Re: [Sidrops] RPKI Signed Checklists - draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc-00
Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl> Fri, 05 February 2021 09:01 UTC
Return-Path: <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A743A1DAE for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:01:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WU-r1VA9AdM2 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound.soverin.net (outbound.soverin.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:fff0:2d:8::215]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB17F3A1DAB for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:01:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (unknown [10.10.3.24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 611F56084A; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 09:01:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [159.69.232.138]) by soverin.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1612515676; bh=1bY5VBPjtjpLAoiH6jyZE4Xdnkozu651WlMGeX7Eaes=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=LmB2zgMOUZqHWcAYhugToFluAIhuGIN1MzUeHLyOCo+IJHWTeOjI6qoPUbwRBtWN9 w5t5nuLix501ftoSrUV7eMhgq/AeCa8OWwwVlb+ZxHbtap15Zo18+igW0J0dKm5ORG Db1/HnEPctkJAHnRQVB0n7O6eK9FquAYkwmGLYtH1GCNHHlL/gV6gsbv6CbKNwaJGa NigpHYsl0zRW9QYvgqat8iOxDr3IJmhSErrHngNmJ4TbazGWYUg99vM0SXQ9OhMUfw JdZ2KA+5pQFVPhPG5QcWgraUkjHsik/H1xWY5VrzoezTIyhwk4KavTtJB6yrynraII 8VInzrsRMdHFQ==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <YBwv0jryMQ9KL9OO@snel>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:01:09 +0100
Cc: sidrops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E4B20952-A045-4F5E-8673-F0A0C7AE5A1C@nlnetlabs.nl>
References: <YBwv0jryMQ9KL9OO@snel>
To: Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/SZTma94EjBYKfIAdmABNkgBUegI>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] RPKI Signed Checklists - draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc-00
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 09:01:24 -0000
Dear Job, WG, > On 4 Feb 2021, at 18:33, Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Dear Working Group, > > I've produced a specification which at a high level might appear similar > to RTA, but has fundamentally different semantics. > > RTA enables multiple signers to attest exactly one hash for an unnamed > digital object, but RSC on the other hand enables a single signer to > attest one or more named digital objects. > > I believe the ability to pass filenames around will greatly improve > operations for administrators. > > Another advantage of RSC should be that in closely following the RFC > 6488 template the burden of implementation is significantly reduced. > > I would appreciate the working group taking a look and considering > adoption. After adoption the IANA early allocation procedure can be used > to obtain OIDs, after which running code can demonstrated, and then > perhaps onwards to deployment. I have spoken with the other co-authors of the RTA document. We are not oppositional to this work. I think some words to this extend were expressed earlier, but again, if the working group prefers to have a single signed object which does not include a certificate and CRL chain for out-of-band validation, then a much simpler profile based on rpki signed objects (6488), as you are proposing, makes perfect sense. I believe that a possible constructive way forward would be to adopt your proposal and define single signed RSC objects there. I will repeat my support in the appropriate thread. The existing work on RTA can then be modified to leverage RSCs for other use cases. So rather then re-defining the signatures, RTAs could include one or more RSC objects. E.g.: 1) out-of-band validation RTA could define a profile where a user can be sent an RSC, and some or all CA certificates and CRLs needed for validation for complete out-of-band validation. The CMS profile allows to include these, but 6488 does not, and if we do not wish to complicate RSC with this concern, then a level of indirection can help. 2) multi-signing For those use cases where multiple signatures across different resource sets *are* required (yes, I know this is a corner case), the RTA can define a profile where multiple single signed RSC objects are bundled together. Of course there are details to cover, but hopefully this gives a good high-level idea, and this approach will allow us all to work constructively together on complementary work. So, we intend to draft a new version of the RTA specification along these lines. Please speak up if you feel this is not a good way forward. Kind regards Tim > > Kind regards, > > Job > > ----- Forwarded message from internet-drafts@ietf.org ----- > > Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 09:20:26 -0800 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: Job Snijders <job@fastly.com> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc-00.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Job Snijders and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc > Revision: 00 > Title: RPKI Signed Checklists > Document date: 2021-02-04 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 8 > URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc-00.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc/ > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc-00 > > > Abstract: > This document defines a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) profile > for a general purpose listing of checksums (a 'checklist'), for use > with the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). The objective is > to allow an attestation, in the form of a listing of one or more > checksums of arbitrary digital objects (files), to be signed "with > resources", and for validation to provide a means to confirm a > specific Internet Resource Holder produced the signed checklist. The > profile is intended to provide for the signing of a checksum listing > with an arbitrary set of Internet Number Resources. > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > _______________________________________________ > Sidrops mailing list > Sidrops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops
- [Sidrops] RPKI Signed Checklists - draft-spaghett… Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] RPKI Signed Checklists - draft-spag… Russ Housley
- Re: [Sidrops] RPKI Signed Checklists - draft-spag… Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] RPKI Signed Checklists - draft-spag… Tim Bruijnzeels
- Re: [Sidrops] RPKI Signed Checklists - draft-spag… Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] RPKI Signed Checklists - draft-spag… George Michaelson
- Re: [Sidrops] RPKI Signed Checklists - draft-spag… Job Snijders