RFC 9641
A YANG Data Model for a Truststore
A YANG Data Model for a Truststore 🎀
Okay bestie, this is RFC 9641 and it's giving config data model for trust 💖. It's an IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) document, numbered 9641, written by K. Watsen from Watsen Networks. It's on the Standards Track and dates to October 2024. Its ISSN is 2070-1721. The title block doesn't list any RFCs that it obsoletes or updates, so it's standing on its own 🦋.
Abstract ✨
This doc gives you a YANG module for setting up bags of certificates and bags of public keys. Other data models can then point at them for trust 🔐. It also sends notifications when certificates are about to expire, so nobody gets caught with an expired cert in the middle of the night 💀.
Status of This Memo 🌸
Okay, the official status stuff. This is an Internet Standards Track document 🔥. It's a product of the IETF and it represents the consensus of the IETF community. It went through public review and got approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). If you want more info on Internet Standards, check Section 2 of RFC 7841 📚.
For the current status, any errata, and how to send feedback, go to https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9641. Bookmark that one, it's giving very useful 💅.
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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), as they were in effect on the date of publication. Please read those carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document 📜. Code Components pulled out of this document must include Revised BSD License text, like Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions describes, and they come without warranty, as the Revised BSD License says 🙈.
Table of Contents 🍓
1. Introduction
1.1. Relation to Other RFCs
1.2. Specification Language
1.3. Adherence to the NMDA
1.4. Conventions
2. The "ietf-truststore" Module
2.1. Data Model Overview
2.2. Example Usage
2.3. YANG Module
3. Support for Built-In Trust Anchors
4. Security Considerations
4.1. Security of Data at Rest
4.2. Unconstrained Public Key Usage
4.3. Considerations for the "ietf-truststore" YANG Module
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. The IETF XML Registry
5.2. The YANG Module Names Registry
6. References
6.1. Normative References
6.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Author's Address1. Introduction 💖
Here's the tea: this doc is a YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] module with a few big jobs ✨:
- It gives you a central truststore for storing raw public keys and/or certificates 🔐.
- It lets you store named bags of raw public keys and/or named bags of certificates 🫧.
- It gives you types you can use to reference raw public keys or certificates sitting in that central truststore 🦋.
- It gives you groupings so raw public keys and certificates can be configured inline or as references to truststore instances 🎀.
- It lets the truststore get instantiated in other data models too, either alongside the central truststore instance or instead of it 👑.
1.1. Relation to Other RFCs 🌈
This doc is a YANG module [RFC7950] that's part of a whole squad of RFCs. Together they support configuring both the clients and the servers of the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040] 💅.
The dependency relationship between the main YANG groupings across these RFCs is shown in the diagram below. Sometimes a doc defines secondary groupings that bring in dependencies the diagram doesn't show, so keep that in mind 👀. The labels are shorthand names for the defining RFCs, and their citations are listed under the diagram.
Also, the arrows point from referencer to referenced. So for example, "crypto-types" has no dependencies, but "keystore" depends on "crypto-types" 🧚.
crypto-types
^ ^
/ \
/ \
truststore keystore
^ ^ ^ ^
| +---------+ | |
| | | |
| +------------+ |
tcp-client-server | / | |
^ ^ ssh-client-server | |
| | ^ tls-client-server
| | | ^ ^ http-client-server
| | | | | ^
| | | +-----+ +---------+ |
| | | | | |
| +-----------|--------|--------------+ | |
| | | | | |
+-----------+ | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
netconf-client-server restconf-client-server+========================+==========================+
| Label in Diagram | Reference |
+========================+==========================+
| crypto-types | [RFC9640] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| truststore | RFC 9641 |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| keystore | [RFC9642] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| tcp-client-server | [RFC9643] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| ssh-client-server | [RFC9644] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| tls-client-server | [RFC9645] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| http-client-server | [HTTP-CLIENT-SERVER] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| netconf-client-server | [NETCONF-CLIENT-SERVER] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| restconf-client-server | [RESTCONF-CLIENT-SERVER] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
Table 1: Label in Diagram to RFC Mapping1.2. Specification Language 📚
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here 🫶. So lowercase versions are just regular words, no cap 😌.
1.3. Adherence to the NMDA 🧠
This document complies with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. For instance, trust anchors installed during manufacturing (for example, for trusted, well-known services) are expected to appear in <operational> (see Section 3) ✨.
1.4. Conventions 💅
Lots of examples in this doc use "BASE64VALUE=" as a placeholder for binary data that's been base64 encoded (see Section 9.8 of [RFC7950]). Why? Real base64-encoded structures are often many lines long, and that's super distracting from the example 🙈.
Examples here also use the XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] encoding. Other encodings, like JSON [RFC8259], could be used instead 🌸.
Some examples have long lines that may be folded, as described in [RFC8792] 📏.
This doc uses the adjective "central" with the word "truststore" to mean the top-level instance of the "truststore-grouping" grouping, when the "central-truststore-supported" feature is enabled 👑. Heads up though: consuming YANG modules MAY instantiate the "truststore-grouping" grouping in other locations. Any of those other instances are not the "central" instance 🦋.
