<?xml version='1.0'encoding='utf-8'?>encoding='UTF-8'?> <!-- draft submitted in xml v3 --> <!DOCTYPE rfcSYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent"> <?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> <?rfc subcompact="no"?> <?rfc symrefs="yes"?> <?rfc toc="yes"?> <?rfc compact="yes"?> <?rfc subcompact="no"?>[ <!ENTITY nbsp " "> <!ENTITY zwsp "​"> <!ENTITY nbhy "‑"> <!ENTITY wj "⁠"> ]> <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std" docName="draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-09" number="9582" ipr="trust200902" xml:lang="en" sortRefs="true" submissionType="IETF" consensus="true" updates="" obsoletes="6482" symRefs="true" tocInclude="true" version="3"> <front> <title abbrev="Route OriginAuthorization"> AAuthorization">A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs) </title> <seriesInfoname="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis"/>name="RFC" value="9582"/> <author fullname="Job Snijders" initials="J." surname="Snijders"> <organization>Fastly</organization> <address> <postal> <street/> <code/> <city>Amsterdam</city> <country>Netherlands</country> </postal> <email>job@fastly.com</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Ben Maddison" initials="B" surname="Maddison"> <organization abbrev="Workonline">Workonline</organization> <address> <postal> <street/> <city>Cape Town</city> <country>South Africa</country> </postal> <email>benm@workonline.africa</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Matthew Lepinski" initials="M." surname="Lepinski"> <organization>Carleton College</organization> <address><postal> <street/> <code/> <city/> <country/> </postal><email>mlepinski@carleton.edu</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Derrick Kong" initials="D." surname="Kong"> <organization>Raytheon</organization> <address><postal> <street/> <code/> <city/> <country/> </postal><email>derrick.kong@raytheon.com</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Stephen Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"> <organization>Independent</organization> <address><postal> <street/> <code/> <city/> <country/> </postal><email>kent@alum.mit.edu</email> </address> </author> <date year="2024" month="April"/> <area>Operations and Management Area (OPS)</area> <workgroup>sidrops</workgroup> <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. --> <!-- [rfced] It is not clear to us whether or not Erratum ID 5881 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5881) was addressed in this document. Please review, and let us know if any changes are needed. --> <abstract> <t> This document defines a standard profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs). A ROA is a digitally signed object that provides a means of verifying that an IP address block holder has authorized an Autonomous System (AS) to originate routes to one or more prefixes within the address block. This document obsoletes RFC 6482. </t> </abstract><note> <name>Requirements Language</name> <t> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document</front> <middle> <!-- [rfced] Datatracker's idnits yields the following error. Please let us know if any updates aretoneeded. (If yes, Section 4.3 of RFC 5952 (using lowercase if "db8" is needed after "2001:") might beinterpretedof interest asdescribedwell.) == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses inBCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when,the document. If these are example addresses, theyappear in all capitals, as shown here. </t> </note> </front> <middle>should be changed. --> <section anchor="intro"> <name>Introduction</name> <t> The primary purpose of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is to improve routing security. (See <xref target="RFC6480"/> for more information.) As part of this system, a mechanism is needed to allow entities to verify that anASAutonomous System (AS) has been given permission by an IP address block holder to advertise routes to one or more prefixes within that block. AROARoute Origin Authorization (ROA) provides this function. </t> <t> The ROA makes use of the template for RPKI digitally signed objects[RFC6488],<xref target="RFC6488"/>, which defines aCrytopgraphicCryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) wrapper <xref target="RFC5652"/>wrapperfor the ROA content as well as a generic validation procedure for RPKI signed objects. Therefore, to complete the specification of the ROA (seeSection 4 of<xreftarget="RFC6488"/>),target="RFC6488" section="4" sectionFormat="of"/>), this document defines: </t> <ul> <li> The OID that identifies the signed object as being a ROA. (This OID appears within the eContentType in the encapContentInfo object as well as the content-type signed attribute in the signerInfoobject).object.) </li> <li> The ASN.1 syntax for the ROA eContent. (This is the payload that specifies the AS being authorized to originate routes as well as the prefixes to which the AS may originate routes.) The ROA eContent is ASN.1 encoded using the Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) <xref target="X.690"/>. </li> <li> Additional steps required to validate ROAs (in addition to the validation steps specified in <xref target="RFC6488"/>). </li> </ul> <section anchor="reqs-lang"> <name>Requirements Language</name> <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t> </section> <section anchor="Changes"> <name>Changes fromRFC6482</name>RFC 6482</name> <t> This section summarizes the significant changes between <xref target="RFC6482"/> and the profile described in this document. </t> <ul> <li>Clarified the requirements for the IPAddressesaddress and ASIdentifiersidentifier X.509 certificate extensions.</li> <li>Strengthened the ASN.1 formal notation and definitions.</li> <li>Incorporated errata for RFC6482 Errata.</li>6482.</li> <li>Added an example ROA eContent payload and a ROA. <!-- [rfced] Section 1.1: This bullet item reads oddly, in that it seems to say that this document adds (1) an example ROA eContent payload and (2) a ROA. If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify. Original (we changed "an ROA" to "a ROA" per (with the exception of RFC 6382) post-6000 published RFCs: * Added an example ROA eContent payload and an ROA. Suggested: * Added anROA.</li>example ROA eContent payload (Appendix A). --> </li> <li>Specified a canonicalization procedure for the content of ipAddrBlocks.</li> </ul> </section> </section> <section anchor="Related"> <name>Related Work</name> <t> 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""<xref target="RFC5280" format="title"/>" <xreftarget="RFC5280"/>target="RFC5280" format="default"/> and"X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers""<xref target="RFC3779" format="title"/>" <xreftarget="RFC3779"/>.target="RFC3779" format="default"/>. </t> <t> Additionally, this document makes use of the RPKI signed object profile <xref target="RFC6488"/>; thus, familiarity with that document is assumed. Note that the RPKI signed object profile makes use of certificates adhering to the RPKIResource Certificate Profileresource certificate profile <xref target="RFC6487"/>; thus,familiarlyfamiliarity with that profile is also assumed. </t> </section> <section anchor="content"> <name>The ROA ContentType</name> <t> The content-type for a ROA is defined as routeOriginAuthz and has the numerical value 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.24. <!