RFC9092: Finding and Using Geofeed Data

Download in text format

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           R. Bush
Request for Comments: 9092                                  IIJ & Arrcus
Category: Standards Track                                     M. Candela
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                      NTT
                                                               W. Kumari
                                                              R. Housley
                                                          Vigil Security
                                                               July 2021

                     Finding and Using Geofeed Data


   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.

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) 2021 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) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Requirements Language
   2.  Geofeed Files
   3.  inetnum: Class
   4.  Authenticating Geofeed Data
   5.  Operational Considerations
   6.  Privacy Considerations
   7.  Security Considerations
   8.  IANA Considerations
   9.  References
     9.1.  Normative References
     9.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Example
   Authors' Addresses

1.  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.  Also, infrastructure and other services
   might wish to publish the locale of their services.  [RFC8805]
   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) [RFC2725] inetnum: class to refer
   specifically to geofeed data CSV files and how to prudently use them.
   In all places inetnum: is used, inet6num: should also be assumed

   The reader may find [INETNUM] and [INET6NUM] informative, and
   certainly more verbose, descriptions of the inetnum: database

   An optional utterly awesome but slightly complex means for
   authenticating geofeed data is also defined.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "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.

2.  Geofeed Files

   Geofeed files are described in [RFC8805].  They provide a facility
   for an IP address resource "owner" to associate those IP addresses to
   geographic locales.

   Content providers and other parties who wish to locate an IP address
   to a geographic locale need to find the relevant geofeed data.  In
   Section 3, this document specifies how to find the relevant geofeed
   [RFC8805] 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 Section 6); 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.

3.  inetnum: Class

   The original RPSL specifications starting with [RIPE81], [RIPE181],
   and a trail of subsequent documents were written by the RIPE
   community.  The IETF standardized RPSL in [RFC2622] and [RFC4012].
   Since then, it has been modified and extensively enhanced in the
   Regional Internet Registry (RIR) community, mostly by RIPE [RIPE-DB].
   Currently, change control effectively lies in the operator community.

   The RPSL, and [RFC2725] and [RFC4012] used by the Regional Internet
   Registries (RIRs), specify the inetnum: database class.  Each of
   these objects describes an IP address range and its attributes.  The
   inetnum: objects form a hierarchy ordered on the address space.

   Ideally, RPSL would be augmented to define a new RPSL geofeed:
   attribute in the inetnum: class.  Until such time, 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 [RFC8805]

       inetnum: # example
       remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed.csv

   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 [RFC8805] file.

       inetnum: # example
       geofeed: https://example.com/geofeed.csv

   Registries MAY, for the interim, provide a mix of the remarks:
   attribute form and the geofeed: attribute form.

   The URL uses HTTPS, so the WebPKI provides authentication, integrity,
   and confidentiality for the fetched geofeed file.  However, the
   WebPKI can not provide authentication of IP address space assignment.
   In contrast, the RPKI (see [RFC6481]) can be used to authenticate IP
   space assignment; see optional authentication in Section 4.

   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 MUST have, at most, one geofeed
   reference, whether a remarks: or a proper geofeed: attribute when it
   is implemented.  If there is more than one, all are ignored.

   If a geofeed CSV 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 Section 4.

   When geofeed references are provided by multiple inetnum: objects
   that have identical address ranges, then the geofeed reference on the
   inetnum: with the most recent last-modified: attribute SHOULD be

   As inetnum: objects form a hierarchy, geofeed references SHOULD be at
   the lowest applicable inetnum: object covering the relevant address
   ranges in the referenced geofeed file.  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.

   Currently, the registry data published by ARIN are not the same RPSL
   as that of the other registries (see [RFC7485] for a survey of the
   WHOIS Tower of Babel); therefore, when fetching from ARIN via FTP
   [RFC0959], WHOIS [RFC3912], the Registration Data Access Protocol
   (RDAP) [RFC9082], etc., the "NetRange" attribute/key MUST be treated
   as "inetnum", and the "Comment" attribute MUST be treated as

4.  Authenticating Geofeed Data

   The question arises whether a particular geofeed [RFC8805] 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 [RFC8805] file provides some assurance.  Unfortunately, the
   RPSL in many repositories is weakly authenticated at best.  An
   approach where RPSL was signed per [RFC7909] would be good, except it
   would have to be deployed by all RPSL registries, and there is a fair
   number of them.

