[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-tls-applayerprotoneg

Network Working Group                                          S. Friedl
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                        October 16, 2012
Expires: April 19, 2013


 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application Layer Protocol Negotiation
                               Extension
                  draft-friedl-tls-applayerprotoneg-00

Abstract

   This document describes a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension
   for application layer protocol negotiation within the TLS handshake.
   For instances in which the TLS connection is established over a well
   known TCP/IP port not associated with the desired application layer
   protocol, this extension allows the application layer to negotiate
   which protocol will be used within the TLS session.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Friedl                   Expires April 19, 2013                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2012


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     1.2.  Application Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension  . . . . . 4
     1.3.  Protocol Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     1.4.  Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     1.5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     1.6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   2.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   3.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     3.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     3.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

































Friedl                   Expires April 19, 2013                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2012


1.  Introduction

   Currently, the Next Protocol Negotiation extension (NPN) is used to
   establish a SPDY [spdy] protocol session within a TLS RFC 5246
   [RFC5246] session on port 443.  NPN is not specific to SPDY and can
   be used to negotiate sessions for a wide variety of protocols within
   the TLS handshake.

   NPN seeks to provide a reliable mechanism for application developers
   to establish secure sessions for arbitrary protocols without
   interference from firewalls, HTTP proxies and MITM proxies.  It
   addresses this goal by introducing a protocol negotiation process
   into the TLS handshake under the constraints that no additional
   roundtrips be added to the handshake and that the final protocol
   selection be opaque to the network carrying the TLS session.  To do
   this, NPN introduces a non-symmetric and slightly idiosyncratic
   extension to the TLS handshake.  Within the NPN extension, it is the
   server that first generates and transmits an offer of supported
   protocols to the client.  The offer is sent as part of the TLS
   ServerHello message before the [ChangeCipherSpec] subprotocol has
   been started, therefore the list of protocols supported by the server
   is transmitted in plaintext.  The client chooses a protocol which may
   or may not appear in the offer from the server and then responds with
   the definitive protocol selection answer.  The client response is
   sent after the [ChangeCipherSpec] subprotocol has been initiated, so
   the protocol selected is encrypted in the client response.

   In many other application layer protocol negotiation processes, it is
   the client that first sends an offer of protocols it supports to the
   server.  The server then selects the protocol to be used in the
   session and includes this answer in the response.  RFC 3264 [RFC3264]
   describes a SDP based offer/answer model which is not proscriptive in
   terms of which party generates the offer, however in practice it is
   typically the client generating the offer and the server replying
   with the answer.  This permits the server to act as the definitive
   entity for selection of the application layer protocol.

   History demonstrates that there exist a multiplicity of compelling
   needs for TCP/IP networks to provide differentiated network treatment
   based on protocol.  This differentiated treatment may include QOS
   and/or firewalling to permit enterprises and carriers to manage the
   flows within their networks.  QOS requirements may be driven by the
   needs of real-time protocols or service provider SLAs or service
   tiers.  Firewalling is required to meet a variety of regulatory,
   compliance, appropriate use and security mandates.

   This draft proposes an alternative formulation of the NPN protocol
   which 1) brings the offer/answer negotiation into alignment with the



Friedl                   Expires April 19, 2013                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2012


   majority of other application layer protocol negotiation standards,
   2) improves the symmetry of the offer/answer exchange and 3) makes
   the definitive protocol selection answer from the server visible to
   the network.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.2.  Application Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension

   A new extension type ("application_layer_protocol_negotiation(TBD)")
   is defined and MAY be included by the client in its "ClientHello"
   message.

   enum {
           application_layer_protocol_negotiation(TBD), (65535)
   } ExtensionType;


   The "extension_data" field of the
   ("application_layer_protocol_negotiation(TBD)") extension SHALL
   contain "ProtocolIdentifierList" where:

   struct {
       IdentifierType id_type;
       select (id_type) {
           case IANA_application_id: ApplicationID;
       } id;
   } ProtocolIdentifier;

   enum {
       IANA_application_id(0), (255)
   } IdentifierType;

   opaque ApplicationID<2^32-1>;

   struct {
       ProtocolIdentifier protocol_id_list<1..2^16-1>
   } ProtocolIdentifierList;

   "ApplicationID" contains the base 10 IANA registered application
   number associated with the requested protocol.  This new IANA
   controlled value is 32 bits in length and each application layer
   protocol negotiated within the ALPN handshake must have an entry in
   this IANA registry.  "ApplicationID" will be serialized as a fixed



Friedl                   Expires April 19, 2013                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2012


   length 10 byte string using UTF-8 encoding [UTF8].  Leading zeros
   SHALL be used to pad the identifiers to 10 digits.  Spaces SHALL be
   used to separate port numbers in a "ProtocolIdentifierList".

   Servers that receive a client hello containing the
   "application_layer_protocol_negotiation" extension, MAY return a
   suitable protocol selection response to the client.  The server will
   ignore any "ProtocolIdentifier" that it does not recognize.  A new
   ServerHello extension type ("connection_protocol(TBD)") MAY be
   returned to the client within the extended ServerHello message.  The
   "extension_data" field of the ("connection_protocol(TBD)") extension
   SHALL contain a single protocol identifier serialized as an
   "ApplicationID" as described for the client "extension_data" protocol
   list.

   The additional content associated with this extension MUST be
   included in the hash calculations associated with the "Finished"
   messages.

   enum {
           connection_protocol(TBD), (65535)
   } ExtensionType;

   struct {
       IdentifierType id_type;
       select (id_type) {
           case IANA_application_id: ApplicationID;
       } id;
   } ProtocolIdentifier;

   opaque ApplicationID<2^32-1>;


   Therefore, a full handshake with the
   "application_layer_protocol_negotiation" and "connection_protocol"
   extensions has the following flow (contrast with section 7.3 of RFC
   5246 [RFC5246]):














Friedl                   Expires April 19, 2013                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2012


  Client                                              Server

  ClientHello                     -------->       ServerHello
    (ALPN extension &                               (connection protocol
     list of protocols)                              extension &
                                                     selected protocol)
                                                  Certificate*
                                                  ServerKeyExchange*
                                                  CertificateRequest*
                                  <--------       ServerHelloDone
  Certificate*
  ClientKeyExchange
  CertificateVerify*
  [ChangeCipherSpec]
  Finished                        -------->
                                                  [ChangeCipherSpec]
                                  <--------       Finished
  Application Data                <------->       Application Data

                                 Figure 1

   An abbreviated handshake with the
   "application_layer_protocol_negotiation" and "connection_protocol"
   extensions the following flow:

  Client                                              Server

  ClientHello                     -------->       ServerHello
    (ALPN extension &                               (connection protocol
     list of protocols)                              extension &
                                                     selected protocol)
                                                  [ChangeCipherSpec]
                                  <--------       Finished
  [ChangeCipherSpec]
  Finished                        -------->
  Application Data                <------->       Application Data

                                 Figure 2

   Unlike many other TLS extension, this extension does not establish
   properties of the session, only of the connection.  When session
   resumption or session tickets RFC 5077 [RFC5077] are used, the
   previous contents of this extension are irrelevant and only the
   values in the new handshake messages are considered.

   For the same reasons, after a handshake has been performed for a
   given connection, renegotiations on the same connection MUST NOT
   include the "application_layer_protocol_negotiation" or



Friedl                   Expires April 19, 2013                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2012


   "connection_protocol" extensions.

1.3.  Protocol Selection

   It is expected that a server will have a list of protocols that it
   supports, in preference order, and will only select a protocol if the
   client supports it.  In that case, the server SHOULD select the most
   highly preferred protocol it supports which is also advertised by the
   client.  In the event that the server supports no protocols that the
   client advertises, then the server SHOULD select the first protocol
   in its ordered list.

   The protocol identified in the "connection_protocol" extension type
   in the ServerHello SHALL be definitive for the connection.  The
   server SHALL NOT respond with a selected protocol and subsequently
   use a different protocol for application data exchange.

1.4.  Design Considerations

   The ALPN extension is intended to follow the typical design of TLS
   protocol extensions.  Specifically, the negotiation is performed
   entirely within the hello messages and the ClientHello and
   ServerHello extensions conform to the same general pattern used by
   other TLS extensions.  The "connection_protocol" extension is
   intended to be definitive for the connection and is sent in plaintext
   to permit network elements to provide differentiated service for the
   connection when the TCP/IP port number is not definitive for the
   application layer protocol to be used in the connection.

1.5.  Security Considerations

   The ALPN extension does not impact the security of TLS session
   establishment or application data exchange.  ALPN serves to provide
   an externally visible marker for the application layer protocol
   associated with the TLS connection.  Historically, the application
   layer protocol associated with a connection could be ascertained from
   the TCP/IP port number in use.

1.6.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires the IANA to update its registry of TLS
   extensions to assign two entries referred to here as
   "application_layer_protocol_negotiation" for extended ClientHello
   messages and "connection_protocol" for extended ServerHello messages.

   This document requires the IANA to create a new registry of
   application identifiers to serve as protocol identifiers for ALPN.
   It is suggested this identifier be 32 bit numeric value with the



Friedl                   Expires April 19, 2013                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2012


   bottom 16 bits associated with current IANA port numbers when the
   upper 16 bits are all set to zero.


2.  Acknowledgements

   This document benefitted specifically from the NPN extension draft
   authored by Adam Langley of Google and from discussions with Tom
   Wesselman and Cullen Jennings both of Cisco.


3.  References

3.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              June 2002.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [RFC6066]  Eastlake, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions:
              Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, January 2011.

3.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5077]  Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without
              Server-Side State", RFC 5077, January 2008.

   [spdy]     Belshe, M. and R. Peon, "SPDY Protocol (Internet Draft)",
              2012.















Friedl                   Expires April 19, 2013                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title               October 2012


Author's Address

   Stephan Friedl
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Phone: (720)562-6785
   Email: sfriedl@cisco.com









































Friedl                   Expires April 19, 2013                 [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/