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

Versions: (draft-ignjatic-msec-mikey-rsa-r) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 4738

Network Working Group                                        D. Ignjatic
Internet-Draft                                                   Polycom
Updates: RFC3830 (if approved)                                L. Dondeti
Intended status: Standards Track                                QUALCOMM
Expires: February 9, 2007                                       F. Audet
                                                                  P. Lin
                                                                  Nortel
                                                          August 8, 2006


      An additional mode of key distribution in MIKEY: MIKEY-RSA-R
                     draft-ietf-msec-mikey-rsa-r-07

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 9, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   The Multimedia Internet Keying (MIKEY) specification describes
   several modes of key distribution solution that addresses multimedia
   scenarios (e.g., SIP calls and RTSP sessions) -- using pre-shared
   keys, public keys, and optionally a Diffie-Hellman key exchange.  In



Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


   the public-key mode, the Initiator encrypts a random key with the
   Responder's public key and sends it to the Responder.  In many
   communication scenarios, the Initiator may not know the Responder's
   public key, or in some cases the Responder's ID (e.g., call
   forwarding) in advance.  We propose a new MIKEY mode that works well
   in such scenarios.  This mode also enhances the group key management
   support in MIKEY; it supports member-initiated group key download (in
   contrast to group manager pushing the group keys to all members).
   This document updates RFC 3830 with the RSA-R mode.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Terminology used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Description of the MIKEY modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2.  Use case motivating the proposed mode  . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  A new MIKEY-RSA mode: MIKEY-RSA-R  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Outline  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Group communication using the MIKEY RSA-R mode . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  Preparing RSA-R messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Components of the I_MESSAGE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.5.  Processing the I_MESSAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.6.  Components of the R_MESSAGE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.7.  Processing the R_MESSAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.8.  Certificate handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.9.  Additions to RFC 3830 message types and other values . . . 11
       3.9.1.  Modified Table 6.1a from RFC 3830  . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.9.2.  Modified Table 6.12 from RFC 3830  . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.9.3.  Modified Table 6.15 from RFC 3830  . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  Applicability of the RSA-R and RSA modes . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.1.  Limitations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.1.  Impact of the Responder choosing the TGK . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.2.  Updates to Security Considerations in RFC3830  . . . . . . 15
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19








Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


1.  Introduction

   The MIKEY protocol [RFC3830] has three different methods for key
   transport or exchange: a pre-shared key mode (PSK), a public-key
   (RSA) mode, and an optional Diffie-Hellman exchange (DHE) mode.  In
   addition, there is also an optional DH-HMAC mode
   [I-D.ietf-msec-mikey-dhhmac], bringing the total number of modes to
   four.  The primary motivation for the MIKEY protocol design is low-
   latency requirements of real-time communication, and thus all the
   exchanges finish in one-half to 1 round-trip; note that this offers
   no room for security parameter negotiation of the key management
   protocol itself.  In this document, we note that the MIKEY modes
   defined in RFC3830 [RFC3830] and [I-D.ietf-msec-mikey-dhhmac] are
   insufficient to address some deployment scenarios and common use
   cases, and propose a new mode called MIKEY-RSA in Reverse mode, or
   simply as MIKEY-RSA-R.  This document updates RFC 3830 with the
   addition of this new mode to that specification.

1.1.  Terminology used in this document

   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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].

   Furthermore, this document reuses the terminology of the MIKEY
   specification [RFC3830].


2.  Motivation

   As noted in the introduction, the MIKEY specification and other
   proposals define four different modes of efficient key management for
   real-time applications.  Those modes differ from each other in either
   the authentication method of choice (public-key, or symmetric shared
   key-based), or the key establishment method of choice (key download,
   or key agreement using a Diffie-Hellman exchange).  We summarize
   these modes below, including their advantages and shortcomings.  We
   then discuss the use cases where these modes are unusable or
   inefficient.

