[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-herberg-manet-packetbb-sec) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 6622

Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET)                              U. Herberg
Internet-Draft                           Fujitsu Laboratories of America
Intended status: Standards Track                              T. Clausen
Expires: September 7, 2012                      LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
                                                           March 6, 2012


     Integrity Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for MANETs
                    draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-09

Abstract

   This document describes general and flexible TLVs for representing
   cryptographic integrity check values (ICV) (i.e. digital signatures
   or MACs) as well as timestamps, using the generalized MANET packet/
   message format defined in RFC 5444.  It defines two Packet TLVs, two
   Message TLVs, and two Address Block TLVs, for affixing ICVs and
   timestamps to a packet, message and address, respectively.

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 September 7, 2012.

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



Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


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


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Applicability Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Security Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Overview and Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   6.  General ICV TLV Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7.  General Timestamp TLV Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   8.  Packet TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     8.1.  Packet ICV TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     8.2.  Packet TIMESTAMP TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   9.  Message TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     9.1.  Message ICV TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     9.2.  Message TIMESTAMP TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   10. Address Block TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     10.1. Address Block ICV TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     10.2. Address Block TIMESTAMP TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   11. ICV: Basic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   12. ICV: Cryptographic Function over a Hash Value  . . . . . . . .  9
     12.1. General ICV TLV Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       12.1.1.  Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     12.2. Considerations for Calculating the ICV . . . . . . . . . . 11
       12.2.1.  Packet ICV TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       12.2.2.  Message ICV TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       12.2.3.  Address Block ICV TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     12.3. Example of a Message including an ICV  . . . . . . . . . . 11
   13. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     13.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     13.2. Packet TLV Type Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     13.3. Message TLV Type Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     13.4. Address Block TLV Type Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     13.5. Hash Function  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     13.6. Cryptographic Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   14. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   15. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20







Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document specifies:

   o  Two TLVs for carrying integrity check values (ICV) and timestamps
      in packets, messages, and address blocks as defined by [RFC5444],

   o  A generic framework for ICVs, accounting (for Message TLVs) for
      mutable message header fields (<msg-hop-limit> and <msg-hop-
      count>), where these fields are present in messages.

   This document sets up IANA registries for recording code points for
   hash function and ICV calculation, respectively.

   Moreover, this document defines, in Section 12:

   o  One common method for generating ICVs as a cryptographic function,
      calculated over the hash value of the content to be signed.


2.  Terminology

   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
   [RFC2119].

   This document uses the terminology and notation defined in [RFC5444].
   In particular, the following TLV fields from [RFC5444] are used in
   this specification:

   <msg-hop-limit>  - hop limit of a message, as specified in Section
      5.2 of [RFC5444].

   <msg-hop-count>  - hop count of a message, as specified in Section
      5.2 of [RFC5444].

   <length>  - length of a TLV in octets, as specified in Section 5.4.1
      of [RFC5444].


3.  Applicability Statement

   MANET routing protocols using the format defined in [RFC5444] are
   accorded the ability to carry additional information in control
   messages and packets, through inclusion of TLVs.  Information so
   included MAY be used by a MANET routing protocol, or by an extension
   of a MANET routing protocol, according to its specification.



Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


   This document specifies how to include an ICV for a packet, a
   message, and addresses in address blocks within a message, by way of
   such TLVs.  This document also specifies how to treat "mutable"
   fields, specifically the <msg-hop-count> and <msg-hop-limit> fields,
   if present in the message header when calculating ICVs, such that the
   resulting ICV can be correctly verified by any recipient, and how to
   include this ICV.

   This document describes a generic framework for creating ICVs, and
   how to include these ICVs in TLVs.  In Section 12, an example method
   for calculating such ICVs is given, using a cryptographic function
   over the hash value of the content to be signed.


4.  Security Architecture

   Basic MANET routing protocol specifications are often "oblivious to
   security", however have a clause allowing a control message to be
   rejected as "badly formed" or "insecure" prior to it being processed
   or forwarded.  MANET routing protocols such as [RFC6130] and [OLSRv2]
   recognize external reasons (such as failure to verify an ICV) for
   rejecting a message, and therefore "invalid for processing".  This
   architecture is a result of the observation that with respect to
   security in MANETs, "one size rarely fits all" and that MANET routing
   protocol deployment domains have varying security requirements
   ranging from "unbreakable" to "virtually none".  The virtue of this
   approach is that MANET routing protocol specifications (and
   implementations) can remain "generic", with extensions providing
   proper deployment-domain specific security mechanisms.