2. The "ietf-truststore" Module 🎀
This section defines a YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] module called "ietf-truststore". You'll get a high-level overview in Section 2.1, examples of how to use it in Section 2.2 ("Example Usage"), and the actual YANG module itself in Section 2.3 💖.
2.1. Data Model Overview 🧚
This section gives you an overview of the "ietf-truststore" module, covering its features, typedefs, groupings, and protocol-accessible nodes ✨.
2.1.1. Features 🌟
The diagram below lists all the "feature" statements defined in the "ietf-truststore" module:
Features:
+-- central-truststore-supported
+-- inline-definitions-supported
+-- certificates
+-- public-keysThe diagram above uses syntax that's similar to, but not defined in, [RFC8340] 🤓.
2.1.2. Typedefs 🫧
The diagram below lists the "typedef" statements defined in the "ietf-truststore" module:
Typedefs:
leafref
+-- central-certificate-bag-ref
+-- central-certificate-ref
+-- central-public-key-bag-ref
+-- central-public-key-refThe diagram above uses syntax that's similar to, but not defined in, [RFC8340] 📐.
Comments:
- All the typedefs defined in the "ietf-truststore" module extend the base "leafref" type defined in [RFC7950] 🔗.
- The leafrefs refer to certificates, public keys, and bags in the central truststore whenever this module is implemented 🔐.
- These typedefs exist to help consuming modules that import the "ietf-truststore" module 💜.
2.1.3. Groupings 🍓
The "ietf-truststore" module defines the following "grouping" statements:
- central-certificate-ref-grouping
- central-public-key-ref-grouping
- inline-or-truststore-certs-grouping
- inline-or-truststore-public-keys-grouping
- truststore-grouping
Each of these groupings gets its own subsection below 🫶.
2.1.3.1. The "central-certificate-ref-grouping" Grouping 🦋
The tree diagram [RFC8340] below shows the "central-certificate-ref-grouping" grouping:
grouping central-certificate-ref-grouping:
+-- certificate-bag? ts:central-certificate-bag-ref
| {central-truststore-supported,certificates}?
+-- certificate? ts:central-certificate-ref
{central-truststore-supported,certificates}?Comments:
- The "central-certificate-ref-grouping" grouping is just a convenience for consuming modules that want to let people configure a reference to a certificate in a certificate-bag in the truststore 🎀.
- The "certificate-bag" leaf uses the "central-certificate-bag-ref" typedef defined in Section 2.1.2 💅.
- The "certificate" leaf uses the "central-certificate-ref" typedef defined in Section 2.1.2 ✨.
2.1.3.2. The "central-public-key-ref-grouping" Grouping
okay so here's the tree diagram [RFC8340] for the "central-public-key-ref-grouping" grouping 🦋
grouping central-public-key-ref-grouping:
+-- public-key-bag? ts:central-public-key-bag-ref
| {central-truststore-supported,public-keys}?
+-- public-key? ts:central-public-key-ref
{central-truststore-supported,public-keys}?Comments:
- The "central-public-key-ref-grouping" grouping is just a little convenience for consuming modules that want to let someone configure a reference to a public key sitting in a public-key-bag in the truststore 🎀
- The "public-key-bag" leaf uses the "central-public-key-bag-ref" typedef, which is defined in Section 2.1.2 ✨
- The "public-key" leaf uses the "central-public-key-ref" typedef, also defined in Section 2.1.2 💖
2.1.3.3. The "inline-or-truststore-certs-grouping" Grouping
this one's giving choices 🌈 here's the tree diagram [RFC8340] for "inline-or-truststore-certs-grouping":
grouping inline-or-truststore-certs-grouping:
+-- (inline-or-truststore)
+--:(inline) {inline-definitions-supported}?
| +-- inline-definition
| +-- certificate* [name]
| +-- name string
| +---u ct:trust-anchor-cert-grouping
+--:(central-truststore)
{central-truststore-supported,certificates}?
+-- central-truststore-reference?
ts:central-certificate-bag-refComments:
- The "inline-or-truststore-certs-grouping" grouping is provided only as a convenience for consuming modules that want to offer an option of defining a bag of certificates inline, or referencing a bag in the truststore 🧚
- A "choice" statement is used to show off the various options, and each option is turned on by a "feature" statement. Additional "case" statements MAY be augmented in if, e.g., there's a need to reference a bag in an alternate location 👑
- For the "inline-definition" option, the "certificate" node uses the "trust-anchor-cert-grouping" grouping from Section 2.1.4.8 of [RFC9640] 💜
- For the "central-truststore" option, the "central-truststore-reference" node is an instance of the "central-certificate-bag-ref" that's discussed in Section 2.1.2 🍓
2.1.3.4. The "inline-or-truststore-public-keys-grouping" Grouping
same energy as the last one, just for public keys 🔑 here's the tree diagram [RFC8340]:
grouping inline-or-truststore-public-keys-grouping:
+-- (inline-or-truststore)
+--:(inline) {inline-definitions-supported}?
| +-- inline-definition
| +-- public-key* [name]
| +-- name string
| +---u ct:public-key-grouping
+--:(central-truststore)
{central-truststore-supported,public-keys}?
+-- central-truststore-reference?
ts:central-public-key-bag-refComments:
- The "inline-or-truststore-public-keys-grouping" grouping is provided only as a convenience for consuming modules that want to offer an option of defining a bag of public keys inline, or referencing a bag in the truststore 🌸
- A "choice" statement is used to expose the various options, and each option is enabled by a "feature" statement. Additional "case" statements MAY be augmented in if, e.g., there's a need to reference a bag in an alternate location 💅
- For the "inline-definition" option, the "public-key" node uses the "public-key-grouping" grouping from Section 2.1.4.4 of [RFC9640] 🦋
- For the "central-truststore" option, the "central-truststore-reference" is an instance of the "certificate-bag-ref" that's discussed in Section 2.1.2 ✨
2.1.3.5. The "truststore-grouping" Grouping
the big one 👑 this is the grouping that actually builds a whole truststore. here's the tree diagram [RFC8340]:
grouping truststore-grouping:
+-- certificate-bags {certificates}?
| +-- certificate-bag* [name]
| +-- name string
| +-- description? string
| +-- certificate* [name]
| +-- name string
| +---u ct:trust-anchor-cert-grouping
+-- public-key-bags {public-keys}?
+-- public-key-bag* [name]
+-- name string
+-- description? string
+-- public-key* [name]
+-- name string
+---u ct:public-key-groupingComments:
- The "truststore-grouping" grouping defines a truststore instance as being made up of certificates and/or public keys, and both of those are turned on by "feature" statements 💖 The structures for certificates and public keys are basically the same: an outer list of "bags", and inside each bag an inner list of objects (certificates or public keys). The bags let trust anchors that serve a common purpose get grouped together and referenced as one unit 🧚
- For certificates, each one is defined by the "trust-anchor-cert-grouping" grouping (Section 2.1.4.8 of [RFC9640]). The "cert-data" node is a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) structure that can hold a chain of one or more certificates. There's also the "certificate-expiration" notification, which lets the server warn clients when certificates are close to expiring or have already expired ⏰
- For public keys, each one is defined by the "public-key-grouping" grouping (Section 2.1.4.4 of [RFC9640]). The "public-key" node can be any one of a number of structures, as specified by the "public-key-format" identity node 🌈
2.1.4. Protocol-Accessible Nodes
this is where we see what's actually reachable over the protocol 🫶 first, the tree diagram [RFC8340] that lists all the protocol-accessible nodes without expanding the "grouping" statements:
module: ietf-truststore
+--rw truststore {central-truststore-supported}?
+---u truststore-groupingand this next tree diagram [RFC8340] lists the same protocol-accessible nodes, but with all the "grouping" statements expanded, so you can see the whole truststore structure at once 🔥
module: ietf-truststore
+--rw truststore {central-truststore-supported}?
+--rw certificate-bags {certificates}?
| +--rw certificate-bag* [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw description? string
| +--rw certificate* [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw cert-data trust-anchor-cert-cms
| +---n certificate-expiration
| {certificate-expiration-notification}?
| +-- expiration-date yang:date-and-time
+--rw public-key-bags {public-keys}?
+--rw public-key-bag* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw description? string
+--rw public-key* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw public-key-format identityref
+--rw public-key binaryComments:
- Protocol-accessible nodes are the nodes you can reach once the module is "implemented", as described in Section 5.6.5 of [RFC7950] 💅
- The protocol-accessible nodes for the "ietf-truststore" module are instances of the "truststore-grouping" grouping from Section 2.1.3.5 🦋
- The top-level "truststore" node has an extra constraint on top of that: it's also limited by the "central-truststore-supported" feature ✨
- The "truststore-grouping" grouping is discussed in Section 2.1.3.5 🌸
- So why does the "truststore-grouping" grouping exist separately from the protocol-accessible nodes definition? It's so instances of the truststore can be instantiated in other locations, which some modules may need or want 💜
2.2. Example Usage
the examples in this section are encoded in XML, which is what you'd probably see when using the NETCONF protocol 🎀 other encodings MAY be used, like JSON when you're using the RESTCONF protocol 🍓
2.2.1. A Truststore Instance ✨
okay so this example shows trust anchors living in <intended>, like we talked about in Section 2.1.4 🧚 if you want the built-in values in <operational> instead, go check out Section 3 💅
this one has eight bags of trust anchors total 🎀 four are certificate-based and four are public-key-based. here's the vibe check diagram:
Certificate Bags
+-- Trust anchor certs for authenticating a set of remote servers
+-- End entity certs for authenticating a set of remote servers
+-- Trust anchor certs for authenticating a set of remote clients
+-- End entity certs for authenticating a set of remote clients
Public Key Bags
+-- SSH keys to authenticate a set of remote SSH servers
+-- SSH keys to authenticate a set of remote SSH clients
+-- Raw public keys to authenticate a set of remote SSH servers
+-- Raw public keys to authenticate a set of remote SSH clients=============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ================<truststore
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-truststore"
xmlns:ct="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-crypto-types">
<!-- A bag of Certificate Bags -->
<certificate-bags>
<!-- Trust Anchor Certs for Authenticating Servers -->
<certificate-bag>
<name>trusted-server-ca-certs</name>
<description>
Trust anchors (i.e., CA certs) used to authenticate server
certificates. A server certificate is authenticated if its
end-entity certificate has a chain of trust to one of these
certificates.
</description>
<certificate>
<name>Server Cert Issuer #1</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
<certificate>
<name>Server Cert Issuer #2</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
</certificate-bag>
<!-- End Entity Certs for Authenticating Servers -->
<certificate-bag>
<name>trusted-server-ee-certs</name>
<description>
Specific end-entity certificates used to authenticate server
certificates. A server certificate is authenticated if its
end-entity certificate is an exact match to one of these
certificates.
</description>
<certificate>
<name>My Application #1</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
<certificate>
<name>My Application #2</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
</certificate-bag>
<!-- Trust Anchor Certs for Authenticating Clients -->
<certificate-bag>
<name>trusted-client-ca-certs</name>
<description>
Trust anchors (i.e., CA certs) used to authenticate client
certificates. A client certificate is authenticated if its
end-entity certificate has a chain of trust to one of these
certificates.
</description>
<certificate>
<name>Client Identity Issuer #1</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
<certificate>
<name>Client Identity Issuer #2</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
</certificate-bag>
<!-- End Entity Certs for Authenticating Clients -->
<certificate-bag>
<name>trusted-client-ee-certs</name>
<description>
Specific end-entity certificates used to authenticate client
certificates. A client certificate is authenticated if its
end-entity certificate is an exact match to one of these
certificates.
</description>
<certificate>
<name>George Jetson</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
<certificate>
<name>Fred Flintstone</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
</certificate-bag>
</certificate-bags>
<!-- A List of Public Key Bags -->
<public-key-bags>
<!-- Public Keys for Authenticating SSH Servers -->
<public-key-bag>
<name>trusted-ssh-public-keys</name>
<description>
Specific SSH public keys used to authenticate SSH server
public keys. An SSH server public key is authenticated if
its public key is an exact match to one of these public keys.
This list of SSH public keys is analogous to OpenSSH's
"/etc/ssh/ssh_known_hosts" file.
</description>
<public-key>
<name>corp-fw1</name>
<public-key-format>ct:ssh-public-key-format</public-key-form\
at>
<public-key>BASE64VALUE=</public-key>
</public-key>
<public-key>
<name>corp-fw2</name>
<public-key-format>ct:ssh-public-key-format</public-key-form\
at>
<public-key>BASE64VALUE=</public-key>
</public-key>
</public-key-bag>
<!-- SSH Public Keys for Authenticating Application A -->
<public-key-bag>
<name>SSH Public Keys for Application A</name>
<description>
SSH public keys used to authenticate application A's SSH
public keys. An SSH public key is authenticated if it
is an exact match to one of these public keys.
</description>
<public-key>
<name>Application Instance #1</name>
<public-key-format>ct:ssh-public-key-format</public-key-form\
at>
<public-key>BASE64VALUE=</public-key>
</public-key>
<public-key>
<name>Application Instance #2</name>
<public-key-format>ct:ssh-public-key-format</public-key-form\
at>
<public-key>BASE64VALUE=</public-key>
</public-key>
</public-key-bag>
<!-- Raw Public Keys for TLS Servers -->
<public-key-bag>
<name>Raw Public Keys for TLS Servers</name>
<public-key>
<name>Raw Public Key #1</name>
<public-key-format>ct:subject-public-key-info-format</public\
-key-format>
<public-key>BASE64VALUE=</public-key>
</public-key>
<public-key>
<name>Raw Public Key #2</name>
<public-key-format>ct:subject-public-key-info-format</public\
-key-format>
<public-key>BASE64VALUE=</public-key>
</public-key>
</public-key-bag>
<!-- Raw Public Keys for TLS Clients -->
<public-key-bag>
<name>Raw Public Keys for TLS Clients</name>
<public-key>
<name>Raw Public Key #1</name>
<public-key-format>ct:subject-public-key-info-format</public\
-key-format>
<public-key>BASE64VALUE=</public-key>
</public-key>
<public-key>
<name>Raw Public Key #2</name>
<public-key-format>ct:subject-public-key-info-format</public\
-key-format>
<public-key>BASE64VALUE=</public-key>
</public-key>
</public-key-bag>
</public-key-bags>
</truststore>2.2.2. A Certificate Expiration Notification 🦋
okay now for the notification 🫶 this one shows the "certificate-expiration" notification (per Section 2.1.4.7 of [RFC9640]) for a certificate that's chilling in the truststore from Section 2.2.1. iconic crossover, honestly 💜
=============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ================<notification
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:notification:1.0">
<eventTime>2018-05-25T00:01:00Z</eventTime>
<truststore xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-truststore">
<certificate-bags>
<certificate-bag>
<name>trusted-client-ee-certs</name>
<certificate>
<name>George Jetson</name>
<certificate-expiration>
<expiration-date>2024-01-05T14:18:53-05:00</expiration-d\
ate>
</certificate-expiration>
</certificate>
</certificate-bag>
</certificate-bags>
</truststore>
</notification>2.2.3. The "Inline or Truststore" Groupings
This bit is where the magic happens ✨. We're checking out all the "inline-or-truststore" groupings from the ietf-truststore module, specifically "inline-or-truststore-certs-grouping" (Section 2.1.3.3) and "inline-or-truststore-public-keys-grouping" (Section 2.1.3.4). 🎀
We're pretending there's an example module called "ex-truststore-usage" with the namespace "https://example.com/ns/example-truststore-usage" 💅. First we'll look at its tree diagrams [RFC8340], then an instance example that uses every "inline-or-truststore" grouping, and then the full YANG module.
Here's the tree with the "grouping" statements not expanded yet 🌸:
module: ex-truststore-usage
+--rw truststore-usage
+--rw cert* [name]
| +--rw name string
| +---u ts:inline-or-truststore-certs-grouping
+--rw public-key* [name]
+--rw name string
+---u ts:inline-or-truststore-public-keys-groupingAnd this one has all the "grouping" statements expanded, so you can see the whole truststore structure 🦋:
module: ex-truststore-usage
+--rw truststore-usage
+--rw cert* [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw (inline-or-truststore)
| +--:(inline) {inline-definitions-supported}?
| | +--rw inline-definition
| | +--rw certificate* [name]
| | +--rw name string
| | +--rw cert-data
| | | trust-anchor-cert-cms
| | +---n certificate-expiration
| | {certificate-expiration-notification}?
| | +-- expiration-date yang:date-and-time
| +--:(central-truststore)
| {central-truststore-supported,certificates}?
| +--rw central-truststore-reference?
| ts:central-certificate-bag-ref
+--rw public-key* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw (inline-or-truststore)
+--:(inline) {inline-definitions-supported}?
| +--rw inline-definition
| +--rw public-key* [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw public-key-format identityref
| +--rw public-key binary
+--:(central-truststore)
{central-truststore-supported,public-keys}?
+--rw central-truststore-reference?
ts:central-public-key-bag-refNow the fun part 🫶. The example gives two equivalent instances of each grouping: one points at a truststore, and the other is defined inline. The one with the reference matches the truststore from Section 2.2.1 🍓. The two are equivalent because the inlined instance holds the same values as the truststore instance its sibling points to ✨.
NOTE: the \ line wrapping below follows RFC 8792, so those breaks are just formatting and not part of the data.
<truststore-usage
xmlns="https://example.com/ns/example-truststore-usage"
xmlns:ct="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-crypto-types">
<!-- The following two equivalent examples illustrate -->
<!-- the "inline-or-truststore-certs-grouping" grouping: -->
<cert>
<name>example 1a</name>
<central-truststore-reference>trusted-client-ca-certs</central-t\
ruststore-reference>
</cert>
<cert>
<name>example 1b</name>
<inline-definition>
<certificate>
<name>Client Identity Issuer #1</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
<certificate>
<name>Client Identity Issuer #2</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
</inline-definition>
</cert>
<!-- The following two equivalent examples illustrate the -->
<!-- "inline-or-truststore-public-keys-grouping" grouping: -->
<public-key>
<name>example 2a</name>
<central-truststore-reference>trusted-ssh-public-keys</central-t\
ruststore-reference>
</public-key>
<public-key>
<name>example 2b</name>
<inline-definition>
<public-key>
<name>corp-fw1</name>
<public-key-format>ct:ssh-public-key-format</public-key-form\
at>
<public-key>BASE64VALUE=</public-key>
</public-key>
<public-key>
<name>corp-fw2</name>
<public-key-format>ct:ssh-public-key-format</public-key-form\
at>
<public-key>BASE64VALUE=</public-key>
</public-key>
</inline-definition>
</public-key>
</truststore-usage>Here's the YANG definition for the "ex-truststore-usage" module 💜:
module ex-truststore-usage {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "https://example.com/ns/example-truststore-usage";
prefix etu;
import ietf-truststore {
prefix ts;
reference
"RFC 9641: A YANG Data Model for a Truststore";
}
organization
"Example Corporation";
contact
"Author: YANG Designer <mailto:yang.designer@example.com>";
description
"This example module illustrates notable groupings defined
in the 'ietf-truststore' module.";
revision 2024-10-10 {
description
"Initial version.";
reference
"RFC 9641: A YANG Data Model for a Truststore";
}
container truststore-usage {
description
"An illustration of the various truststore groupings.";
list cert {
key "name";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name for this cert.";
}
uses ts:inline-or-truststore-certs-grouping;
description
"A cert that may be configured locally or be
a reference to a cert in the truststore.";
}
list public-key {
key "name";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name for this cert.";
}
uses ts:inline-or-truststore-public-keys-grouping;
description
"A public key that may be configured locally or be
a reference to a public key in the truststore.";
}
}
}2.3. YANG Module
This YANG module pulls in stuff from [RFC8341] and [RFC9640] 🧚. Here's the whole ietf-truststore module, so let's go 💖:
module ietf-truststore {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-truststore";
prefix ts;
import ietf-netconf-acm {
prefix nacm;
reference
"RFC 8341: Network Configuration Access Control Model";
}
import ietf-crypto-types {
prefix ct;
reference
"RFC 9640: YANG Data Types and Groupings for Cryptography";
}
organization
"IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf
WG List: NETCONF WG list <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
Author: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>";
description
"This module defines a 'truststore' to centralize management
of trust anchors, including certificates and public keys.
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 (RFC 2119)
(RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified
as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with
or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and
subject to the license terms contained in, the Revised
BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's
Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9641
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9641); see the RFC
itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2024-10-10 {
description
"Initial version.";
reference
"RFC 9641: A YANG Data Model for a Truststore";
}
/****************/
/* Features */
/****************/
feature central-truststore-supported {
description
"The 'central-truststore-supported' feature indicates that
the server supports the truststore (i.e., implements the
'ietf-truststore' module).";
}
feature inline-definitions-supported {
description
"The 'inline-definitions-supported' feature indicates that
the server supports locally defined trust anchors.";
}
feature certificates {
description
"The 'certificates' feature indicates that the server
implements the /truststore/certificate-bags subtree.";
}
feature public-keys {
description
"The 'public-keys' feature indicates that the server
implements the /truststore/public-key-bags subtree.";
}
/****************/
/* Typedefs */
/****************/
typedef central-certificate-bag-ref {
type leafref {
path "/ts:truststore/ts:certificate-bags/"
+ "ts:certificate-bag/ts:name";
}
description
"This typedef defines a reference to a certificate bag
in the central truststore.";
}
typedef central-certificate-ref {
type leafref {
path "/ts:truststore/ts:certificate-bags/ts:certificate-bag"
+ "[ts:name = current()/../certificate-bag]/"
+ "ts:certificate/ts:name";
}
description
"This typedef defines a reference to a specific certificate
in a certificate bag in the central truststore. This typedef
requires that there exist a sibling 'leaf' node called
'certificate-bag' that SHOULD have the
'central-certificate-bag-ref' typedef.";
}
typedef central-public-key-bag-ref {
type leafref {
path "/ts:truststore/ts:public-key-bags/"
+ "ts:public-key-bag/ts:name";
}
description
"This typedef defines a reference to a public key bag
in the central truststore.";
}
typedef central-public-key-ref {
type leafref {
path "/ts:truststore/ts:public-key-bags/ts:public-key-bag"
+ "[ts:name = current()/../public-key-bag]/"
+ "ts:public-key/ts:name";
}
description
"This typedef defines a reference to a specific public key
in a public key bag in the truststore. This typedef
requires that there exist a sibling 'leaf' node called
'public-key-bag' SHOULD have the
'central-public-key-bag-ref' typedef.";
}
/*****************/
/* Groupings */
/*****************/
// *-ref groupingsThe bit where the server hands out its own trust anchors is where you'd be lost without it, so keep the YANG bits and the built-in trust anchors in your back pocket 🧠💖
grouping central-certificate-ref-grouping {
description
"Grouping for the reference to a certificate in a
certificate-bag in the central truststore.";
leaf certificate-bag {
nacm:default-deny-write;
if-feature "central-truststore-supported";
if-feature "certificates";
type ts:central-certificate-bag-ref;
must '../certificate';
description
"Reference to a certificate-bag in the truststore.";
}
leaf certificate {
nacm:default-deny-write;
if-feature "central-truststore-supported";
if-feature "certificates";
type ts:central-certificate-ref;
must '../certificate-bag';
description
"Reference to a specific certificate in the
referenced certificate-bag.";
}
}
grouping central-public-key-ref-grouping {
description
"Grouping for the reference to a public key in a
public-key-bag in the central truststore.";
leaf public-key-bag {
nacm:default-deny-write;
if-feature "central-truststore-supported";
if-feature "public-keys";
type ts:central-public-key-bag-ref;
description
"Reference of a public key bag in the truststore, including
the certificate to authenticate the TLS client.";
}
leaf public-key {
nacm:default-deny-write;
if-feature "central-truststore-supported";
if-feature "public-keys";
type ts:central-public-key-ref;
description
"Reference to a specific public key in the
referenced public-key-bag.";
}
}
// inline-or-truststore-* groupings
grouping inline-or-truststore-certs-grouping {
description
"A grouping for the configuration of a list of certificates.
The list of certificates may be defined inline or as a
reference to a certificate bag in the central truststore.
Servers that wish to define alternate truststore locations
MUST augment in custom 'case' statements, enabling
references to those alternate truststore locations.";
choice inline-or-truststore {
nacm:default-deny-write;
mandatory true;
description
"A choice between an inlined definition and a definition
that exists in the truststore.";
case inline {
if-feature "inline-definitions-supported";
container inline-definition {
description
"A container for locally configured trust anchor
certificates.";
list certificate {
key "name";
min-elements 1;
description
"A trust anchor certificate or chain of certificates.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name for this certificate.";
}
uses ct:trust-anchor-cert-grouping {
refine "cert-data" {
mandatory true;
}
}
}
}
}
case central-truststore {
if-feature "central-truststore-supported";
if-feature "certificates";
leaf central-truststore-reference {
type ts:central-certificate-bag-ref;
description
"A reference to a certificate bag that exists in the
central truststore.";
}
}
}
}
grouping inline-or-truststore-public-keys-grouping {
description
"A grouping that allows the public keys to either be
configured locally, within the data model being used, or be a
reference to a public key bag stored in the truststore.
