
number.
RPs are encouraged to re-fetch this notification file at regular
intervals, but not more often than once per minute. After re-
fetching the notification file, the RP may find that there are one or
more delta files available that allow it to synchronise its local
repository with the current state of the repository server. If no
contiguous chain of deltas from RP's serial to the latest repository
serial is available, or if the session_id has changed, the RP should
perform a full resynchronisation instead.
As soon as the RP fetches new content in this way it should start a
validation process. An example of a reason why a RP may not do this
immediately is because it has learned of more than one notification
location and it prefers to complete all its updates before
validating.
The repository server may use caching infrastructure to reduce its
load. It should be noted that snapshots and deltas for any given
session_id and serial number contain an immutable record of the state
of the repository server at a certain point in time. For this reason
these files can be cached indefinitely. Notification files are
polled by RPs to discover if updates exist, and for this reason
notification files may not be cached for longer than one minute.
3.2. Certificate Authority Use
Certificate Authorities that use this delta protocol MUST include an
instance of an SIA AccessDescription extension in resource
certificates they produce, in addition to the ones defined in
[RFC6487],
AccessDescription ::= SEQUENCE {
accessMethod OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
accessLocation GeneralName }
This extension MUST use an accessMethod of id-ad-rpkiNotify, see:
[IANA-AD-NUMBERS],
id-ad OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 48 }
id-ad-rpkiNotify OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ad 13 }
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
The accessLocation MUST be a URI [RFC3986], using the 'https' scheme,
that will point to the update notification file for the repository
server that publishes the products of this CA certificate.
Relying Parties that do not support this delta protocol MUST NOT
reject a CA certificate merely because it has an SIA extension
containing this new kind of AccessDescription.
3.3. Repository Server Use
3.3.1. Initialisation
When the repository server initialises it must perform the following
actions:
The server MUST generate a new random version 4 UUID to be used as
the session_id
The server MUST then generate a snapshot file for serial number
ONE for this new session that includes all currently known
published objects that the repository server is responsible for.
Note that this snapshot file MAY contain zero publish elements at
this point if no objects have been submitted for publication yet.
This snapshot file MUST be made available at a URL that is unique
to this session_id and serial number, so that it can be cached
indefinitely.
The format and caching concerns for snapshot files are explained
in more detail in Section 3.5.2.
After the snapshot file has been published the repository server
MUST publish a new notification file that contains the new
session_id, has serial number ONE, has one reference to the
snapshot file that was just published, and that contains no delta
references.
The format and caching concerns for update notification files are
explained in more detail in Section 3.5.1.
3.3.2. Publishing Updates
Whenever the repository server receives updates from a CA it SHOULD
generate new snapshot and delta files. However, if a publication
server services a large number of CAs it MAY choose to combine
updates from multiple CAs. If a publication server combines updates
in this way, it MUST NOT postpone publishing for longer than one
minute.
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
Updates must be processed as follows:
o The new repository serial number MUST be one greater than the
current repository serial number.
o A new delta file MUST be generated for this new serial. This
delta file MUST include all new, replaced and withdrawn objects
for multiple CAs if applicable, as a single change set.
o This delta file MUST be made available at a URL that is unique to
the current session_id and serial number, so that it can be cached
indefinitely.
o The format and caching concerns for delta files are explained in
more detail in Section 3.5.3.
o The repository server MUST also generate a new snapshot file for
this new serial. This file MUST contain all "publish" elements
for all current objects.
o The snapshot file MUST be made available at a URL that is unique
to this session and new serial, so that it can be cached
indefinitely.
o The format and caching concerns for snapshot files are explained
in more detail in Section 3.5.2.
o The update notification file SHOULD be kept small, and in order to
do so the repository server needs to make a decision about which
delta files to support. Any older delta files that, when combined
with all more recent delta files, will result in total size of
deltas exceeding the size of the snapshot, MUST be excluded.
o The server MAY also exclude more recent delta files if it finds
that their usage by a small number of RPs that would be forced to
perform a full synchronisation is outweighed by the performance
penalty for all RPs in having a large update notification file.
However the repository server SHOULD include all deltas for the
last two hours.
o A new notification file MUST now be created by the repository
server. This new notification file MUST include a reference to
the new snapshot file, and all delta files selected in the
previous steps.
o The format and caching concerns for update notification files are
explained in more detail in Section 3.5.1.
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
If the repository server is not capable of performing the above for
some reason, then it MUST perform a full re-initialisation, as
explained above in Section 3.3.1.