   The MANET routing protocol "security architecture", in which this
   specification situates itself, can therefore be summarized as
   follows:

   o  Security-oblivious MANET routing protocol specifications, with a
      clause allowing an extension to reject a message (prior to
      processing/forwarding) as "badly formed" or "insecure".

   o  MANET routing protocol security extensions, rejecting messages as
      "badly formed" or "insecure", as appropriate for a given
      deployment-domain specific security requirement.

   o  Code-points and an exchange format for information, necessary for
      specification of such MANET routing protocol security extensions.

   This document addresses the last of these issues, by specifying a
   common exchange format for cryptographic ICVs, making reservations
   from within the Packet TLV, Message TLV, and Address Block TLV



Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


   registries of [RFC5444], to be used (and shared) among MANET routing
   protocol security extensions.

   For the specific decomposition of an ICV into a cryptographic
   function over a hash value, specified in Section 12, this document
   establishes two IANA registries for code-points for hash functions
   and cryptographic functions adhering to [RFC5444].

   With respect to [RFC5444], this document:

   o  Is intended to be used in the non-normative, but intended, mode of
      use described in Appendix B of [RFC5444].

   o  Is a specific example of the Security Considerations section of
      [RFC5444] (the authentication part).


5.  Overview and Functioning

   This document specifies a syntactical representation of security
   related information for use with [RFC5444] addresses, messages, and
   packets, as well as establishes IANA registrations and registries.

   Moreover, this document provides guidelines for how MANET routing
   protocols, and MANET routing protocol extensions, using this
   specification, should treat ICV and Timestamp TLVs, and mutable
   fields in messages.  This specification does not represent a stand-
   alone protocol; MANET routing protocols and MANET routing protocol
   extensions, using this specification, MUST provide instructions as to
   how to handle packets, messages and addresses with security
   information, associated as specified in this document.

   This document requests assignment of TLV types from the registries
   defined for Packet, Message and Address Block TLVs in [RFC5444].
   When a TLV type is assigned from one of these registries, a registry
   for "Type Extensions" for that TLV type is created by IANA.  This
   document utilizes these "Type Extension" registries so created, in
   order to specify internal structure (and accompanying processing) of
   the <value> field of a TLV.

   For example, and as defined in this document, an ICV TLV with Type
   Extension = 0 specifies that the <value> field has no pre-defined
   internal structure, but is simply a sequence of octets.  An ICV TLV
   with Type Extension = 1 specifies that the <value> field has a pre-
   defined internal structure, and defines its interpretation
   (specifically, the <value> field consists of a cryptographic
   operation over a hash value, with fields indicating which hash
   function and cryptographic operation has been used, specified in



Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


   Section 12).

   Other documents can request assignments for other Type Extensions,
   and MUST, if so, specify their internal structure (if any) and
   interpretation.


6.  General ICV TLV Structure

   The value of the ICV TLV is:

             <value> := <ICV-value>

   where:

   <ICV-value>  is a field, of <length> octets, which contains the
      information, to be interpreted by the ICV verification process, as
      specified by the Type Extension.

   Note that this does not stipulate how to calculate the <ICV-value>,
   nor the internal structure hereof, if any; such MUST be specified by
   way of the Type Extension for the ICV TLV type, see Section 13.  This
   document specifies two such type-extensions, for ICVs without pre-
   defined structures, and for ICVs constructed by way of a
   cryptographic operation over a hash-value.


7.  General Timestamp TLV Structure

   The value of the Timestamp TLV is:

          <value> := <time-value>

   where:

   <time-value>  is an unsigned integer field, of length <length>, which
      contains the timestamp.

      Note that this does not stipulate how to calculate the <time-
      value>, nor the internal structure hereof, if any; such MUST be
      specified by way of the Type Extension for the TIMESTAMP TLV type,
      see Section 13.