-- [rfced] Sections 3 and 4: We see a different path and string for "routeOriginAuthz" on <http://www.oid-info.com/cgi-bin/ display?oid=1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.24&action=display>. Should "defined as routeOriginAuthz" be "defined as id-ct-routeOriginAuthz"? Also, should "id-ct(1) routeOriginAuthz(24)" be "ct(1) id-ct-routeOriginAuthz(24)"? If not, will these distinctions be clear to readers? Original: The content-type for a ROA is defined as routeOriginAuthz and has the numerical value of 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.24. ... id-ct-routeOriginAuthz OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) id-smime(16) id-ct(1) routeOriginAuthz(24) } --> </t> <t> This OIDMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> appearbothwithin both the eContentType in the encapContentInfo objectas well asand the ContentType signed attribute in the signerInfo object (see <xref target="RFC6488"/>). </t> </section> <section anchor="econtent"> <name>The ROA eContent</name> <t> The content of a ROA identifies a single AS that has been authorized by the address space holder to originate routes and a list of one or more IP address prefixes that will be advertised. If the address space holder needs to authorize multiple ASes to advertise the same set of address prefixes, the holder issues multiple ROAs, one per AS number. A ROA is formally defined as: </t> <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of the sourcecode element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt) does not contain an applicable type, please let us know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. In addition, review each artwork element. Specifically, should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or another element? --> <sourcecode type="asn.1" originalSrc="RouteOriginAttestation-2023.asn">RPKI-ROA-2023 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) mod(0)id-mod-rpkiROA-2023(TBD)id-mod-rpkiROA-2023(75) } DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS CONTENT-TYPE FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax-2010 -- in [RFC6268] { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-cms-2009(58) } ; ct-routeOriginAttestation CONTENT-TYPE ::= { TYPE RouteOriginAttestation IDENTIFIED BY id-ct-routeOriginAuthz } id-ct-routeOriginAuthz OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) id-smime(16) id-ct(1) routeOriginAuthz(24) } RouteOriginAttestation ::= SEQUENCE { version [0] INTEGER DEFAULT 0, asID ASID, ipAddrBlocks SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..2)) OF ROAIPAddressFamily } ASID ::= INTEGER (0..4294967295) ROAIPAddressFamily ::= SEQUENCE { addressFamily ADDRESS-FAMILY.&afi ({AddressFamilySet}), addresses ADDRESS-FAMILY.&Addresses ({AddressFamilySet}{@addressFamily}) } ADDRESS-FAMILY ::= CLASS { &afi OCTET STRING (SIZE(2)) UNIQUE, &Addresses } WITH SYNTAX { AFI &afi ADDRESSES &Addresses } AddressFamilySet ADDRESS-FAMILY ::= { addressFamilyIPv4 | addressFamilyIPv6 } addressFamilyIPv4 ADDRESS-FAMILY ::= { AFI afi-IPv4 ADDRESSES ROAAddressesIPv4 } addressFamilyIPv6 ADDRESS-FAMILY ::= { AFI afi-IPv6 ADDRESSES ROAAddressesIPv6 } afi-IPv4 OCTET STRING ::= '0001'H afi-IPv6 OCTET STRING ::= '0002'H ROAAddressesIPv4 ::= SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..MAX)) OF ROAIPAddress{ub-IPv4} ROAAddressesIPv6 ::= SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..MAX)) OF ROAIPAddress{ub-IPv6} ub-IPv4 INTEGER ::= 32 ub-IPv6 INTEGER ::= 128 ROAIPAddress {INTEGER: ub} ::= SEQUENCE { address BIT STRING (SIZE(0..ub)), maxLength INTEGER (0..ub) OPTIONAL } END </sourcecode> <!-- [rfced] Section 4: We updated the last lines of the formal ROA definition per <https://github.com/job/draft-rfc6482bis/commit/ 40b0bbe353038813ebade17e67c54e0d410154b5>* and emails dated 1/25/2024 and 1/26/2024 from Job, Warren, and Russ. Please review, and let us know if we missed anything. * We updated "docName" previously. Original: ... ROAAddressesIPv4 ::= SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..MAX)) OF ROAIPAddress{32} ROAAddressesIPv6 ::= SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..MAX)) OF ROAIPAddress{128} ROAIPAddress {INTEGER: len} ::= SEQUENCE { address BIT STRING (SIZE(0..len)), maxLength INTEGER (0..len) OPTIONAL } END</sourcecode>Currently: ROAAddressesIPv4 ::= SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..MAX)) OF ROAIPAddress{ub-IPv4} ROAAddressesIPv6 ::= SEQUENCE (SIZE(1..MAX)) OF ROAIPAddress{ub-IPv6} ub-IPv4 INTEGER ::= 32 ub-IPv6 INTEGER ::= 128 ROAIPAddress {INTEGER: ub} ::= SEQUENCE { address BIT STRING (SIZE(0..ub)), maxLength INTEGER (0..ub) OPTIONAL } END --> <section><name>Element version</name><name>The version Element</name> <t> The version number of the RouteOriginAttestationMUSTentry <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be 0. </t> </section> <section><name>Element asID</name><name>The asID Element</name> <t> The asID element contains the AS number that is authorized to originate routes to the given IP address prefixes. </t> </section> <section><name>Element ipAddrBlocks</name><name>The ipAddrBlocks Element</name> <t> The ipAddrBlocks element encodes the set of IP address prefixes to which the AS is authorized to originate routes. Note that the syntax here is more restrictive than that used in the IP Address Delegation extension defined in <xref target="RFC3779"/>. That extension can represent arbitrary address ranges, whereas ROAs need to represent only IP prefixes. </t> <section> <name>Type ROAIPAddressFamily</name> <t> Within the ROAIPAddressFamily structure, the addressFamily element contains the Address Family Identifier (AFI) of an IP address family. This specification only supports IPv4 andIPv6, thereforeIPv6; therefore, addressFamilyMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be either 0001 or 0002. IPv4 prefixesMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> appear asIPv4-MappedIPv4-mapped IPv6Addresses (section 2.5.5.2 of <xref target="RFC4291"/>).addresses (<xref target="RFC4291" section="2.5.5.2" sectionFormat="of"/>). </t> <t> ThereMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be only one instance of ROAIPAddressFamily per unique AFI in the ROA. Thus, the ROAIPAddressFamily structureMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> appear more than twice. </t> <t> The addresses element represents IP prefixes as a sequence of type