3.4. Relying Party Use
3.4.1. Processing the Update Notification File
When a Relying Party (RP) performs RPKI validation and learns about a
valid certificate with an SIA entry for the RRDP protocol, it SHOULD
prefer to use this protocol as follows.
The RP SHOULD download the update notification file, unless an update
notification file was already downloaded and processed from the same
location in this validation run.
The RP MAY use a "User-Agent" header explained in section 5.5.3. of
[RFC7231] to identify the name and version of the RP software used.
This is not required, but would be useful to help track capabilities
of Relying Parties in the event of changes to the RPKI standards.
When the RP downloads an update notification file it MUST verify the
file format and validation steps described in section
Section 3.5.1.3. If this verification fails, the file MUST be
rejected.
The RP MUST verify whether the session_id in this update notification
file matches the last known session_id for this update notification
file location. If the session_id matches the last known session_id,
then an RP MAY download and process missing delta files as described
in section Section 3.4.3, provided that all delta files for serial
numbers between the last processed serial number and the current
serial number in the notification file can be processed this way.
If the session_id was not previously known, or if delta files could
not be used, then the RP MUST update its last known session_id to
this session_id and download and process snapshot file on the update
notification file as described in section Section 3.4.2.
If neither update notification file and one snapshot file or delta
files could be processed this way, the RP MUST issue an operator
error, and SHOULD use an alternate repository retrieval mechanism if
it is available.
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
3.4.2. Processing a Snapshot File
When the RP downloads a snapshot file it MUST verify the file format
and validation steps described in Section 3.5.2.3. If this
verification fails, the file MUST be rejected.
Furthermore the RP MUST verify that the hash of the contents of this
file matches the hash on the update notification file that referenced
it. In case of a mismatch of this hash, the file MUST be rejected.
If an RP retrieved a snapshot file that is valid according to the
above criteria, it should perform the following actions:
The RP MUST verify that the session_id matches the session_id of
the notification file. If the session_id values do not match the
file MUST be rejected.
The RP MUST verify that the serial number of this snapshot file is
greater than the last processed serial number for this session_id.
If this fails the file MUST be rejected.
The RP SHOULD then add all publish elements to a local storage and
update its last processed serial number to the serial number of
this snapshot file.
3.4.3. Processing Delta Files
If an update notification file contains a contiguous chain of links
to delta files from the last processed serial number to the current
serial number, then RPs MUST attempt to download and process all
delta files in order of serial number as follows.
When the RP downloads a delta file it MUST verify the file format and
perform validation steps described in Section 3.5.3.3. If this
verification fails, the file MUST be rejected.
Furthermore the RP MUST verify that the hash of the contents of this
file matches the hash on the update notification file that referenced
it. In case of a mismatch of this hash, the file MUST be rejected.
If an RP retrieved a delta file that is valid according to the above
criteria, it should perform the following actions:
The RP MUST verify that the session_id matches the session_id of
the notification file. If the session_id values do not match the
file MUST be rejected.
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
The RP MUST verify that the serial number of this delta file is
exactly one greater than the last processed serial number for this
session_id, and if not this file MUST be rejected.
The RP SHOULD add all publish elements to a local storage and
update its last processed serial number to the serial number of
this snapshot file.
The RP SHOULD NOT remove objects from its local storage solely
because it encounters a "withdraw" element, because this would
enable a publication server to withdraw any object without the
signing Certificate Authority consent. Instead it is RECOMMENDED
that a RP uses additional strategies to determine if an object is
still relevant for validation before removing it from its local
storage.
3.4.4. Polling the Update Notification File
Once a Relying Party has learned about the location, session_id and
last processed serial number of repository that uses the RRDP
protocol, the RP MAY start polling the repository server for updates.
However the RP MUST NOT poll for updates more often than once every 1
minute, and in order to reduce data usage RPs MUST use the "If-
Modified-Since" header explained in section 3.3 of [RFC7232]in
requests.
If an RP finds that updates are available it SHOULD download and
process the file as described in Section 3.4.1, and initiate a new
validation process. A detailed description of the validation process
itself is out of scope of this document.
3.5. File Definitions
3.5.1. Update Notification File
3.5.1.1. Purpose
The update notification file is used by RPs to discover whether any
changes exist between the state of the repository and the RP's cache.
It describes the location of the files containing the snapshot and
incremental deltas which can be used by the RP to synchronise with
the repository.
3.5.1.2. Cache Concerns
A repository server MAY use caching infrastructure to cache the
notification file and reduce the load of HTTPS requests. However,
since this file is used by RPs to determine whether any updates are
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
available the repository server MUST ensure that this file is not
cached for longer than 1 minute. An exception to this rule is that
it is better to serve a stale notification file, then no notification
file.