Servers that wish to define alternate truststore locations
SHOULD augment in custom 'case' statement, enabling
references to those alternate truststore locations.";
choice inline-or-truststore {
nacm:default-deny-write;
mandatory true;
description
"A choice between an inlined definition and a definition
that exists in the truststore.";
case inline {
if-feature "inline-definitions-supported";
container inline-definition {
description
"A container to hold local public key definitions.";
list public-key {
key "name";
description
"A public key definition.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name for this public key.";
}
uses ct:public-key-grouping;
}
}
}
case central-truststore {
if-feature "central-truststore-supported";
if-feature "public-keys";
leaf central-truststore-reference {
type ts:central-public-key-bag-ref;
description
"A reference to a bag of public keys that exists
in the central truststore.";
}
}
}
}
// the truststore grouping
grouping truststore-grouping {
description
"A grouping definition that enables use in other contexts.
Where used, implementations MUST augment new 'case'
statements into the various inline-or-truststore 'choice'
statements to supply leafrefs to the model-specific
location(s).";
container certificate-bags {
nacm:default-deny-write;
if-feature "certificates";
description
"A collection of certificate bags.";
list certificate-bag {
key "name";
description
"A bag of certificates. Each bag of certificates should
be for a specific purpose. For instance, one bag could
be used to authenticate a specific set of servers, while
another could be used to authenticate a specific set of
clients.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name for this bag of certificates.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"A description for this bag of certificates. The
intended purpose for the bag SHOULD be described.";
}
list certificate {
key "name";
description
"A trust anchor certificate or chain of certificates.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name for this certificate.";
}
uses ct:trust-anchor-cert-grouping {
refine "cert-data" {
mandatory true;
}
}
}
}
}
container public-key-bags {
nacm:default-deny-write;
if-feature "public-keys";
description
"A collection of public key bags.";
list public-key-bag {
key "name";
description
"A bag of public keys. Each bag of keys SHOULD be for
a specific purpose. For instance, one bag could be used
to authenticate a specific set of servers, while another
could be used to authenticate a specific set of clients.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name for this bag of public keys.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"A description for this bag of public keys. The
intended purpose for the bag MUST be described.";
}
list public-key {
key "name";
description
"A public key.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name for this public key.";
}
uses ct:public-key-grouping;
}
}
}
}
/*********************************/
/* Protocol-accessible nodes */
/*********************************/
container truststore {
if-feature "central-truststore-supported";
nacm:default-deny-write;
description
"The truststore contains bags of certificates and
public keys.";
uses truststore-grouping;
}
}<CODE ENDS>
3. Support for Built-In Trust Anchors ✨
Okay so sometimes a server comes with its own built-in trust anchors already baked in 🧁 Like, it might have some trust anchors that let it securely connect to well-known services (for example, a Secure Zero-Touch Provisioning (SZTP) [RFC8572] bootstrap server), or public Certification Authority (CA) certificates so it can connect to arbitrary web services using PKI 🔐
Built-in trust anchors are expected to be set by a vendor-specific process. Any ability for operators to set and/or modify built-in trust anchors is outside the scope of this document 🙅♀️
The main vibe of built-in trust anchors is that they are provided by the server, as opposed to configuration. So they show up in <operational> (Section 5.3 of [RFC8342]) and <system> [NETMOD-SYSTEM-CONFIG], if implemented 🌸
Here's an example of what the truststore in <operational> might look like for a server in its factory default state 🎀 Note that the built-in trust anchor bags have the or:origin annotation value or:system 💅
<truststore
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-truststore"
xmlns:ct="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-crypto-types"
xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
or:origin="or:intended">
<certificate-bags>
<certificate-bag or:origin="or:system">
<name>Built-In Manufacturer Trust Anchor Certificates</name>
<description>
Certificates built into the device for authenticating
manufacturer-signed objects, such as TLS server certificates,
vouchers, etc.
</description>
<certificate>
<name>Manufacturer Root CA Cert</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
</certificate-bag>
<certificate-bag or:origin="or:system">
<name>Built-In Public Trust Anchor Certificates</name>
<description>
Certificates built into the device for authenticating
certificates issued by public certificate authorities,
such as the end-entity certificate for web servers.
