Subject: [apps-discuss] apps-team review of draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-09

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:17:53 -0400

I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for
this draft (for background on apps-review, please see
http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team ).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-09
Title: The RPKI Ghostbusters Record

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard,
with just some very minor tweaking requested.

--------------------
Major Issues:

Section 1, paragraph 2:
OLD
   lead to the worrisome certificate's or CRL's maintainer.  So, "Who do
   you call?"
NEW
   lead to the worrisome certificate's or CRL's maintainer.  So, "Who you
   gonna call?"
REFERENCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9We2XsVZfc

--------------------
Minor Issues:

vCard does use the term "type", unfortunately.  The problem is that a
"type" in vCard is generally something different, and in the RFC we
missed some instances of inconsistent use.  But the proper vCard term
for what you want here is "property".  So:

Section 3:
OLD
   An example of an RPKI Ghostbusters Record payload with all types
   populated is as follows:
NEW
   An example of an RPKI Ghostbusters Record payload with all properties
   populated is as follows:

Section 4:
OLD
   The goal in profiling the vCARD is not to include as much information
   as possible, but rather to include as few types as possible while
NEW
   The goal in profiling the vCard is not to include as much information
   as possible, but rather to include as few properties as possible while

OLD
   Per [RFC6350], the BEGIN, VERSION, FN, N, and END types MUST be
   included in a record.  To be useful, one or more of ADR, TEL, and
   EMAIL MUST be included.  Other types MUST NOT be included.
NEW
   Per [RFC6350], the BEGIN, VERSION, FN, N, and END properties MUST be
   included in a record.  To be useful, one or more of ADR, TEL, and
   EMAIL MUST be included.  Other properties MUST NOT be included.

--------------------
Nits:

Throughout: RFC 6350 uses "vCard", while this document uses "vCARD".
It's not a big thing, but it's easy to be consistent with 6350 and
switch to "vCard".

Section 7:
OLD
   Though there is no on the wire protocol in this specification,
NEW
   Though there is no on-the-wire protocol in this specification,

--------------------

Barry

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:03:24 -0400

Hi,

>    EMAIL MUST be included.  Other properties MUST NOT be included.

Actually vcard does not require the N property to be present, only VERSION 
and FN in addition to BEGIN/END (as per 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6350#section-3.3>).

Note: vcard v3 used to require that N was present, but that requirement was 
dropped in vcard v4.

Also, would it not make sense to include IMPP 
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6350#section-6.4.3>) as one of the allowed 
properties? Seems like that matches the intent of using EMAIL and TEL.

The "Other types MUST NOT be included." is perhaps a little strong. I can 
certainly see situations where it might be useful to have other properties 
such as SOURCE, KIND or REV present. Perhaps that can be changed to a 
"SHOULD NOT"?

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:11:24 -0400

> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6350#section-3.3>).

I took the requirement as one that comes from SIDR, not from vCard...

> Note: vcard v3 used to require that N was present, but that requirement was

...but it's possible that SIDR included "N" because vCard v3 did, and
they didn't know they could drop it now.  Good catch, and they can
decide whether they want it in or not.

> such as SOURCE, KIND or REV present. Perhaps that can be changed to a

It seems clear from the SIDR doc that they very much *want* a MUST
NOT.  For their use case, it's not too strong; it's exactly what they
want in order to keep this record simple.  They could certainly extend
this later, allowing additional properties if such turn out to make
sense for their use case.

Barry

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:09:30 -0400

> i will probably drop unless you can explain to me the value it adds.

I think dropping "N" is the right answer.

Barry

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:16:24 -0400

> how is this?
> if no squeals by my, currently euro, morning, i will submit it.

>   EMAIL MUST be included.  Other properties MUST NOT be included.

...which needs its "N" removed.

> thanks for the help!

You're very welcome.

Barry

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:07:00 +0200

> sense for their use case.

'zactly

we want to be brutally minimalist.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:15:36 +0200

> I think dropping "N" is the right answer.

thank you!

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:20:56 +0200

how is this?

thanks for the help!

randy

Network Working Group                                            R. Bush
Internet-Draft                                 Internet Initiative Japan
Intended status: Standards Track                      September 13, 2011
Expires: March 16, 2012

                      The RPKI Ghostbusters Record
                    draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-10

Abstract

   In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), resource
   certificates completely obscure names or any other information which
   might be useful for contacting responsible parties to deal with
   issues of certificate expiration, maintenance, roll-overs,
   compromises, etc.  This draft describes the RPKI Ghostbusters Record
   containing human contact information which may be verified
   (indirectly) by a CA certificate.  The data in the record are those
   of a severely profiled vCARD.

Requirements Language

   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].

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 http://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 March 16, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Bush                     Expires March 16, 2012                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        The RPKI Ghostbusters Record        September 2011

   This document is subject to BCP 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 Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  RPKI Ghostbusters Record Payload Example  . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  vCARD Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  CMS Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     8.1.  OID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     8.2.  File Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     8.3.  Media Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     10.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     10.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Bush                     Expires March 16, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        The RPKI Ghostbusters Record        September 2011

1.  Introduction

   In the operational use of the RPKI it can become necessary to
   contact, human to human, the party responsible for a resource-holding
   CA certificate, AKA the certificate's maintainer, be it the holder of
   the certificate's private key or an administrative person in the
   organization, a NOC, ....  An important example is when the operator
   of a prefix described by a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) sees a
   problem, or an impending problem, with a certificate or CRL in the
   path between the ROA and a trust anchor.  E.g., a certificate along
   that path has expired, is soon to expire, or a CRL associated with a
   CA along the path is stale, thus placing the quality of the routing
   of the address space described by the ROA in jeopardy.

   As the names in RPKI certificates are not meaningful to humans, see
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-cp], there is no way to use a certificate itself to
   lead to the worrisome certificate's or CRL's maintainer.  So, "Who do
   you call?"

   This document specifies the RPKI Ghostbusters Record, an object
   verified via an End Entity (EE) certificate, issued under a CA
   certificate, the maintainer of which may be contacted using the
   payload information in the Ghostbusters Record.

   The Ghostbusters Record conforms to the syntax defined in
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object].

   Note that the Ghostbusters Record is not an identity certificate, but
   rather an attestation to the contact data made by the maintainer of
   the CA certificate issuing the EE certificate whose corresponding
   private key signs the Ghostbusters Record.

   This record is not meant to supplant or be used as resource registry
   whois data.  It gives information about an RPKI CA certificate
   maintainer not a resource holder.

   The Ghostbusters Record is optional, CA certificates in the RPKI MAY
   have zero or more associated Ghostbuster Records.

   This specification has three main sections.  The first, Section 4, is
   the format of the contact payload information, a severely profiled
   vCARD.  The second, Section 5, profiles the packaging of the payload
   as a profile of the RPKI Signed Object Template specification
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object].  The third, Section 6, describes the
   proper validation of the signed Ghostbusters Record.

Bush                     Expires March 16, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        The RPKI Ghostbusters Record        September 2011

2.  Suggested Reading

   It is assumed that the reader understands the RPKI,
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch], the RPKI Repository Structure,
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-repos-struct], Signed RPKI Objects,
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object], and vCARDs [RFC6350].

3.  RPKI Ghostbusters Record Payload Example

     BEGIN:vCard
     VERSION:4.0
     FN:Human's Name
     ORG:Organizational Entity
     ADR;TYPE=WORK:;;42 Twisty Passage;Deep Cavern; WA; 98666;U.S.A.
     TEL;TYPE=VOICE,MSG,WORK:+1-666-555-1212
     TEL;TYPE=FAX,WORK:+1-666-555-1213
     EMAIL;TYPE=INTERNET:[email-masked]
     END:vCard

4.  vCARD Profile

   The goal in profiling the vCARD is not to include as much information
   as possible, but rather to include as few properties as possible
   while providing the minimal necessary data to enable one to contact
   the maintainer of the RPKI data which threatens the ROA[s] of
   concern.

   The Ghostbusters vCARD payload is a minimalist subset of the vCARD as
   described in [RFC6350].

   BEGIN -  pro forma packaging which MUST be the first line in the
      vCARD and MUST have the value "BEGIN:vCARD" as described in
      [RFC6350].

   VERSION -  pro forma packaging which MUST be the second line in the
      vCARD and MUST have the value "VERSION:4.0" as described in 3.6.9
      of [RFC6350].

   FN -  the name, as described in 6.2.1 of [RFC6350], of a contactable
      person who responsible a the CA certificate.

Bush                     Expires March 16, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        The RPKI Ghostbusters Record        September 2011

   ORG -  an organization as described in 6.6.4 of [RFC6350].

   ADR -  a postal address as described in 6.3 of [RFC6350].

   TEL -  a voice and/or fax phone as described in 6.4.1 of [RFC6350].

   EMAIL -  an Email address as described in 6.4.2 of [RFC6350]

   END -  pro forma packaging which MUST be the last line in the vCARD
      and MUST have the value "END:vCARD" as described in [RFC6350].

5.  CMS Packaging

   The Ghostbusters Record is a CMS signed-data object conforming to the
   Signed Object Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure,
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object].

   The ContentType of a Ghostbusters Record is defined as id-ct-
   rpkiGhostbusters, and has the numerical value of
   1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.35.  This OID MUST appear both within the
   eContentType in the encapContentInfo object as well as the
   ContentType signed attribute in the signerInfo object.  See
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object].

   eContent: The content of a Ghostbusters Record is described above in
   Section 4 above.

   Similarly to a ROA, a Ghostbusters Record is verified using an EE
   certificate issued by the resource-holding CA certificate whose
   maintainer is described in the vCARD.

   The EE certificate used to verify the Ghostbusters Record is the one
   that appears in the CMS data structure which contains the payload
   defined above.

   This EE certificate MUST describe its internet number resources using
   the "inherit" attribute, rather than explicit description of a
   resource set, see [RFC3779].

6.  Validation

   The validation procedure defined in Section 3 of

Bush                     Expires March 16, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        The RPKI Ghostbusters Record        September 2011

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object] is applied to a Ghostbusters Record.
   After this procedure has been performed, the Version number type
   within the payload is checked, and the OCTET STRING containing the
   vCARD data is extracted.  These data are checked against the profile
   defined in Section 4 of this document.  Only if all of these checks
   pass is the Ghostbusters payload deemed valid and made available to
   the application that requested the payload.

7.  Security Considerations

   Though there is no on the wire protocol in this specification, there
   are attacks which could abuse the data described.  As the data, to be
   useful, need to be public, little can be done to avoid this exposure.

   Phone Numbers:  The vCARDs may contain real world telephone numbers
      which could be abused for telemarketing, abusive calls, etc.

   Email Addresses:  The vCARDs may contain Email addresses which could
      be abused for purposes of spam.

   Relying parties are hereby warned that the data in a Ghostbusters
   Record are self-asserted.  These data have not been verified by the
   CA that issued the CA certificate to the entity that issued the EE
   certificate used to validate the Ghostbusters Record.

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  OID

   The IANA is requested to register the OID for the Ghostbusters Record
   in the registry created by [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object] as follows:

   Name          OID                         Specification
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   Ghostbusters  1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.35  [ This document ]

8.2.  File Extension

   The IANA is requested to add an item for the Ghostbusters Record file
   extension to the RPKI Repository Name Scheme created by
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-repos-struct] as follows:

   Filename Extension  RPKI Object           Reference
   -----------------------------------------------------------
      .gbr             Ghostbusters Record   [ This document ]

Bush                     Expires March 16, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        The RPKI Ghostbusters Record        September 2011

8.3.  Media Type

   The IANA is requested to register the media type application/
   rpki-ghostbusters as follows

   MIME media type name: application
   MIME subtype name: rpki-ghostbusters
   Required parameters: None
   Optional parameters: None
   Encoding considerations: binary
   Security considerations: Carries an RPKI Ghostbusters Record
      [I-D.ietf-sidr-ghostbusters].
   Interoperability considerations: None
   Published specification: This document
   Applications which use this media type: Any MIME-complaint transport
   Additional information:
      Magic number(s): None
      File extension(s): .gbr
      Macintosh File Type Code(s):
   Person & email address to contact for further information:
      Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
   Intended usage: COMMON
   Author/Change controller: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>

9.  Acknowledgments

   The author wishes to thank Russ Housley, the authors of
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-repos-struct], Stephen Kent, Sandy Murphy, Rob
   Austein, and Michael Elkins for their contributions.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-ghostbusters]
              Bush, R., "The RPKI Ghostbusters Record",
              draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-09 (work in progress),
              September 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-repos-struct]
              Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for
              Resource Certificate Repository Structure",
              draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct-09 (work in progress),
              July 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object]

Bush                     Expires March 16, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        The RPKI Ghostbusters Record        September 2011

              Lepinski, M., Chi, A., and S. Kent, "Signed Object
              Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure",
              draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-04 (work in progress),
              May 2011.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3779]  Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
              Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004.

   [RFC6350]  Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350,
              August 2011.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-arch]
              Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
              Secure Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-13 (work in
              progress), May 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-cp]
              Kent, S., Kong, D., Seo, K., and R. Watro, "Certificate
              Policy (CP) for the Resource PKI (RPKI",
              draft-ietf-sidr-cp-17 (work in progress), April 2011.

Author's Address

   Randy Bush
   Internet Initiative Japan
   5147 Crystal Springs
   Bainbridge Island, Washington  98110
   US

   Phone: +1 206 780 0431 x1
   Email: [email-masked]

Bush                     Expires March 16, 2012                 [Page 8]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:16:00 +0200

-10 checked in

thanks!

randy

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:39:55 -0400

> -10 checked in

Some additional comments on the vCard example...

>      BEGIN:VCARD

Should be:
ADR;TYPE=WORK:;;42 Twisty Passage;Deep Cavern;WA;98666;U.S.A.

>      TEL;TYPE=FAX,WORK:+1-666-555-1213

Should be:
TEL;TYPE=VOICE,TEXT,WORK;VALUE=uri:tel:+1-666-555-1212
TEL;TYPE=FAX,WORK;VALUE=uri:tel:+1-666-555-1213

>      EMAIL;TYPE=INTERNET:[email-masked]

Should be:
EMAIL:[email-masked]

>      END:VCARD

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:56:43 -0700

I really, truly hate to do this, but:

Is there any risk of trouble to the IETF or Randy or anyone for using the name Ghostbusters?  I'm reasonably sure someone in Hollywood would be eager to exert copyright over the name.

-MSK

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:54:44 +0200

as the apps ducks nibbled him to death, he began to realize that the
word 'team' in $SUBJECT was very misleading

> >      EMAIL;TYPE=INTERNET:[email-masked]

thanks

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:59:02 +0200

> Is there any risk of trouble to the IETF or Randy or anyone for using
> the name Ghostbusters?  I'm reasonably sure someone in Hollywood would
> be eager to exert copyright over the name.

rathole!

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:57:42 -0700

Hi Murray,
At 09:56 14-09-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>Is there any risk of trouble to the IETF or Randy or anyone for 
>using the name Ghostbusters?  I'm reasonably sure someone in 
>Hollywood would be eager to exert copyright over the name.

This is covered by the Note Well and the first sentence in the 
"Status of this Memo" section of the draft.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:48:36 +0200

> (whitespace is important?  wow.)
> 
> >

this have long been fixed

randy

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:22:55 -0400

Sandra Murphy wrote, on 09/15/2011 12:26 PM:
> Simon, are these changes "better style" or "non-conformant, will not pass parsers".

See inline...

> (whitespace is important?  wow.)

This goes in the category of "probably not what you mean", unless the state is "
WA" and the postal code is " 98666" (with leading whitespace).

>> TEL;TYPE=FAX,WORK;VALUE=uri:tel:+1-666-555-1213

The RFC says that the value of a TEL property SHOULD be reset to a URI.

>>>      EMAIL;TYPE=INTERNET:[email-masked]

TYPE=internet does not exist anymore in vCard 4.

Simon

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:26:52 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Simon, are these changes "better style" or "non-conformant, will not pass 
parsers".

(cc list shortened a bit)

--Sandy