Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Errata] [Info page]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Updated by:8208,8608Errata Exist
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         G. HustonRequest for Comments: 7935                            G. Michaelson, Ed.Obsoletes:6485                                                    APNICCategory: Standards Track                                    August 2016ISSN: 2070-1721The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizesfor Use in the Resource Public Key InfrastructureAbstract   This document specifies the algorithms, algorithms' parameters,   asymmetric key formats, asymmetric key size, and signature format for   the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) subscribers that   generate digital signatures on certificates, Certificate Revocation   Lists (CRLs), Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) signed objects and   certification requests as well as for the relying parties (RPs) that   verify these digital signatures.Status of This Memo   This is an Internet Standards Track document.   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has   received public review and has been approved for publication by   the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further   information on Internet Standards is available inSection 2 of   RFC 7841.   Information about the current status of this document, any   errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7935.Huston & Michaelson          Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 7935                 RPKI Algorithm Profile              August 2016Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of   publication of this document.  Please review these documents   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as   described in the Simplified BSD License.Table of Contents1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.  Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.  Asymmetric Key Pair Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43.1.  Public Key Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.2.  Private Key Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54.  Signature Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55.  Additional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57.  Changes Applied toRFC 6485 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Huston & Michaelson          Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 7935                 RPKI Algorithm Profile              August 20161.  Introduction   This document specifies:      *  the digital signature algorithm and parameters;      *  the hash algorithm and parameters;      *  the public and private key formats; and,      *  the signature format   used by Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6480]   subscribers when they apply digital signatures to certificates and   Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) [RFC5280], Cryptographic Message   Syntax (CMS) signed objects [RFC5652] (e.g., Route Origin   Authorizations (ROAs) [RFC6482] and manifests [RFC6486]), and   certification requests [RFC2986] [RFC4211].  Relying parties (RPs)   also use the algorithms defined in this document to verify RPKI   subscribers' digital signatures [RFC6480].   The RPKI profiles and specification documents that referenceRFC 6485   now refer to this document; these documents include the RPKI   Certificate Policy (CP) [RFC6484], the RPKI Certificate Profile   [RFC6487], the RPKI Architecture [RFC6480], and the Signed Object   Template for the RPKI [RFC6488].  Familiarity with these documents is   assumed.1.1.  Terminology   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].2.  Algorithms   Two cryptographic algorithms are used in the RPKI:      *  The signature algorithm used in certificates, CRLs, CMS signed         objects, and certification requests is RSA Public-Key         Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1 Version 1.5 (sometimes         referred to as "RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5") fromSection 8.2 of         [RFC3447].Huston & Michaelson          Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 7935                 RPKI Algorithm Profile              August 2016      *  The hashing algorithm used in certificates, CRLs, CMS signed         objects and certification requests is SHA-256 [SHS] (see note         below).         NOTE: The exception is the use of SHA-1 [SHS] when CAs generate         authority and subject key identifiers [RFC6487].   In certificates, CRLs, and certification requests the hashing and   digital signature algorithms are identified together, i.e., "RSA   PKCS #1 v1.5 with SHA-256" or more simply "RSA with SHA-256".  The   Object Identifier (OID) sha256WithRSAEncryption from [RFC4055] MUST   be used in these products.   The OID is in the following locations:      In the certificate, the OID appears in the signature and      signatureAlgorithm fields [RFC4055].      In the CRL, the OID appears in the signatureAlgorithm field      [RFC4055].      In a certification request, the OID appears in the PKCS #10      signatureAlgorithm field [RFC2986], or in the Certificate Request      Message Format (CRMF) POPOSigningKey algorithmIdentifier field      [RFC4211].   In CMS SignedData, the hashing (message digest) and digital signature   algorithms are identified separately.  