Re: [Sidrops] RPKI Signed Checklists - draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc-00

Tim Bruijnzeels <> Fri, 05 February 2021 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A743A1DAE for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:01:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WU-r1VA9AdM2 for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:4f8:fff0:2d:8::215]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB17F3A1DAB for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:01:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 611F56084A; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 09:01:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) by
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; 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 \(3608.\))
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <>
In-Reply-To: <YBwv0jryMQ9KL9OO@snel>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:01:09 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <YBwv0jryMQ9KL9OO@snel>
To: Job Snijders <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] RPKI Signed Checklists - draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <> 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

> Kind regards,
> Job
> ----- Forwarded message from -----
> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 09:20:26 -0800
> From:
> To: Job Snijders <>
> 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:  
> Status:
> Htmlized:
> Htmlized:
> 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
> The IETF Secretariat
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list