   A timestamp is essentially "freshness information".  As such, its
   setting and interpretation is to be determined by the MANET routing
   protocol, or MANET routing protocol extension, that uses the
   timestamp, and can, e.g., correspond to a UNIX-timestamp, GPS
   timestamp or a simple sequence number.



Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


8.  Packet TLVs

   Two Packet TLVs are defined, for including the cryptographic ICV of a
   packet, and for including the timestamp indicating the time at which
   the cryptographic ICV was calculated.

8.1.  Packet ICV TLV

   A Packet ICV TLV is an example of an ICV TLV as described in
   Section 6.

   The following considerations apply:

   o  As packets defined in [RFC5444] are never forwarded by routers, no
      special considerations are required regarding mutable fields (e.g.
      <msg-hop-count> and <msg-hop-limit>), if present, when calculating
      the ICV.

   o  Any Packet ICV TLVs already present in the Packet TLV block MUST
      be removed before calculating the ICV, and the Packet TLV block
      size MUST be recalculated accordingly.  Removed ICV TLVs MUST be
      restored after having calculated the ICV value.

   The rationale for removing any Packet ICV TLV already present prior
   to calculating the ICV is that several ICVs may be added to the same
   packet, e.g., using different ICV functions.

8.2.  Packet TIMESTAMP TLV

   A Packet TIMESTAMP TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as described
   in Section 7.  If a packet contains a TIMESTAMP TLV and an ICV TLV,
   the TIMESTAMP TLV SHOULD be added to the packet before any ICV TLV,
   in order that it be included in the calculation of the ICV.


9.  Message TLVs

   Two Message TLVs are defined, for including the cryptographic ICV of
   a message, and for including the timestamp indicating the time at
   which the cryptographic ICV was calculated.

9.1.  Message ICV TLV

   A Message ICV TLV is an example of an ICV TLV as described in
   Section 6.  When determining the <ICV-value> for a message, the
   following considerations MUST be applied:





Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


   o  The fields <msg-hop-limit> and <msg-hop-count>, if present, MUST
      both be assumed to have the value 0 (zero) when calculating the
      ICV.

   o  Any Message ICV TLVs already present in the Message TLV block MUST
      be removed before calculating the ICV, and the message size as
      well as the Message TLV block size MUST be recalculated
      accordingly.  Removed ICV TLVs MUST be restored after having
      calculated the ICV value.

   The rationale for removing any Message ICV TLV already present prior
   to calculating the ICV is that several ICVs may be added to the same
   message, e.g., using different ICV functions.

9.2.  Message TIMESTAMP TLV

   A Message TIMESTAMP TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as described
   in Section 7.  If a message contains a TIMESTAMP TLV and an ICV TLV,
   the TIMESTAMP TLV SHOULD be added to the message before the ICV TLV,
   in order that it be included in the calculation of the ICV.


10.  Address Block TLVs

   Two Address Block TLVs are defined, for associating a cryptographic
   ICV to an address, and for including the timestamp indicating the
   time at which the cryptographic ICV was calculated.

10.1.  Address Block ICV TLV

   An Address Block ICV TLV is an example of an ICV TLV as described in
   Section 6.  The ICV is calculated over the address, concatenated with
   any other values, for example, any other Address Block TLV <value>
   fields, that is associated with that address.  A MANET routing
   protocol or MANET routing protocol extension using Address Block ICV
   TLVs MUST specify how to include any such concatenated attribute of
   the address in the verification process of the ICV.  When determining
   the <ICV-value> for an address, the following consideration MUST be
   applied:

   o  If other TLV values are concatenated with the address for
      calculating the ICV, these TLVs MUST NOT be Address Block ICV TLVs
      already associated with the address.

   The rationale for not concatenating the address with any ICV TLV
   values already associated with the address when calculating the ICV
   is that several ICVs may be added to the same address, e.g., using
   different ICV functions.



Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


10.2.  Address Block TIMESTAMP TLV

   An Address Block TIMESTAMP TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as
   described in Section 7.  If both a TIMESTAMP TLV and an ICV TLV are
   associated with an address, the TIMESTAMP TLV <value> MUST be covered
   when calculating the value of the ICV to be contained in the ICV TLV
   value (i.e. concatenated with the associated address and any other
   values as described in Section 10.1).


