IIJ Research & Arrcus

5147 Crystal Springs Bainbridge Island Washington 98110 United States of America randy@psg.com

NTT

Veemweg 23 Barneveld 3771 MT Netherlands massimo@ntt.net

Google

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CA 94043 United States of America warren@kumari.net

Vigil Security, LLC

516 Dranesville Road Herndon VA 20170 United States of America housley@vigilsec.com

OPS opsawg geolocation geo-location RPSL inetnum This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) inetnum: class to refer specifically to geofeed comma-separated values (CSV) data files and describes an optional scheme that uses the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to authenticate the geofeed data files. This document obsoletes RFC 9092.

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 in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at .

Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents () 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

• .  Introduction
  • .  Requirements Language
• .  Geofeed Files
• .  inetnum: Class
• .  Fetching Geofeed Data
• .  Authenticating Geofeed Data (Optional)
• .  Operational Considerations
• .  Privacy Considerations
• .  Implementation Status
• .  Security Considerations
• . IANA Considerations
• . References
  • .  Normative References
  • .  Informative References
• .  Example
• Acknowledgments
• Authors' Addresses

Introduction Providers of Internet content and other services may wish to customize those services based on the geographic location of the user of the service. This is often done using the source IP address used to contact the service, which may not point to a user; see in particular. Also, administrators of infrastructure and other services might wish to publish the locale of said infrastructure or services. infrastructure and other services might wish to publish the locale of their services. defines geofeed, a syntax to associate geographic locales with IP addresses, but it does not specify how to find the relevant geofeed data given an IP address. This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) inetnum: class to refer specifically to geofeed data files and how to prudently use them. In all places inetnum: is used, inet6num: should also be assumed . The reader may find and informative, and certainly more verbose, descriptions of the inetnum: database classes. An optional utterly awesome but slightly complex means for authenticating geofeed data is also defined in . This document obsoletes . Changes from include the following:

• RIPE has implemented the geofeed: attribute.
• This document allows, but discourages, an inetnum: to have both a geofeed remarks: attribute and a geofeed: attribute.
• The Authentication section () has been rewritten to be more formal.
• Geofeed files are only UTF-8 CSV.
• This document stresses that authenticating geofeed data is optional.
• IP Address Delegation extensions must not use "inherit".
• If geofeed data are present, geographic location hints in other data should be ignored.

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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Geofeed Files Geofeed files are described in . They provide a facility for an IP address resource "owner" to associate those IP addresses to geographic locales. Per , geofeed files consist of comma-separated values (CSV) in UTF-8 text format, not HTML, richtext, or other formats. Content providers and other parties who wish to locate an IP address to a geographic locale need to find the relevant geofeed data. In , this document specifies how to find the relevant geofeed file given an IP address. Geofeed data for large providers with significant horizontal scale and high granularity can be quite large. The size of a file can be even larger if an unsigned geofeed file combines data for many prefixes, if dual IPv4/IPv6 spaces are represented, etc. Geofeed data do have privacy considerations (see ); this process makes bulk access to those data easier. This document also suggests an optional signature to strongly authenticate the data in the geofeed files.

inetnum: Class The original RPSL specifications starting with , , and a trail of subsequent documents were written by the RIPE community. The IETF standardized RPSL in and . Since then, it has been modified and extensively enhanced in the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) community, mostly by RIPE . At the time of publishing this document, change control of the RPSL effectively lies in the operator community. The inetnum: database class is specified by the RPSL, as well as Routing Policy System Security and RPSLng , which are used by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). Each of these objects describes an IP address range and its attributes. The inetnum: objects form a hierarchy ordered on the address space. Ideally, the RPSL would be augmented to define a new RPSL geofeed: attribute in the inetnum: class. Absent implementation of the geofeed: attribute in a particular RIR database, this document defines the syntax of a Geofeed remarks: attribute, which contains an HTTPS URL of a geofeed file. The format of the inetnum: geofeed remarks: attribute MUST be as in this example, "remarks: Geofeed ", where the token "Geofeed " MUST be case sensitive, followed by a URL that will vary, but it MUST refer only to a single geofeed file. inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed While we leave global agreement of RPSL modification to the relevant parties, we specify that a proper geofeed: attribute in the inetnum: class MUST be "geofeed:" and MUST be followed by a single URL that will vary, but it MUST refer only to a single geofeed file. inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example geofeed: https://example.com/geofeed The URL uses HTTPS, so the WebPKI provides authentication, integrity, and confidentiality for the fetched geofeed file. However, the WebPKI cannot provide authentication of IP address space assignment. In contrast, the RPKI (see ) can be used to authenticate IP space assignment; see optional authentication in . Until all producers of inetnum: objects, i.e., the RIRs, state that they have migrated to supporting a geofeed: attribute, consumers looking at inetnum: objects to find geofeed URLs MUST be able to consume both the remarks: and geofeed: forms. The migration not only implies that the RIRs support the geofeed: attribute, but that all registrants have migrated any inetnum: objects from remarks: to geofeed: attributes. Any particular inetnum: object SHOULD have, at most, one geofeed reference, whether a remarks: or a proper geofeed: attribute when it is implemented. As the remarks: form cannot be formally checked by the RIR, this cannot be formally enforced. A geofeed: attribute is preferred, of course, if the RIR supports it. If there is more than one type of attribute in the intetnum: object, the geofeed: attribute MUST be used. For inetnum: objects covering the same address range, a signed geofeed file MUST be preferred over an unsigned file. If none are signed, or more than one is signed, the (signed) inetnum: with the most recent last-modified: attribute MUST be preferred. If a geofeed file describes multiple disjoint ranges of IP address space, there are likely to be geofeed references from multiple inetnum: objects. Files with geofeed references from multiple inetnum: objects are not compatible with the signing procedure in . An unsigned, and only an unsigned, geofeed file MAY be referenced by multiple inetnum: objects and MAY contain prefixes from more than one registry. When fetching, the most specific inetnum: object with a geofeed reference MUST be used. It is significant that geofeed data may have finer granularity than the inetnum: that refers to them. For example, an INETNUM object for an address range P could refer to a geofeed file in which P has been subdivided into one or more longer prefixes.

Fetching Geofeed Data This document provides a guideline for how interested parties should fetch and read geofeed files. Historically, before , this was done in varied ways, at the discretion of the implementor, often without consistent authentication, where data were mostly imported from email without formal authorization or validation. To minimize the load on RIRs' WHOIS services, the RIR's FTP services SHOULD be used for large-scale access to gather inetnum: objects with geofeed references. This uses efficient bulk access instead of fetching via brute-force search through the IP space. When reading data from an unsigned geofeed file, one MUST ignore data outside the referring inetnum: object's address range. This is to avoid importing data about ranges not under the control of the operator. Note that signed files MUST only contain prefixes within the referring inetnum:'s range as mandated in . If geofeed files are fetched, other location information from the inetnum: MUST be ignored. Given an address range of interest, the most specific inetnum: object with a geofeed reference MUST be used to fetch the geofeed file. For example, if the fetching party finds the following inetnum: objects: inetnum: 192.0.0.0/22 # example remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed_1 inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed_2 An application looking for geofeed data for 192.0.2.0/29 MUST ignore data in geofeed_1 because 192.0.2.0/29 is within the more specific 192.0.2.0/24 inetnum: covering that address range and that inetnum: does have a geofeed reference. Hints in inetnum: objects such as country:, geoloc:, etc., tend to be administrative, and not deployment specific. Consider large, possibly global, providers with headquarters very far from most of their deployments. Therefore, if geofeed data are specified, either as a geofeed: attribute or in a geofeed remarks: attribute, other geographic hints such as country:, geoloc:, DNS geoloc RRsets, etc., for that address range MUST be ignored. There is open-source code to traverse the RPSL data across all of the RIRs, collect all geofeed references, and process them . It implements the steps above and of all the Operational Considerations described in , including caching. It produces a single geofeed file, merging all the geofeed files found. This open-source code can be run daily by a cron job, and the output file can be directly used. RIRs are converging on Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) support, which includes geofeed data; see . This SHOULD NOT be used for bulk retrieval of geofeed data.

Authenticating Geofeed Data (Optional) The question arises whether a particular geofeed data set is valid, i.e., is authorized by the "owner" of the IP address space and is authoritative in some sense. The inetnum: that points to the geofeed file provides some assurance. Unfortunately, the RPSL in some repositories is weakly authenticated at best. An approach where the RPSL was signed per would be good, except it would have to be deployed by all RPSL registries, and there is a fair number of them. The remainder of this section specifies an optional authenticator for the geofeed data set that follows "Signed Object Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)" . A single optional authenticator MAY be appended to a geofeed file. It is a digest of the main body of the file signed by the private key of the relevant RPKI certificate for a covering address range. The following format bundles the relevant RPKI certificate with a signature over the geofeed text. The canonicalization procedure converts the data from their internal character representation to the UTF-8 character encoding, and the <CRLF> sequence MUST be used to denote the end of each line of text. A blank line is represented solely by the <CRLF> sequence. For robustness, any non-printable characters MUST NOT be changed by canonicalization. Trailing blank lines MUST NOT appear at the end of the file. That is, the file must not end with multiple consecutive <CRLF> sequences. Any end-of-file marker used by an operating system is not considered to be part of the file content. When present, such end-of-file markers MUST NOT be covered by the digital signature. If the authenticator is not in the canonical form described above, then the authenticator is invalid. Borrowing detached signatures from , after file canonicalization, the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) is used to create a detached DER-encoded signature that is then Base64 encoded with padding (as defined in ) and line wrapped to 72 or fewer characters. The same digest algorithm MUST be used for calculating the message digest of the content being signed, which is the geofeed file, and for calculating the message digest on the SignerInfo SignedAttributes . The message digest algorithm identifier MUST appear in both the CMS SignedData DigestAlgorithmIdentifiers and the SignerInfo DigestAlgorithmIdentifier . The RPKI certificate covering the geofeed inetnum: object's address range is included in the CMS SignedData certificates field . The address range of the signing certificate MUST cover all prefixes in the signed geofeed file. If not, the authenticator is invalid. The signing certificate MUST NOT include the Autonomous System Identifier Delegation certificate extension . If it is present, the authenticator is invalid. As with many other RPKI signed objects, the IP Address Delegation certificate extension MUST NOT use the "inherit" capability defined in . If "inherit" is used, the authenticator is invalid. An IP Address Delegation extension using "inherit" would complicate processing. The implementation would have to build the certification path from the end entity to the trust anchor, then validate the path from the trust anchor to the end entity, and then the parameter would have to be remembered when the validated public key was used to validate a signature on a CMS object. Having to remember things from certification path validation for use with CMS object processing would be quite complex and error-prone. Additionally, the certificates do not get that much bigger by repeating the information. An address range A "covers" address range B if the range of B is identical to or a subset of A. "Address range" is used here because inetnum: objects and RPKI certificates need not align on Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) prefix boundaries, while those of the lines in a geofeed file do align. The Certification Authority (CA) SHOULD sign only one geofeed file with each generated private key and SHOULD generate a new key pair for each new version of a particular geofeed file. The CA MUST generate a new end entity (EE) certificate for each signing of a particular geofeed file. An associated EE certificate used in this fashion is termed a "one-time-use" EE certificate (see ). Identifying the private key associated with the certificate and getting the department that controls the private key (which might be stored in a Hardware Security Module (HSM)) to generate the CMS signature is left as an exercise for the implementor. On the other hand, verifying the signature has no similar complexity; the certificate, which is validated in the public RPKI, contains the needed public key. The RPKI trust anchors for the RIRs are expected to already be available to the party performing signature validation. Validation of the CMS signature over the geofeed file involves:

1. Obtaining the signer's certificate from the CMS SignedData CertificateSet . The certificate SubjectKeyIdentifier extension MUST match the SubjectKeyIdentifier in the CMS SignerInfo SignerIdentifier . If the key identifiers do not match, then validation MUST fail.
2. Validating the signer's certificate MUST ensure that it is part of the current manifest and that all resources are covered by the RPKI certificate.
3. Constructing the certification path for the signer's certificate. All of the needed certificates are expected to be readily available in the RPKI repository. The certification path MUST be valid according to the validation algorithm in and the additional checks specified in associated with the IP Address Delegation certificate extension and the Autonomous System Identifier Delegation certificate extension. If certification path validation is unsuccessful, then validation MUST fail.
4. Validating the CMS SignedData as specified in using the public key from the validated signer's certificate. If the signature validation is unsuccessful, then validation MUST fail.
5. Confirming that the eContentType object identifier (OID) is id-ct-geofeedCSVwithCRLF (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.47). This OID MUST appear within both the eContentType in the encapContentInfo object and within the ContentType signed attribute in the signerInfo object (see ).
6. Verifying that the IP Address Delegation certificate extension covers all of the address ranges of the geofeed file. If all of the address ranges are not covered, then validation MUST fail.

All of the above steps MUST be successful to consider the geofeed file signature as valid. The authenticator MUST be hidden as a series of "#" comments at the end of the geofeed file. The following simple example is cryptographically incorrect: # RPKI Signature: 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.255 # MIIGlwYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIGiDCCBoQCAQMxDTALBglghkgBZQMEAgEwDQYLKoZ # IhvcNAQkQAS+gggSxMIIErTCCA5WgAwIBAgIUJ605QIPX8rW5m4Zwx3WyuW7hZu ... # imwYkXpiMxw44EZqDjl36MiWsRDLdgoijBBcGbibwyAfGeR46k5raZCGvxG+4xa # O8PDTxTfIYwAnBjRBKAqAZ7yX5xHfm58jUXsZJ7Ileq1S7G6Kk= # End Signature: 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.255 A correct and full example is in . The CMS signature does not cover the signature lines. The bracketing "# RPKI Signature:" and "# End Signature:" MUST be present as shown in the example. The RPKI Signature's IP address range MUST match that of the geofeed URL in the inetnum: that points to the geofeed file.