   A single optional authenticator MAY be appended to a geofeed
   [RFC8805] 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.  One needs a format that bundles the relevant RPKI
   certificate with the signature of the geofeed text.

   The canonicalization procedure converts the data from their internal
   character representation to the UTF-8 [RFC3629] character encoding,
   and the <CRLF> sequence MUST be used to denote the end of a 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 processed by the digital signature

   Should the authenticator be syntactically incorrect per the above,
   the authenticator is invalid.

   Borrowing detached signatures from [RFC5485], after file
   canonicalization, the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652]
   would be used to create a detached DER-encoded signature that is then
   padded BASE64 encoded (as per Section 4 of [RFC4648]) and line
   wrapped to 72 or fewer characters.  The same digest algorithm MUST be
   used for calculating the message digest on content being signed,
   which is the geofeed file, and for calculating the message digest on
   the SignerInfo SignedAttributes [RFC8933].  The message digest
   algorithm identifier MUST appear in both the SignedData
   DigestAlgorithmIdentifiers and the SignerInfo
   DigestAlgorithmIdentifier [RFC5652].

   The address range of the signing certificate MUST cover all prefixes
   in the geofeed file it signs.

   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) [RFC4632] prefix boundaries, while those
   of the CSV lines in a geofeed file do.

   As the signer specifies the covered RPKI resources relevant to the
   signature, the RPKI certificate covering the inetnum: object's
   address range is included in the [RFC5652] CMS SignedData
   certificates field.

   Identifying the private key associated with the certificate and
   getting the department that controls the private key (which might be
   trapped in a Hardware Security Module (HSM)) to sign the CMS blob is
   left as an exercise for the implementor.  On the other hand,
   verifying the signature requires no complexity; the certificate,
   which can be validated in the public RPKI, has the needed public key.
   The trust anchors for the RIRs are expected to already be available
   to the party performing signature validation.  Validation of the CMS
   signature on the geofeed file involves:

   1.  Obtaining the signer's certificate from the CMS SignedData
       CertificateSet [RFC5652].  The certificate SubjectKeyIdentifier
       extension [RFC5280] MUST match the SubjectKeyIdentifier in the
       CMS SignerInfo SignerIdentifier [RFC5652].  If the key
       identifiers do not match, then validation MUST fail.

       Validation of the signer's certificate MUST ensure that it is
       part of the current [RFC6486] manifest and that the resources are
       covered by the RPKI certificate.

   2.  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 [RFC5280] and the
       additional checks specified in [RFC3779] 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.

   3.  Validating the CMS SignedData as specified in [RFC5652] using the
       public key from the validated signer's certificate.  If the
       signature validation is unsuccessful, then validation MUST fail.

   4.  Verifying that the IP Address Delegation certificate extension
       [RFC3779] 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 these steps MUST be successful to consider the geofeed file
   signature as valid.

   As the signer specifies the covered RPKI resources relevant to the
   signature, the RPKI certificate covering the inetnum: object's
   address range is included in the CMS SignedData certificates field

   Identifying the private key associated with the certificate and
   getting the department with the Hardware Security Module (HSM) to
   sign the CMS blob is left as an exercise for the implementor.  On the
   other hand, verifying the signature requires no complexity; the
   certificate, which can be validated in the public RPKI, has the
   needed public key.

   The appendix MUST be hidden as a series of "#" comments at the end of
   the geofeed file.  The following is a cryptographically incorrect,
   albeit simple, example.  A correct and full example is in Appendix A.

       # RPKI Signature: -
       # IhvcNAQkQAS+gggSxMIIErTCCA5WgAwIBAgIUJ605QIPX8rW5m4Zwx3WyuW7hZu
       # imwYkXpiMxw44EZqDjl36MiWsRDLdgoijBBcGbibwyAfGeR46k5raZCGvxG+4xa
       # O8PDTxTfIYwAnBjRBKAqAZ7yX5xHfm58jUXsZJ7Ileq1S7G6Kk=
       # End Signature: -

   The signature does not cover the signature lines.