ROAIPAddress. <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3.1: We see what appear to be entries for the addresses element in the code in Section 4 (under "ROAIPAddressFamily ::= SEQUENCE {") and the original Appendix B (the "14:d=3" line), but because "addresses element" isn't mentioned anywhere in the text but here, will the distinction between the address element and the addresses element be clear to readers? Original: The addresses element represents IP prefixes as a sequence of type ROAIPAddress. --> </t> </section> <section> <name>Type ROAIPAddress</name> <t> A ROAIPAddress structure is a sequence containing an address element of type IPAddress and an optional maxLength element of type INTEGER. Seesection 2.2.3.8 of<xreftarget="RFC3779"/>target="RFC3779" section="2.2.3.8" sectionFormat="of"/> for more details on type IPAddress. </t> <section><name>Element address</name><name>The address Element</name> <t> The address element is of type IPAddress and represents a single IP address prefix. </t> </section> <section><name>Element maxLength</name><name>The maxLength Element</name> <t> When present, the maxLength element specifies the maximum length of the IP address prefix that the AS is authorized to advertise. The maxLength elementSHOULD NOT<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> be encoded if the maximum length is equal to the prefix length. Certification AuthoritiesSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> anticipate that future Relying Parties will become increasingly stringent in considering the presence of superfluous maxLength elements an encoding error. </t> <t> If present, the maxLengthMUSTelement <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be: </t> <ul> <li>an integer greater than or equal to the length of the accompanying prefix, and</li> <li>less than or equal to the maximum length (in bits) of an IP address in the applicable address family: 32 in the case of IPv4 and 128 in the case of IPv6.</li> </ul> <t> For example, if the IP address prefix is 203.0.113.0/24 andthemaxLength is 26, the AS is authorized to advertise anymore specificmore-specific prefix with a maximum length of 26. In this example, the AS would be authorized to advertise 203.0.113.0/24, 203.0.113.128/25, or203.0.113.192/26;203.0.113.192/26, but not 203.0.113.0/27. See <xref target="RFC9319"/> for more information on the use of maxLength. </t> <t> When the maxLength element is not present, the AS is only authorized to advertise the exact prefix specified in theROAIPAddress'ROAIPAddress structure's address element. </t> </section> <section> <name>Note onoverlappingOverlapping orsuperfluous information encoding</name>Superfluous Information Encoding</name> <t> Note that a valid ROA may contain an IP address prefix (within a ROAIPAddress element) that is encompassed by another IP address prefix (within a separate ROAIPAddress element). For example, a ROA may contain the prefix 203.0.113.0/24 with maxLength 26, as well as the prefix 203.0.113.0/28 with maxLength 28. This ROA would authorize the indicated AS to advertise any prefix beginning with 203.0.113 with a minimum length of 24 and a maximum length of 26, as well as the specific prefix 203.0.113.0/28. </t> <t> Additionally, a ROAMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> contain two ROAIPAddress elements, where the IP address prefix is identical in both cases. However, this isNOT RECOMMENDED as,<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>, because in such a case, the ROAIPAddress element with the shorter maxLength grants no additional privileges to the indicated AS and thus can be omitted without changing the meaning of the ROA. </t> </section> </section> <section> <name>CanonicalformForm for ipAddrBlocks</name> <t> As the data structure described by the ROA ASN.1 module allows for many different ways to represent the same set of IP address information, a canonical form is defined such that every set of IP address information has a unique representation. In order to produce and verify this canonical form, the process described in this sectionSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be used to ensure that information elements are unique with respect to one another and sorted in ascending order. Certification AuthoritiesSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> anticipate that future Relying Parties will impose a strict requirement for the ipAddrBlocks field to be in this canonical form. This canonicalization procedure builds upon the canonicalization procedure specified insection 2.2.3.6 of<xreftarget="RFC3779"/>.target="RFC3779" section="2.2.3.6" sectionFormat="of"/>. </t> <t> In order to semantically compare, sort, and deduplicate the contents of the ipAddrBlocks field, each ROAIPAddress element is mapped to an abstract data element composed of four integer values: </t> <dl> <dt>afi</dt> <dd>The AFI value appearing in the addressFamily field of the containing ROAIPAddressFamily as an integer.</dd> <dt>addr</dt> <dd>The first IP address of the IP prefix appearing in the ROAIPAddress address field, as a 32-bit (IPv4) or 128-bit (IPv6) integer value.</dd> <dt>plen</dt> <dd>Theprefixlength of the IP prefix appearing in the ROAIPAddress address field as an integer value.</dd> <dt>mlen</dt> <dd>The value appearing in the maxLength field of theROAIPAddress,ROAIPAddress element, ifpresent, otherwisepresent; otherwise, the above prefix length value.</dd> <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3.3: "ROAIPAddress address field" reads oddly. Could these be written as "ROAIPAddress field" instead, while preserving the intended meaning? Original: addr The first IP address of the IP prefix appearing in the ROAIPAddress address field, as a 32-bit (IPv4) or 128-bit (IPv6) integer value. plen The prefix length of the IP prefix appearing in the ROAIPAddress address field as an integer value. --> </dl> <t> Thus, the equality or relative order of two ROAIPAddress elements can be tested by comparing their abstract representations. </t> <section> <name>Comparator</name> <t> The set of ipAddrBlocks is totally ordered. The order of two ipAddrBlocks is determined by the first non-equal comparison in the following list. </t> <ol> <li> Data elements with a lower afi value precede data elements with a higher afi value. </li> <li> Data elements with a lower addr value precede data elements with a higher addr value. </li> <li> Data elements with a lower plen value precede data elements with a higher plen value. </li> <li> Data elements with a lower mlen value precede data elements with a higher mlen value. </li> </ol> <t> Data elements for which all four values compare equal are duplicates of one another. </t> </section> <section> <name>Exampleimplementations</name> <t> AImplementations</name> <ul> <li>A sorting implementation <xref target="roasort-c"/> in ISO/IEC 9899:1999("ANSI C99"). </t> <t> A("ANSI C99").</li> <li>A sorting implementation <xref target="roasort-rs"/> in the Rust 2021 Edition.</li> <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3.3.2: We could not find anything about a "Rust 2021 Edition" on [roasort-rs]. Please confirm that this citation is correct and will be clear to readers (e.g., is this the same "Rust" as the 2021 edition discussed on <https://doc.rust-lang.org/edition-guide/rust-2021/index.html>?). Original: A sorting implementation [roasort-rs] in Rust 2021 Edition.</t>--> </ul> </section> </section> </section> </section> <section> <name>ROA Validation</name> <t> Before a relying party can use a ROA to validate a routing announcement, the relying partyMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> first validate the ROA. To validate a ROA, the relying partyMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> perform all the validation checks specified in <xref target="RFC6488"/> as well as the following additional ROA-specific validation steps: </t> <ul> <li> The IP Address Delegation extension <xref target="RFC3779"/> is present in the end-entity (EE) certificate (contained within the ROA), and every IP address prefix in the ROA payload is contained within the set of IP addresses specified by the EE certificate's IP Address Delegation extension. </li> <li> The EE certificate's IP Address Delegation extensionMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> contain "inherit" elements as described in <xref target="RFC3779"/>. </li> <!-- Lynne: If authors want to lowercase the "address delegation extension" part of "IP address delegation extension" (see question re. inconsistent usage), change "Autonomous System Identifier Delegation Extension" to "AS identifier delegation extension". --> <li> The Autonomous System Identifier Delegation Extension described in <xref target="RFC3779"/> is not used inRoute Origin AuthorizationsROAs andMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be present in the EE certificate. </li> <li> The ROA content fully conforms with all requirements specified in<xref target="content"/>Sections <xref target="content" format="counter"/> and <xreftarget="econtent"/>.target="econtent" format="counter"/>. </li> </ul> <t> If any of the above checks fail, the ROA in its entiretyMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be considered invalid and an errorSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be logged. </t> </section> <section anchor="security"> <name>Security Considerations</name> <t> There is no assumption of confidentiality for the data in a ROA; it is anticipated that ROAs will be stored in repositories that are accessible to all ISPs, and perhaps to all Internet users. There is no explicit authentication associated with a ROA, since the PKI used for ROA validation provides authorization but not authentication. Although the ROA is a signed, application-layer object, there is no intent to convey non-repudiation via a ROA. </t> <t> The purpose of a ROA is to convey authorization for an AS to originate a route to theprefix(es)prefix or prefixes in the ROA. Thus, the integrity of a ROAMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be established. The ROA specification makes use of the RPKI signed object format; thus, all security considerations discussed in <xref target="RFC6488"/> also apply to ROAs. Additionally, the signed object profile uses the CMS signed message format for integrity; thus, ROAs inherit all security considerations associated with that data structure. <!-- [rfced] Section 6: It appears that "The ROA specification" might refer to RFC 6482 and this document. May we clarify the text as suggested? Original: The ROA specification makes use of the RPKI signed object format; thus, all security considerations in [RFC6488] also apply to ROAs. Suggested: This ROA specification makes use of the RPKI signed object format; thus, all security considerations discussed in [RFC6488] also apply to ROAs. --> </t> <t> The right of the ROA signer to authorize the target AS to originate routes to theprefix(es)prefix or prefixes is established through the use of the address space and AS number PKI as described in <xref target="RFC6480"/>. Specifically, oneMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> verify the signature on the ROA using an X.509 certificate issued under thisPKI,PKI and check that theprefix(es)prefix or prefixes in the ROA are contained within those in the certificate's IP Address Delegation Extension. </t> </section> <section anchor="iana"> <name>IANA Considerations</name> <section> <name>SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1)</name> <t>TheIANAis requested to updatehas updated the id-ct-routeOriginAuthz entry in the "SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1)" registry as follows: </t><artwork> <![CDATA[ Decimal Description References --------------------------------------------------------------- 24 id-ct-routeOriginAuthz [RFC-to-be] ]]> </artwork> <t> Upon publication of this document, IANA is requested to reference the RFC publication instead of this draft. </t><table anchor="tab1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Decimal</th> <th>Description</th> <th>References</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>24</td> <td>id-ct-routeOriginAuthz</td> <td>RFC 9582</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section> <name>RPKI Signed Objectssub-registry</name>Registry</name> <t>TheIANAis requested to update the entry forhas updated the Route Origination Authorization entry in the "RPKI Signed Objects" registry created by <xref target="RFC6488"/> as follows: </t><artwork> <![CDATA[ Name OID Specification -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Route<table anchor="tab-2"> <thead> <tr> <th>Name</th> <th>OID</th> <th>Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Route OriginationAuthorization 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.24 [RFC-to-be] ]]> </artwork>Authorization</td> <td>1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.24</td> <td>RFC 9582</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section> <name>File Extension</name> <t>TheIANAis requested to updatehas updated the entry for the ROA file extension in the "RPKI Repository Name Schemes" registry created by <xref target="RFC6481"/> as follows: </t><artwork> <![CDATA[ Filename Extension RPKI Object Reference ------------------------------------------------------------------------ .roa Route<table anchor="tab3"> <thead> <tr> <th>Filename Extension</th> <th>RPKI Object</th> <th>Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>.roa</td> <td>Route OriginationAuthorization [RFC-to-be] ]]> </artwork> <t> Upon publication of this document, IANA is requested to make this addition permanent and to reference the RFC publication instead of this draft. </t>Authorization</td> <td>RFC 9582</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section> <name>SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0)</name> <t>TheIANAis requested to allocate for this documenthas allocated the following entry in the "SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0)" registry: </t><artwork> <![CDATA[ Decimal Description Reference -------------------------------------------- TBD id-mod-rpkiROA-2023 [RFC-to-be] ]]> </artwork><table anchor="tab4"> <thead> <tr> <th>Decimal</th> <th>Description</th> <th>References</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>75</td> <td>id-mod-rpkiROA-2023</td> <td>RFC 9582</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section> <name>Media Type</name> <t>TheIANAis requested to updatehas updated the media type application/rpki-roa in the "MediaType"Types" registry as follows: </t><artwork> <![CDATA[ Type name: application Subtype name: rpki-roa Required parameters: N/A Optional parameters: N/A Encoding considerations: binary Security considerations: Carries<dl spacing="normal" newline="false"> <dt>Type name:</dt><dd>application</dd> <dt>Subtype name:</dt><dd>rpki-roa</dd> <dt>Required parameters:</dt><dd>N/A</dd> <dt>Optional parameters:</dt><dd>N/A</dd> <dt>Encoding considerations:</dt><dd>binary</dd> <dt>Security considerations:</dt><dd>Carries an RPKI ROA[RFC-to-be].(RFC 9582). This media type contains no active content. See Section 6 of[RFC-to-be]RFC 9582 for furtherinformation. Interoperability considerations: None Published specification: [RFC-to-be] Applicationsinformation.</dd> <dt>Interoperability considerations:</dt><dd>None</dd> <dt>Published specification:</dt><dd>RFC 9582</dd> <dt>Applications that use this mediatype: RPKI operators Additional information: Content: Thistype:</dt><dd>RPKI operators</dd> <dt>Additional information:</dt> <dd> <t><br/></t> <dl spacing="compact"> <dt>Content:</dt><dd>This media type is a signed object, as defined in[RFC6488],<xref target="RFC6488"/>, which contains a payload of a list of prefixes and an ASidentiferidentifier as defined in[RFC-to-be]. Magic number(s): NoneRFC 9582.</dd> <dt>Magic number(s):</dt><dd>None</dd> <dt>File extension(s):</dt><dd>.roa</dd> <dt>Macintosh file type code(s):</dt><dd></dd> </dl> </dd> <dt>Person & email address to contact for further information:</dt> <dd><br/>Job Snijders <job@fastly.com></dd> <dt>Intended usage:</dt><dd>COMMON</dd> <dt>Restrictions on usage:</dt><dd>None</dd> <dt>Change controller:</dt><dd>IETF</dd> </dl> <!-- [rfced] Section 7.5: Please confirm that the entry for "Macintosh file type code(s)" should remain empty (i.e., should not be listed as "N/A" or "None", as is frequently done in published RFCs). Original: ... File extension(s): .roa Macintosh file type code(s): Person & email address to contact for further information:Job Snijders <job@fastly.com> Intended usage: COMMON Restrictions on usage: None Change controller: IETF ]]> </artwork>... --> </section> </section> </middle> <back> <references> <name>References</name> <references> <name>Normative References</name> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3779.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4291.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5652.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6268.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6481.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6482.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6487.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6488.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/> <referenceanchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"> <front> <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title> <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/> <date month="March" year="1997"/> <abstract> <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC3779" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3779" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3779.xml">anchor="X.690"> <front><title>X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers</title> <author fullname="C. Lynn" initials="C." surname="Lynn"/> <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"/> <author fullname="K. Seo" initials="K." surname="Seo"/> <date month="June" year="2004"/> <abstract> <t>This document defines two X.509 v3 certificate extensions. The first binds a list of IP address blocks, or prefixes, to the subject of a certificate. The second binds a list of autonomous system identifiers to the subject of a certificate. These extensions may be used to convey the authorization<title>Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification ofthe subject to use the IP addressesBasic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) andautonomous system identifiers contained in the extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3779"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3779"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC4291" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4291.xml"> <front> <title>IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture</title> <author fullname="R. Hinden" initials="R." surname="Hinden"/> <author fullname="S. Deering" initials="S." surname="Deering"/>Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)</title> <author> <organization>ITU-T</organization> </author> <date month="February"year="2006"/> <abstract> <t>This specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP Version 6 (IPv6) protocol. The document includes the IPv6 addressing model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6 unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an IPv6 node's required addresses.</t> <t>This document obsoletes RFC 3513, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture". [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4291"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4291"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC5652" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5652.xml"> <front> <title>Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)</title> <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/> <date month="September" year="2009"/> <abstract> <t>This document describes the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS). This syntax is used to digitally sign, digest, authenticate, or encrypt arbitrary message content. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract>year="2021"/> </front> <seriesInfoname="STD" value="70"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5652"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5652"/>name="ITU-T Recommendation" value="X.690"/> </reference><reference anchor="RFC6268" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6268" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6268.xml"> <front> <title>Additional New ASN.1 Modules for the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)</title> <author fullname="J. Schaad" initials="J." surname="Schaad"/> <author fullname="S. Turner" initials="S." surname="Turner"/> <date month="July" year="2011"/> <abstract> <t>The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) format, and many associated formats, are expressed using ASN.1.<!-- [rfced] Normative References: Thecurrent ASN.1 modules conform to the 1988 version of ASN.1. This document updates some auxiliary ASN.1 modules to conform to the 20082015 version ofASN.1; the 1988 ASN.1 modules remain the normative version. There are no bits- on-the-wire changes to any of the formats; this[X.690] issimply a change to the syntax. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6268"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6268"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC6481" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6481" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6481.xml"> <front> <title>A Profile for Resource Certificate Repository Structure</title> <author fullname="G. Huston" initials="G." surname="Huston"/> <author fullname="R. Loomans" initials="R." surname="Loomans"/> <author fullname="G. Michaelson" initials="G." surname="Michaelson"/> <date month="February" year="2012"/> <abstract> <t>This document defines a profile for the structure of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) distributed repository. Each individual repository publication point is a directory that contains files that correspond to X.509/PKIX Resource Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists and signed objects. This profile defines the object (file) naming scheme, the contents of repository publication points (directories), and a suggested internal structure of a local repository cache that is intended to facilitate synchronization across a distributed collection of repository publication points and to facilitate certification path construction. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6481"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6481"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC6482" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6482" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6482.xml"> <front> <title>A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)</title> <author fullname="M. Lepinski" initials="M." surname="Lepinski"/> <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"/> <author fullname="D. Kong" initials="D." surname="Kong"/> <date month="February" year="2012"/> <abstract> <t>This document defines a standard profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs). A ROA is a digitally signed object that provides a means of verifying that an IP address block holder has authorized an Autonomous System (AS) to originate routes to one or more prefixes within the address block. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6482"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6482"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC6487" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6487" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6487.xml"> <front> <title>A Profile for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates</title> <author fullname="G. Huston" initials="G." surname="Huston"/> <author fullname="G. Michaelson" initials="G." surname="Michaelson"/> <author fullname="R. Loomans" initials="R." surname="Loomans"/> <date month="February" year="2012"/> <abstract> <t>This document defines a standard profile for X.509 certificates for the purpose of supporting validation of assertions of "right-of-use" of Internet Number Resources (INRs). The certificates issued undermarked "Superseded" on <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690>. We updated thisprofile are used to convey the issuer's authorization of the subjectlisting tobe regarded asreflect the currentholder of a "right-of-use" of the INRs that are described in the certificate. This document contains the normative specification of Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) syntax in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). This document also specifies profiles for the format("In force") February 2021 version. Please let us know any concerns. Original: [X.690] ITU-T, "Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification ofcertificate requestsBasic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) andspecifies the Relying Party RPKI certificate path validation procedure. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6487"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6487"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC6488" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6488" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6488.xml"> <front> <title>Signed Object Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)</title> <author fullname="M. Lepinski" initials="M." surname="Lepinski"/> <author fullname="A. Chi" initials="A." surname="Chi"/> <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"/> <date month="February" year="2012"/> <abstract> <t>This document defines a generic profile for signed objects used in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). These RPKI signed objects make use of Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) as a standard encapsulation format. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6488"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6488"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"> <front> <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title> <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/> <date month="May" year="2017"/> <abstract> <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/> </reference> <reference anchor="X.690"> <front> <title>InformationDistinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, 2015. Currently: [X.690] ITU-T, "Information Technology--- ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules(DER)</title> <author> <organization>ITU-T</organization> </author> <date year="2015"/> </front> <seriesInfo name="ITU-T" value="Recommendation X.690"/> </reference>(DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, February 2021. --> </references> <references> <name>Informative References</name><reference anchor="RFC4648" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4648.xml"> <front> <title>The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings</title> <author fullname="S. Josefsson" initials="S." surname="Josefsson"/> <date month="October" year="2006"/> <abstract> <t>This document describes the commonly used base 64, base 32, and base 16 encoding schemes. It also discusses the use of line-feeds in encoded data, use of padding in encoded data, use of non-alphabet characters in encoded data, use of different encoding alphabets, and canonical encodings. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4648"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4648"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC5280" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5280.xml"> <front> <title>Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile</title> <author fullname="D. Cooper" initials="D." surname="Cooper"/> <author fullname="S. Santesson" initials="S." surname="Santesson"/> <author fullname="S. Farrell" initials="S." surname="Farrell"/> <author fullname="S. Boeyen" initials="S." surname="Boeyen"/> <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/> <author fullname="W. Polk" initials="W." surname="Polk"/> <date month="May" year="2008"/> <abstract> <t>This memo profiles the X.509 v3 certificate and X.509 v2 certificate revocation list (CRL) for use in the Internet. An overview of this approach and model is provided as an introduction. The X.509 v3 certificate format is described in detail, with additional information regarding the format and semantics of Internet name forms. Standard certificate extensions are described and two Internet-specific extensions are defined. A set of required certificate extensions is specified. The X.509 v2 CRL format is described in detail along with standard and Internet-specific extensions. An algorithm for X.509 certification path validation is described. An ASN.1 module and examples are provided in the appendices. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5280"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5280"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC6480" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6480.xml"> <front> <title>An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing</title> <author fullname="M. Lepinski" initials="M." surname="Lepinski"/> <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"/> <date month="February" year="2012"/> <abstract> <t>This document describes an architecture for an infrastructure to support improved security of Internet routing. The foundation of this architecture is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) that represents the allocation hierarchy of IP address space and Autonomous System (AS) numbers; and a distributed repository system for storing and disseminating the data objects that comprise the RPKI, as well as other signed objects necessary for improved routing security. As an initial application of this architecture, the document describes how a legitimate holder of IP address space can explicitly and verifiably authorize one or more ASes to originate routes to that address space. Such verifiable authorizations could be used, for example, to more securely construct BGP route filters. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6480"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6480"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC9319" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9319" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9319.xml"> <front> <title>The Use of maxLength in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)</title> <author fullname="Y. Gilad" initials="Y." surname="Gilad"/> <author fullname="S. Goldberg" initials="S." surname="Goldberg"/> <author fullname="K. Sriram" initials="K." surname="Sriram"/> <author fullname="J. Snijders" initials="J." surname="Snijders"/> <author fullname="B. Maddison" initials="B." surname="Maddison"/> <date month="October" year="2022"/> <abstract> <t>This document recommends ways to reduce the forged-origin hijack attack surface by prudently limiting the set of IP prefixes that are included in a Route Origin Authorization (ROA). One recommendation is to avoid using the maxLength attribute in ROAs except in some specific cases. The recommendations complement and extend those in RFC 7115. This document also discusses the creation of ROAs for facilitating the use of Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) mitigation services. Considerations related to ROAs and RPKI-based Route Origin Validation (RPKI-ROV) in the context of destination-based Remotely Triggered Discard Route (RTDR) (elsewhere referred to as "Remotely Triggered Black Hole") filtering are also highlighted.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="185"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9319"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9319"/> </reference><xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4648.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5280.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6480.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9319.xml"/> <reference anchor="roasort-c" target="https://github.com/job/roasort"> <front> <title>ROA sorter in C</title><author initials="J." surname="Snijders"> <organization>Fastly</organization> </author><author/> <date month="July" year="2023"/> </front> <refcontent>commit 68969ea</refcontent> </reference> <reference anchor="roasort-rs" target="https://github.com/benmaddison/roasort"> <front> <title>ROA sorter in Rust</title><author initials="B." surname="Maddison"> <organization>Workonline</organization> </author><author/> <date month="August" year="2023"/> </front> <refcontent>commit 023e756</refcontent> </reference> </references> </references> <sectionanchor="acknowledgements"> <name>Acknowledgements</name> <t> The authors wish to thank Theo Buehler, Ties de Kock, Martin Hoffmann, Charles Gardiner, Russ Housley, Jeffrey Haas, and Bob Beck for their help and contributions. Additionally, the authors thank Jim Fenton, Vijay Gurbani, Haoyu Song, Rob Austein, Roque Gagliano, Danny McPherson, Sam Weiler, Jasdip Singh, and Murray S. Kucherawy for their careful reviews and helpful comments. </t> </section> <sectionanchor="example"> <name>Example ROA eContent Payload</name> <t>Below anAn example of aDER encodedDER-encoded ROA eContent is provided below, with annotation following the'#'"#" character. <!-- [rfced] Original Appendix B (now Appendix A): Please note that xml2rfc outputs the following warnings for line lengths that are too long. Please let us know where line breaks can be placed so that the line-length restrictions in the text output can be accommodated. (180): Warning: Too long line found (L205), 11 characters longer than 72 characters: addresses ADDRESS-FAMILY.&Addresses ({AddressFamilySet}{@addressFamily}) } (707): Warning: Too long line found (L654), 13 characters longer than 72 characters: $ echo 302402023CCA301E301C04020002301630090307002001067C208C30090307002A0EB2400000 \ (707): Warning: Too long line found (L657), 8 characters longer than 72 characters: 0:d=0 hl=2 l= 36 cons: SEQUENCE # RouteOriginAttestation (707): Warning: Too long line found (L660), 5 characters longer than 72 characters: 8:d=2 hl=2 l= 28 cons: SEQUENCE # ROAIPAddressFamily (707): Warning: Too long line found (L661), 1 characters longer than 72 characters: 10:d=3 hl=2 l= 2 prim: OCTET STRING # addressFamily (707): Warning: Too long line found (L664), 1 characters longer than 72 characters: 16:d=4 hl=2 l= 9 cons: SEQUENCE # ROAIPAddress (707): Warning: Too long line found (L666), 9 characters longer than 72 characters: 0000 - 00 20 01 06 7c 20 8c . ..