Re: [Sidrops] 6486bis: referenced object validation

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:57:33AM +0100, Ties de Kock wrote:
> >> However, validating these requirements for just CMS objects (as per
> >> -03, instead of for CAs as well as per -00) leaves open the situation
> >> where only part of the objects for a CA apply. When the ROAs are
> >> correct, but the sub-CA is not, this can cause outages.
> >> 
> >> I don't have a preference on which way to go, but I would propose that
> >> we treat invalidation (time, c.f. because of semantic errors) for both
> >> CA certificates and other objects similarly.
> > 
> > I am not sure I follow, can you construct an example data set where the
> > 'situation left open' you describe appears?
> > 
> 
> Thanks for asking for clarification. I'll try to explain the scenario:
> 
> CA certificate with <AS64496, 192.0.2.0/24>
>   * Manifest, containing
> 	  * ROA: AS0, 192.0.2.0/24
> 	  * sub-CA, resources: <AS64496, 192.0.2.0/24>
> 	  	* Manifest, containing:
> 			  * ROA: <AS64496, 192.0.2.0/24>
> 
> We have "all or nothing" for ROAs. I argue that a similar situation is present
> for sub-CAs if the sub-CA expires.

You list two manifests, which means that software should:

round 1: process Manifest 1 containing AS0.roa + sub-CA.cer + crl
    check if as0.roa and sub-CA.cer + crl are present and if the hashes
    match

round 2: process Manifest 2 containing AS64496.roa + crl
    check if AS64496.roa + crl are present and if the hashes match

Now let's image sub-CA.cer is present and the hash match, but turns out
to be expired, it just invalidates sub-CA.cer and thus the software
would never even open manifest 2, because sub-CA.cer is expired.

If sub-CA.cer is expired the ROA for AS64496 indeed will 'disappear' (as
if never existed), leaving just the AS0 ROA. This is as the CA intended.

Kind regards,

Job