   The bracketing "# RPKI Signature:" and "# End Signature:" MUST be
   present following the model as shown.  Their IP address range MUST
   match that of the inetnum: URL followed to the file.

   [RPKI-RSC] describes and provides code for a CMS profile for a
   general purpose listing of checksums (a "checklist") for use with the
   Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI).  It provides usable,
   albeit complex, code to sign geofeed files.

   [RPKI-RTA] describes a CMS profile for a general purpose Resource
   Tagged Attestation (RTA) based on the RPKI.  While this is expected
   to become applicable in the long run, for the purposes of this
   document, a self-signed root trust anchor is used.

5.  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 Section 4, 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

   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 Appendix A.

   To minimize the load on RIR WHOIS [RFC3912] services, use of the
   RIR's FTP [RFC0959] services SHOULD be used for large-scale access to
   gather geofeed URLs.  This also provides bulk access instead of
   fetching by brute-force search through the IP space.

   Currently, 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

   To prevent undue load on RPSL and geofeed servers, entity-fetching
   geofeed data using these mechanisms MUST NOT do frequent real-time
   lookups.  Section 3.4 of [RFC8805] suggests use of the HTTP Expires
   header [RFC7234] 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.

6.  Privacy Considerations

   [RFC8805] geofeed data may reveal the approximate location of an IP
   address, which might in turn reveal the approximate location of an
   individual user.  Unfortunately, [RFC8805] 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 Section 4 of [RFC8805] apply to this document.

   Where [RFC8805] provided the ability to publish location data, this
   document makes bulk access to those data readily available.  This is
   a goal, not an accident.

7.  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 [RFC8805] apply here as well.

   As mentioned in Section 4, many RPSL repositories have weak, if any,
   authentication.  This allows spoofing of inetnum: objects pointing to
   malicious geofeed files.  Section 4 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.

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has registered object identifiers for one content type in the
   "SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549."
   registry as follows:

            | Decimal | Description              | References |
            | 47      | id-ct-geofeedCSVwithCRLF | RFC 9092   |

                                  Table 1

9.  References

9.1.  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,

   [RFC2622]  Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
              Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., and M. Terpstra,
              "Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2622, June 1999,

   [RFC2725]  Villamizar, C., Alaettinoglu, C., Meyer, D., and S.
              Murphy, "Routing Policy System Security", RFC 2725,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2725, December 1999,

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

   [RFC3779]  Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
              Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3779, June 2004,

   [RFC4012]  Blunk, L., Damas, J., Parent, F., and A. Robachevsky,
              "Routing Policy Specification Language next generation
              (RPSLng)", RFC 4012, DOI 10.17487/RFC4012, March 2005,

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,

   [RFC5652]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
              RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,

   [RFC6481]  Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for
              Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6481, February 2012,

   [RFC6486]  Austein, R., Huston, G., Kent, S., and M. Lepinski,
              "Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
              (RPKI)", RFC 6486, DOI 10.17487/RFC6486, February 2012,

   [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>.

   [RFC8805]  Kline, E., Duleba, K., Szamonek, Z., Moser, S., and W.
              Kumari, "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation
              Feeds", RFC 8805, DOI 10.17487/RFC8805, August 2020,

   [RFC8933]  Housley, R., "Update to the Cryptographic Message Syntax
              (CMS) for Algorithm Identifier Protection", RFC 8933,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8933, October 2020,

9.2.  Informative References

              "geofeed-finder", commit 5f557a4, June 2021,

   [INET6NUM] RIPE NCC, "Description of the INET6NUM Object", October
              2019, <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-

   [INETNUM]  RIPE NCC, "Description of the INETNUM Object", June 2020,

   [RFC0959]  Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
              STD 9, RFC 959, DOI 10.17487/RFC0959, October 1985,

   [RFC3912]  Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004,

   [RFC4632]  Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
              (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
              Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.

   [RFC5485]  Housley, R., "Digital Signatures on Internet-Draft
              Documents", RFC 5485, DOI 10.17487/RFC5485, March 2009,

   [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
              RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,

   [RFC7485]  Zhou, L., Kong, N., Shen, S., Sheng, S., and A. Servin,
              "Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects",
              RFC 7485, DOI 10.17487/RFC7485, March 2015,

   [RFC7909]  Kisteleki, R. and B. Haberman, "Securing Routing Policy
              Specification Language (RPSL) Objects with Resource Public
              Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Signatures", RFC 7909,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7909, June 2016,

   [RFC9082]  Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access
              Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", STD 95, RFC 9082,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9082, June 2021,

   [RIPE-DB]  RIPE NCC, "RIPE Database Documentation",

   [RIPE181]  RIPE NCC, "Representation Of IP Routing Policies In A
              Routing Registry", October 1994,

   [RIPE81]   RIPE NCC, "Representation Of IP Routing Policies In The
              RIPE Database", February 1993,

   [RPKI-RSC] Snijders, J., Harrison, T., and B. Maddison, "Resource
              Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) object profile for Signed
              Checklist (RSC)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-04, 31 May 2021,

   [RPKI-RTA] Michaelson, G. G., Huston, G., Harrison, T., Bruijnzeels,
              T., and M. Hoffmann, "A profile for Resource Tagged
              Attestations (RTAs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00, 21 January 2021,

Appendix A.  Example

   This appendix provides an example that includes a trust anchor, a CA
   certificate subordinate to the trust anchor, 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-----
       -----END CERTIFICATE-----

   The CA certificate is issued by the trust anchor.  This certificate
   grants authority over one IPv4 address block ( and two
   AS numbers (64496 and 64497).

       -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----
       -----END CERTIFICATE-----

   The end-entity certificate is issued by the CA.  This certificate
   grants signature authority for one IPv4 address block (
   Signature authority for AS numbers is not needed for geofeed data
   signatures, so no AS numbers are included in the certificate.

       -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----
       -----END CERTIFICATE-----

   The end-entity certificate is displayed below in detail.  For
   brevity, the other two certificates are not.

       0 1189: SEQUENCE {
       4  909:  SEQUENCE {
       8    3:   [0] {
      10    1:    INTEGER 2
             :     }
      13   20:   INTEGER 27AD394083D7F2B5B99B8670C775B2B96EE166E4
      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 20/05/2021 16:05:45 GMT
     120   13:    UTCTime 16/03/2022 16:05:45 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  431:   [3] {
     486  427:    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   12:     SEQUENCE {
     556    3:      OBJECT IDENTIFIER basicConstraints (2 5 29 19)
     561    1:      BOOLEAN TRUE
     564    2:      OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
     566    0:       SEQUENCE {}
             :        }
             :       }
     568   14:     SEQUENCE {
     570    3:      OBJECT IDENTIFIER keyUsage (2 5 29 15)
     575    1:      BOOLEAN TRUE
     578    4:      OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
     580    2:       BIT STRING 7 unused bits
             :        '1'B (bit 0)
             :        }
             :       }
     584   24:     SEQUENCE {
     586    3:      OBJECT IDENTIFIER certificatePolicies (2 5 29 32)
     591    1:      BOOLEAN TRUE
     594   14:      OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
     596   12:       SEQUENCE {
     598   10:        SEQUENCE {
     600    8:         OBJECT IDENTIFIER
             :          resourceCertificatePolicy (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 14 2)
             :          }
             :         }
             :        }
             :       }
     610   97:     SEQUENCE {
     612    3:      OBJECT IDENTIFIER cRLDistributionPoints (2 5 29 31)
     617   90:      OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
     619   88:       SEQUENCE {
     621   86:        SEQUENCE {
     623   84:         [0] {
     625   82:          [0] {
     627   80:           [6]
             :          'rsync://rpki.example.net/repository/3ACE2CEF4F'
             :          'B21B7D11E3E184EFC1E297B3778642.crl'
             :            }
             :           }
             :          }
             :         }
             :        }
             :       }
     709  108:     SEQUENCE {
     711    8:      OBJECT IDENTIFIER authorityInfoAccess
             :       (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 1 1)
     721   96:      OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
     723   94:       SEQUENCE {
     725   92:        SEQUENCE {
     727    8:         OBJECT IDENTIFIER caIssuers (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 48 2)
     737   80:         [6]
             :          'rsync://rpki.example.net/repository/3ACE2CEF4F'
             :          'B21B7D11E3E184EFC1E297B3778642.cer'
             :          }
             :         }
             :        }
             :       }
     819   25:     SEQUENCE {
     821    8:      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ipAddrBlocks (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 1 7)
     831    1:      BOOLEAN TRUE
     834   10:      OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
     836    8:       SEQUENCE {
     838    6:        SEQUENCE {
     840    2:         OCTET STRING 00 01
     844    0:         NULL
             :          }
             :         }
             :        }
             :       }
     846   69:     SEQUENCE {
     848    8:      OBJECT IDENTIFIER subjectInfoAccess
             :       (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 1 11)
     858   57:      OCTET STRING, encapsulates {
     860   55:       SEQUENCE {
     862   53:        SEQUENCE {
     864    8:         OBJECT IDENTIFIER '1 3 6 1 5 5 7 48 13'
     874   41:         [6]
             :          'https://rrdp.example.net/notification.xml'
             :          }
             :         }
             :        }
             :       }
             :      }
             :     }
             :    }
     917   13:  SEQUENCE {
     919    9:   OBJECT IDENTIFIER sha256WithRSAEncryption
             :    (1 2 840 113549 1 1 11)
     930    0:   NULL
             :    }
     932  257:  BIT STRING
             :   48 C2 F7 C8 15 A7 43 1B EE E8 8A 68 7C A5 3F 4E
             :   39 DE 6B 49 F8 09 0D D3 B7 EC 2B FA 86 C3 F7 BD
             :   D0 32 6F ED CA 75 86 F8 E3 E2 EC B7 B2 07 FB 3C
             :   94 3B 70 A3 46 AE 0C 9B AB F9 44 D2 37 1E F8 04
             :   60 56 36 E2 D8 1A F3 66 C5 80 9C 1F 38 E9 29 F0
             :   B2 4B 70 E9 C7 A7 6A 27 FA 03 0C 3A AB 4D 0D B2
             :   90 1E A4 C0 5D D9 58 3F F6 C2 85 BC EC 09 15 53
             :   A0 35 CA A2 42 25 CF E6 B1 89 3D 60 5C 38 CB F9
             :   D9 AF FB 69 D8 DF 5F 0A 67 3A 28 E2 4C E8 0C 96
             :   84 06 98 2D 93 3D 9A 72 75 92 A3 97 11 00 4D D1
             :   44 42 CB 1A DF 7C 43 9E 5A 69 FB FA FD C6 E3 55
             :   61 1B 51 70 2D FA A1 6A DA 54 0D E3 CC DE 85 EA
             :   B0 C4 F2 BF 31 B3 7C A5 21 25 73 E8 97 82 43 86
             :   11 63 06 CC B2 38 DC FE D8 89 2C CE D9 63 12 1E
             :   E4 8A D8 CF 56 6D 37 A9 FF 48 4B 2C 24 0B 30 44
             :   88 29 B3 61 21 0A DF C7 4B 6C 40 98 60 8E 86 05
             :   }

   To allow reproduction of the signature results, the end-entity
   private key is provided.  For brevity, the other two private keys are

    -----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----

   Signing of ",US,WA,Seattle," (terminated by CR and LF)
   yields the following detached CMS signature.

    # RPKI Signature: -
    # IhvcNAQkQAS+gggSpMIIEpTCCA42gAwIBAgIUJ605QIPX8rW5m4Zwx3WyuW7hZu
    # QrOb/qB2W3i3Ki8PhA/DEWyii2TgGo9pgCwO9lsIRI6Zb/k+aSiWWP9kSczlcQg
    # tPCVwr62hTQZCIowBN0BL0cK0/5k1imJdi5qdM3nvKswM8CnoR11vB8pQFwruZm
    # r5xphXRvE+mzuJVLgu2V1upmBXuWloeymudh6WWJ+GDjwPXO3RiXBejBrOFNXha
    # FLe08y4DPfr/S/tXJOBm7QzQptmbPLYtGfprYu45liFFqqP94UeLpISfXd36AKG
    # zqTFCcc3EW9l5UFE1MFLlnoEogqtoLoKABt0IkOFGKeC/EgeaBdWLe469ddC9rQ
    # ft5w6g6cmxG+aYDdIEB34zrAgMBAAGjggGvMIIBqzAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUkUZSo71R
    # wUQmAZiIn1xFq/BToYcwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUOs4s70+yG30R4+GE78Hil7N3hkI
    # grBgEFBQcOAjBhBgNVHR8EWjBYMFagVKBShlByc3luYzovL3Jwa2kuZXhhbXBsZ
    # jOi8vcnBraS5leGFtcGxlLm5ldC9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LzNBQ0UyQ0VGNEZCMjFCN0
    # cmRwLmV4YW1wbGUubmV0L25vdGlmaWNhdGlvbi54bWwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQA
    # DggEBAEjC98gVp0Mb7uiKaHylP0453mtJ+AkN07fsK/qGw/e90DJv7cp1hvjj4u
    # y3sgf7PJQ7cKNGrgybq/lE0jce+ARgVjbi2BrzZsWAnB846Snwsktw6cenaif6A
    # ww6q00NspAepMBd2Vg/9sKFvOwJFVOgNcqiQiXP5rGJPWBcOMv52a/7adjfXwpn
    # OijiTOgMloQGmC2TPZpydZKjlxEATdFEQssa33xDnlpp+/r9xuNVYRtRcC36oWr
    # aVA3jzN6F6rDE8r8xs3ylISVz6JeCQ4YRYwbMsjjc/tiJLM7ZYxIe5IrYz1ZtN6
    # n/SEssJAswRIgps2EhCt/HS2xAmGCOhgUxggGqMIIBpgIBA4AUkUZSo71RwUQmA
    # JBDEiBCAr4vKeUvHJINsE0YQwUMxoo48qrOU+iPuFbQR8qX3BFjANBgkqhkiG9w
    # Inyf51UzuIGqhVY3sQiiXbdWcVYtPb4118KvyeXh8A/HLp4eeAJntl9D3igt38M
    # o84q5pf9pTQXx3hbsm51ilpOip/TKVMqzE42s6OPox3M0+6eKH3/vBKnw1s1ayM
    # 0MUnPDTBfZL3JJEGPWfIZHEcrypevbqR7Jjsz5vp0qyF2D9v+w+nyhZOPmuePm7
    # YqLyOw/E99PVBs9uI+hmBiCz/BK2Z3VRjrrlrUU+49eldSTkZ2sJyhCbbV2Ufgi
    # S2FOquAgJzjilyN3BDQLV8Rp9cGh0PpVslKH2na
    # End Signature: -


   Thanks to Rob Austein for CMS and detached signature clue, George
   Michaelson for the first and substantial external review, and Erik
   Kline who was too shy to agree to coauthorship.  Additionally, we
   express our gratitude to early implementors, including Menno
   Schepers; Flavio Luciani; Eric Dugas; Job Snijders, who provided
   running code; and Kevin Pack.  Also, thanks to the following
   geolocation providers who are consuming geofeeds with this described
   solution: Jonathan Kosgei (ipdata.co), Ben Dowling (ipinfo.io), and
   Pol Nisenblat (bigdatacloud.com).  For an amazing number of helpful
   reviews, we thank Adrian Farrel, Antonio Prado, Francesca Palombini,
   Jean-Michel Combes (INTDIR), John Scudder, Kyle Rose (SECDIR), Martin
   Duke, Murray Kucherawy, Paul Kyzivat (GENART), Rob Wilton, and Roman
   Danyliw.  The authors also thank George Michaelson, the awesome
   document shepherd.

Authors' Addresses

   Randy Bush
   IIJ & Arrcus
   5147 Crystal Springs
   Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
   United States of America

   Email: randy@psg.com

   Massimo Candela
   Siriusdreef 70-72
   2132 WT Hoofddorp

   Email: massimo@ntt.net

   Warren Kumari
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA 94043
   United States of America

   Email: warren@kumari.net

   Russ Housley
   Vigil Security, LLC
   516 Dranesville Road
   Herndon, VA 20170
   United States of America

   Email: housley@vigilsec.com