How this is achieved exactly depends on the caching infrastructure
used. In general a repository server may find certain HTTP headers
to be useful, such as: Cache-Control: max-age=60. Another approach
can be to have the repository server push out new versions of the
notification file to the caching infrastructure when appropriate.
Relying Parties SHOULD NOT cache the notification file for longer
than 1 minute, regardless of the headers set by the repository server
or CDN.
3.5.1.3. File Format and Validation
Example notification file:
<notification xmlns="http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp"
version="1"
session_id="9df4b597-af9e-4dca-bdda-719cce2c4e28"
serial="3">
<snapshot uri="https://host/9d-8/3/snapshot.xml" hash="AB"/>
<delta serial="3" uri="https://host/9d-8/3/delta.xml" hash="CD"/>
<delta serial="2" uri="https://host/9d-8/2/delta.xml" hash="EF"/>
</notification>
Note: URIs and hash values in this example are shortened because of
formatting.
The following validation rules must be observed when creating or
parsing notification files:
o A RP MUST reject any update notification file that is not well-
formed, or which does not conform to the RELAX NG schema outlined
in Section 3.5.4 of this document.
o The XML namespace MUST be http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp
o The encoding MUST be US-ASCII
o The version attribute in the notification root element MUST be 1
o The session_id attribute MUST be a random version 4 UUID unique to
this session
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
o The serial attribute must be an unbounded, unsigned positive
integer in decimal format indicating the current version of the
repository.
o The notification file MUST contain exactly one 'snapshot' element
for the current repository version.
o If delta elements are included they MUST form a contiguous
sequence of serial numbers starting at a revision determined by
the repository server, up to the serial number mentioned in the
notification element.
o The hash attribute in snapshot and delta elements must be the
hexadecimal encoding of the SHA-256 hash of the referenced file.
The RP MUST verify this hash when the file is retrieved and reject
the file if the hash does not match.
3.5.2. Snapshot File
3.5.2.1. Purpose
A snapshot is intended to reflect the complete and current contents
of the repository for a specific session and version. Therefore it
MUST contain all objects from the repository current as of the time
of the publication.
3.5.2.2. Cache Concerns
A snapshot reflects the content of the repository at a specific point
in time, and for that reason can be considered immutable data.
Snapshot files MUST be published at a URL that is unique to the
specific session and serial.
Because these files never change, they MAY be cached indefinitely.
However, in order to prevent that these files use a lot of space in
caching infrastructure it is RECOMMENDED that a limited interval is
used in the order of hours or days.
To avoid race conditions where an RP downloads a notification file
moments before it's updated, Repository Servers SHOULD retain old
snapshot files for at least 5 minutes after a new notification file
is published.
3.5.2.3. File Format and Validation
Example snapshot file:
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
<snapshot xmlns="http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp"
version="1"
session_id="9df4b597-af9e-4dca-bdda-719cce2c4e28"
serial="2">
<publish uri="rsync://rpki.ripe.net/Alice/Bob.cer">
ZXhhbXBsZTE=
</publish>
<publish uri="rsync://rpki.ripe.net/Alice/Alice.mft">
ZXhhbXBsZTI=
</publish>
<publish uri="rsync://rpki.ripe.net/Alice/Alice.crl">
ZXhhbXBsZTM=
</publish>
</snapshot>
The following rules must be observed when creating or parsing
snapshot files:
o A RP MUST reject any snapshot file that is not well-formed, or
which does not conform to the RELAX NG schema outlined in
Section 3.5.4 of this document.
o The XML namespace MUST be http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp.
o The encoding MUST be US-ASCII.
o The version attribute in the notification root element MUST be 1
o The session_id attribute MUST match the expected session_id in the
reference in the notification file.
o The serial attribute MUST match the expected serial in the
reference in the notification file.
o Note that the publish element is defined in the publication
protocol [I-D.ietf-sidr-publication]
3.5.3. Delta File
3.5.3.1. Purpose
An incremental delta file contains all changes for exactly one serial
increment of the repository server. In other words a single delta
will typically include all the new objects, updated objects and
withdrawn objects that a Certification Authority sent to the
repository server. In its simplest form the update could concern
only a single object, but it is recommended that CAs send all changes
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
for one of their key pairs: i.e. updated objects as well as a new
manifest and CRL as one atomic update message.
3.5.3.2. Cache Concerns
Deltas reflect the difference between two consecutive versions of a
repository for a given session. For that reason deltas can be
considered immutable data. Delta files MUST be published at a URL
that is unique to the specific session and serial.
Because these files never change, they MAY be cached indefinitely.
However, in order to prevent these files from using a lot of space in
caching infrastructure it is RECOMMENDED that a limited interval is
used in the order of hours or days.
To avoid race conditions where an RP downloads a notification file
moments before it's updated, Repository Servers SHOULD retain old
delta files for at least 5 minutes after they are no no longer
included in the latest notification file.
3.5.3.3. File Format and Validation
Example delta file:
<delta xmlns="http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp"
version="1"
session_id="9df4b597-af9e-4dca-bdda-719cce2c4e28"
serial="3">
<publish uri="rsync://rpki.ripe.net/repo/Alice/Alice.mft"
hash="50d8...545c">
ZXhhbXBsZTQ=
</publish>
<publish uri="rsync://rpki.ripe.net/repo/Alice/Alice.crl"
hash="5fb1...6a56">
ZXhhbXBsZTU=
</publish>
<withdraw uri="rsync://rpki.ripe.net/repo/Alice/Bob.cer"
hash="caeb...15c1"/>
</delta>
Note that a formal RELAX NG specification of this file format is
included later in this document. A RP MUST NOT process any delta
file that is incomplete or not well-formed.
The following validation rules must be observed when creating or
parsing delta files:
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
o A RP MUST reject any delta file that is not well-formed, or which
does not conform to the RELAX NG schema outlined in Section 3.5.4
of this document.
o The XML namespace MUST be http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp.
o The encoding MUST be US-ASCII.
o The version attribute in the delta root element MUST be 1
o The session_id attribute MUST be a random version 4 UUID unique to
this session
o The session_id attribute MUST match the expected session_id in the
reference in the notification file.
o The serial attribute MUST match the expected serial in the
reference in the notification file.
o Note that the publish and withdraw elements are defined in the
publication protocol [I-D.ietf-sidr-publication]
3.5.4. XML Schema
The following is a RELAX NG compact form schema describing version 1
of this protocol.
#
# RelaxNG schema for RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP).
#
default namespace = "http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp"
version = xsd:positiveInteger { maxInclusive="1" }
serial = xsd:nonNegativeInteger
uri = xsd:anyURI
uuid = xsd:string { pattern = "[\-0-9a-fA-F]+" }
hash = xsd:string { pattern = "[0-9a-fA-F]+" }
base64 = xsd:base64Binary
# Notification file: lists current snapshots and deltas
start |= element notification {
attribute version { version },
attribute session_id { uuid },
attribute serial { serial },
element snapshot {
attribute uri { uri },
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
attribute hash { hash }
},
element delta {
attribute serial { serial },
attribute uri { uri },
attribute hash { hash }
}*
}
# Snapshot segment: think DNS AXFR.
start |= element snapshot {
attribute version { version },
attribute session_id { uuid },
attribute serial { serial },
element publish {
attribute uri { uri },
base64
}*
}
# Delta segment: think DNS IXFR.
start |= element delta {
attribute version { version },
attribute session_id { uuid },
attribute serial { serial },
delta_element+
}
delta_element |= element publish {
attribute uri { uri },
attribute hash { hash }?,
base64
}
delta_element |= element withdraw {
attribute uri { uri },
attribute hash { hash }
}
# Local Variables:
# indent-tabs-mode: nil
# comment-start: "# "
# comment-start-skip: "#[ \t]*"
# End:
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
4. Security Considerations
TBD
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
6. Acknowledgements
TBD
7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-sidr-publication]
Weiler, S., Sonalker, A., and R. Austein, "A Publication
Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI)", draft-ietf-sidr-publication-07 (work in
progress), September 2015.
[IANA-AD-NUMBERS]
"SMI Security for PKIX Access Descriptor",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/
smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC6481] Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for
Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6481, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6481>.
[RFC6486] Austein, R., Huston, G., Kent, S., and M. Lepinski,
"Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI)", RFC 6486, DOI 10.17487/RFC6486, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6486>.
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
[RFC6487] Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for
X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6487, February 2012,
<http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6488>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7232] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7232>.
Authors' Addresses
Tim Bruijnzeels
RIPE NCC
Email: tim@ripe.net
Oleg Muravskiy
RIPE NCC
Email: oleg@ripe.net
Bryan Weber
Cobenian
Email: bryan@cobenian.com
Rob Austein
Dragon Research Labs
Email: sra@hactrn.net
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RPKI Repository Delta Protocol March 2016
David Mandelberg
BBN Technologies
Email: david@mandelberg.org
Bruijnzeels, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 18]