Operational Considerations To create the needed inetnum: objects, an operator wishing to register the location of their geofeed file needs to coordinate with their Regional Internet Registry (RIR) or National Internet Registry (NIR) and/or any provider Local Internet Registry (LIR) that has assigned address ranges to them. RIRs/NIRs provide means for assignees to create and maintain inetnum: objects. They also provide means of assigning or sub-assigning IP address resources and allowing the assignee to create WHOIS data, including inetnum: objects, thereby referring to geofeed files. The geofeed files MUST be published via and fetched using HTTPS . When using data from a geofeed file, one MUST ignore data outside the referring inetnum: object's inetnum: attribute address range. If and only if the geofeed file is not signed per , then multiple inetnum: objects MAY refer to the same geofeed file, and the consumer MUST use only lines in the geofeed file where the prefix is covered by the address range of the inetnum: object's URL it has followed. If the geofeed file is signed, and the signer's certificate changes, the signature in the geofeed file MUST be updated. It is good key hygiene to use a given key for only one purpose. To dedicate a signing private key for signing a geofeed file, an RPKI Certification Authority (CA) may issue a subordinate certificate exclusively for the purpose shown in . Harvesting and publishing aggregated geofeed data outside of the RPSL model should be avoided as it could lead to detailed data of one aggregatee undesirably affecting the less detailed data of a different aggregatee. Moreover, publishing aggregated geofeed data prevents the reader of the data from performing the checks described in Sections and . At the time of publishing this document, geolocation providers have bulk WHOIS data access at all the RIRs. An anonymized version of such data is openly available for all RIRs except ARIN, which requires an authorization. However, for users without such authorization, the same result can be achieved with extra RDAP effort. There is open-source code to pass over such data across all RIRs, collect all geofeed references, and process them . To prevent undue load on RPSL and geofeed servers, entity-fetching geofeed data using these mechanisms MUST NOT do frequent real-time lookups. suggests use of the HTTP Expires header to signal when geofeed data should be refetched. As the data change very infrequently, in the absence of such an HTTP Header signal, collectors SHOULD NOT fetch more frequently than weekly. It would be polite not to fetch at magic times such as midnight UTC, the first of the month, etc., because too many others are likely to do the same.

Privacy Considerations geofeed data may reveal the approximate location of an IP address, which might in turn reveal the approximate location of an individual user. Unfortunately, provides no privacy guidance on avoiding or ameliorating possible damage due to this exposure of the user. In publishing pointers to geofeed files as described in this document, the operator should be aware of this exposure in geofeed data and be cautious. All the privacy considerations of apply to this document. Where provided the ability to publish location data, this document makes bulk access to those data readily available. This is a goal, not an accident.

Implementation Status At the time of publishing this document, the geofeed: attribute in inetnum objects has been implemented in the RIPE and APNIC databases. Registrants in databases that do not yet support the geofeed: attribute are using the remarks: attribute, or equivalent. At the time of publishing this document, the registry data published by ARIN are not the same RPSL as that of the other registries (see for a survey of the WHOIS Tower of Babel). Therefore, when fetching from ARIN via FTP , WHOIS , the RDAP , etc., the "NetRange" attribute/key must be treated as "inetnum", and the "Comment" attribute must be treated as "remarks". can be used to authenticate a signed geofeed file.

Security Considerations It is generally prudent for a consumer of geofeed data to also use other sources to cross-validate the data. All the security considerations of apply here as well. The consumer of geofeed data SHOULD fetch and process the data themselves. Importing data sets produced and/or processed by a third-party places significant trust in the third-party. As mentioned in , some RPSL repositories have weak, if any, authentication. This allows spoofing of inetnum: objects pointing to malicious geofeed files. suggests an unfortunately complex method for stronger authentication based on the RPKI. For example, if an inetnum: for a wide address range (e.g., a /16) points to an RPKI-signed geofeed file, a customer or attacker could publish an unsigned equal or narrower (e.g., a /24) inetnum: in a WHOIS registry that has weak authorization, abusing the rule that the most-specific inetnum: object with a geofeed reference MUST be used. If signatures were mandatory, the above attack would be stymied, but of course that is not happening anytime soon. The RPSL providers have had to throttle fetching from their servers due to too-frequent queries. Usually, they throttle by the querying IP address or block. Similar defenses will likely need to be deployed by geofeed file servers.

IANA Considerations In the SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1) in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group (located at ), the reference for this registration has been updated to this document: From SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1)

Decimal	Description	Reference
47	id-ct-geofeedCSVwithCRLF	RFC 9632

References Normative References 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. RPSL allows a network operator to be able to specify routing policies at various levels in the Internet hierarchy; for example at the Autonomous System (AS) level. At the same time, policies can be specified with sufficient detail in RPSL so that low level router configurations can be generated from them. RPSL is extensible; new routing protocols and new protocol features can be introduced at any time. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The implementation and deployment of a routing policy system must maintain some degree of integrity to be of any operational use. This document addresses the need to assure integrity of the data by providing an authentication and authorization model. [STANDARDS-TRACK] ISO/IEC 10646-1 defines a large character set called the Universal Character Set (UCS) which encompasses most of the world's writing systems. The originally proposed encodings of the UCS, however, were not compatible with many current applications and protocols, and this has led to the development of UTF-8, the object of this memo. UTF-8 has the characteristic of preserving the full US-ASCII range, providing compatibility with file systems, parsers and other software that rely on US-ASCII values but are transparent to other values. This memo obsoletes and replaces RFC 2279. 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 of the subject to use the IP addresses and autonomous system identifiers contained in the extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This memo introduces a new set of simple extensions to the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL), enabling the language to document routing policies for the IPv6 and multicast address families currently used in the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK] 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] 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] This document describes the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS). This syntax is used to digitally sign, digest, authenticate, or encrypt arbitrary message content. [STANDARDS-TRACK] 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] 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 under this profile are used to convey the issuer's authorization of the subject to be regarded as the current holder 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 of certificate requests and specifies the Relying Party RPKI certificate path validation procedure. [STANDARDS-TRACK] 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] 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. This document records a format whereby a network operator can publish a mapping of IP address prefixes to simplified geolocation information, colloquially termed a "geolocation feed". Interested parties can poll and parse these feeds to update or merge with other geolocation data sources and procedures. This format intentionally only allows specifying coarse-level location. Some technical organizations operating networks that move from one conference location to the next have already experimentally published small geolocation feeds. This document describes a currently deployed format. At least one consumer (Google) has incorporated these feeds into a geolocation data pipeline, and a significant number of ISPs are using it to inform them where their prefixes should be geolocated. This document updates the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) specified in RFC 5652 to ensure that algorithm identifiers in signed-data and authenticated-data content types are adequately protected. The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document describes the overall architecture of HTTP, establishes common terminology, and defines aspects of the protocol that are shared by all versions. In this definition are core protocol elements, extensibility mechanisms, and the "http" and "https" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes. This document updates RFC 3864 and obsoletes RFCs 2818, 7231, 7232, 7233, 7235, 7538, 7615, 7694, and portions of 7230. This document defines a "manifest" for use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). A manifest is a signed object (file) that contains a listing of all the signed objects (files) in the repository publication point (directory) associated with an authority responsible for publishing in the repository. For each certificate, Certificate Revocation List (CRL), or other type of signed objects issued by the authority that are published at this repository publication point, the manifest contains both the name of the file containing the object and a hash of the file content. Manifests are intended to enable a relying party (RP) to detect certain forms of attacks against a repository. Specifically, if an RP checks a manifest's contents against the signed objects retrieved from a repository publication point, then the RP can detect replay attacks, and unauthorized in-flight modification or deletion of signed objects. This document obsoletes RFC 6486. Informative References commit 5f557a4 RIPE NCC RIPE NCC This document defines a new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) extension, "geofeed1", for indicating that an RDAP server hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects. It also defines a new media type and link relation type for the associated link objects included in responses. Work in Progress This memo is the official specification of the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) for the DARPA Internet community. The primary intent is to clarify and correct the documentation of the FTP specification, not to change the protocol. The following new optional commands are included in this edition of the specification: Change to Parent Directory (CDUP), Structure Mount (SMNT), Store Unique (STOU), Remove Directory (RMD), Make Directory (MKD), Print Directory (PWD), and System (SYST). Note that this specification is compatible with the previous edition. This document updates the specification of the WHOIS protocol, thereby obsoleting RFC 954. The update is intended to remove the material from RFC 954 that does not have to do with the on-the-wire protocol, and is no longer applicable in today's Internet. This document does not attempt to change or update the protocol per se, or document other uses of the protocol that have come into existence since the publication of RFC 954. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This memo discusses the strategy for address assignment of the existing 32-bit IPv4 address space with a view toward conserving the address space and limiting the growth rate of global routing state. This document obsoletes the original Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) spec in RFC 1519, with changes made both to clarify the concepts it introduced and, after more than twelve years, to update the Internet community on the results of deploying the technology described. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This document specifies the conventions for digital signatures on Internet-Drafts. The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) is used to create a detached signature, which is stored in a separate companion file so that no existing utilities are impacted by the addition of the digital signature. This memo provides information for the Internet community. The completion of IPv4 address allocations from IANA and the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) is causing service providers around the world to question how they will continue providing IPv4 connectivity service to their subscribers when there are no longer sufficient IPv4 addresses to allocate them one per subscriber. Several possible solutions to this problem are now emerging based around the idea of shared IPv4 addressing. These solutions give rise to a number of issues, and this memo identifies those common to all such address sharing approaches. Such issues include application failures, additional service monitoring complexity, new security vulnerabilities, and so on. Solution-specific discussions are out of scope. Deploying IPv6 is the only perennial way to ease pressure on the public IPv4 address pool without the need for address sharing mechanisms that give rise to the issues identified herein. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. WHOIS output objects from registries, including both Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs), were collected and analyzed. This document describes the process and results of the statistical analysis of existing WHOIS information. The purpose of this document is to build an object inventory to facilitate discussions of data objects included in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) responses. This document describes a method that allows parties to electronically sign Routing Policy Specification Language objects and validate such electronic signatures. This allows relying parties to detect accidental or malicious modifications of such objects. It also allows parties who run Internet Routing Registries or similar databases, but do not yet have authentication (based on Routing Policy System Security) of the maintainers of certain objects, to verify that the additions or modifications of such database objects are done by the legitimate holder(s) of the Internet resources mentioned in those objects. This document updates RFCs 2622 and 4012 to add the signature attribute to supported RPSL objects. This document describes uniform patterns to construct HTTP URLs that may be used to retrieve registration information from registries (including both Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs)) using "RESTful" web access patterns. These uniform patterns define the query syntax for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP). This document obsoletes RFC 7482. This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy Specification Language inetnum: class to refer specifically to geofeed data comma-separated values (CSV) files and describes an optional scheme that uses the Routing Public Key Infrastructure to authenticate the geofeed data CSV files. The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document defines HTTP caches and the associated header fields that control cache behavior or indicate cacheable response messages. This document obsoletes RFC 7234. RIPE NCC RIPE NCC RIPE NCC

Example This appendix provides an example, including a trust anchor, a Certificate Revocation List (CRL) signed by the trust anchor, a CA certificate subordinate to the trust anchor, a CRL signed by the CA, an end entity certificate subordinate to the CA for signing the geofeed, and a detached signature. The trust anchor is represented by a self-signed certificate. As usual in the RPKI, the trust anchor has authority over all IPv4 address blocks, all IPv6 address blocks, and all Autonomous System (AS) numbers. -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- MIIEQTCCAymgAwIBAgIUEggycNoFVRjAuN/Fw7URu0DEZNAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEL BQAwFTETMBEGA1UEAxMKZXhhbXBsZS10YTAeFw0yMzA5MTkyMDMzMzlaFw0zMzA5 MTYyMDMzMzlaMBUxEzARBgNVBAMTCmV4YW1wbGUtdGEwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEB AQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDQprR+g/i4JyObVURTp1JpGM23vGPyE5fDKFPqV7rw M1Amm7cnew66U02IzV0X5oiv5nSGfRX5UxsbR+vwPBMceQyDgS5lexFiv4fB/Vjf DT2qX/UjsLL9QOeaSOh7ToJSLjmtpa0D9iz7ful3hdxRjpMMZiE/reX9/ymdpW/E dg0F6+T9WGZE1miPeIjl5OZwnmLHCftkN/aaYk1iPNjNniHYIOjC1jSpABmoZyTj sgrwLE2F1fIRkVkwASqToq/D5v9voXaYYaXUNJb4H/5wenRuvT5O/n6PXh70rMQy F5yzLs96ytxqg5gGX9kabVnvxFU8nHfPa0rhlwfTJnljAgMBAAGjggGHMIIBgzAd BgNVHQ4EFgQUwL1SXb7SeLIW7LOjQ5XSBguZCDIwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUwL1SXb7S eLIW7LOjQ5XSBguZCDIwDwYDVR0TAQH/BAUwAwEB/zAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYw GAYDVR0gAQH/BA4wDDAKBggrBgEFBQcOAjCBuQYIKwYBBQUHAQsEgawwgakwPgYI KwYBBQUHMAqGMnJzeW5jOi8vcnBraS5leGFtcGxlLm5ldC9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L2V4 YW1wbGUtdGEubWZ0MDUGCCsGAQUFBzANhilodHRwczovL3JyZHAuZXhhbXBsZS5u ZXQvbm90aWZpY2F0aW9uLnhtbDAwBggrBgEFBQcwBYYkcnN5bmM6Ly9ycGtpLmV4 YW1wbGUubmV0L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvMCcGCCsGAQUFBwEHAQH/BBgwFjAJBAIAATAD AwEAMAkEAgACMAMDAQAwIQYIKwYBBQUHAQgBAf8EEjAQoA4wDDAKAgEAAgUA//// /zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEAa9eLY9QAmnlZOIyOzbpta5wqcOUQV/yR7o/0 1zkEZaSavKBt19lMK6AXZurx1T5jyjIwG7bEtZZThjtH2m80V5kc2tsFjSq/yp7N JBclMHVd3tXse9If3nXYF4bxRIcir1lXlAbYN+Eo1U3i5qJO+fxouzt7Merk2Dih nsenTeXKzN7tfmuCYZZHCC8viCoJWdH+o1uRM4TiQApZsUJ8sF4TABrrRJmA/Ed5 v0CTBbgqTx7yg0+VarFLPdnjYgtpoCJqwE2C1UpX15rZSaLVuGXtbwXd/cHEg5vF W6QTsMeMQFEUa6hkicDGtxLTUdhckBgmCGoF2nlZii5f1BTWAg== -----END CERTIFICATE----- The CRL is issued by the trust anchor. -----BEGIN X509 CRL----- MIIBjjB4AgEBMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAMBUxEzARBgNVBAMTCmV4YW1wbGUtdGEX DTIzMDkyMzE1NTUzOFoXDTIzMTAyMzE1NTUzOFqgLzAtMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFMC9 Ul2+0niyFuyzo0OV0gYLmQgyMAoGA1UdFAQDAgEEMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4IB AQCngOu+Nq3WC4y/pHtLoheAOtNg32WWsKPNiEyL+QalmOtURUsWMzOq41bmoPzQ NDQoRmXe9mvohAVRe0CnM7A07HOtSfjw5aoouPXGTtfwEomHG2CYk+2U1bvxgZyA E1c5TvyhkabFMO0+857wqxRP+ht9NV0lMX6kUFlEOCw3ELVd9oNNRBwKQtXj1huM 6Sf26va2a1tnC5zP01hN+EY3S9T5T1gcgPGBcqRWKoXJEbRzCrLsb/TMj5cMpIje AHZoBojVAmvL1AIH/BnGAQj0+XqaJ0axHvlqJa8iX8QwKqhp+o6sv/atY2QDDRmE Yjq/VrBVKu5VsDY2Lr29HszA -----END X509 CRL----- The CA certificate is issued by the trust anchor. This certificate grants authority over one IPv4 address block (192.0.2.0/24) and two AS numbers (64496 and 64497). -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- MIIE7DCCA9SgAwIBAgIUcyCzS10hdfG65kbRq7toQAvRDLkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEL BQAwFTETMBEGA1UEAxMKZXhhbXBsZS10YTAeFw0yMzA5MjMxNTU1MzhaFw0yNDA5 MjIxNTU1MzhaMDMxMTAvBgNVBAMTKDNBQ0UyQ0VGNEZCMjFCN0QxMUUzRTE4NEVG QzFFMjk3QjM3Nzg2NDIwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDc zz1qwTxC2ocw5rqp8ktm2XyYkl8riBVuqlXwfefTxsR2YFpgz9vkYUd5Az9EVEG7 6wGIyZbtmhK63eEeaqbKz2GHub467498BXeVrYysO+YuIGgCEYKznNDZ4j5aaDbo j5+4/z0Qvv6HEsxQd0f8br6lKJwgeRM6+fm7796HNPB0aqD7Zj9NRCLXjbB0DCgJ liH6rXMKR86ofgll9V2mRjesvhdKYgkGbOif9rvxVpLJ/6zdru5CE9yeuJZ59l+n YH/r6PzdJ4Q7yKrJX8qD6A60j4+biaU4MQ72KpsjhQNTTqF/HRwi0N54GDaknEwE TnJQHgLJDYqww9yKWtjjAgMBAAGjggIUMIICEDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUOs4s70+yG30R 4+GE78Hil7N3hkIwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUwL1SXb7SeLIW7LOjQ5XSBguZCDIwDwYD VR0TAQH/BAUwAwEB/zAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwGAYDVR0gAQH/BA4wDDAKBggr BgEFBQcOAjBDBgNVHR8EPDA6MDigNqA0hjJyc3luYzovL3Jwa2kuZXhhbXBsZS5u ZXQvcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9leGFtcGxlLXRhLmNybDBOBggrBgEFBQcBAQRCMEAwPgYI KwYBBQUHMAKGMnJzeW5jOi8vcnBraS5leGFtcGxlLm5ldC9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L2V4 YW1wbGUtdGEuY2VyMIG5BggrBgEFBQcBCwSBrDCBqTA+BggrBgEFBQcwCoYycnN5 bmM6Ly9ycGtpLmV4YW1wbGUubmV0L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvZXhhbXBsZS1jYS5tZnQw NQYIKwYBBQUHMA2GKWh0dHBzOi8vcnJkcC5leGFtcGxlLm5ldC9ub3RpZmljYXRp b24ueG1sMDAGCCsGAQUFBzAFhiRyc3luYzovL3Jwa2kuZXhhbXBsZS5uZXQvcmVw b3NpdG9yeS8wHwYIKwYBBQUHAQcBAf8EEDAOMAwEAgABMAYDBADAAAIwIQYIKwYB BQUHAQgBAf8EEjAQoA4wDDAKAgMA+/ACAwD78TANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEA arIrZWb22wFmP+hVjhdg3IsKHB6fQdMuUR0u2DyZTVvbL6C+HyGAH32pi5mR/QLX FAfdqALaB7r68tQTGLIW6bGljT+BqUPJmZcj56x3cBLJlltxwFatTloypjFt3cls xFCuuD9J2iBxc6odTKi6u0mhQjD+C9m4xkbe8XXWWx85IHm1s6rYbpGgiMWxBC80 qqAzmBHGROWKUEvh00EYIYdiAvyFcrj7QtDiRJL5TDOySVd9pWJkerDzhqwE1IaZ rpHck+lkYTS7jTD++6v32HG62GdsmryOQUk3aU1rLb3kS8vzaGbrgHpGPid0Hd0x ZSl1AoIMpp5mZ7/h9aW5+A== -----END CERTIFICATE----- The CRL is issued by the CA. -----BEGIN X509 CRL----- MIIBrTCBlgIBATANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAzMTEwLwYDVQQDEygzQUNFMkNFRjRG QjIxQjdEMTFFM0UxODRFRkMxRTI5N0IzNzc4NjQyFw0yMzA5MjMxNTU1MzhaFw0y MzEwMjMxNTU1MzhaoC8wLTAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBQ6zizvT7IbfRHj4YTvweKXs3eG QjAKBgNVHRQEAwIBATANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEACwCNzcAoqbMcUL1kBY65 YhL95OnBqAcuc99pD4i9c1BmVOl7bXU3cJqLaOZ6Z8CmN0kBbcHyqlHBJ9oA/aYD ByhxsjzKk7jxtM2IlTpEvCEqvnGLSVihgS3h0NA+sgWqHGL3Rhcj6hVsi+j9GENc T6F9np1mxbI3i2xhgeDJG1pryvH0hWXh7yJiYS8ItNEaIIXDT3szK/J9wnPjukTR 5MITiK9P3TCFujawb3O7rIT5PPgkM6eiCdwDgt6gjmw6cow5+rMjNHSRa+GOviSd gXljVDfJvF4tKHmw59Jc2aFnSGfX1/ITDNiNfXYpUYFOcsqxkYf8F0uO7AtbRmTF 2w== -----END X509 CRL----- The end entity certificate is issued by the CA. This certificate grants signature authority for one IPv4 address block (192.0.2.0/24). Signature authority for AS numbers is not needed for geofeed data signatures, so no AS numbers are included in the end entity certificate. -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- MIIEVjCCAz6gAwIBAgIUJ605QIPX8rW5m4Zwx3WyuW7hZvAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEL BQAwMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoM0FDRTJDRUY0RkIyMUI3RDExRTNFMTg0RUZDMUUyOTdC Mzc3ODY0MjAeFw0yMzA5MjMxNTU1MzhaFw0yNDA3MTkxNTU1MzhaMDMxMTAvBgNV BAMTKDkxNDY1MkEzQkQ1MUMxNDQyNjAxOTg4ODlGNUM0NUFCRjA1M0ExODcwggEi MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCycTQrOb/qB2W3i3Ki8PhA/DEW yii2TgGo9pgCwO9lsIRI6Zb/k+aSiWWP9kSczlcQgtPCVwr62hTQZCIowBN0BL0c K0/5k1imJdi5qdM3nvKswM8CnoR11vB8pQFwruZmr5xphXRvE+mzuJVLgu2V1upm BXuWloeymudh6WWJ+GDjwPXO3RiXBejBrOFNXhaFLe08y4DPfr/S/tXJOBm7QzQp tmbPLYtGfprYu45liFFqqP94UeLpISfXd36AKGzqTFCcc3EW9l5UFE1MFLlnoEog qtoLoKABt0IkOFGKeC/EgeaBdWLe469ddC9rQft5w6g6cmxG+aYDdIEB34zrAgMB AAGjggFgMIIBXDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUkUZSo71RwUQmAZiIn1xFq/BToYcwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUOs4s70+yG30R4+GE78Hil7N3hkIwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgeAMBgGA1Ud IAEB/wQOMAwwCgYIKwYBBQUHDgIwYQYDVR0fBFowWDBWoFSgUoZQcnN5bmM6Ly9y cGtpLmV4YW1wbGUubmV0L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvM0FDRTJDRUY0RkIyMUI3RDExRTNF MTg0RUZDMUUyOTdCMzc3ODY0Mi5jcmwwbAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEYDBeMFwGCCsGAQUF BzAChlByc3luYzovL3Jwa2kuZXhhbXBsZS5uZXQvcmVwb3NpdG9yeS8zQUNFMkNF RjRGQjIxQjdEMTFFM0UxODRFRkMxRTI5N0IzNzc4NjQyLmNlcjAfBggrBgEFBQcB BwEB/wQQMA4wDAQCAAEwBgMEAMAAAjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEAlxt25FUe e0+uCidTH+4p7At3u2ncgHcGTsag3UcoPjcE/I1JgQJRu9TiM4iNB1C7Lbdd131g MdliL5GQ3P4QfKnfkuPR6S1V8suq6ZT1KQRyLJx+EPgDN2rb/iji0TOK6RKPNBdG lXVLjth4x/uu1O4V54GLEhDAPQC8IUm5intL/Hx1M1x2ptN/+j5HD3XUXd3x13yi s6u758nbA7ND40JNhGG5JNGQgDchL4IQzIhylMNC+bKUiyyMHz3MqoVAklIB86IW Ucv72Mekq+i46T/w3RnaGn4x7RAJctVJWw3e5YMrFnQcuuaGOs0QcoxW7Bi4W7Eg 8fK1fd/f6fjZ9w== -----END CERTIFICATE----- The end entity certificate is displayed below in detail. For brevity, the other two certificates are not. 0 1110: SEQUENCE { 4 830: SEQUENCE { 8 3: [0] { 10 1: INTEGER 2 : } 13 20: INTEGER : 27 AD 39 40 83 D7 F2 B5 B9 9B 86 70 C7 75 B2 B9 : 6E E1 66 F0 35 13: SEQUENCE { 37 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER : sha256WithRSAEncryption (1 2 840 113549 1 1 11) 48 0: NULL : } 50 51: SEQUENCE { 52 49: SET { 54 47: SEQUENCE { 56 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3) 61 40: PrintableString : '3ACE2CEF4FB21B7D11E3E184EFC1E297B3778642' : } : } : } 103 30: SEQUENCE { 105 13: UTCTime 23/09/2023 15:55:38 GMT 120 13: UTCTime 19/07/2024 15:55:38 GMT : } 135 51: SEQUENCE { 137 49: SET { 139 47: SEQUENCE { 141 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3) 146 40: PrintableString : '914652A3BD51C144260198889F5C45ABF053A187' : } : } : } 188 290: SEQUENCE { 192 13: SEQUENCE { 194 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER : rsaEncryption (1 2 840 113549 1 1 1) 205 0: NULL : } 207 271: BIT STRING, encapsulates { 212 266: SEQUENCE { 216 257: INTEGER : 00 B2 71 34 2B 39 BF EA 07 65 B7 8B 72 A2 F0 F8 : 40 FC 31 16 CA 28 B6 4E 01 A8 F6 98 02 C0 EF 65 : B0 84 48 E9 96 FF 93 E6 92 89 65 8F F6 44 9C CE : 57 10 82 D3 C2 57 0A FA DA 14 D0 64 22 28 C0 13 : 74 04 BD 1C 2B 4F F9 93 58 A6 25 D8 B9 A9 D3 37 : 9E F2 AC C0 CF 02 9E 84 75 D6 F0 7C A5 01 70 AE : E6 66 AF 9C 69 85 74 6F 13 E9 B3 B8 95 4B 82 ED : 95 D6 EA 66 05 7B 96 96 87 B2 9A E7 61 E9 65 89 : F8 60 E3 C0 F5 CE DD 18 97 05 E8 C1 AC E1 4D 5E : 16 85 2D ED 3C CB 80 CF 7E BF D2 FE D5 C9 38 19 : BB 43 34 29 B6 66 CF 2D 8B 46 7E 9A D8 BB 8E 65 : 88 51 6A A8 FF 78 51 E2 E9 21 27 D7 77 7E 80 28 : 6C EA 4C 50 9C 73 71 16 F6 5E 54 14 4D 4C 14 B9 : 67 A0 4A 20 AA DA 0B A0 A0 01 B7 42 24 38 51 8A : 78 2F C4 81 E6 81 75 62 DE E3 AF 5D 74 2F 6B 41 : FB 79 C3 A8 3A 72 6C 46 F9 A6 03 74 81 01 DF 8C : EB 477 3: INTEGER 65537 : } : } : } 482 352: [3] { 486 348: SEQUENCE { 490 29: SEQUENCE { 492 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER : subjectKeyIdentifier (2 5 29 14) 497 22: OCTET STRING, encapsulates { 499 20: OCTET STRING : 91 46 52 A3 BD 51 C1 44 26 01 98 88 9F 5C 45 AB : F0 53 A1 87 : } : } 521 31: SEQUENCE { 523 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER : authorityKeyIdentifier (2 5 29 35) 528 24: OCTET STRING, encapsulates { 530 22: SEQUENCE { 532 20: [0] : 3A CE 2C EF 4F B2 1B 7D 11 E3 E1 84 EF C1 E2 97 : B3 77 86 42 : } : } : } 554 14: SEQUENCE { 556 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER keyUsage (2 5 29 15) 561 1: BOOLEAN TRUE 564 4: OCTET STRING, encapsulates { 566 2: BIT STRING 7 unused bits : '1'B (bit 0) : } : } 570 24: SEQUENCE { 572 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER certificatePolicies (2 5 29 32) 577 1: BOOLEAN TRUE 580 14: OCTET STRING, encapsulates { 582 12: SEQUENCE { 584 10: SEQUENCE { 586 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER : resourceCertificatePolicy (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 14 2) : } : } : } : } 596 97: SEQUENCE { 598 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER : cRLDistributionPoints (2 5 29 31) 603 90: OCTET STRING, encapsulates { 605 88: SEQUENCE { 607 86: SEQUENCE { 609 84: [0] { 611 82: [0] { 613 80: [6] : 'rsync://rpki.example.net/repository/3ACE' : '2CEF4FB21B7D11E3E184EFC1E297B3778642.crl' : } : } : } : } : } : } 695 108: SEQUENCE { 697 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER : authorityInfoAccess (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 1 1) 707 96: OCTET STRING, encapsulates { 709 94: SEQUENCE { 711 92: SEQUENCE { 713 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER : caIssuers (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 48 2) 723 80: [6] : 'rsync://rpki.example.net/repository/3ACE' : '2CEF4FB21B7D11E3E184EFC1E297B3778642.cer' : } : } : } : } 805 31: SEQUENCE { 807 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER : ipAddrBlocks (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 1 7) 817 1: BOOLEAN TRUE 820 16: OCTET STRING, encapsulates { 822 14: SEQUENCE { 824 12: SEQUENCE { 826 2: OCTET STRING 00 01 830 6: SEQUENCE { 832 4: BIT STRING : '010000000000000000000011'B : } : } : } : } : } : } : } : } 838 13: SEQUENCE { 840 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER : sha256WithRSAEncryption (1 2 840 113549 1 1 11) 851 0: NULL : } 853 257: BIT STRING : 97 1B 76 E4 55 1E 7B 4F AE 0A 27 53 1F EE 29 EC : 0B 77 BB 69 DC 80 77 06 4E C6 A0 DD 47 28 3E 37 : 04 FC 8D 49 81 02 51 BB D4 E2 33 88 8D 07 50 BB : 2D B7 5D D7 7D 60 31 D9 62 2F 91 90 DC FE 10 7C : A9 DF 92 E3 D1 E9 2D 55 F2 CB AA E9 94 F5 29 04 : 72 2C 9C 7E 10 F8 03 37 6A DB FE 28 E2 D1 33 8A : E9 12 8F 34 17 46 95 75 4B 8E D8 78 C7 FB AE D4 : EE 15 E7 81 8B 12 10 C0 3D 00 BC 21 49 B9 8A 7B : 4B FC 7C 75 33 5C 76 A6 D3 7F FA 3E 47 0F 75 D4 : 5D DD F1 D7 7C A2 B3 AB BB E7 C9 DB 03 B3 43 E3 : 42 4D 84 61 B9 24 D1 90 80 37 21 2F 82 10 CC 88 : 72 94 C3 42 F9 B2 94 8B 2C 8C 1F 3D CC AA 85 40 : 92 52 01 F3 A2 16 51 CB FB D8 C7 A4 AB E8 B8 E9 : 3F F0 DD 19 DA 1A 7E 31 ED 10 09 72 D5 49 5B 0D : DE E5 83 2B 16 74 1C BA E6 86 3A CD 10 72 8C 56 : EC 18 B8 5B B1 20 F1 F2 B5 7D DF DF E9 F8 D9 F7 : } To allow reproduction of the signature results, the end entity private key is provided. For brevity, the other two private keys are not. -----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY----- MIIEpQIBAAKCAQEAsnE0Kzm/6gdlt4tyovD4QPwxFsootk4BqPaYAsDvZbCESOmW /5Pmkollj/ZEnM5XEILTwlcK+toU0GQiKMATdAS9HCtP+ZNYpiXYuanTN57yrMDP Ap6EddbwfKUBcK7mZq+caYV0bxPps7iVS4LtldbqZgV7lpaHsprnYellifhg48D1 zt0YlwXowazhTV4WhS3tPMuAz36/0v7VyTgZu0M0KbZmzy2LRn6a2LuOZYhRaqj/ eFHi6SEn13d+gChs6kxQnHNxFvZeVBRNTBS5Z6BKIKraC6CgAbdCJDhRingvxIHm gXVi3uOvXXQva0H7ecOoOnJsRvmmA3SBAd+M6wIDAQABAoIBAQCyB0FeMuKm8bRo 18aKjFGSPEoZi53srIz5bvUgIi92TBLez7ZnzL6Iym26oJ+5th+lCHGO/dqlhXio pI50C5Yc9TFbblb/ECOsuCuuqKFjZ8CD3GVsHozXKJeMM+/o5YZXQrORj6UnwT0z ol/JE5pIGUCIgsXX6tz9s5BP3lUAvVQHsv6+vEVKLxQ3wj/1vIL8O/CN036EV0GJ mpkwmygPjfECT9wbWo0yn3jxJb36+M/QjjUP28oNIVn/IKoPZRXnqchEbuuCJ651 IsaFSqtiThm4WZtvCH/IDq+6/dcMucmTjIRcYwW7fdHfjplllVPve9c/OmpWEQvF t3ArWUt5AoGBANs4764yHxo4mctLIE7G7l/tf9bP4KKUiYw4R4ByEocuqMC4yhmt MPCfOFLOQet71OWCkjP2L/7EKUe9yx7G5KmxAHY6jOjvcRkvGsl6lWFOsQ8p126M Y9hmGzMOjtsdhAiMmOWKzjvm4WqfMgghQe+PnjjSVkgTt+7BxpIuGBAvAoGBANBg 26FF5cDLpixOd3Za1YXsOgguwCaw3Plvi7vUZRpa/zBMELEtyOebfakkIRWNm07l nE+lAZwxm+29PTD0nqCFE91teyzjnQaLO5kkAdJiFuVV3icLOGo399FrnJbKensm FGSli+3KxQhCNIJJfgWzq4bE0ioAMjdGbYXzIYQFAoGBAM6tuDJ36KDU+hIS6wu6 O2TPSfZhF/zPo3pCWQ78/QDb+Zdw4IEiqoBA7F4NPVLg9Y/H8UTx9r/veqe7hPOo Ok7NpIzSmKTHkc5XfZ60Zn9OLFoKbaQ40a1kXoJdWEu2YROaUlAe9F6/Rog6PHYz vLE5qscRbu0XQhLkN+z7bg5bAoGBAKDsbDEb/dbqbyaAYpmwhH2sdRSkphg7Niwc DNm9qWa1J6Zw1+M87I6Q8naRREuU1IAVqqWHVLr/ROBQ6NTJ1Uc5/qFeT2XXUgkf taMKv61tuyjZK3sTmznMh0HfzUpWjEhWnCEuB+ZYVdmO52ZGw2A75RdrILL2+9Dc PvDXVubRAoGAdqXeSWoLxuzZXzl8rsaKrQsTYaXnOWaZieU1SL5vVe8nK257UDqZ E3ng2j5XPTUWli+aNGFEJGRoNtcQvO60O/sFZUhu52sqq9mWVYZNh1TB5aP8X+pV iFcZOLUvQEcN6PA+YQK5FU11rAI1M0Gm5RDnVnUl0L2xfCYxb7FzV6Y= -----END RSA PRIVATE KEY----- The signing of "192.0.2.0/24,US,WA,Seattle," (terminated by CR and LF) yields the following detached CMS signature. # RPKI Signature: 192.0.2.0/24 # MIIGQAYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIGMTCCBi0CAQMxDTALBglghkgBZQMEAgEwDQYLKoZ # IhvcNAQkQAS+gggRaMIIEVjCCAz6gAwIBAgIUJ605QIPX8rW5m4Zwx3WyuW7hZv # AwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwMzExMC8GA1UEAxMoM0FDRTJDRUY0RkIyMUI3RDExR # TNFMTg0RUZDMUUyOTdCMzc3ODY0MjAeFw0yMzA5MjMxNTU1MzhaFw0yNDA3MTkx # NTU1MzhaMDMxMTAvBgNVBAMTKDkxNDY1MkEzQkQ1MUMxNDQyNjAxOTg4ODlGNUM # 0NUFCRjA1M0ExODcwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCycT # QrOb/qB2W3i3Ki8PhA/DEWyii2TgGo9pgCwO9lsIRI6Zb/k+aSiWWP9kSczlcQg # tPCVwr62hTQZCIowBN0BL0cK0/5k1imJdi5qdM3nvKswM8CnoR11vB8pQFwruZm # r5xphXRvE+mzuJVLgu2V1upmBXuWloeymudh6WWJ+GDjwPXO3RiXBejBrOFNXha # FLe08y4DPfr/S/tXJOBm7QzQptmbPLYtGfprYu45liFFqqP94UeLpISfXd36AKG # zqTFCcc3EW9l5UFE1MFLlnoEogqtoLoKABt0IkOFGKeC/EgeaBdWLe469ddC9rQ # ft5w6g6cmxG+aYDdIEB34zrAgMBAAGjggFgMIIBXDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUkUZSo71R # wUQmAZiIn1xFq/BToYcwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUOs4s70+yG30R4+GE78Hil7N3hkI # wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgeAMBgGA1UdIAEB/wQOMAwwCgYIKwYBBQUHDgIwYQYDVR # 0fBFowWDBWoFSgUoZQcnN5bmM6Ly9ycGtpLmV4YW1wbGUubmV0L3JlcG9zaXRvc # nkvM0FDRTJDRUY0RkIyMUI3RDExRTNFMTg0RUZDMUUyOTdCMzc3ODY0Mi5jcmww # bAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEYDBeMFwGCCsGAQUFBzAChlByc3luYzovL3Jwa2kuZXhhbXB # sZS5uZXQvcmVwb3NpdG9yeS8zQUNFMkNFRjRGQjIxQjdEMTFFM0UxODRFRkMxRT # I5N0IzNzc4NjQyLmNlcjAfBggrBgEFBQcBBwEB/wQQMA4wDAQCAAEwBgMEAMAAA # jANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEAlxt25FUee0+uCidTH+4p7At3u2ncgHcGTsag # 3UcoPjcE/I1JgQJRu9TiM4iNB1C7Lbdd131gMdliL5GQ3P4QfKnfkuPR6S1V8su # q6ZT1KQRyLJx+EPgDN2rb/iji0TOK6RKPNBdGlXVLjth4x/uu1O4V54GLEhDAPQ # C8IUm5intL/Hx1M1x2ptN/+j5HD3XUXd3x13yis6u758nbA7ND40JNhGG5JNGQg # DchL4IQzIhylMNC+bKUiyyMHz3MqoVAklIB86IWUcv72Mekq+i46T/w3RnaGn4x # 7RAJctVJWw3e5YMrFnQcuuaGOs0QcoxW7Bi4W7Eg8fK1fd/f6fjZ9zGCAaowggG # mAgEDgBSRRlKjvVHBRCYBmIifXEWr8FOhhzALBglghkgBZQMEAgGgazAaBgkqhk # iG9w0BCQMxDQYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAS8wHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTIzMDkyMzE1N # TUzOFowLwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMSIEICvi8p5S8ckg2wTRhDBQzGijjyqs5T6I+4Vt # BHypfcEWMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAKZND7pKdVdfpB6zaJN89wTt+sXd0io # 0WULMc+o6gRJFt3wmKNW2nYPrDbocJ+Q/rDMGxbp4QetJ0MQtn1+AYAS8v5jPDO # 4a63U4/mJ2D3wSnQsDP0lUVknqRzfnS66HgHqiOVdHB0U+OnMEJuqHNTLx0dknb # L3zwxyDJTHdo+dMB0U9xdcjwpsPM3xqg57EXj5EIQK5JbardXCjrsysAnEdktUY # oyayGNbbQelANYJcOmuHhSXArR+qqzvNP2MDRqqKEcpd65YW6FSnqlVMIBH2M3P # D2F0p3sdm4IeGAZWaERVB4AXO1PUFDNdhamr4XpIwqIoAig7xiLm7j8qu5Oc= # End Signature: 192.0.2.0/24

Acknowledgments Thanks to for the CMS and detached signature clue, for the first and substantial external review, and who was too shy to agree to coauthorship. Additionally, we express our gratitude to early implementors, including , , , and . Also, thanks to the following geolocation providers who are consuming geofeeds with this described solution: , (ipinfo.io), and (bigdatacloud.com). For an amazing number of helpful reviews, we thank , who also found an ASN.1 'inherit' issue, , , , , , , , , , , , , and .

Authors' Addresses IIJ Research & Arrcus

5147 Crystal Springs Bainbridge Island Washington 98110 United States of America randy@psg.com

NTT

Veemweg 23 Barneveld 3771 MT Netherlands massimo@ntt.net

Google

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CA 94043 United States of America warren@kumari.net

Vigil Security, LLC

516 Dranesville Road Herndon VA 20170 United States of America housley@vigilsec.com