<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
     which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
     There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced.
     An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
     <!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
     <!ENTITY RFC2818 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2818.xml">
     <!ENTITY RFC6482 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6482.xml">
     <!ENTITY RFC7540 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7540.xml">
     <!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
     <!ENTITY RFC8209 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8209.xml">
     <!ENTITY RFC8210 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8210.xml">
     <!ENTITY RFC8259 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8259.xml">
     <!ENTITY RFC8416 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8416.xml">
     <!ENTITY RFC8446 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8446.xml">

]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
     please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
     (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocappendix="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
     (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<?rfc comments="no" ?>
<?rfc inline="yes" ?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-madi-sidrops-rush-05" ipr="trust200902">

  <front>

    <title abbrev="RPKI Update in SLURM over HTTPs">RPKI validated cache Update in SLURM over HTTPs (RUSH)</title>

    <author fullname="Di Ma" initials="D." surname="Ma">
      <organization>ZDNS</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>4 South 4th St. Zhongguancun</street>
          <city>Haidian</city>
          <code>100190</code>
          <region>Beijing</region>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>madi@zdns.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Hanbing Yan" initials="H." surname="Yan">
        <organization>CNCERT</organization>
        <address>
          <email>yhb@cert.org.cn</email>
        </address>
      </author>
    
    <author fullname="Melchior Aelmans" initials="M." surname="Aelmans">
           <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
           <address>
               <postal>
                 <street>Boeing Avenue 240</street>
                 <region>Schiphol-Rijk  1119 PZ</region>
                 <country>The Netherlands</country>
               </postal>
             <email>maelmans@juniper.net</email>
           </address>
         </author>
    
    
    <date/>

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

    <area>Routing Area</area>
    <workgroup>SIDROPS</workgroup>

    <!-- <keyword>dns</keyword> -->

    <abstract>

      <t>This document defines a method for transferring RPKI validated cache update
      information in JSON object format over HTTPs.</t>

    </abstract>

  </front>

<middle>

<section title="Introduction">
   <t>This document defines a mechanism called “RPKI validated cache Update
     in SLURM [RFC 8416] over HTTPs (RUSH)”, for the use of SLURM in updating
     RPKI cache data over HTTP <xref target="RFC7540" /> using HTTPs <xref target="RFC2818" /> URIs
     (and therefore TLS <xref target="RFC8446" /> security for integrity and confidentiality).
     Integration with HTTPs provides a secure transport for distributing cache data,
     which is in alignment with SLURM file format in order to take advantage of
     using one same API for a cache server to do both remote update and local override. </t>

   <t>The RPKI validated cache in this document refers to the validated data
     of assertion information certified by corresponding RPKI signed objects
     such as ROA <xref target="RFC6482" /> and BGPsec router certificate <xref target="RFC8209" />,
     which are transferred from the RPKI cache server to routers by
     RTR protocol <xref target="RFC8210" /> for the use of the RPKI. SLURM offers a standardized method for describing RPKI cache data
     in JSON format <xref target="RFC8259" />, and SLURM is designed to carry out
     incremental update.</t>

   <t>Note that RUSH merely focuses on a standardized transport and
     data format of the RPKI cache data. RUSH has nothing to do with
     synchronization at the RUSH end system, that is, more sophisticated
     functions such as automatic re-synchronization and access control is out of
     this scope and MAY be left to private implementation.</t>
</section>

<section title="Terminology">
        <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119" />
        <xref target="RFC8174" /> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
        shown here.</t>
</section>


<section title="RUSH Usecase">

    <t>
    • Cache Distribution
    <vspace />
    RUSH can be used to distribute a RPKI validated cache within a single ASN or network, for example a confederation composed of a number of ASes. A small site or enterprise network MAY also use RUSH by synchronizing with a third-party RPKI cache provider over external networks.
    </t>
    
    <t>
    • Local Control over Networks
    <vspace />
    Network operators MAY want to inject SLURM Assertions/Filters via an API offered by RPKI validator/cache. RUSH is therefore able to carry out such local control signals inside an administrative bailiwick in a secure manner.
    </t>
    
    
    <t>To summarize, RUSH MUST be used in scenarios where the authenticity of SLURM files can be assured when carried over multiple administrative domains. Alternatively, RUSH SHOULD be used inside an administrative domain to provide extra security by the virtue of pre-configured trust anchors.
    </t>

</section>



<section title="RUSH Operations">
    <section title="Use of SLURM">
      <t>RUSH uses SLURM file format to indicate the intended update. A SLURM file consists of a single JSON object containing some members. Among others, "validationOutputFilters" [Section 3.3 of <xref target="RFC8416" />] and "locallyAddedAssertions" [Section 3.4 of <xref target="RFC8416" />] are defined to describe actions of deleting some of existing data items and adding new data items respectively.
          </t>

      <t>Note that RUSH re-uses the JSON members of SLURM object, not implying
        the very actions are taken locally to any extent. Typically, RUSH takes
        place over networks remotely while take effects to the cache in question
        locally.</t>

      <t>The RUSH-aware HTTPs server/client MUST be prepared to parse SLURM object.</t>
    </section>

      <section title="Use of HTTPs as Transport">
        <t>HTTPs is employed by RUSH to transfer RPKI validated cache update
          information as expressed as a SLURM object. A new data type is therefore
          defined to identify SLURM object in HTTPs message body. </t>
        <t>The RUSH-aware HTTPs server/client MUST be prepared to process media
          type "application/json-slurm".</t>
      </section>

      <section title="RUSH Example">
        <t>Figure 1 shows an example of using RUSH to carry out RPKI validated
          cache by HTTP POST method.</t>

  <figure title="Figure 1.Example of an HTTP message for use of RUSH">
    <artwork>
      <![CDATA[
POST /rpki-cache HTTP/2
Host: rpki.example.com
Content-Type : application/json-slurm
Content-Length:964
<964 bytes represented by the following json string>
{
       "slurmVersion": 1,
       "validationOutputFilters": {
         "prefixFilters": [
           {
             "prefix": "192.0.2.0/24",
             "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix"
           },
           {
             "asn": 64496,
             "comment": "All VRPs matching ASN"
           },
           {
             "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24",
             "asn": 64497,
             "comment": "All VRPs encompassed by prefix, matching ASN"
           }
         ],
         "bgpsecFilters": [
           {
             "asn": 64496,
             "comment": "All keys for ASN"
           },
           {
             "SKI": "Zm9v",
             "comment": "Key matching Router SKI"
           },
           {
             "asn": 64497,
             "SKI": "YmFy",
             "comment": "Key for ASN 64497 matching Router SKI"
           }
         ]
       },
       "locallyAddedAssertions": {
         "prefixAssertions": [
           {
             "asn": 64496,
             "prefix": "198.51.100.0/24",
             "comment": "My other important route"
           },
           {
             "asn": 64496,
             "prefix": "2001:DB8::/32",
             "maxPrefixLength": 48,
             "comment": "My other important de-aggregated routes"
           }
         ],
         "bgpsecAssertions": [
           {
             "asn": 64496,
             "comment" : "My known key for my important ASN",
             "SKI": "<some base64 SKI>",
             "routerPublicKey": "<some base64 public key>"
           }
         ]
       }
}
]]>
</artwork>
</figure>

      </section>
</section>

<section title="IANA Considerations">
        <t>Type name: application</t>
        <t>Subtype name: json-slurm</t>
        <t>Subtype name: json-slurm</t>
        <t>Optional parameters: N/A</t>
        <t>Encoding considerations: This is a JSON object.</t>
        <t>Security considerations: N/A</t>
        <t>Interoperability considerations: <xref target="RFC8416" /></t>
        <t>Published specification:</t>
        <t>Applications that use this media type: </t>
        <t>Systems that want to exchange RPKI cache data update information in SLURM file format <xref target="RFC8416" /> over HTTP.</t>
        <t>Person&amp;email address to contact for further information: Di Ma &lt;madi@zdns.cn&gt;</t>
        <t>Intended usage: COMMON</t>
        <t>Restrictions on usage: N/A</t>
        <t>Author: Di Ma &lt;madi@zdns.cn&gt;</t>
        <t>Change controller: IESG</t>
</section>

<section title="Security Considerations">

    <t>Note that RPKI offers signed-object-oriented security, which is not provided by RUSH any longer. There are some security issues must be handled properly as per different usecases as described in Section 3.</t>
        
        <t>Cache Identity: RUSH is designed to carry out RPKI cache data update from one to another, with out-of-band trust established between those cache servers. That is, the scope of RUSH usage is convergent. Cache subscription management might be employed to implement cache identification and verification. The RPKI cache server security and the trust model for the interaction between cache servers is out of the scope of this document.</t>

        <t>Transport Security: Updating RPKI validated cache over HTTPs relies on the security of the underlying HTTPs transport. Implementations utilizing HTTP/2 benefit from the TLS profile defined in Section 9.2 of <xref target="RFC7540" />. </t>

        <t>Data Integrity: An HTTPS connection provides transport security for the interaction between cache servers, but it does not provide data integrity detection. An adversary that can control the cache used by the subscriber can affect that subscriber's view of the RPKI.</t>
        
       
</section>


<section title="Acknowledgments">
    <t>TBD</t>
</section>

</middle>

<back>

<references title="Normative References">
  &RFC2119;
  &RFC2818;
  &RFC6482;
  &RFC7540;
  &RFC8174;
  &RFC8209;
  &RFC8259;
  &RFC8416;
  &RFC8446;
</references>


<references title="Informative References">
  &RFC8210;
</references>
  </back>
</rfc>