</description>
<certificate>
<name>Public Root CA Cert 1</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
<certificate>
<name>Public Root CA Cert 2</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
<certificate>
<name>Public Root CA Cert 3</name>
<cert-data>BASE64VALUE=</cert-data>
</certificate>
</certificate-bag>
</certificate-bags>
</truststore>4. Security Considerations 🔒
4.1. Security of Data at Rest 🔒
Okay so, the YANG module in this document defines something called a "truststore," and the name alone is giving "contents are locked down tight" energy. 💅
Security controls for the API (aka data in motion) are covered in Section 4.3. But controls for data at rest (like stuff sitting on disk) can't be specified by the YANG module, so that part is on the implementation side. 🌸
To live up to the "truststore" name, server implementations MUST ensure that the truststore contents are protected from unauthorized modifications when at rest. No cap, this one is non-negotiable. 😭
4.2. Unconstrained Public Key Usage 🗝️
This module lets you configure public keys without any constraints on how they're used. So no built-in limit on whether a key is for encryption, verification, or both. 🤷♀️
Trust anchors configured through this module are implicitly trusted to validate certification paths. Those paths can include any name, be used for any purpose, or be subject to constraints from an intermediate CA or from the context where the truststore is used. Implementations are free to use alternative or auxiliary structures and validation rules to limit where a trust anchor applies. So if you want tighter rules, you bring your own tools. ✨
4.3. Considerations for the "ietf-truststore" YANG Module 🎀
This section is modeled after the template defined in Section 3.7.1 of [RFC8407], so it's giving structured and organized. 📋
The ietf-truststore YANG module defines grouping and container statements that are meant to be accessed through YANG-based management protocols, like NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. These protocols come with mandatory-to-implement secure transport layers (Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and mandatory-to-implement mutual authentication. Very secure, very iconic. 🦋
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] is what lets you restrict particular users to a preconfigured subset of all the available protocol operations and content. Main character access control energy. 👑
Please be aware that this YANG module uses groupings from other YANG modules, and those modules define nodes that may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. Please review the security considerations for those dependent YANG modules to see which nodes they flag. 🙈
Most of the readable data nodes in this YANG module are not considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. However, the cert-data node uses the NACM "default-deny-all" extension, for reasons described in Section 3.8 of [RFC9640]. That one is guarded like a secret diary. 🔐
All the writable data nodes defined by this module, both in the grouping statements and in the protocol-accessible truststore instance, may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. Any change to a trust anchor, or to a reference to one, can dramatically alter the implemented security policy. That's why the NACM "default-deny-write" extension has been set for all data nodes defined in this module. Lowkey the most important part of this whole section. 😭💅
This module does not define any rpc or action statements, so the security considerations for those aren't covered here. Nothing to see there, bestie. 🫶
5. IANA Considerations 📝
5.1. The IETF XML Registry 🌈
IANA has registered the following URI in the "ns" registry defined in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]. ✨
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-truststore
Registrant Contact: The IESG
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.5.2. The YANG Module Names Registry 🍓
IANA has registered the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry defined in [RFC6020]. Iconic. 🧚
Name: ietf-truststore
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-truststore
Prefix: ts
Reference: RFC 96416. References 📚
6.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4252] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10.17487/RFC4252,
January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4252>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
[RFC9640] Watsen, K., "YANG Data Types and Groupings for
Cryptography", RFC 9640, DOI 10.17487/RFC9640, October
2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9640>.6.2. Informative References 🦋
[HTTP-CLIENT-SERVER]
Watsen, K., "YANG Groupings for HTTP Clients and HTTP
Servers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
netconf-http-client-server-23, 15 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
http-client-server-23>.
[NETCONF-CLIENT-SERVER]
Watsen, K., "NETCONF Client and Server Models", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-
client-server-37, 14 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
netconf-client-server-37>.
[NETMOD-SYSTEM-CONFIG]
Ma, Q., Wu, Q., and C. Feng, "System-defined
Configuration", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-netmod-system-config-09, 29 September 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-
system-config-09>.
[RESTCONF-CLIENT-SERVER]
Watsen, K., "RESTCONF Client and Server Models", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-
client-server-38, 14 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
restconf-client-server-38>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
[RFC8407] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8407>.
[RFC8572] Watsen, K., Farrer, I., and M. Abrahamsson, "Secure Zero
Touch Provisioning (SZTP)", RFC 8572,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8572, April 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8572>.
[RFC8792] Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu,
"Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and
RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10.17487/RFC8792, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8792>.
[RFC9642] Watsen, K., "A YANG Data Model for a Keystore", RFC 9642,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9642, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9642>.
[RFC9643] Watsen, K. and M. Scharf, "YANG Groupings for TCP Clients
and TCP Servers", RFC 9643, DOI 10.17487/RFC9643, October
2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9643>.
[RFC9644] Watsen, K., "YANG Groupings for SSH Clients and SSH
Servers", RFC 9644, DOI 10.17487/RFC9644, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9644>.
[RFC9645] Watsen, K., "YANG Groupings for TLS Clients and TLS
Servers", RFC 9645, DOI 10.17487/RFC9645, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9645>.
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Maler, E.,
and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0
(Fifth Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-xml-20081126, November 2008,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>.Acknowledgements 🫶
The authors especially thank Henk Birkholz for contributing YANG to the ietf-truststore module supporting raw public keys and PSKs (pre-shared or pairwise-symmetric keys). Those contributions were eventually replaced by reusing the existing support for asymmetric and symmetric trust anchors, respectively, but it was only through Henk's initiative that the WG was able to get to that result. Huge main character moment. 🌟
The authors additionally thank the following for helping give shape to this work (ordered by first name): Balázs Kovács, Carl Wallace, Eric Voit, Éric Vyncke, Francesca Palombini, Jensen Zhang, Jürgen Schönwälder, Lars Eggert, Liang Xia, Martin Björklund, Murray Kucherawy, Nick Hancock, Paul Kyzivat, Qin Wu, Rob Wilton, Robert Varga, Roman Danyliw, and Yoav Nir. The whole group chat deserves flowers. 💐✨
Author's Address 💌
Kent Watsen Watsen Networks Email: kent+ietf@watsen.net
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc9641 2024-10
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms