SIDR G. Huston
Internet-Draft G. Michaelson
Intended status: Standards Track R. Loomans
Expires: January 29, 2007 APNIC
July 28, 2006
A Profile for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates
draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 29, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document defines a standard profile for X.509 certificates for
the purposes of supporting validation of assertions of "right-to-use"
of an Internet Number Resource (IP Addresses and Autonomous System
Numbers). This profile is used to convey the issuer's authorization
of the subject to be regarded as the current holder of a "right-of-
use" of the IP addresses and AS numbers that are described in the
associated Resource Certificate.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Describing Resources in Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Resource Certificate Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Serial number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Signature Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Issuer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Valid From . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.7. Valid To . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.8. Subject Public Key Info . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.9. Resource Certificate Version 3 Extension Fields . . . . . 8
3.9.1. Basic Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.9.2. Subject Key Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.9.3. Authority Key Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.9.4. Key Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.9.5. CRL Distribution Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.9.6. Authority Information Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.9.7. Subject Information Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.9.8. Certificate Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.9.9. Subject Alternate Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.9.10. IP Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.9.11. AS Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Resource Certificate Revocation List Profile . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Issuer Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. This Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Next Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5. Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.6. Revoked Certificate List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.6.1. Serial Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.6.2. Revocation Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7. CRL Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7.1. Authority Key Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.7.2. CRL Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Resource Certificate Request Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. PCKS#10 Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.1. PKCS#10 Resource Certificate Request Template
Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. CRMF Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.1. CRMF Resource Certificate Request Template Fields . . 16
5.2.2. Resource Certificate Request Control Fields . . . . . 16
5.3. Certificate Extension Attributes in Certificate
Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Resource Certificate Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
6.1. Trust Anchors for Resource Certificates . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Resource Extension Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. Resource Certificate Path Validation . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A. Example Resource Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix B. Example Certificate Revocation List . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 29
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
1. Introduction
This document defines a standard profile for X.509 certificates for
use in the context of certification of IP Addresses and AS Numbers.
These Resource Certificates are X.509 certificates that conform to
the PKIX profile [RFC3280] and also conform to the constraints
specified in this profile. Resource Certificates attest that the
issuer has granted the subject a "right-to-use" a listed set of IP
addresses and Autonomous System numbers.
A Resource Certificate describes an action by the certificate issuer
that binds a list of IP Address blocks and AS Numbers to the subject
of the certificate. The binding is identified by the association of
the subject's private key with the subject's public key contained in
the Resource Certificate, signed by the private key of the
certificate's issuer.
In the context of the public Internet, and use of public number
resources in this context, it is intended that Resource Certificates
are used in a manner that is aligned to the public number resource
distribution function. Specifically, when a number resource is
allocated or assigned by a number registry to an entity, this
allocation can be described by a Resource Certificate that is issued
by the registry with a subject corresponding to the entity that is
the recipient of this number assignment or allocation. In the
context of the public number distribution function, this corresponds
to a hierarchical PKI structure, where Resource Certificates are only
issued in one 'direction' and there is a single unique path from a
"Root" Certificate Authority to a valid certificate.
Validation of a Resource Certificate in such a hierarchical PKI can
be undertaken by establishing a valid issuer - subject chain from a
trust anchor certificate authority to the certificate [RFC4158], with
the additional constraint of ensuring that each subject's listed
resources are fully encompassed by those of the issuer at each step
in the issuer-subject chain.
Resource Certificates may be used in the context of the operation of
secure inter-domain routing protocols to convey a right-to-use of an
IP number resource that is being passed within the routing protocol,
to verify legitimacy and correctness of routing information. Related
use contexts include validation of access to Internet Routing
Registries for nominated routing objects, validation of routing
requests, and detection of potential unauthorized used of IP
addresses.
This profile defines those fields that are used in a Resource
Certificate that MUST be present for the certificate to be valid.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
Relying Parties SHOULD check that a Resource Certificate conforms to
this profile as a requisite for validation of a Resource Certificate.
1.1. Terminology
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" [RFC3280], "X.509
Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers" [RFC3779], "Internet
Protocol" [RFC0791], "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing
Architecture" [RFC4291], "Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines"
[RFC2050], and related regional Internet registry address management
policy documents.
The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
2. Describing Resources in Certificates
The framework for describing an association between the subject of a
certificate and the resources currently under the subject's current
control is described in [RFC3779].
There are three aspects of this resource extension that are noted in
this profile:
1. RFC 3779 notes that this resource extension SHOULD be a CRITICAL
extension to the X.509 Certificate. This Resource Certificate
profile further specifies that the use of this certificate
extension MUST be used and MUST be marked as CRITICAL.
2. RFC 3779 defines a sorted canonical form of describing a resource
set, with maximal spanning ranges and maximal spanning prefix
masks as appropriate. All valid certificates in this profile
MUST use this sorted canonical form of resource description
3. A test of the resource extension in the context of certificate
validity includes the first condition that the resources
described in the issuer's resource extension must encompass those
of the subject's resource extension. In this context "encompass"
allows for the issuer's resource set to be the same as, or a
strict superset of, any subject's resource set. Appropriate
Resource Certificate management in the context of this profile
also includes the constraint that no two (or more) certificates
issued by a single issuer to two (or more) different subjects
have a non-null intersection of resources. In other words an
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
issuer can certify at most one unique entity as the unique holder
of a right-to-use for any particular resource.