The object identifier and   parameters for SHA-256 (as defined in [RFC5754]) MUST be used for the   SignedData digestAlgorithms field and the SignerInfo digestAlgorithm   field.  The object identifier and parameters for rsaEncryption   [RFC3370] MUST be used for the SignerInfo signatureAlgorithm field   when generating CMS SignedData objects.  RPKI implementations MUST   accept either rsaEncryption or sha256WithRSAEncryption for the   SignerInfo signatureAlgorithm field when verifying CMS SignedData   objects (for compatibility with objects produced by implementations   conforming to [RFC6485]).3.  Asymmetric Key Pair Formats   The RSA key pairs used to compute the signatures MUST have a 2048-bit   modulus and a public exponent (e) of 65,537.Huston & Michaelson          Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 7935                 RPKI Algorithm Profile              August 20163.1.  Public Key Format   The subject's public key is included in subjectPublicKeyInfo   [RFC5280].  It has two sub-fields: algorithm and subjectPublicKey.   The values for the structures and their sub-structures follow:   algorithm (which is an AlgorithmIdentifier type):      The object identifier for RSA PKCS #1 v1.5 with SHA-256 MUST be      used in the algorithm field, as specified inSection 5 of      [RFC4055].  The value for the associated parameters from that      clause MUST also be used for the parameters field.   subjectPublicKey:      RSAPublicKey MUST be used to encode the certificate's      subjectPublicKey field, as specified in [RFC4055].3.2.  Private Key Format   Local policy determines the private key format.4.  Signature Format   The structure for the certificate's signature field is as specified   inSection 1.2 of [RFC4055].  The structure for the signature field   in the CMS SignedData's SignerInfos is as specified in [RFC5652].5.  Additional Requirements   It is anticipated that the RPKI will require the adoption of updated   key sizes and a different set of signature and hash algorithms over   time, in order to maintain an acceptable level of cryptographic   security to protect the integrity of signed products in the RPKI.   This profile should be replaced to specify such future requirements,   as and when appropriate.   The procedures to implement such a transition of key sizes and   algorithms are specified in [RFC6916].6.  Security Considerations   The Security Considerations of [RFC4055], [RFC5280], and [RFC6487]   apply to certificates and CRLs.  The Security Considerations of   [RFC2986], [RFC4211], and [RFC6487] apply to certification requests.   The Security Considerations of [RFC5754] apply to CMS signed objects.   No new security threats are introduced as a result of this   specification.Huston & Michaelson          Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 7935                 RPKI Algorithm Profile              August 20167.  Changes Applied toRFC 6485   This update includes a slight technical change to [RFC6485] that is   considered to be outside the limited scope of an erratum.  The   document update process has included other errata and also corrected   a number of nits.Section 2 of [RFC6485] specified sha256WithRSAEncryption as the OID   to use for the SignerInfo signatureAlgorithm field in CMS   SignedObjects.  However, existing implementations use the   rsaEncryption OID for this field.  (Support for rsaEncryption in   third-party cryptographic libraries is better than   sha256WithRSAEncryption, perhaps because [RFC3370] says that support   for rsaEncryption is required, while support for OIDs that specify   both RSA and a digest algorithm is optional.)   Rather than force existing implementations to switch to   sha256WithRSAEncryption, this document was changed to follow existing   practice.  This does not represent a cryptographic algorithm change,   just an identifier change.  (Unlike certificates, CRLs, and   certification requests, CMS signed objects have a separate algorithm   identifier field for the hash (digest) algorithm, and that field is   already required to contain the id-sha256 OID perSection 2.)   To avoid compatibility problems, RPs are still required to accept   sha256WithRSAEncryption if encountered.   Other changes include:      *  Minor wording and typo fixes.      *  Corrections to references ([RFC5652] instead of [RFC3370],         [RFC3447] instead of [RFC4055]).      *  Additional citations included in the Introduction.      *  Correction to the CRMF POPOSigningKey field that is mentioned         inSection 2 (algorithmIdentifier instead of signature).      *  Inclusion of certification requests in mentions of         certificates, CRLs, and CMS signed objects.      *  Replacement of text inSection 5 with a pointer to the         procedures specified in [RFC6916] (algorithm agility).      *  Replacement of "signed object" with "CMS signed object"         everywhere.Huston & Michaelson          Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 7935                 RPKI Algorithm Profile              August 20168.  References8.1.  Normative References   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119,              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.   [RFC2986]  Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #10: Certification              Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7",RFC 2986,              DOI 10.17487/RFC2986, November 2000,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2986>.   [RFC3370]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)              Algorithms",RFC 3370, DOI 10.17487/RFC3370, August 2002,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3370>.   [RFC3447]  Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography              Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications              Version 2.1",RFC 3447, DOI 10.17487/RFC3447, February              2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3447>.   [RFC4055]  Schaad, J., Kaliski, B., and R. Housley, "Additional              Algorithms and Identifiers for RSA Cryptography for use in              the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate              and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile",RFC 4055,              DOI 10.17487/RFC4055, June 2005,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4055>.   [RFC4211]  Schaad, J., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure              Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)",RFC 4211,              DOI 10.17487/RFC4211, September 2005,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4211>.   [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, May 2008,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.   [RFC5652]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.   [RFC5754]  Turner, S., "Using SHA2 Algorithms with Cryptographic              Message Syntax",RFC 5754, DOI 10.17487/RFC5754, January              2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5754>.Huston & Michaelson          Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 7935                 RPKI Algorithm Profile              August 2016   [RFC6480]  Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support              Secure Internet Routing",RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480,              February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>.   [RFC6484]  Kent, S., Kong, D., Seo, K., and R. Watro, "Certificate              Policy (CP) for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure              (RPKI)",BCP 173,RFC 6484, DOI 10.17487/RFC6484, February              2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6484>.   [RFC6487]  Huston, G., Michaelson, G., and R. Loomans, "A Profile for              X.509 PKIX Resource Certificates",RFC 6487,              DOI 10.17487/RFC6487, February 2012,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6487>.   [RFC6488]  Lepinski, M., Chi, A., and S. Kent, "Signed Object              Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure              (RPKI)",RFC 6488, DOI 10.17487/RFC6488, February 2012,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6488>.   [SHS]      National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),              "FIPS Publication 180-3: Secure Hash Standard", FIPS              Publication 180-3, October 2008.8.2.  Informative References   [RFC6482]  Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route              Origin Authorizations (ROAs)",RFC 6482,              DOI 10.17487/RFC6482, February 2012,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6482>.   [RFC6485]  Huston, G., "The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for              Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)",RFC 6485, DOI 10.17487/RFC6485, February 2012,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6485>.   [RFC6486]  Austein, R., Huston, G., Kent, S., and M. Lepinski,              "Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure              (RPKI)",RFC 6486, DOI 10.17487/RFC6486, February 2012,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6486>.   [RFC6916]  Gagliano, R., Kent, S., and S. Turner, "Algorithm Agility              Procedure for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure              (RPKI)",BCP 182,RFC 6916, DOI 10.17487/RFC6916, April              2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6916>.Huston & Michaelson          Standards Track                    [Page 8]

RFC 7935                 RPKI Algorithm Profile              August 2016Acknowledgments   The authors acknowledge the reuse in this document of material   originally contained in working drafts of the RPKI Certificate Policy   [RFC6484] and resource certificate profile [RFC6487] documents.  The   coauthors of these two documents -- namely, Stephen Kent, Derrick   Kong, Karen Seo, Ronald Watro, George Michaelson, and Robert Loomans   -- are acknowledged, with thanks.  The constraint on key size noted   in this profile is the outcome of comments from Stephen Kent and   review comments from David Cooper.  Sean Turner has provided   additional review input to this document.   Andrew Chi and David Mandelberg discovered the issue addressed in   this replacement of [RFC6485], and the changes in this updated   specification reflect the outcome of a discussion between Rob Austein   and Matt Lepinski on the SIDR Working group mailing list.  Richard   Hansen contributed a significant number of suggestions that have been   incorporated into this document.Authors' Addresses   Geoff Huston   APNIC   Email: gih@apnic.net   George Michaelson (editor)   APNIC   Email: ggm@apnic.netHuston & Michaelson          Standards Track                    [Page 9]

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp