Internet-Draft RPKI CRL Number handling for RPs September 2024
Snijders, et al. Expires 14 March 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
SIDROPS
Updates:
6487 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
J. Snijders
Fastly
B. Maddison
Workonline
T. Buehler
OpenBSD

Relying Party Handling of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Number Extensions

Abstract

This document clarifies how Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Relying Parties (RPs) handle Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Number extensions. This document updates RFC 6487.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 March 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Section 5.2.3 of [RFC5280] describes the value of the CRL Number extension as a monotonically increasing sequence number, which "allows users to easily determine when a particular CRL supersedes another CRL." In other words, in PKIs in which it is possible for RPs to encounter multiple usable CRLs, the CRL Number extension is a means for the RP to determine which CRL(s) to rely upon.

In the RPKI, a well-formed Manifest FileList contains exactly one entry for its associated CRL, together with a collision-resistant message digest of that CRLs contents (see Section 2.2 of [RFC6481] and Section 2 of [RFC9286]). Additionally, the target of the CRL Distribution Points extension in an RPKI Resource Certificate is the same CRL object listed on the issuing CAs current manifest (see Section 4.8.6 of [RFC6487]). Together, these properties guarantee that RPKI RPs will always be able to unambiguously identify exactly one current CRL for each RPKI CA. Thus, in the RPKI, the ordering functionality provided by CRL Numbers is fully subsumed by monotonically increasing Manifest Numbers (Section 4.2.1 of [RFC9286]), thereby obviating the need for RPKI RPs to process CRL Number extensions at all.

Therefore, although the CRL Number extension is mandatory in RPKI CRLs for compliance with the X.509 v2 CRL Profile (Section 5 of [RFC5280]), any use of this extension by RPKI RPs merely adds complexity and fragility to RPKI Resource Certificate path validation. This document mandates that RPKI RPs MUST ignore the CRL Number extension.

This document updates [RFC6487] with clarifications for RP implementers.

1.1. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

1.3. Changes from RFC 6487

This section summarizes the significant changes between [RFC6487] this document.

  • Clarifications for handling of CRL Numbers for RPs.
  • Incorporated RFC 6487 Errata 3205.

2. Updates to RFC 6487

This section updates [RFC6487].

3. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

4. References

4.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6481]
Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481, DOI 10.17487/RFC6481, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6481>.
[RFC6487]
Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates", RFC 6487, DOI 10.17487/RFC6487, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6487>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9286]
Austein, R., Huston, G., Kent, S., and M. Lepinski, "Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", RFC 9286, DOI 10.17487/RFC9286, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9286>.

4.2. Informative References

[FORT]
Leiva, A., "FORT validator", <https://fortproject.net/en/validator>.
[RFC5280]
Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[routinator]
NLnetLabs, "Routinator", <https://github.com/NLnetLabs/routinator>.
[rpki-client]
Jeker, C., Snijders, J., Dzonsons, K., and T. Buehler, "rpki-client", , <https://www.rpki-client.org/>.

Appendix A. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION

This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist.

According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit".

The following RP implementations check for the presence of the CRL Number extension and whether it is marked non-critical, and otherwise ignore it.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Tom Harrison whose observations prompted this internet-draft proposal.

Authors' Addresses

Job Snijders
Fastly
Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Ben Maddison
Workonline
Cape Town
South Africa
Theo Buehler
OpenBSD
Switzerland