11.  ICV: Basic

   The basic ICV, represented by way of an ICV TLV with Type Extension =
   0, is a simple bit-field containing the cryptographic ICV.  This
   assumes that the mechanism stipulating how ICVs are calculated and
   verified is established outside of this specification, e.g., by way
   of administrative configuration or external out-of-band signaling.
   Thus, the <ICV-value> for when using Type Extension = 0 is:

             <ICV-value> := <ICV-data>

   where:

   <ICV-data>  is an unsigned integer field, of length <length>, which
      contains the cryptographic ICV.


12.  ICV: Cryptographic Function over a Hash Value

   One common way of calculating an ICV is applying a cryptographic
   function on a hash value of the content.  This decomposition is
   specified in the following, using a Type Extension = 1 in the ICV
   TLVs.

12.1.  General ICV TLV Structure

   The following data structure allows representation of a cryptographic
   ICV, including specification of the appropriate hash function and
   cryptographic function used for calculating the ICV:

                   <ICV-value> := <hash-function>
                                  <cryptographic-function>
                                  <key-index>
                                  <ICV-data>

   where:





Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


   <hash-function>  is an 8-bit unsigned integer field specifying the
      hash function.

   <cryptographic-function>  is an 8-bit unsigned integer field
      specifying the cryptographic function.

   <key-id-length>  is an 8-bit unsigned integer field specifying the
      length of the <key-id> field in number of octets.  The value 0x00
      is reserved for using a pre-installed, shared key.

   <key-id>  is a field specifying the key identifier of the key that
      was used to sign the message, which allows unique identification
      of different keys with the same originator.  It is the
      responsibility of each key originator to make sure that actively
      used keys that it issues have distinct key identifiers.  If <key-
      id-length> equals to 0x00, the <key-id> field is not contained in
      the TLV, and a pre-installed, shared key is used.

   <ICV-data>  is an unsigned integer field, whose length is <length> -
      3 - <key-id-length>, and which contains the cryptographic ICV.

   The version of this TLV, specified in this section, assumes that
   calculating the ICV can be decomposed into:

      ICV-value = cryptographic-function(hash-function(content))

   The hash function and the cryptographic function correspond to the
   entries in two IANA registries, set up by this specification in
   Section 13.

12.1.1.  Rationale

   The rationale for separating the hash function and the cryptographic
   function into two octets instead of having all combinations in a
   single octet - possibly as TLV type extension - is that adding
   further hash functions or cryptographic functions in the future may
   lead to a non-contiguous number space.

   The rationale for not including a field that lists parameters of the
   cryptographic ICV in the TLV is that, before being able to validate a
   cryptographic ICV, routers have to exchange or acquire keys (e.g.
   public keys).  Any additional parameters can be provided together
   with the keys in that bootstrap process.  It is therefore not
   necessary, and would even entail an extra overhead, to transmit the
   parameters within every message.  One implicitly available parameter
   is the length of the ICV, which is <length> - 3 - <key-id-length>,
   and which depends on the choice of the cryptographic function.




Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


12.2.  Considerations for Calculating the ICV

   In the following, considerations are listed, which MUST be applied
   when calculating the ICV for Packet, Message and Address ICV TLVs,
   respectively.

12.2.1.  Packet ICV TLV

   When determining the <ICV-value> for a Packet, the ICV is calculated
   over the fields <hash-function>, <cryptographic-function> <key-id-
   length>, and - if present - <key-id> (in that order), concatenated
   with the entire Packet, including the packet header, all Packet TLVs
   (other than Packet ICV TLVs) and all included Messages and their
   message headers, in accordance with Section 8.1.

12.2.2.  Message ICV TLV

   When determining the <ICV-value> for a message, the ICV is calculated
   over the fields <hash-function>, <cryptographic-function> <key-id-
   length>, and - if present - <key-id> (in that order), concatenated
   with the entire message.  The considerations in Section 9.1 MUST be
   applied.

12.2.3.  Address Block ICV TLV

   When determining the <ICV-value> for an address, the ICV is
   calculated over the fields <hash-function>, <cryptographic-function>
   <key-id-length>, and - if present - <key-id> (in that order),
   concatenated with the address, concatenated with any other values,
   for example, any other address block TLV <value> that is associated
   with that address.  A MANET routing protocol or MANET routing
   protocol extension using Address Block ICV TLVs MUST specify how to
   include any such concatenated attribute of the address in the
   verification process of the ICV.  The considerations in Section 10.2
   MUST be applied.

12.3.  Example of a Message including an ICV

   The sample message depicted in Figure 1 is derived from appendix D of
   [RFC5444].  The message contains an ICV Message TLV, with the value
   representing a 16 octet long ICV of the whole message, and a 4 octet
   long key identifier.  The type extension of the Message TLV is 1, for
   the specific decomposition of an ICV into a cryptographic function
   over a hash value, as specified in Section 12.







Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | PV=0 |  PF=8  |    Packet Sequence Number     | Message Type  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | MF=15 | MAL=3 |      Message Length = 44      | Msg. Orig Addr|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       Message Originator Address (cont)       |   Hop Limit   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Hop Count   |    Message Sequence Number    | Msg. TLV Block|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Length = 27   |     ICV       |  MTLVF = 144  |  MTLVExt = 1  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |Value Len = 23 |   Hash Func   |  Crypto Func  |Key ID length=4|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Key Identifier                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          ICV Value                            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          ICV Value (cont)                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          ICV Value (cont)                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          ICV Value (cont)                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 1: Example message with ICV


13.  IANA Considerations

   This specification defines:

   o  Two Packet TLV types, which must be allocated from the 0-223 range
      of the "Assigned Packet TLV Types" repository of [RFC5444] as
      specified in Table 1,

   o  Two Message TLV types, which must be allocated from the 0-127
      range of the "Assigned Message TLV Types" repository of [RFC5444]
      as specified in Table 2,

   o  Two Address Block TLV types, which must be allocated from the
      0-127 range of the "Assigned Address Block TLV Types" repository
      of [RFC5444] as specified in Table 3.

   This specification requests:





Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


   o  Creation of type extension registries for these TLV types with
      initial values as in Table 1 to Table 3.

   IANA is requested to assign the same numerical value to the Packet
   TLV, Message TLV and Address Block TLV types with the same name.

   The following terms are used with the meanings defined in [BCP26]:
   "Namespace", "Registration", and "Designated Expert".

   The following policy is used with the meanings defined in [BCP26]:
   "Expert Review".

13.1.  Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines

   For the registries for TLV type extensions where an Expert Review is
   required, the designated expert SHOULD take the same general
   recommendations into consideration as are specified by [RFC5444].

   For the Timestamp TLV, the same type extensions for all Packet,
   Message and Address Block TLVs SHOULD be numbered identically.































Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


13.2.  Packet TLV Type Registrations

   IANA is requested to make allocations from the "Packet TLV Types"
   namespace of [RFC5444] for the Packet TLVs specified in Table 1.

   +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
   |    Name   | Type |    Type   |             Description            |
   |           |      | Extension |                                    |
   +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
   |    ICV    | TBD1 |     0     |           ICV of a packet          |
   |           |      |     1     | ICV, decomposed into cryptographic |
   |           |      |           |   function over a hash value, as   |
   |           |      |           |   specified in Section 12 in this  |
   |           |      |           |              document.             |
   |           |      |   2-251   |            Expert Review           |
   |           |      |  252-255  |          Experimental Use          |
   | TIMESTAMP | TBD2 |     0     |   Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary  |
   |           |      |           |   length, given by the TLV length  |
   |           |      |           |  field. The MANET routing protocol |
   |           |      |           |   has to define how to interpret   |
   |           |      |           |           this timestamp           |
   |           |      |     1     |    Unsigned 32-bit timestamp as    |
   |           |      |           |        specified in [POSIX]        |
   |           |      |     2     | NTP timestamp format as defined in |
   |           |      |           |              [RFC4330]             |
   |           |      |     3     |    Signed timestamp of arbitrary   |
   |           |      |           | length with no constraints such as |
   |           |      |           |   monotonicity. In particular, it  |
   |           |      |           |   may represent any random value   |
   |           |      |   4-251   |            Expert Review           |
   |           |      |  252-255  |          Experimental Use          |
   +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+

                         Table 1: Packet TLV types

















Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


13.3.  Message TLV Type Registrations

   IANA is requested to make allocations from the "Message TLV Types"
   namespace of [RFC5444] for the Message TLVs specified in Table 2.

   +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
   |    Name   | Type |    Type   |             Description            |
   |           |      | Extension |                                    |
   +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
   |    ICV    | TBD3 |     0     |          ICV of a message          |
   |           |      |     1     | ICV, decomposed into cryptographic |
   |           |      |           |   function over a hash value, as   |
   |           |      |           |   specified in Section 12 in this  |
   |           |      |           |              document.             |
   |           |      |   2-251   |            Expert Review           |
   |           |      |  252-255  |          Experimental Use          |
   | TIMESTAMP | TBD4 |     0     |   Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary  |
   |           |      |           |   length, given by the TLV length  |
   |           |      |           |               field.               |
   |           |      |     1     |    Unsigned 32-bit timestamp as    |
   |           |      |           |        specified in [POSIX]        |
   |           |      |     2     | NTP timestamp format as defined in |
   |           |      |           |              [RFC4330]             |
   |           |      |     3     |    Signed timestamp of arbitrary   |
   |           |      |           | length with no constraints such as |
   |           |      |           |   monotonicity. In particular, it  |
   |           |      |           |   may represent any random value   |
   |           |      |   4-251   |            Expert Review           |
   |           |      |  252-255  |          Experimental Use          |
   +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+

                        Table 2: Message TLV types



















Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


13.4.  Address Block TLV Type Registrations

   IANA is requested to make allocations from the "Address Block TLV
   Types" namespace of [RFC5444] for the Packet TLVs specified in
   Table 3.

   +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
   |    Name   | Type |    Type   |             Description            |
   |           |      | Extension |                                    |
   +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
   |    ICV    | TBD5 |     0     | ICV of an object (e.g. an address) |
   |           |      |     1     | ICV, decomposed into cryptographic |
   |           |      |           |   function over a hash value, as   |
   |           |      |           |   specified in Section 12 in this  |
   |           |      |           |              document.             |
   |           |      |   2-251   |            Expert Review           |
   |           |      |  252-255  |          Experimental Use          |
   | TIMESTAMP | TBD6 |     0     |   Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary  |
   |           |      |           |   length, given by the TLV length  |
   |           |      |           |               field.               |
   |           |      |     1     |    Unsigned 32-bit timestamp as    |
   |           |      |           |        specified in [POSIX]        |
   |           |      |     2     | NTP timestamp format as defined in |
   |           |      |           |              [RFC4330]             |
   |           |      |     3     |    Signed timestamp of arbitrary   |
   |           |      |           | length with no constraints such as |
   |           |      |           |   monotonicity. In particular, it  |
   |           |      |           |   may represent any random value   |
   |           |      |   4-251   |            Expert Review           |
   |           |      |  252-255  |          Experimental Use          |
   +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+

                     Table 3: Address Block TLV types


















Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


13.5.  Hash Function

   IANA is requested to create a new registry for hash functions that
   can be used when creating an ICV, as specified in Section 12 of this
   document.  The initial assignments and allocation policies are
   specified in Table 4.

   +-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+
   |     Hash    | Algorithm |               Description               |
   |   function  |           |                                         |
   |    value    |           |                                         |
   +-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+
   |      0      |    none   | The "identity function": the hash value |
   |             |           |    of an object is the object itself    |
   |      1      |    SHA1   |                  [SHS]                  |
   |      2      |   SHA224  |                  [SHS]                  |
   |      3      |   SHA256  |                  [SHS]                  |
   |      4      |   SHA384  |                  [SHS]                  |
   |      5      |   SHA512  |                  [SHS]                  |
   |    6-251    |           |              Expert Review              |
   |   252-255   |           |             Experimental Use            |
   +-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+

                      Table 4: Hash-Function registry

13.6.  Cryptographic Algorithm

   IANA is requested to create a new registry for the cryptographic
   function, as specified in Section 12 of this document.  Initial
   assignments and allocation policies are specified in Table 5.

   +----------------+-----------+--------------------------------------+
   |  Cryptographic | Algorithm |              Description             |
   | function value |           |                                      |
   +----------------+-----------+--------------------------------------+
   |        0       |    none   |  The "identity function": the value  |
   |                |           |   of an encrypted hash is the hash   |
   |                |           |                itself                |
   |        1       |    RSA    |               [RFC3447]              |
   |        2       |    DSA    |                 [DSA]                |
   |        3       |    HMAC   |               [RFC2104]              |
   |        4       |    3DES   |                [3DES]                |
   |        5       |    AES    |                 [AES]                |
   |        6       |   ECDSA   |                [ECDSA]               |
   |      7-251     |           |             Expert Review            |
   |     252-255    |           |           Experimental Use           |
   +----------------+-----------+--------------------------------------+




Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


                 Table 5: Cryptographic function registry


14.  Security Considerations

   This document does not specify a protocol.  It provides a syntactical
   component for cryptographic ICVs of messages and packets as defined
   in [RFC5444].  It can be used to address security issues of a MANET
   routing protocol or MANET routing protocol extension.  As such, it
   has the same security considerations as [RFC5444].

   In addition, a MANET routing protocol or MANET routing protocol
   extension that uses this specification MUST specify the usage as well
   as the security that is attained by the cryptographic ICVs of a
   message or a packet.

   As an example, a MANET routing protocol that uses this component to
   reject "badly formed" or "insecure" messages if a control message
   does not contain a valid ICV, SHOULD indicate the security assumption
   that if the ICV is valid, the message is considered valid.  It also
   SHOULD indicate the security issues that are counteracted by this
   measure (e.g. link or identity spoofing) as well as the issues that
   are not counteracted (e.g. compromised keys).


15.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Bo Berry (Cisco), Alan Cullen (BAE),
   Justin Dean (NRL), Christopher Dearlove (BAE), Paul Lambert
   (Marvell), Jerome Milan (Ecole Polytechnique) and Henning Rogge
   (FGAN) for their constructive comments on the document.

   The authors also appreciate the detailed reviews from the Area
   Directors, in particular Stewart Bryant (Cisco), Stephen Farrel
   (Trinity College Dublin), and Robert Sparks (Tekelec), as well as
   Donald Eastlake (Huawei) from the Security Directorate.


16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

   [3DES]     National Institute of Standards and Technology,
              "Recommendation for the Triple Data Encryption Algorithm
              (TDEA) Block Cipher", NIST Special Publication 800-67,
              May 2004.

   [AES]      National Institute of Standards & Technology,



Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


              "Specification for the Advanced Encryption Standard
              (AES)", FIPS 197, November 2001.

   [BCP26]    Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, BCP 26,
              May 2008.

   [DSA]      National Institute of Standards & Technology, "Digital ICV
              Standard", NIST, FIPS PUB 186, May 1994.

   [ECDSA]    American National Standards Institute, "Public Key
              Cryptography for the Financial Services Industry: The
              Elliptic Curve Digital ICV Algorithm (ECDSA)", ANS X9.62-
              2005, November 2005.

   [POSIX]    IEEE Computer Society, "1003.1-2008 Standard for
              Information Technology - Portable Operating System
              Interface (POSIX)", Base Specifications Issue 7,
              December 2008.

   [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
              Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
              February 1997.

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

   [RFC3447]  Staddon, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography
              Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications
              Version 2.1", RFC 3447, February 2003.

   [RFC4330]  Mills, D., "Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4
              for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI", RFC 4330, January 2006.

   [RFC5444]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih,
              "Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444,
              February 2009.

   [SHS]      National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
              Hash Standard", NIST FIPS 180-2, August 2002.

16.2.  Informative References

   [OLSRv2]   Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and P. Jacquet, "The Optimized
              Link State Routing Protocol version 2", work in
              progress draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt, October 2011.

   [RFC6130]  Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "MANET



Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs         March 2012


              Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 6130,
              March 2011.


Authors' Addresses

   Ulrich Herberg
   Fujitsu Laboratories of America
   1240 E. Arques Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA, 94085
   USA

   Email: ulrich@herberg.name
   URI:   http://www.herberg.name/


   Thomas Heide Clausen
   LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
   91128 Palaiseau Cedex,
   France

   Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
   Email: T.Clausen@computer.org
   URI:   http://www.thomasclausen.org/



























Herberg & Clausen       Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 20]


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