Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03

Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> Wed, 09 November 2011 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4869211E80AF for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:44:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.969
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.969 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.570, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gpAMEkQ3O0GT for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:44:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A274C11E8093 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by faas12 with SMTP id s12so2537932faa.31 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:44:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=G/G0UGskTZHhEyxmTmMQej7seBAoZtMI+t7Tw8+ZPBo=; b=PBZidyOaRffEjS8I19DzCsFQT1mUsYGSdg+M3ee0iVahBDgy+O/p2q4WgsV78+m6fg HOjEFpzmdgGfMOKZnZktmyWlC6h6yudZbc0MLX6eKWYOe65zcdwzVL5GTsQqIvqHiY4z en+Q3ODUf4uvXCLhGBs/3X8yUpAc7GpDzU7YA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.58.8 with SMTP id e8mr7357270fah.27.1320875045409; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:44:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.54.15 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:44:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p06240805cae063a02041@128.89.89.6>
References: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1110201037470.4820@SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F6025FEE@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <CAH1iCipuaB=niUZY2WQdMX8REDVTWGjhosxTyq1AekkUiLZ=FQ@mail.gmail.com> <p06240805cae063a02041@128.89.89.6>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 16:44:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH1iCiq5+tsQ6kaPi1E-_YBguez1rCQfDFGFEAw_YUvN0FStLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:44:28 -0000

Rather than respond, point-by-point, I will top-reply, and try to
clear this up in a structured manner.

First, from the perspective of normative references:
- most of the main SIDR documents reference each other, both
generally, and in specific places.
-- e.g. -rpki-algs-05 refers to -arch, -cp, -res-certs and -signed-object
-- e.g. -cp explicitly delegates algorithm specification to -rpki-algs
-- e.g. -res-certs section 9, in addition to referring to -cp, clearly
indicates that versions of itself and -cp need to be re-issued in
lock-step
-- e.g. Changing (by updating/replacing) the RFC for -rpki-algs, would
actually require issuing new versions of -cp, -res-certs, and
-rpki-algs, as a "document set".

I believe I would be accurate in saying, one of the primary purposes
of having an algorithm-agility doc, is to document what would need to
happen if a new set of algorithms to be published. And the scope of
the agility needs to include interaction between the RPKI system and
the consumers of that data, the RPs.

Let us stay with one "current" CP.

Again, the presumption is: one -cp doc, one -res-certs doc, one
-rpki-algs doc; and the agility doc describing the necessary state
changes to go from one controlling, unified set of docs, to another
controlling, unified set of docs.

It's is all about the content of the "rpki-algs" document; everything
(the top-down and exponential growth issues in particular) hinge on
that.

[terminology]
Alg.suite = { algorithms }
Let A denote Alg.Suite "A" (upper case means suite)
let a denote algorithm (or alg-pair) "a" (lower case means algorithm)
A example of the above would be:
X = { n p q }
[end terminology]

[example cases]
A = { a }
B = { b }
C = { a b }    (Algorithm suite C, includes algorithms "a" and "b")
[end example cases]

Note the following (Venn diagram) results:
A ^ B = { }
A ^ C = { a } = A
C ^ B = { b } = B
A v B = { a b } = C
A v C = { a b } = C
C v B = { a b } = C

The current algorithm-agility document presumes that an algorithm
update will always be of the form "A -> B".
It is because of the fact that A ^ B = {}, that the duplicate certs
problem arises, which gives rise to the exponential problem, which
leads to top-down.
With more than one suite, it becomes necessary to have multiple certs.
A cert is only valid within one suite.

If you consider suites A and C, note that a cert valid under A, is
_also_ valid under C - it does not require new key date; it may need
to re-issue.

If, instead, the updates were done by two successive, albeit
technically independent, updates, "A -> C", followed by "C -> B", the
problem goes away.

The timelines involved for "A -> C" would look like:
  Process for RPKI CAs:

    Phase 0   Phase 1   Phase 2   Phase 3
  -----------x--------x--------x----------
    ^        ^        ^        ^
    |        |        |        |
   (1)      (2a)     (3)      (4)

  Process for RPKI RPs:

    Phase 0      Phase 1
  --------------x-----x-------------------
    ^           ^     ^
    |           |     |
   (1)         (2b)  (3)

  (1) RPKI's algorithm document updated.
  (2a) CA Ready Algorithm C Date (all CAs can accept algorithms in set
C, "a" or "b" specifically)
  (2b) RP Ready Algorithm C Date (all RPs can validate algorithms in
set C, "a" or "b" specifically)
  (3) CA/RP Set Algorithm C Date (all RPs and CAs now are ready - on
or after later of 2a/2b)
  (4) CA Go Algorithm C Date (any given CA can now _choose_ to switch
from using "a" to using "b")

The mechanics on re-issuing certificates are clear. In the last
paragraph of "sidr-arch", section 4.2:

   If a CA certificate is reissued with the same public key, it should
   not be necessary to reissue (with an updated AIA URI) all
   certificates signed by the certificate being reissued. Therefore, a
   certification authority SHOULD use a persistent URI naming scheme for
   issued certificates. That is, reissued certificates should use the
   same publication point as previously issued certificates having the
   same subject and public key, and should overwrite such certificates.

So, if we presume that Algorithm suite C allows the choice of two
algorithms, then a CA can switch from
one algorithm to the other by (a) re-requesting its own CA cert using
the PoP of its new public key,
which is the public key for algorithm "b"; and (b) reissuing all of
its certificates using the new key.

Every certificate is signed by exactly one algorithm, and there is no
problem with the algorithm being
either "a" or "b". RPs understand both "a" and "b" before this
happens. There is no requirement for
keeping more than one certificate, so there is no exponential problem.
(Each cert identifies algs by OID.)

And furthermore, the re-issuing is done unilaterally by each CA,
meaning each CA can choose to do so
(or not!) any time after the "go" date. This can happen at any time,
in any order, independently.

Note very well: The most important aspect of this is, that _each_ CA,
in this model, has the ability to roll back
unilaterally, since both algorithms are valid. There are no timing or
hierarchy dependencies to this.

In fact, the only time there is a need for ensuring all CAs have done
so, is when there is a "C -> B" update.

All that needs to happen for "C -> B" is for every CA to have
re-issued their certs using suite B (alg "b" only),
by that date, and to stop accepting requests with public keys of alg
"a" at that time.

Again, at no time in this transition are duplicate certs needed
(neither 2 nor 3, no exponentiation).
And the re-issuing is done unilaterally by each CA, with no top-down
requirement.

You are right on this issue:
- The RPs and PoP rules definitely mean that only one rpki-algs
document and one CP can be "current" (phase 0) at any time, globally.

However, I disagree that that single algorithm suite, needs to contain
only _one_ pair of algorithms. The wisdom of the WG,
and of expert advice from the PKIX folks, should inform the contents
of the rpki-algs, and conceivably this could contain
more than one hash/keying algorithm pair. E.g. RSA/SHA 384 and 512,
and also an EC algorithm, for a choice of 3 algs.
As long as the alg choices are justified and mainstream, I don't see
any problem with more than one.

One other point about "C -> B" transitions: the transition avoids the
top-down (or exponential) issue, if C ^ B = B,
i.e. if C is strictly a superset of B. However, nothing in this rule
places restrictions on the sizes of C or B.
It is conceivable that more than one algorithm be retired during such
a transition.
It is also entirely possible that the post-retirement set of
algorithms be larger than one.
E.g C = { a b c d e }, B = { b c e }.
This creates more flexibility in terms of WG work, and more perceived
stability operationally.
CAs are then free to choose from multiple algorithms.
Thus, zero day risks on one active algorithm don't require IETF
response, as CAs can trivially switch to another active algorithm.

I'd even go so far as suggesting pre-publishing "document sets" (-cp,
-rpki-algs, -res-certs) for multiple future alg sets,
in advance, well in advance, to give implementers and operators the
longest possible lead time.

Respectfully,

Brian

P.S. The multiple CP and  CPS goes away in the above - so long as the
rpki-algs supports multiple algs.

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
> At 1:27 AM -0500 11/8/11, Brian Dickson wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I do not support adoption of this document in its current form.
>
> The main reasons have to do with fundamental aspects which at a high
>
> level have been addressed by my colleagues,
>
> so, this is a Verisign critique, provided by you, Eric, and Danny?
>
> Here's why:
> - everybody is a CA. Both the "root" of the INR tree (ICANN/IANA),
> plus the RIRs, etc., down to the publishers of EE certs.
>
> yes, essentially every actor in the RPKI is both a CA and an RP.
>
> - each CA publishes its policy via a CPS (it's a SHOULD, but
> functionally a MUST for RPs to be able to understand what a CA
> publishes.)
>
> small ISPs and orgs that have address space probably will not bother with a
> CPS, which is why it is a SHOULD, not a MUST. In a typical PKI context, a
> CPS primarily benefits the subjects to whom certs are issued; RPs also are
> potential CPS consumers.  In the RPKI, a "keaf" CA issues certs to itself,
> so a CPS is not of much interest for the first class of consumers. In the
> RPLI one does not get to shop around to choose a CA, so RPs don't need much
> from a CPS.
>
>
> - Each CPS specifies the OID of the corresponding CP
>
> there is just one CP. not clear form your statement if thatr ws clear.
>
> - Each CP refers to the corresponding policy for algorithms
>
> there is only one policy (CP) for the RPKI, and it specifies algs via a
> reference to an alg spec. so, I am not sure what you have in mind here.
>
> - Algorithms themselves have OIDs and are referenced as such in certs
>
> yes.
>
> - Every cert also specifies the OID of the CP itself (which embodies
>
> the rules for allowed algorithms)
>
> yes.
>
> So while the first revision of the CP insists on only one algorithm
> for pub/private keys, and one algorithm for hashes, it explicitly
> calls out that these are expected to change.
>
> yes.
>
> In changing allowed algorithms, it can reasonably be inferred that CPs
> could be issued which increase the _number_ of allowed algoriths of
> both types beyond one.
>
> there is only one CP.
>
> And similarly, the methodology demonstrated by key rollover has local
>
> scope. There is no requirement that children do anything at all when a
> parent executes a key roll. _This is by design_.
>
> yes, this is by design, but is irrelevant to the the alg transition design,
> which has global impact (on all RPs).
>
> So the analogous high-level design for agility SHOULD be as follows:
> - new CP documents may be published, with new OIDs
>
> as I mentioned above, there is one CP for the RPKI. When you suggest multile
> CPs, are you thinking of them on a per CA basis, or RPKI-wide?
>
> - ONLY when a CA with a given CPS decides to change CP does that CA
> need to execute a locally-significant key+alg roll
>
> see question above. also, unlike key roll, an alg roll affects ALL RPs,
> which is why the analogy between the two procedures is bad. Also, note my
> 'reply to Brian re the top-dowen deployment model that the Wg adopted, to
> avoid
> exponential growth in the repository system.
>
> - The CA would issue new certs with the new CP which itself lists
>
> additional algorithms
>
> ibid.
>
> - The same procedure would be executed in multiple phases - issue new
> child certs published under the old main cert; move them to the new
> cert, rewriting/overwriting in the same location
>
> ibid.
>
> This could be handled gracefully by having two CPs - one CP having the
> additional algorithm(s), and subsequently another CP with the new but
>
> minus the old.
>
> not graceful re repository growth, and impact on RPs.
>
> This mechanism could be used to introduce new algorithms without
> requiring retiring specific old algorithms. The two actions - adding
> and removing - are in fact independent, beyond the requirement that
> there be at least one algorithm (which goes without saying, really).
> The only other requirement is that the issued certs have algorithms
> consistent with the specified CP (OID) attached to the cert.
>
> there needs to be one alg that ALL RPs can deal with at all times.  Also,
> unlike key roll, when a CA wants to have a new cert with a public key
> using a new alg, its parent MUST be able to support that alg, because of
> the PoP requirement.
>
> I may be completely off the mark, but this would seem to be much more
> in line with the whole manner in which algorithms, policies, resource
> objects, etc., have been separated out and linked by normative
> reference.
>
> I do not agree.
>
> Perhaps we could get Geoff Huston to comment on my interpretation of
> the CP/CPS/alg interaction and explicit/implicit rules?
> Is it intended that CAs have a uniform hierarchy using exactly one
> algorithm set, or is it intended that each CA be able to specify (via
>
> CPS + CP)  the set of algorithms it supports, with the initial CP
> document being the minimum acceptable algorithm set?
>
> This text suggests that you believe there is on CP per CA, vs. a
> system-wide CP. The architecture is the latter.  Also, while I respect
> Goeff, why is your question directed to him? I am a co-author of the CP,
> the arch, and the key roll and the alg roll docs :-).
> Steve