A test of certificate validity entails the identification of a
sequence of valid certificates in an issuer-subject chain (where the
subject field of one certificate appears as the issuer in the next
certificate in the sequence) from one, and only one, trust anchor to
the certificate being validated, and that the resource extensions in
this certificate sequence from the trust anchor to the certificate
form a sequence of encompassing relationships.
3. Resource Certificate Fields
A Resource Certificate is a valid X.509 v3 public key certificate,
consistent with the PKIX profile [RFC3280], containing the fields
listed in this section. Unless specifically noted as being OPTIONAL,
all the fields listed here MUST be present, and any other field MUST
NOT appear in a conforming Resource Certificate. Where a field value
is specified here this value MUST be used in conforming Resource
Certificates.
3.1. Version
Resource Certificates are X.509 Version 3 certificates. This field
MUST be present, and the Version MUST be 3 (i.e. the value of this
field is 2).
3.2. Serial number
The serial number value is a positive integer that is unique per
Issuer.
3.3. Signature Algorithm
This field describes the algorithm used to compute the signature on
this certificate. This profile specifies SHA-256 with RSA
(sha256WithRSAEncryption), and, accordingly, the value for this field
MUST be the OID value 1.2.840.113549.1.1.11 [RFC4055].
3.4. Issuer
This field identifies the entity that has signed and issued the
certificate. The value of this field is a valid X.501 name.
If the certificate is a subordinate certificate issued by virtue of
the CA bit set in the immediate superior certificate, then the issuer
name MUST correspond to the subject name as contained in the
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
immediate superior certificate.
3.5. Subject
This field identifies the entity to whom the resource has been
allocated / assigned. The value of this field is a valid X.501 name.
In this profile the subject name is determined by the issuer, and
each distinct entity certified by the issuer MUST be identified using
a subject name that is unique per issuer.
This field MUST be non-empty.
3.6. Valid From
The starting time at which point the certificate is valid. In this
profile the "Valid From" time SHOULD be no earlier than the time of
certificate generation. As per Section 4.1.2.5 of [RFC3280],
Certificate Authorities (CAs) conforming to this profile MUST always
encode the certificate's "Valid From" date through the year 2049 as
UTCTime, and dates in 2050 or later MUST be encoded as
GeneralizedTime. These two time formats are defined in [RFC3280].
In this profile, it is valid for a certificate to have a value for
this field that pre-dates the same field value in any superior
certificate. However, it is not valid to infer from this information
that a certificate was, or will be, valid at any particular time
other than the current time.
3.7. Valid To
The Valid To time is the date and time at which point in time the
certificate's validity ends. It represents the anticipated lifetime
of the resource allocation / assignment arrangement between the
issuer and the subject. As per Section 4.1.2.5 of [RFC3280], CAs
conforming to this profile MUST always encode the certificate's
"Valid To" date through the year 2049 as UTCTime, and dates in 2050
or later MUST be encoded as GeneralizedTime. These two time formats
are defined in [RFC3280].
In this profile, it is valid for a certificate to have a value for
this field that post-dates the same field value in any superior
certificate. However, it is not valid to infer from this information
that a certificate was, or will be, valid at any particular time
other than the current time.
Certificate Authorities typically are advised against issuing a
certificate with a validity interval that exceeds the validity
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
interval of the CA certificate that will be used to validate the
issued certificate. However, in the context of this profile, it is
anticipated that a CA may have good reason to issue a certificate
with a validity interval that exceeds the validity interval of the
CA's certificate.
3.8. Subject Public Key Info
This field specifies the subject's public key and the algorithm with
which the key is used. The public key algorithm MUST be RSA, and,
accordingly, the OID for the algorithm is 1.2.840.113549.1.1.1. A
minimum key size of 1024 bits is mandated in this profile. In the
context of certifying resources it is recommended that certificates
that are intended to be used as root certificates, and their
immediate subordinates SHOULD use a key size of 2048 bits.
Subordinates of these subordinate certificates, in the context of
continued level of high trust, SHOULD use a key size of 2048 bits.
In the application of this profile to certification of public number
resources, it would be consistent with this recommendation that the
Regional Internet Registries used a key size of 2048 bits, and that
their immediate subordinate certificate authorities also use a key
size of 2048 bits. All other subordinate certificates MAY use a key
size of 1024 bits.
3.9. Resource Certificate Version 3 Extension Fields
As noted in Section 4.2 of [RFC3280], each extension in a certificate
is designated as either critical or non-critical. A certificate-
using system MUST reject the certificate if it encounters a critical
extension it does not recognize; however, a non-critical extension
MAY be ignored if it is not recognized [RFC3280].
The following X.509 V3 extensions MUST be present in a conforming
Resource Certificate.
3.9.1. Basic Constraints
The basic constraints extension identifies whether the subject of the
certificate is a CA and the maximum depth of valid certification
paths that include this certificate.
The issuer determines whether the cA boolean is set. If this bit is
set, then it indicates that the subject is allowed to issue resources
certificates within this overall framework (i.e. the subject is
permitted be a CA).
The Path Length Constraint is not specified in this profile and MUST
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
NOT be present.
The Basic Constraints extension field is a critical extension in the
Resource Certificate profile, and MUST be present.
3.9.2. Subject Key Identifier
The subject key identifier extension provides a means of identifying
certificates that contain a particular public key. To facilitate
certification path construction, this extension MUST appear in all
Resource Certificates. This extension is non-critical.
The value of the subject key identifier MUST be the value placed in
the key identifier field of the Authority Key Identifier extension of
immediate subordinate certificates (all certificates issued by the
subject of this certificate).
The Key Identifier used here is the 160-bit SHA-1 hash of the value
of the DER-encoded ASN.1 bit string of the subject public key, as
described in Section 4.2.1.2 of[RFC3280].
3.9.3. Authority Key Identifier
The subject key identifier extension provides a means of identifying
certificates that are signed by the issuer's private key, by
providing a hash value of the issuer's public key. To facilitate
path construction, this extension MUST appear in all Resource
Certificates. The keyIdentifier subfield MUST be present in all
Resource Certificates, with the exception of a CA who issues a "self-
signed" certificate. The authorityCertIssuer and
authorityCertSerialNumber subfields MUST NOT be present. This
extension is non-critical.
The Key Identifier used here is the 160-bit SHA-1 hash of the value
of the DER-encoded ASN.1 bit string of the issuer's public key, as
described in Section 4.2.1.1 of [RFC3280].
3.9.4. Key Usage
This describes the purpose of the certificate. This is a critical
extension, and it MUST be present.
In certificates issued to CAs only the keyCertSign and CRLSign bits
are set to TRUE and must be the only bits set to TRUE. In end-entity
certificates the digitialSignature bit MUST be set and MUST be the
only bit set to TRUE.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
3.9.5. CRL Distribution Points
This field (CRLDP) identifies the location(s) of the CRL(s)
associated with certificates issued by this Issuer. This profile
uses the URI form of object identification. The preferred URI access
mechanism is a single RSYNC URI ("rsync://") [rsync] that references
a single inclusive CRL for each issuer.
In this profile the certificate issuer is also the CRL issuer,
implying at the CRLIssuer subfield MUST be omitted, and the
distributionPoint subfield MUST be present. The Reasons subfield
MUST be omitted.
The distributionPoint MUST contain general names, and MUST NOT
contain a nameRelativeToCRLIssuer. The type of the general name MUST
be of type URI. In this profile, the scope of the CRL is specified
to be all certificates issued by this issuer. The sequence of
distributionPoint values MUST contain only a single
DistributionPointName set. The DistributionPointName set MAY contain
more than one URI value. An RSYNC URI MUST be present in the
DistributionPointName set.
This extension MUST be present and it is non-critical.
3.9.6. Authority Information Access
This field (AIA) identifies the point of publication of all
certificates that are issued by the issuer's immediate superior CA.
This is specified in RFC3280 as a sequence of reference objects. In
this profile a single reference object to the immediate superior's
publication location MUST be used.
This profile uses a URI form of object identification. The preferred
URI access mechanisms is "rsync", and an RSYNC URI MUST be specified
with an accessMethod value of id-ad-caIssuers. The URI MUST
reference the point of publication of all objects published by the
issuer's immediate superior issuer. Other access method URIs
referencing the same publication point MAY also be included in the
value sequence of this extension.
In the case of self-signed certificates that undertake the role of a
"root" trust anchor within a certificate hierarchy the AIA extension
field SHOULD be omitted. In all other cases this field MUST be
present, and is non-critical.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
3.9.7. Subject Information Access
This field (SIA) identifies the location of information and services
relating to the subject of the certificate in which the SIA extension
appears. Where the Subject is a CA in this profile, this information
and service collection will include all current valid certificates
that have been issued by this subject that are signed with the
subject's corresponding private key.
This profile uses a URI form of location identification. The
preferred URI access mechanism is "rsync", and an RSYNC URI MUST be
specified, with an access method value of id-ad-caRepository when the
subject of the certificate is a CA. Other access method URIs that
reference the same location MAY also be included in the value
sequence of this extension.
This field MUST be present when the subject is a CA, and is non-
critical. Where the subject is not a CA this field MUST NOT be
present.
3.9.8. Certificate Policies
This extension MUST reference the Resource Certificate Policy, using
the OID Policy Identifier value of "1.3.6.1.5.5.7.14.2". This field
MUST be present and MUST contain only this value for Resource
Certificates.
PolicyQualifiers MUST NOT be used in this profile.
This extension MUST be present and it is critical.
3.9.9. Subject Alternate Name
This is an optional extension, and MAY contain an X.501 Name as
supplied by the subject in the Certificate Request, or as assigned by
the issuer.
3.9.10. IP Resources
This field contains the list of IP address resources as per
[RFC3779]. The value may specify the "inherit" element for a
particular AFI value. In the context of resource certificates
describing public number resources for use in the public Internet,
the SAFI value MUST NOT be used. All Resource Certificates MUST
include an IP Resources extension, an AS Resources extension, or both
extensions.
This extension, if present, MUST be marked critical.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
3.9.11. AS Resources
This field contains the list of AS number resources as per [RFC3779],
or may specify the "inherit" element. RDI values are NOT supported
in this profile and MUST NOT be used. All Resource Certificates MUST
include an IP Resources extension, an AS Resources extension, or both
extensions.
This extension, if present, MUST be marked critical.
4. Resource Certificate Revocation List Profile
Each CA MUST issue a version 2 Certificate Revocation List (CRL),
consistent with [RFC3280]. The CRL issuer is the CA, and no indirect
CRLs are supported in this profile. The scope of the CRL MUST be
"all certificates issued by this CA". The contents of the CRL are a
list of all unexpired certificates issued by the CA that have been
revoked by the CA.
An entry MUST NOT be removed from the CRL until it appears on one
regularly scheduled CRL issued beyond the revoked certificate's
validity period.
This profile does not allow issuance of Delta CRLs.
The profile does not allow the issuance of multiple current CRLs with
different scope by a single CA.
No CRL fields other than those listed below are allowed in CRLs
issued under this profile. Unless otherwise indicated, these fields
MUST be present in the CRL. Where two or more CRLs issued by a
single CA are present in a certificate repository, the CRL with the
highest value of the "CRL Number" field supersedes all other CRLs
issued by this CA.
4.1. Version
Resource Certificate Revocation Lists are Version 2 certificates (the
integer value of this field is 1).
4.2. Issuer Name
The value of this field is the X.501 name of the issuing CA who is
also the signer of the CRL, and is identical to the Issuer name in
the Resource Certificates that are issued by this issuer.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
4.3. This Update
This field contains the date and time that this CRL was issued. The
value of this field MUST be encoded as UTCTime for dates through the
year 2049, and MUST be encoded as GeneralizedTime for dates in the
year 2050 or later.
4.4. Next Update
This is the date and time by which the next CRL SHOULD be issued.
The value of this field MUST be encoded as UTCTime for dates through
the year 2049, and MUST be encoded as GeneralizedTime for dates in
the year 2050 or later.
4.5. Signature
This field contains the algorithm used to sign this CRL. The
signature algorithm MUST be SHA-256 with RSA. This field MUST be
present.
4.6. Revoked Certificate List
When there are no revoked certificates, then the revoked certificate
list MUST be absent.
For each revoked resource certificate only the following fields MUST
be present. No CRL entry extensions are supported in this profile,
and CRL entry extensions MUST NOT be present in a CRL.
4.6.1. Serial Number
The issuer's serial number of the revoked certificate.
4.6.2. Revocation Date
The time the certificate was revoked. This time SHOULD NOT be a
future date. The value of this field MUST be encoded as UTCTime for
dates through the year 2049, and MUST be encoded as GeneralizedTime
for dates in the year 2050 or later.
4.7. CRL Extensions
The X.509 v2 CRL format allows extensions to be placed in a CRL. The
following extensions are supported in this profile, and MUST be
present in a CRL.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
4.7.1. Authority Key Identifier
The authority key identifier extension provides a means of
identifying the public key corresponding to the private key used to
sign a CRL. Conforming CRL issuers MUST use the key identifier
method. The syntax for this CRL extension is defined in section
4.2.1.1 of [RFC3280].
This extension is non-critical.
4.7.2. CRL Number
The CRL Number extension conveys a monotonically increasing sequence
number for a given CA. This extension allows users to easily
determine when a particular CRL supersedes another CRL. The highest
CRL Number value supersedes all other CRLs issued by the CA within
the scope of this profile.
This extension is non-critical.
5. Resource Certificate Request Profile
5.1. PCKS#10 Profile
This profile refines the specification in [RFC2986], as it relates to
Resource Certificates. A Certificate Request Message object,
formatted according to PKCS#10, is passed to a Certificate Authority
as the initial step in issuing a certificate.
This request may be conveyed to the CA via a Registration Authority
(RA), acting under the direction of a Subject.
With the exception of the public key related fields, the CA is
permitted to alter any requested field.
5.1.1. PKCS#10 Resource Certificate Request Template Fields
This profile applies the following additional constraints to fields
that may appear in a CertificationRequestInfo:
Version
This field is mandatory and MUST have the value 0.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
Subject
The CA SHOULD consider this name as the subject's suggestion, but
the CA is NOT bound to honour this suggestion, as the subject name
MUST be unique per issuer. This field MAY be empty, in which case
the issuer MUST generate a subject name that is unique in the
context of the issuer.
SubjectPublicKeyInfo
This field specifies the subject's public key and the algorithm
with which the key is used. The public key algorithm MUST be RSA,
and the OID for the algorithm is 1.2.840.113549.1.1.1. This field
also includes a bit-string representation of the entity's public
key. For the RSA public-key algorithm the bit string contains the
DER encoding of a value of PKCS #1 type RSAPublicKey.
Attributes
[RFC2986] defines the attributes field as key-value pairs where
the key is an OID and the value's structure depends on the key.
The only attribute used in this profile is the ExtensionRequest
attribute as defined in [RFC2985]. This attribute contains X509v3
Certificate Extensions. The profile for extensions in certificate
requests is specified in Section 5.3.
This profile applies the following additional constraints to fields
that may appear in a CertificationRequest Object:
signatureAlgorithm
Must be SHA-256 with RSA encryption (sha256WithRSAEncryption).
Accordingly, the value for this field MUST be the OID value
1.2.840.113549.1.1.11
5.2. CRMF Profile
This profile refines the Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)
specification in [RFC4211], as it relates to Resource Certificates.
A Certificate Request Message object, formatted according to the
CRMF, is passed to a Certificate Authority as the initial step in
issuing a certificate.
This request may be conveyed to the CA via a Registration Authority
(RA), acting under the direction of a subject.
With the exception of the public key related fields, the CA is
permitted to alter any requested field.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
5.2.1. CRMF Resource Certificate Request Template Fields
This profile applies the following additional constraints to fields
that may appear in a Certificate Request Template:
Version
This field MAY be absent, or MAY specify the request of a Version
3 Certificate. It SHOULD be omitted.
SerialNumber
As per [RFC4211], this field is assigned by the CA and MUST be
omitted in this profile.
SigningAlgorithm
As per [RFC4211], this field is assigned by the CA and MUST be
omitted in this profile.
Issuer
This field is assigned by the CA and MUST be omitted in this
profile.
Validity
This field MAY be omitted. If omitted, the CA will issue a
Certificate with Validity dates as determined by the CA. If
specified, then the CA MAY override the requested values with
dates as determined by the CA.
Subject As the subject name is assigned by the CA, this field MAY be
omitted, in which case the subject name will be generated by the
CA. If specified, the CA SHOULD consider this as the subject's
suggestion, but the CA is NOT bound to honour this suggestion.
PublicKey
This field MUST be present.
extensions
This attribute contains X509v3 Certificate Extensions. The
profile for extensions in certificate requests is specified in
Section 5.3.
5.2.2. Resource Certificate Request Control Fields
The following control fields are supported in this profile:
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
Authenticator Control
It is noted that the intended model of authentication of the
subject in a long term one, and the advice as offered in [RFC4211]
is that the Authenticator Control field be used.
[Note - not for publication: The method of generation and
authentication of this field is to be specified. The desirable
properties include the ability to validate the subject and the
authenticity of the provided public key.]
Resource Class
The profile defines an additional control for Resource Certificate
Requests, namely a Resource Class control.
The Subject MUST specify a Resource Class value as specified by
the CA to which the request refers. The CA will issue a
certificate with the IP Address and AS Number resources that match
the subject's right-of-use of these resources with the class of
resources specified by the Resource Class control value.
[Note - not for publication: This specification of the resource
class is related the various forms of resource allocation which
imply that an entity may be the holder of resources with differing
validation dates and differing validation paths, even when the
entity is the recipient of resources allocated from a single
'upstream' issuing registry. Due to this consideration it may not
be possible to issue a single certificate with an all-encompassing
resource set. Alternatively it is possible to define a structure
where there is no Resource Class specified and the issuer issues a
set of spanning certificates for all resources held by the subject
(i.e. all resources that fall under the subject's "right-of-use")]
5.3. Certificate Extension Attributes in Certificate Requests
This profile allows the following extensions to appear in a PKCS#10
and CRMF Certificate Request:
BasicConstraints
If this is omitted then this field is assigned by the CA.
The Path Length Constraint is not supported in this Resource
Certificate Profile, and this field MUST be omitted in this
profile.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
The CA MAY honour the SubjectType CA bit set to on. If this bit
is set, then it indicates that the Subject is allowed to issue
resource certificates within this overall framework.
The CA MAY honour the SubjectType CA bit set of off (End Entity
certificate request).
SubjectKeyIdentifier
This field is assigned by the CA and MUST be omitted in this
profile.
AuthorityKeyIdentifier
This field is assigned by the CA and MUST be omitted in this
profile.
KeyUsage
The CA MAY honor KeyUsage extensions of CertificateSigning and
CRLSigning if present, as long as this is consistent with the
BasicConstraints SubjectType subfield, when specified.
SubjectInformationAccess
This field MAY be honoured by the CA on the condition that the CA
issues a certificate with the BasicConstraints SubjectType CA bit
set and the KeyUsage set to CertificateSigning and CRLSigning.
If specified, this field contains a URI of the form of a single
RSYNC URI that references a single publication point that will be
used by the subject for all certificates that published by the
subject for subordinate certificates, and MUST be honoured by the
CA.
If this field is omitted and KeyUsage is set to CertificateSigning
then the CA MUST generate a URI value for the
SubjectInformationAccess field based on out-of-band information
that has been passed between the CA and the requester.
[Note not for publication - if this field is missing than it is
also an option for the Issuer to deny the request and not issue a
certificate if the issued certificate was to have the CA bit set.]
SubjectAlternateName
This field MAY be present, and the CA MAY use this as the
SubjectAltName in the issued Certificate.
CRLDistributionPoints
This field is assigned by the CA and MUST be omitted in this
profile.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
AuthorityInformationAccess
This field is assigned by the CA and MUST be omitted in this
profile.
SubjectInformationAccess
This field MAY be honoured by the CA on the condition that the CA
issues a certificate with the BasicConstraints SubjectType CA bit
set and the KeyUsage set to CertificateSigning and CRLSigning.
If specified, this field contains a URI of the form of a single
rsync URL that references a single publication point that will be
used by the subject for all certificates that published by the
subject for subordinate certificates, and MUST be honoured by the
CA.
If this field is omitted and KeyUsage is set to CertificateSigning
then the CA MUST generate a SIA URL based on out-of-band
information that has been passed between the CA and the requester.
[Note not for publication - the same considerations with respect
to the CRL DistributionPoints apply to this field as well. i.e. if
this field is missing than it is also an option for the Issuer to
deny the request and not issue a certificate if the issued
certificate was to have the CA bit set.]
CertificatePolicies
This field is assigned by the CA and MUST be omitted in this
profile.
SubjectAlternateName
This field MAY be present, and the CA MAY use this as the
SubjectAltName in the issued Certificate.
IPResources
This field is assigned by the CA and MUST be omitted in this
profile.
ASResources
This field is assigned by the CA and MUST be omitted in this
profile.
With the exception of the publicKey field, the CA is permitted to
alter any requested field.
6. Resource Certificate Validation
This section describes the Resource Certificate validation procedure.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
This refines the generic procedure described in [RFC3280]:
To meet this goal, the path validation process verifies, among other
things, that a prospective certification path (a sequence of n
certificates) satisfies the following conditions:
1. for all x in {1, ..., n-1}, the subject of certificate x is the
issuer of certificate x+1;
2. certificate 1 is issued by a trust anchor;
3. certificate n is the certificate to be validated; and
4. for all x in {1, ..., n}, the certificate was valid at the time
in question.
6.1. Trust Anchors for Resource Certificates
The trust model that may be used in the resource certificate
framework in the context of validation of assertions of public number
resources in public-use contexts is one that readily maps to a top-
down delegated CA model that mirrors the delegation of resources from
a registry distribution point to the entities that are the direct
recipients of these resources. Within this trust model these
recipient entities may, in turn, operate a registry and perform
further allocations or assignments. This is a strict hierarchy, in
that any number resource and a corresponding recipient entity has
only one 'parent' issuing registry for that number resource (i.e.
there is always a unique parent entity for any resource and
corresponding entity), and that the issuing registry is not a direct
or indirect subordinate recipient entity of the recipient entity in
question (i.e. no loops in the hierarchy). The only exception to the
"no loop" condition would be where a putative trust anchor may issue
a self-signed root certificate.
The more general consideration is that selection of a trust anchor is
a role undertaken by relying parties, and the structure of the
resource certificate profile admits the same variety of trust models
as the PKIX profile. There is only one additional caveat on the
general applicability of trust models and PKIX frameworks, namely
that in forming a validation path to a trust anchor, the sequence of
certificates MUST preserve the resource extension validation
property, as described in Section 6.2.
6.2. Resource Extension Validation
The IP resource extension definition [RFC3779] defines a critical
extensions for Internet number resources. These are ASN.1 encoded
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
representations of the IPv4 and IPv6 address range (either as a
prefix/length, or start-end pair) and the AS number set.
Valid Resource Certificates MUST have a valid IP address and/or AS
number resource extension. In order to validate a Resource
Certificate the resource extension must also be validated. This
validation process relies on definitions of comparison of resource
sets:
more specific Given two IP address or AS number contiguous ranges, A
and B, A is "more specific" than B if range B includes all IP
addresses or AS numbers described by range A, and if range B is
larger than range A.
equal Given two IP address or AS number contiguous ranges, A and B,
A is "equal" to B if range A describes precisely the same
collection of IP addresses or AS numbers as described by range B.
The definition of "inheritance" in [RFC3779]is equivalent to this
"equality" comparison.
encompass Given two IP address and AS number sets X and Y, X
"encompasses" Y if, for every contiguous range of IP addresses or
AS numbers elements in set Y, the range element is either more
specific than or equal to a contiguous range element within the
set X.
Validation of a certificate's resource extension in the context of an
ordered certificate sequence of {1,2, ... , n} where '1'is a trust
anchor and 'n' is the target certificate, and where the subject of
certificate 'x' is the issuer of certificate 'x' + 1, implies that
the resources described in certificate 'x', for 'x' is greater than
1, "encompass" the resources described in certificate 'x' + 1.
6.3. Resource Certificate Path Validation
Validation of signed resource data using a target resource
certificate consists of assembling an ordered sequence (or
'Certificate Path') of certificates ({1,2,...n} where '1' is a trust
anchor, and 'n' is the target certificate) verifying that all of the
following conditions hold:
1. The certificate can be verified using the Issuer's public key and
the signature algorithm
2. The current time lies within the certificate's Validity From and
To values.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
3. The certificate contains all fields that MUST be present and
contains field values as specified in this profile for all field
values that MUST be present.
4. No field value that MUST NOT be present is present in the
certificate.
5. The Issuer has not revoked the certificate by placing the
certificate's serial number on the Issuer's current Certificate
Revocation List, and the CRL is itself valid.
6. That the resource extension data is "encompassed" by the resource
extension data contained in a valid certificate where this Issuer
is the Subject (the previous certificate in the ordered sequence)
7. The Certificate Path originates at a trust anchor, and there
exists a signing chain across the Certificate Path where the
Subject of Certificate x in the Certificate Path matches the
Issuer in Certificate x+1 in the Certificate Path.
A certificate validation algorithm may perform these tests in any
chosen order.
A Resource Certificate may have a number of potential parent
certificates, where a potential parent certificate is one where the
subject name matches the issuer name of the resource certificate. A
candidate parent certificate is any member of the parent certificate
set where the resource extension validity constraint of
"encompassing" is satisfied, and a valid candidate parent certificate
is any candidate parent certificate that also matches validity
conditions 1 through 6. A valid parent certificate is a valid
candidate parent certificate that also matches validity condition 7.
Certificates and CRLs used in this process may be found on a single
repository, maintained by a regular top-down walk from the Root Trust
Anchors via Issuer certificates and their SIA fields as forward
pointers, plus the CRLDP. Alternatively, validation may be performed
using a bottom-up process with on-line certificate access using the
AIA and CRLDP pointers to guide the certificate retrieval process.
There exists the possibility of encountering certificate paths that
are arbitrarily long, or attempting to generate paths with loops as
means of creating a potential DOS attack on a certificate validator.
Some further heuristics may be required to halt the validation
process in order to avoid some of the issues associated with attempts
to validate such structures. It is suggested that implementations of
Resource Certificate validation MAY halt with a validation failure if
the certificate path length exceeds a pre-determined configuration
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
parameter.