| . # 2001:67c:208c::/48 (707): Warning: Too long line found (L667), 1 characters longer than 72 characters: 27:d=4 hl=2 l= 9 cons: SEQUENCE # ROAIPAddress (707): Warning: Too long line found (L669), 5 characters longer than 72 characters: 0000 - 00 2a 0e b2 40 .*..@ # 2a0e:b240::/48 (770): Warning: Too long line found (L713), 16 characters longer than 72 characters: SHA256 hash: 13afbad09ed59b315efd8722d38b09fd02962e376e4def32247f9de905649b47 --> </t> <artwork> <![CDATA[ $ echo 302402023CCA301E301C04020002301630090307002001067C208C30090307002A0EB2400000 \ | xxd -r -ps \ | openssl asn1parse -i -dump -inform DER 0:d=0 hl=2 l= 36 cons: SEQUENCE # RouteOriginAttestation 2:d=1 hl=2 l= 2 prim: INTEGER :3CCA # asID 15562 6:d=1 hl=2 l= 30 cons: SEQUENCE # ipAddrBlocks 8:d=2 hl=2 l= 28 cons: SEQUENCE # ROAIPAddressFamily 10:d=3 hl=2 l= 2 prim: OCTET STRING # addressFamily 0000 - 00 02 .. # IPv6 14:d=3 hl=2 l= 22 cons: SEQUENCE # addresses 16:d=4 hl=2 l= 9 cons: SEQUENCE # ROAIPAddress 18:d=5 hl=2 l= 7 prim: BIT STRING # address 0000 - 00 20 01 06 7c 20 8c . ..| . # 2001:67c:208c::/48 27:d=4 hl=2 l= 9 cons: SEQUENCE # ROAIPAddress 29:d=5 hl=2 l= 7 prim: BIT STRING # address 0000 - 00 2a 0e b2 40 .*..@ # 2a0e:b240::/48 0007 - <SPACES/NULS>]]> </artwork>]]></artwork> <t> Below is a complete<xref target="RFC4648">Base64</xref> encodedRPKI ROASigned Object.signed object, <xref target="RFC4648">Base64 encoded per</xref>. </t> <artwork anchor="object"> <![CDATA[ MIIHCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIG/DCCBvgCAQMxDTALBglghkgBZQMEAgEwNwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQ ARigKAQmMCQCAjzKMB4wHAQCAAIwFjAJAwcAIAEGfCCMMAkDBwAqDrJAAACgggT7MIIE9zCC A9+gAwIBAgIDAIb5MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAMDMxMTAvBgNVBAMTKDM4ZTE0ZjkyZmRjN2Nj ZmJmYzE4MjM2MTUyM2FlMjdkNjk3ZTk1MmYwHhcNMjIwNjE3MDAyNDIyWhcNMjMwNzAxMDAw MDAwWjAzMTEwLwYDVQQDEyhBM0Q5NjQyNDU3NDlCQjZERDVBQjFGMkU4MzBFMzNBNkM1MTQ2 RThGMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA4CRG1t04YFLq3fctx2ThNfr6 Vxsd2wZzcZhQJgUdlvUyfUPISWMwuPfpGjviqtCEzh5aNePGpLopkIES08egzTmJ78Is6+kW LXwy9CcwT7gmP9qOTSEi8h4qcyajxHbAwDEjROVNSujhLGeB74S9IQTn2Ertp2Et2xPq/kXw +eiBHtOL2h2I7/UOZxHOHuNuHby+VbhFaxgPA7rVfdlUAf9yYxQvyZtB7kHT/EwAR4c9SYWu 0rvbWNJwWehzlT74V1XaknRXQjkKYHe34Fyyx9FY86uX4uN8rPuIzkd7n6g81pUZRIuk/3tc /DjbHNAD3qWVQ+0aqNdkunoJhQccZwIDAQABo4ICEjCCAg4wHQYDVR0OBBYEFKPZZCRXSbtt 1asfLoMOM6bFFG6PMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFDjhT5L9x8z7/BgjYVI64n1pfpUvMBgGA1UdIAEB /wQOMAwwCgYIKwYBBQUHDgIwZAYDVR0fBF0wWzBZoFegVYZTcnN5bmM6Ly9jaGxvZS5zb2Jv cm5vc3QubmV0L3Jwa2kvUklQRS1ubGpvYnNuaWpkZXJzL09PRlBrdjNIelB2OEdDTmhVanJp ZldsLWxTOC5jcmwwZAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEWDBWMFQGCCsGAQUFBzAChkhyc3luYzovL3Jwa2ku cmlwZS5uZXQvcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9ERUZBVUxUL09PRlBrdjNIelB2OEdDTmhVanJpZldsLWxT OC5jZXIwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgeAMIGoBggrBgEFBQcBCwSBmzCBmDBfBggrBgEFBQcwC4ZT cnN5bmM6Ly9jaGxvZS5zb2Jvcm5vc3QubmV0L3Jwa2kvUklQRS1ubGpvYnNuaWpkZXJzL285 bGtKRmRKdTIzVnF4OHVndzR6cHNVVWJvOC5yb2EwNQYIKwYBBQUHMA2GKWh0dHBzOi8vY2hs b2Uuc29ib3Jub3N0Lm5ldC9ycGtpL25ld3MueG1sMCsGCCsGAQUFBwEHAQH/BBwwGjAYBAIA AjASAwcAIAEGfCCMAwcAKg6yQAAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4IBAQAY4bd+Y1Os1MbxGWLU d7rNVG0c3e0FOwtUOE/Qprt5gkCHO2L19/R1jnXlAaJPID5VhUNl2y/AiwmP47vhk+fvtEdB wniszL8wCk5b6wwufn1z5/stQ85GRmsqJw5nkOYCyWpTP8k+TUa4w32xNj1dX78FwadDVeSP yMgJ0860mkXbV1/82/D60zrWQsVAZiYebhni1QAqmpsxZwdZceFRRVY48YDPOZ73ZBZvf0g6 Boy1+djlcAkugA92OKLzqjHWfY2iWZkcxXmFDthoeVCGQePkHMOigOyjZPcM8EXumo1rwI7N 4CPs0VkmCVCZABYVQ0HJvU08i/Wf6X1VRbNcMYIBqjCCAaYCAQOAFKPZZCRXSbtt1asfLoMO M6bFFG6PMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQCAaBrMBoGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzENBgsqhkiG9w0BCRABGDAcBgkq hkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMjIwNjE3MDAyNDIyWjAvBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxIgQgyCDmNy5kR2T3NpBX fNhzFLNQv4PmI8kFb6VIt1kqeRswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAWu1sxXCO/X8voU1zfvL+ My6KXb5va2CIuKD4dn/cllClWp8YizygIb+tPWfsT6DvaLOp1jE0raQyc8nUexLXSlIBGF7j GVWYCy4Oo8mXki+YB3AP1eXiBpx8E4Aa3Rq6/FO80fqrVmUTuywGnv9m6zSIrzEPFujpRIDa QQfDEOktRcLvNPXHfipTBzR4VSLkbZbyJBdigEPFUJVIRcAoI4tZAUVcbwANrHpZElFMBgr6 Rpn9l5nu7kUlZqXbV39Mfv8WCzctaUyc+Ag311sfWu5s6XaX3PtT9V4TnQhbSWcvR9NgM+As NqelVbdJ/iA2SeNHU/65xf6dDE2zdHDfsw==]]> </artwork>]]></artwork> <t> The object in<xref target="object"/>this appendix has the following properties: </t> <artwork align="center"> <![CDATA[ Object SHA256 hash: 13afbad09ed59b315efd8722d38b09fd02962e376e4def32247f9de905649b47 Size: 1807 octets CMS signing time: Fri 17 Jun 2022 00:24:22 +0000 X.509 end-entity certificate Subject key id: A3D964245749BB6DD5AB1F2E830E33A6C5146E8F Authority key id: 38E14F92FDC7CCFBFC182361523AE27D697E952F Issuer: /CN=38e14f92fdc7ccfbfc182361523ae27d697e952f Serial: 86F9 Not before: Fri 17 Jun 2022 00:24:22 +0000 Not after: Sat 01 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0000 IP address delegation: 2001:67c:208c::/48, 2a0e:b240::/48 eContent asID: 15562 addresses: 2001:67c:208c::/48, 2a0e:b240::/48]]> </artwork>]]></artwork> </section> <section anchor="acknowledgements" numbered="false"> <name>Acknowledgements</name> <t> The authors wish to thank <contact fullname="Theo Buehler"/>, <contact fullname="Ties de Kock"/>, <contact fullname="Martin Hoffmann"/>, <contact fullname="Charles Gardiner"/>, <contact fullname="Russ Housley"/>, <contact fullname="Jeffrey Haas"/>, and <contact fullname="Bob Beck"/> for their help and contributions. Additionally, the authors thank <contact fullname="Jim Fenton"/>, <contact fullname="Vijay Gurbani"/>, <contact fullname="Haoyu Song"/>, <contact fullname="Rob Austein"/>, <contact fullname="Roque Gagliano"/>, <contact fullname="Danny McPherson"/>, <contact fullname="Sam Weiler"/>, <contact fullname="Jasdip Singh"/>, and <contact fullname="Murray S. Kucherawy"/> for their careful reviews and helpful comments. </t> </section> </back> <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>, and let us know if any changes are needed. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> <!-- [rfced] The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this document. Please let us know which form is preferred. content-type signed attribute (Section 1 / ContentType signed attribute (as updated in Section 3 of this new bis document) IP Address Delegation extension (4 instances) / IP Address Delegation Extension (1 instance) (We see that RFC 3779 consistently uses the lowercase forms "IP address delegation extension" and "autonomous system identifier delegation extension" but RFCs 6494, 8360, and 8897 use "IP Address Delegation extension".) Relying Parties (Section 4.3) / relying party (Section 5) --> </rfc>