In the context of Resource Certificates that are generated in respect
of public resources and with the framework of the associated resource
distribution process, it is suggested that this configuration
parameter of maximum certificate path length be set to a value of
100.
[Note - not for publication: There is no particular reason for
suggesting this value other than the observation that it appears to
be comfortably longer than any real distribution chain for public
number resources, without being too long so as to pose potential DOS
concerns for relying parties performing a validation operation.]
7. Security Considerations
[to be completed]
8. IANA Considerations
[There are no IANA considerations stated in this version of the
document.]
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the valued contributions from
Stephen Kent, Robert Kisteleki, Randy Bush, Russ Housley, Ricardo
Patara and Rob Austein in the preparation and subsequent review of
this document.
10. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
[RFC2050] Hubbard, K., Kosters, M., Conrad, D., Karrenberg, D., and
J. Postel, "INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES",
BCP 12, RFC 2050, November 1996.
[RFC2985] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #9: Selected Object
Classes and Attribute Types Version 2.0", RFC 2985,
November 2000.
[RFC2986] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #10: Certification
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7", RFC 2986,
November 2000.
[RFC3280] Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W., and D. Solo, "Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280,
April 2002.
[RFC3779] Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004.
[RFC4055] Schaad, J., Kaliski, B., and R. Housley, "Additional
Algorithms and Identifiers for RSA Cryptography for use in
the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 4055,
June 2005.
[RFC4158] Cooper, M., Dzambasow, Y., Hesse, P., Joseph, S., and R.
Nicholas, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure:
Certification Path Building", RFC 4158, September 2005.
[RFC4211] Schaad, J., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)", RFC 4211,
September 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[rsync] Tridgell, A., "rsync", April 2006,
<http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/>.
Appendix A. Example Resource Certificate
The following is an example Resource Certificate.
Certificate Name: hu9fdDBq60mrk7cPRuX2DYuXSRQ-3.cer
Data:
Version: 3
Serial: 3
Signature Algorithm: Hash: SHA256, Encryption: RSA
Issuer: CN=Demo Production APNIC CA - Not for real use,
E=ca@apnic.net
Validity:
Not Before: Thu Jul 27 06:34:04 2006 GMT
Not After: Fri Jul 27 06:34:04 2007 GMT
Subject: CN=APNIC own-use network resources
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
Subject Key Identifier:
86:ef:5f:74:30:6a:eb:49:ab:93:b7:0f:46:e5:f6:0d:
8b:97:49:14
Subject Key Identifier g(SKI):
hu9fdDBq60mrk7cPRuX2DYuXSRQ
Subject Public Key Info:
Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption
RSA Public Key: Modulus:
c1:25:a1:b0:db:89:83:a0:fc:f1:c0:e4:7b:93:76:c1:
59:b7:0d:ac:25:25:ed:88:ce:00:03:ea:99:1a:9a:2a:
0e:10:2e:5f:c0:45:87:47:81:7b:1d:4d:44:aa:65:a3:
f8:07:84:32:ea:04:70:27:05:2b:79:26:e6:e6:3a:cb:
b2:9a:65:6c:c1:4e:d7:35:fb:f6:41:1e:8b:1c:b8:e4:
5a:3a:d6:d0:7b:82:9a:23:03:f8:05:4c:68:42:67:fe:
e7:45:d9:2c:a6:d1:b3:da:cf:ad:77:c5:80:d2:e3:1e:
4d:e8:bf:a2:f2:44:10:b2:2f:61:bc:f4:89:31:54:7c:
56:47:d5:b1:c3:48:26:95:93:c9:6f:70:14:4d:ac:a5:
c2:8e:3d:1f:6d:f8:d4:93:9d:14:c7:15:c7:34:8e:ba:
dd:70:b3:c2:2b:08:78:59:97:dd:e4:34:c7:d8:de:5c:
f7:94:6f:95:59:ba:29:65:f5:98:15:8f:8e:57:59:5d:
92:1f:64:2f:b5:3d:69:2e:69:83:c2:10:c6:aa:8e:03:
d5:69:11:bd:0d:b5:d8:27:6c:74:2f:60:47:dd:2e:87:
24:c2:36:68:2b:3c:fd:bd:22:57:a9:4d:e8:86:3c:27:
03:ce:f0:03:2e:59:ce:05:a7:41:3f:2f:64:50:dd:e7
RSA Public Key: Exponent: 65537
Basic Constraints: CA: TRUE
Subject Info Access:
caRepository - rsync://repository.apnic.net/APNIC/
pvpjvwUeQix2e54X8fGbhmdYMo0/
q66IrWSGuBE7jqx8PAUHAlHCqRw/
hu9fdDBq60mrk7cPRuX2DYuXSRQ
Key Usage: keyCertSign, cRLSign
CRL Distribution Points:
rsync://repository.apnic.net/APNIC/
pvpjvwUeQix2e54X8fGbhmdYMo0/
q66IrWSGuBE7jqx8PAUHAlHCqRw/
q66IrWSGuBE7jqx8PAUHAlHCqRw.crl
Authority Info Access: caIssuers -
rsync://repository.apnic.net/APNIC/
pvpjvwUeQix2e54X8fGbhmdYMo0/
q66IrWSGuBE7jqx8PAUHAlHCqRw
Authority Key Identifier: Key Identifier:
ab:ae:88:ad:64:86:b8:11:3b:8e:ac:7c:3c:05:07:02:
51:c2:a9:1c
Authority Key Identifier: Key Identifier g(AKI):
q66IrWSGuBE7jqx8PAUHAlHCqRw
Certificate Policies: 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.14.2
IPv4: 202.12.27.0-202.12.29.255, 202.12.31.0/24,
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
203.119.0.0/24, 203.119.42.0/23
IPv6: 2001:dc0::/32
ASNum: 4608, 4777, 9545, 18366-18370
Signature:
c5:e7:b2:f3:62:cb:e3:bc:50:1e:6b:90:13:19:f4:5b:
4a:1c:1c:ab:b5:de:b1:a4:22:e0:28:f5:3b:d0:8c:59:
0f:85:f2:06:a6:ae:22:e6:d0:99:fe:cb:eb:1d:6a:e2:
a3:f1:a2:25:95:ec:a7:7d:96:35:dc:16:a7:2f:f5:b7:
11:ba:97:05:57:5f:5d:07:5a:c8:19:c8:27:d3:f7:a3:
92:66:cb:98:2d:e1:7f:a8:25:96:ab:af:ed:87:02:28:
f5:ae:b6:e3:0c:f7:18:82:70:82:f4:76:54:06:b9:9f:
e1:a5:f7:ae:72:dd:ee:f0:d4:d2:78:bb:61:73:cf:51:
26:9f:ea:e8:20:49:06:ba:0c:ac:1d:f6:07:b8:63:a0:
4d:3d:8e:12:84:3a:d0:ec:94:7e:02:db:d4:85:cf:12:
5c:7b:12:1a:52:ab:3c:ba:00:f2:71:e7:f0:fd:b3:f4:
81:e8:a7:cb:07:ca:3a:a4:24:fe:dc:bb:51:16:6a:28:
33:40:a4:64:60:75:0e:c8:06:c8:5f:e5:98:be:16:a3:
bc:19:e7:b3:4f:00:0a:8e:81:33:dd:4c:a0:fb:f5:1c:
1f:1d:3f:b5:90:8b:ec:98:67:76:95:56:8a:94:45:54:
52:3d:1c:69:4c:6f:8a:9f:09:ec:ef:b0:a9:bc:cf:9d
Appendix B. Example Certificate Revocation List
The following is an example Certificate Revocation List.
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
CRL Name: q66IrWSGuBE7jqx8PAUHAlHCqRw.crl
Data:
Version: 2
Signature Algorithm:
Hash: SHA256, Encryption: RSA
Issuer: CN=Demo Production APNIC CA - Not for real use,
E=ca@apnic.net
This Update: Thu Jul 27 06:30:34 2006 GMT
Next Update: Fri Jul 28 06:30:34 2006 GMT
Authority Key Identifier: Key Identifier:
ab:ae:88:ad:64:86:b8:11:3b:8e:ac:7c:3c:05:
07:02:51:c2:a9:1c
Authority Key Identifier: Key Identifier g(AKI):
q66IrWSGuBE7jqx8PAUHAlHCqRw
CRLNumber: 4
Revoked Certificates: 1
Serial Number: 1
Revocation Date: Mon Jul 17 05:10:19 2006 GMT
Serial Number: 2
Revocation Date: Mon Jul 17 05:12:25 2006 GMT
Serial Number: 4
Revocation Date: Mon Jul 17 05:40:39 2006 GMT
Signature:
b2:5a:e8:7c:bd:a8:00:0f:03:1a:17:fd:40:2c:46:
0e:d5:64:87:e7:e7:bc:10:7d:b6:3e:39:21:a9:12:
f4:5a:d8:b8:d4:bd:57:1a:7d:2f:7c:0d:c6:4f:27:
17:c8:0e:ae:8c:89:ff:00:f7:81:97:c3:a1:6a:0a:
f7:d2:46:06:9a:d1:d5:4d:78:e1:b7:b0:58:4d:09:
d6:7c:1e:a0:40:af:86:5d:8c:c9:48:f6:e6:20:2e:
b9:b6:81:03:0b:51:ac:23:db:9f:c1:8e:d6:94:54:
66:a5:68:52:ee:dd:0f:10:5d:21:b8:b8:19:ff:29:
6f:51:2e:c8:74:5c:2a:d2:c5:fa:99:eb:c5:c2:a2:
d0:96:fc:54:b3:ba:80:4b:92:7f:85:54:76:c9:12:
cb:32:ea:1d:12:7b:f8:f9:a2:5c:a1:b1:06:8e:d8:
c5:42:61:00:8c:f6:33:11:29:df:6e:b2:cc:c3:7c:
d3:f3:0c:8d:5c:49:a5:fb:49:fd:e7:c4:73:68:0a:
09:0e:6d:68:a9:06:52:3a:36:4f:19:47:83:59:da:
02:5b:2a:d0:8a:7a:33:0a:d5:ce:be:b5:a2:7d:8d:
59:a1:9d:ee:60:ce:77:3d:e1:86:9a:84:93:90:9f:
34:a7:02:40:59:3a:a5:d1:18:fb:6f:fc:af:d4:02:
d9
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
Authors' Addresses
Geoff Huston
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
Email: gih@apnic.net
URI: http://www.apnic.net
George Michaelson
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
Email: ggm@apnic.net
URI: http://www.apnic.net
Robert Loomans
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
Email: robertl@apnic.net
URI: http://www.apnic.net
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Resource Certificate Profile July 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Huston, et al. Expires January 29, 2007 [Page 29]