2.1.  Description of the MIKEY modes

   The PSK mode requires that the Initiator and the Responder have a
   common secret key established offline.  In this mode, the Initiator
   selects a TEK Generation Key (TGK), encrypts it with a key derived
   from the PSK, and sends it to the Responder as part of the first
   message, namely, I_MESSAGE.  The I_MESSAGE is replay protected with



Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


   timestamps, and integrity protected with another key derived from the
   PSK.  An optional Verification message from the Responder to the
   Initiator provides mutual authentication.  This mode does not scale
   well as it requires pre-establishment of a shared key between
   communicating parties; for example, consider the use cases where any
   user may want to communicate to any other user in an Enterprise or
   the Internet at large.  The RSA mode might be more suitable for such
   applications.

   In the RSA mode, the Initiator selects a TGK, encrypts and
   authenticates it with an envelope key, and sends it to the Responder
   as part of the I_MESSAGE.  The Initiator includes the envelope key,
   encrypted with the Responder's public key, in I_MESSAGE.  The
   I_MESSAGE is replay protected with timestamps, and signed with the
   Initiator's public key.  The Initiator's ID, Certificate (CERT) and
   the Responder's ID that the Initiator intends to talk may be included
   in I_MESSAGE.  If the Initiator knows several public-keys of the
   Responder, it can indicate the key used in the optional CHASH
   payload.  An optional Verification message from the Responder to the
   Initiator provides mutual authentication.  The RSA mode works well if
   the Initiator knows the Responder's ID and the corresponding CERT (or
   can obtain the CERT independent of the MIKEY protocol).  RFC 3830
   suggests that an Initiator, in the event that it does not have the
   Responder's CERT, may obtain the CERT from a directory agent using
   one or more round trips.  However, in some cases, the Initiator may
   not even know the Responder's ID in advance, and because of that or
   for other reasons cannot obtain the Responder's CERT.

   In addition to the case where the Responder may have several IDs,
   some applications may allow for the Responder's ID to change
   unilaterally, as is typical in telephony (e.g., forwarding).  In
   those cases and in others, the Initiator might be willing to let the
   other party establish identity and prove it via an Initiator-trusted
   third party (e.g., a Certification Authority (CA)).

   The DH mode or the DH-HMAC mode of MIKEY might be useful in cases
   where the Initiator does not have access to the Responder's exact
   identity and/or CERT.  In these modes, the two parties engage in an
   authenticated DH exchange to derive the TGK.  On the downside, the DH
   modes have higher computational and communication overhead compared
   to the RSA and the PSK modes.  More importantly, these modes are
   unsuitable for group key distribution.  The DH-HMAC mode also
   requires establishment of PSKs between all possible communicating
   entities and thus has similar scaling issues as any PSK-based key
   management protocol.

   In summary, in some communication scenarios -- where the Initiator
   might not have the correct ID and/or the CERT of the Responder --



Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


   none of the MIKEY modes described in [RFC3830] or
   [I-D.ietf-msec-mikey-dhhmac] are suitable and efficient for
   multimedia session key establishment.

2.2.  Use case motivating the proposed mode

   In addition to the issues listed above, there are some types of
   applications that motivate the new MIKEY mode design proposed in this
   document.

   Note that in the MIKEY-RSA mode (as in case of the PSK mode), the
   Initiator proposes the session security policy, and chooses the TGK.
   However, it is also possible that the Initiator wants to allow the
   Responder to specify the security policy and send the TGK.  Consider
   for example the case of a conferencing scenario where the convener
   sends an invitation to a group of people to attend a meeting.  The
   procedure then might be for the invitees to request the convener for
   group key material by sending a MIKEY I_MESSAGE.  Thus, in the MIKEY
   definition of initiators and responders, the Initiator is asking the
   Responder for keying material.  Note that this mode of operation is
   inline with the MSEC group key management architecture [RFC4046].


3.  A new MIKEY-RSA mode: MIKEY-RSA-R

3.1.  Outline

   The proposed MIKEY mode requires 1 full round trip.  The Initiator
   sends a signed I_MESSAGE to the intended Responder requesting the
   Responder to send the traffic keying material.  The I_MESSAGE MAY
   contain the Initiator's CERT or a link (URL) to the CERT, and
   similarly the Responder's reply, R_MESSAGE MAY contain the
   Responder's CERT or a link to it.  The Responder can use the
   Initiator's public key from the CERT in the I_MESSAGE to send the
   encrypted TGK in the R_MESSAGE.  Upon receiving the R_MESSAGE, the
   Initiator can use the CERT in the R_MESSAGE to verify whether the
   Responder is in fact the party that it wants to communicate to, and
   accept the TGK.  We refer to this protocol as MIKEY-RSA in the
   reverse mode, or simply as MIKEY-RSA-R.












Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


   The MIKEY-RSA-R mode exchange is defined as follows:

   Initiator                                            Responder
   ---------                                            ---------

   I_MESSAGE = HDR, T, [RAND], [IDi|CERTi], [IDr], {SP}, SIGNi

   R_MESSAGE = HDR, [GenExt(CSB_ID)], T, [RAND], [IDr|CERTr], [SP],
               KEMAC, PKE, SIGNr

                    Figure 1: MIKEY-RSA-R Unicast Mode

3.2.  Group communication using the MIKEY RSA-R mode

   For group conferencing using MIKEY RSA-R mode, the members receive an
   invitation to initiate MIKEY with the group key server to download
   the secure session information.  In this case, the Responder is
   either the group sender or group key server.  Group members request
   group policy and keying material as MIKEY RSA-R initiators.
   Initiators MUST NOT send the SP payload.  The Responder sends all the
   payloads necessary to distribute the secure group policy as well as
   payloads used in the group key derivation: specifically, the SP
   payload is used to convey the session policy, the GenExt(CSB-ID), TGK
   and the RAND payloads selected by the Responder and included in the
   R_Message are used to compute the SRTP session keys.

   MIKEY RSA-R for group communication:

   Initiator                                            Responder
   ---------                                            ---------

   I_MESSAGE = HDR, T, [RAND], [IDi|CERTi], [IDr],  SIGNi

   R_MESSAGE = HDR, GenExt(CSB_ID), T, RAND, [IDr|CERTr], SP,
               KEMAC, PKE, SIGNr

                    Figure 2: MIKEY-RSA-R in Group Mode

   Note that the SP payload in the I_MESSAGE is not present.  In the
   R_MESSAGE, the CSB_ID, RAND and SP payloads are not optional.

3.3.  Preparing RSA-R messages

   Preparation and parsing of RSA-R messages is as described in Sections
   5.2 and 5.3 of RFC 3830.  Error handling is described in Section
   5.1.2 and replay protection guidelines are in Section 5.4 of RFC
   3830.  In the following, we describe the components of RSA-R messages
   and specify message processing and parsing rules in addition to those



Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


   in RFC 3830.

3.4.  Components of the I_MESSAGE

   MIKEY-RSA-R requires a full round trip to download the TGKs.  The
   I_MESSAGE MUST have the MIKEY HDR and the timestamp payload for
   replay protection.  The HDR field contains a CSB_ID (Crypto Session
   Bundle ID) randomly selected by the Initiator.  The V bit MUST be set
   to '1' and ignored by the Responder, as a response is MANDATORY in
   this mode.  The Initiator SHOULD indicate the number of CSs
   supported, and SHOULD fill in the CS ID map type and CS ID info
   fields for the RTP/RTCP streams it originates.  This is because the
   sender of the streams chooses the SSRC which is carried in the CS ID
   info field; see Section 6.1.1 of RFC 3830.  The exception to
   Initiators not specifying SSRC values is to allow the Responder pick
   them to avoid SSRC collisions.  Initiators of MIKEY messages that do
   not originate RTP streams MUST specify a '0' as the number of CSs
   supported.  This typically applies to group communication and to the
   entities in the listen-only mode.

   The I_MESSAGE MUST be signed by the Initiator following the procedure
   to sign MIKEY messages specified in RFC 3830.  The SIGNi payload
   contains this signature.  Thus the I_MESSAGE is integrity and replay
   protected.

   The RAND payload SHOULD be included in the I_MESSAGE when MIKEY-RSA-R
   mode is used for unicast communication.  The reason for recommending
   the inclusion of the RAND payload in the I_MESSAGE for unicast
   communication is to allow the Initiator to contribute entropy to the
   key derivation process (in addition to the CSB_ID).  When the RAND
   payload is not included, the Initiator will be relying on the
   Responder to supply all the entropy for SRTP key generation, which is
   in fact similar (but with the reversal of roles) to the MIKEY-RSA
   mode, where the Responder supplies all the entropy.

   The RAND payload MAY be included when MIKEY-RSA-R is used to
   establish group keys.  However, the RAND payload in the I_MESSAGE
   MUST NOT be used for MIKEY key generation, in case of group
   communication.  The Responder MUST include a RAND payload in the
   R_MESSAGE for TEK generation from a TGK when MIKEY-RSA-R is used for
   group communication.

   IDi and CERTi SHOULD be included, but they MAY be left out when it is
   expected that the peer already knows the Initiating party's ID (or
   can obtain the certificate in some other manner).  For example, this
   could be the case if the ID is extracted from SIP.  For certificate
   handling, authorization, and policies, see Sections 4.3 and 6.7 of
   RFC 3830.  If CERTi is included, it MUST correspond to the private



Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


   key used to sign the I_MESSAGE.

   If the Responder has multiple Identities, the Initiator MAY also
   include the specific identity, IDr, of the Responder with whom
   communication is desired.  If the Initiator's policy does not allow
   acceptance of an R_MESSAGE from any entity other than one that can
   assert a specific identity, the Initiator MUST include that specific
   identity in an IDr payload in the I_MESSAGE.

   The Initiator MAY also send security policy (SP) payload(s)
   containing all the security policies that it supports.  If the
   Responder does not support any of the policies included, it SHOULD
   reply with an Error message of type "Invalid SPpar" (Error no. 10).
   The Responder has the option not to send the Error message in MIKEY
   if a generic session establishment failure indication is deemed
   appropriate and communicated via other means (see Section 4.1.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-kmgmt-ext] for additional guidance).

   SIGNi is a signature covering the Initiator's MIKEY message,
   I_MESSAGE, using the Initiator's signature key (see Section 5.2 of
   RFC 3830 for the exact definition).  The signature assures the
   Responder that the claimed Initiator has indeed generated the
   message.  This automatically provides message integrity as well.

3.5.  Processing the I_MESSAGE

   Upon receiving an I_MESSAGE of the RSA-R format, the Responder MUST
   respond with one of the following messages:
   o  The Responder SHOULD send an Error message "Message type not
      supported" (Error no. 13), if it cannot correctly parse the
      received MIKEY message.  Error message format is as specified in
      Section 5.1.2 of RFC 3830.  Error no. 13 is not defined in RFC
      3830, and so RFC 3830 compliant implementations MAY return "an
      unspecified error occurred" (Error no. 12).
   o  The Responder MUST send an R_MESSAGE, if SIGNi can be correctly
      verified and the timestamp is current; if an SP payload is present
      in the I_MESSAGE the Responder MUST return one of the proposed
      security policies that matches the Responder's local policy.
   o  If a RAND payload is present in the I_MESSAGE, both sides use that
      RAND payload as the RAND value in the MIKEY key computation.  In
      case of multicast, if a RAND payload is present in the I_MESSAGE,
      the Responder SHOULD ignore the payload.  In any case, the
      R_MESSAGE for multicast communication MUST contain a RAND payload
      and that RAND payload is used for key computation.
   o  The rest of the error message rules are as described in Section
      5.1.2 of RFC 3830, and message processing rules are as described
      in Section 5.3 of RFC 3830.




Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


3.6.  Components of the R_MESSAGE

   The HDR payload in the R_MESSAGE is formed following the procedure
   described in RFC 3830.  Specifically, the CSB_ID in the HDR payload
   MUST be the same as the one in the HDR of the I_MESSAGE.  The
   Responder MUST fill in the number of CSs and the CS ID map type and
   CS ID info fields of the HDR payload.

   For group communication, all the members MUST use the same CSB_ID and
   CS ID in computing the traffic keying material.  Therefore, for group
   key establishment, the Responder MUST include a General Extension
   Payload containing a new CSB_ID in the R_MESSAGE.  If a new CSB_ID is
   present in the R_MESSAGE, the Initiator and the Responder MUST use
   that value in key material computation.  Furthermore, the CS ID map
   type and CS ID map info MUST be populated by the Responder.  The
   General Extension Payload carrying a CSB_ID MUST NOT be present in
   case of unicast communication.

   The T payload is exactly the same as that received in the I_MESSAGE.

   If the I_MESSAGE did not include the RAND payload, it MUST be present
   in the R_MESSAGE.  In case it has been included in the I_MESSAGE, it
   MUST NOT be present in the R_MESSAGE.  In group communication, the
   Responder always sends the RAND payload and in unicast communication,
   either the Initiator or the Responder (but not both) generate and
   send the RAND payload.

   IDr and CERTr SHOULD be included, but they MAY be left out when it
   can be expected that the peer already knows the other party's ID (or
   can obtain the certificate in some other manner).  For example, this
   could be the case if the ID is extracted from SIP.  For certificate
   handling, authorization, and policies, see Section 4.3. of RFC 3830.
   If CERTr is included, it MUST correspond to the private key used to
   sign the R_MESSAGE.

   An SP payload MAY be included in the R_MESSAGE.  If an SP payload was
   in the I_MESSAGE, then R_MESSAGE MUST contain an SP payload
   specifying the security policies of the secure RTP session being
   negotiated.  More specifically, the Initiator may have provided
   multiple options, but the Responder MUST choose one option per
   Security Policy Parameter.

   The KEMAC payload contains a set of encrypted sub-payloads and a MAC:
   KEMAC = E(encr_key, IDr || {TGK}) || MAC.  The first payload (IDr) in
   KEMAC is the identity of the Responder (not a certificate, but
   generally the same ID as the one specified in the certificate).  Each
   of the following payloads (TGK) includes a TGK randomly and
   independently chosen by the Responder (and possible other related



Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


   parameters, e.g., the key lifetime).  The encrypted part is then
   followed by a MAC, which is calculated over the KEMAC payload.  The
   encr_key and the auth_key are derived from the envelope key, env_key,
   as specified in Section 4.1.4. of RFC 3830.  The payload definitions
   are specified in Section 6.2 of RFC 3830.

   The Responder encrypts and integrity protects the TGK with keys
   derived from a randomly or pseudo-randomly chosen envelope key, and
   encrypts the envelope key itself with the public key of the
   Initiator.  The PKE payload contains the encrypted envelope key,
   env_key: PKE = E(PKi, env_key).  PKi denotes the Initiator's public
   key.  Note that, as suggested in RFC 3830, the envelope key MAY be
   cached and used as the PSK for re-keying.

   To compute the signature that goes in the SIGNr payload, the
   Responder MUST sign:

   R_MESSAGE (excluding the SIGNr payload itself) || IDi || IDr || T.

   Note that the added identities and timestamp are identical to those
   transported in the ID and T payloads.

3.7.  Processing the R_MESSAGE

   In addition to the processing rules in RFC 3830, the following rules
   apply to processing of the R_MESSAGE of MIKEY RSA-R mode.

      If the I_MESSAGE contained a RAND payload, the Initiator MUST
      silently discard an R_MESSAGE that contains a RAND payload.
      Similarly, if the I_MESSAGE did not contain a RAND payload, the
      Initiator MUST silently discard an R_MESSAGE that does not contain
      a RAND payload.
      If the SP payload contains a policy not specified in the SP
      message, if present, in the I_MESSAGE, such and R_MESSAGE MUST be
      discarded silently.

3.8.  Certificate handling

   If a Certificate payload is present the X.509v3 URL Cert type from
   Table 6.7.b [RFC3830] is the default method in RSA-R mode and MUST be
   implemented.  The HTTP URL to fetch a certificate as specified in RFC
   2585 [RFC2585] MUST be supported.  Devices are not required to
   support the FTP URLs.  When retrieving data from the URL,
   application/pkix-cert MIME type with X.509 certificates DER encoded
   MUST be supported.

   The RECOMMENDED way of doing certificate validation is by using OCSP
   as specified by RFC 2560 [RFC2560].  When OCSP is used and nextUpdate



Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


   time is present in the response it defines how long the certificate
   can be considered valid and cached.  If OCSP is not supported or
   nextUpdate time is not present in the response the certificate cache
   timeout is a matter of local policy.

   The communicating peers (such as SIP UAs for instance) MAY choose to
   create a URL pointing to certificate files residing on themselves or
   by appending their ID and a ".cer" extension to a provisioned root
   path to the certificate.  Other methods MAY also be used, subject to
   local policy.

3.9.  Additions to RFC 3830 message types and other values

   This document introduces two new message types (Table 6.1a of RFC
   3830), an Error no (Table 6.12 of RFC 3830), and a general extension
   payload (Table 6.15 of RFC 3830).  This section specifies those
   additions.

3.9.1.  Modified Table 6.1a from RFC 3830

   Modified Table 6.1a from RFC 3830:


   Data type   | Value |                           Comment
   ------------------------------------------------------------------
   Pre-shared  |   0   | Initiator's pre-shared key message
   PSK ver msg |   1   | Verification message of a Pre-shared key msg
   Public key  |   2   | Initiator's public-key transport message
   PK ver msg  |   3   | Verification message of a public-key message
   D-H init    |   4   | Initiator's DH exchange message
   D-H resp    |   5   | Responder's DH exchange message
   Error       |   6   | Error message
   DHHMAC init |   7   | DH HMAC message 1
   DHHMAC resp |   8   | DH HMAC message 2
   RSA-R I_MSG |   9   | Initiator's RSA-R public-key message (NEW)
   RSA-R R_MSG |   10  | Responder's RSA-R public-key message (NEW)

               Figure 3: Table 6.1a from RFC 3830 (Revised)













Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


3.9.2.  Modified Table 6.12 from RFC 3830

   Modified Table 6.12 from RFC 3830:


         Error no          | Value | Comment
         -------------------------------------------------------
         Auth failure      |     0 | Authentication failure
         Invalid TS        |     1 | Invalid timestamp
         Invalid PRF       |     2 | PRF function not supported
         Invalid MAC       |     3 | MAC algorithm not supported
         Invalid EA        |     4 | Encryption algorithm not supported
         Invalid HA        |     5 | Hash function not supported
         Invalid DH        |     6 | DH group not supported
         Invalid ID        |     7 | ID not supported
         Invalid Cert      |     8 | Certificate not supported
         Invalid SP        |     9 | SP type not supported
         Invalid SPpar     |    10 | SP parameters not supported
         Invalid DT        |    11 | not supported Data type
         Unspecified error |    12 | an unspecified error occurred
         Unsupported       |       |
          message type     |    13 | unparseable MIKEY message (NEW)


               Figure 4: Table 6.12 from RFC 3830 (Revised)

3.9.3.  Modified Table 6.15 from RFC 3830

   Modified Table 6.15 from RFC 3830:

     Type       | Value | Comments
     ---------------------------------------
     Vendor ID  |     0 | Vendor specific byte string
     SDP IDs    |     1 | List of SDP key mgmt IDs (allocated for use in
                |       |   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-kmgmt-ext])
     TESLA I-Key|     2 |   [I-D.ietf-msec-bootstrapping-tesla]
     Key ID     |     3 | information on type and identity of keys
                |       |   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-kmgmt-ext])
     CSB_ID     |     4 | Responder's modified CSB_ID (group mode)

               Figure 5: Table 6.15 from RFC 3830 (Revised)


4.  Applicability of the RSA-R and RSA modes

   MIKEY-RSA-R mode and RSA mode are both very useful: deciding on which
   mode to use depends on the application.




Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


   The RSA-R mode is useful when you have reasons to believe that the
   Responder may be a different party than the one to which the MIKEY
   I_MESSAGE was sent.  This is quite common in telephony and multimedia
   applications where the session or the call can be retargeted or
   forwarded.  When the security policy allows it, leaving some
   flexibility for the Initiator to see who the Responder may turn out
   to be, before making the decision to continue or discontinue the
   session may be appropriate.  In such cases, the main objective of the
   Initiator's RSA-R message is to present its public key/certificate to
   the Responder, and wait for a Responder to present its identity.

   The second scenario is when the Initiator already has the Responder's
   certificate but wants to allow the Responder to come up with all the
   keying material.  This is applicable in conferences where the
   Responder is the key distributor and the Initiators contact the
   Responder to initiate key download.  Notice that this is quite
   similar to the group key download model as specified in GDOI
   [RFC3547], GSAKMP [I-D.ietf-msec-gsakmp-sec], and GKDP
   [I-D.ietf-msec-gkdp] protocols (also see [RFC4046]).  The catch
   however is that the participating entities must know that they need
   to contact a well-known address as far as that conferencing group is
   concerned.  Note that they only need the Responder's address, not
   necessarily its CERT.  If the group members have the Responder's
   CERT, there is no harm; they simply do not need the CERT to compose
   I_MESSAGE.

   The RSA mode is useful when the Initiator knows the Responder's
   identity and CERT.  This mode is also useful when the key exchange is
   happening in an established session with a Responder (for example,
   when switching from a non-secure mode to a secure mode), and when the
   policy is such that it is only appropriate to establish a MIKEY
   session with the Responder that is targeted by the Initiator.

4.1.  Limitations

   The RSA-R mode may not easily support 3-way calling, under the
   assumptions that motivated the design.  An extra message may be
   required compared to the MIKEY-RSA mode specified in RFC 3830.
   Consider that A wants to talk to B and C, but does not have B's or
   C's CERT.  A might contact B and request that B supply a key for a
   3-way call.  Now if B knows C's CERT, then B can simply use the
   MIKEY-RSA mode (as defined in RFC 3830) to send the TGK to C. If not,
   then the solution is not straightforward.  For instance, A might ask
   C to contact B or itself to get the TGK, in effect initiating a 3-way
   exchange.  It should be noted that 3-way calling is typically
   implemented using a bridge, in which case there are no issues (it
   looks like 3 point-to-point sessions, where one end of each session
   is a bridge mixing the traffic into a single stream).



Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


5.  Security Considerations

   We offer a brief overview of the security properties of the exchange.
   There are two messages: the I_MESSAGE and the R_MESSAGE.  The
   I_MESSAGE is a signed request by an Initiator requesting the
   Responder to select a TGK to be used to protect multimedia (e.g.,
   Secure RTP or SRTP [RFC3711] ) sessions.

   The message is signed, which assures the Responder that the claimed
   Initiator has indeed generated the message.  This automatically
   provides message integrity as well.

   There is a timestamp in the I_MESSAGE, which when generated and
   interpreted in the context of the MIKEY specification, assures the
   Responder that the request is live and not a replay.  Indirectly,
   this also provides protection against a DoS attack in that the
   I_MESSAGE must itself be signed.  The Responder however would have to
   verify the Initiator's signature and the timestamp, and thus would
   spend significant computing resources.  It is possible to mitigate
   this by caching recently received and verified requests.

   Note that the I_MESSAGE in this method basically equals DoS
   protection properties of the DH method and not the public key method
   as there are no payloads encrypted by the Responder's public key in
   I_MESSAGE.  If IDr is not included in the I_MESSAGE, the Responder
   will accept the message and a response (and state) would be created
   for the malicious request.

   The R_MESSAGE is quite similar to the I_MESSAGE in the MIKEY-RSA mode
   and has all the same security properties.

   When using the RSA-R mode, the Responder may be a different party
   than the one to which the MIKEY I_MESSAGE was sent.  It is the
   responsibility of the Initiator to verify that the identity of the
   Responder is acceptable (based on its local policy) if it changes
   from the party to which the MIKEY I_MESSAGE was sent, and to take
   appropriate action based on the outcome.  In some cases, it could be
   appropriate to accept Responder's identity if it can be strongly
   authenticated; in other cases, a blacklist or a whitelist may be
   appropriate.

   When both unicast and multicast streams need to be negotiated it is
   RECOMMENDED to use multiple instances of MIKEY-RSA-R rather than a
   single instance in group mode.  This is to avoid potential key reuse
   with counter mode.






Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


5.1.  Impact of the Responder choosing the TGK

   In the MIKEY-RSA or PSK modes, the Initiator chooses the TGK and the
   Responder has the option to accept the key or not.  In the RSA-R mode
   for unicast communication, the RECOMMENDED mode of operation is for
   the Initiator and the Responder to contribute random information in
   generating the TEK (RAND from the Initiator and the TGK from the
   Responder).  For group communication, the sender (MIKEY Responder)
   will choose the TGK and the RAND; note that it is in the interest of
   the sender to provide sufficient entropy to TEK generation since the
   TEK protects data sent by the Responder.

   Thus, in case of unicast communication, the RSA-R mode is slightly
   better than the RSA mode in that it allows the Initiator as well as
   the Responder to contribute entropy to the TEK generation process.
   This comes at the expense of the additional message.  However, as
   noted earlier, the new mode needs the additional message to allow
   simpler provisioning.

5.2.  Updates to Security Considerations in RFC3830

   MIKEY requires clock synchronization and a secure network clock
   synchronization protocol SHOULD be used, e.g., [ISO3] or secure NTP
   [I-D.ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto].

   RFC 3830 has additional notes on the security properties of the MIKEY
   protocol, key derivation functions and other components.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This specification requires the following IANA assignments to the
   MIKEY registry :
      Add to "Error Payload namespace:"

         Unsupported message type ------- 13

      Add to "Common Header payload name spaces:"

         RSA-R I_MSG ------------- 9
         RSA-R R_MSG ------------- 10

      General Extensions payload name spaces:

         CSB_ID ----------------- 4






Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


         (Note: if not available, please assign the next available
         number)


7.  Acknowledgments

   Many thanks to Mark Baugher, Steffen Fries, Russ Housley, Cullen
   Jennings, and Vesa Lehtovirta for their reviews of earlier version of
   this document.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2560]  Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and C.
              Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
              Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999.

   [RFC2585]  Housley, R. and P. Hoffman, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP",
              RFC 2585, May 1999.

   [RFC3830]  Arkko, J., Carrara, E., Lindholm, F., Naslund, M., and K.
              Norrman, "MIKEY: Multimedia Internet KEYing", RFC 3830,
              August 2004.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3547]  Baugher, M., Weis, B., Hardjono, T., and H. Harney, "The
              Group Domain of Interpretation", RFC 3547, July 2003.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [RFC4046]  Baugher, M., Canetti, R., Dondeti, L., and F. Lindholm,
              "Multicast Security (MSEC) Group Key Management
              Architecture", RFC 4046, April 2005.

   [I-D.ietf-msec-mikey-dhhmac]
              Euchner, M., "HMAC-authenticated Diffie-Hellman for
              MIKEY", draft-ietf-msec-mikey-dhhmac-11 (work in
              progress), April 2005.




Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


   [I-D.ietf-msec-gsakmp-sec]
              Harney, H., "GSAKMP: Group Secure Association Group
              Management Protocol", draft-ietf-msec-gsakmp-sec-10 (work
              in progress), May 2005.

   [I-D.ietf-msec-gkdp]
              Dondeti, L., "GKDP: Group Key Distribution Protocol",
              draft-ietf-msec-gkdp-01 (work in progress), March 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-kmgmt-ext]
              Arkko, J., "Key Management Extensions for Session
              Description Protocol (SDP) and Real  Time Streaming
              Protocol (RTSP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-kmgmt-ext-15 (work in
              progress), June 2005.

   [I-D.ietf-msec-bootstrapping-tesla]
              Fries, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Bootstrapping TESLA",
              draft-ietf-msec-bootstrapping-tesla-03 (work in progress),
              January 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-msec-newtype-keyid]
              Carrara, E., "The Key ID Information Type for the General
              Extension Payload in MIKEY",
              draft-ietf-msec-newtype-keyid-05 (work in progress),
              March 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto]
              Burbank, J., "The Network Time Protocol Version 4 Protocol
              Specification", draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-02 (work in
              progress), May 2006.

   [ISO3]     ISO, "ISO/IEC 18014 Information technology - Security
              techniques - Time-stamping services, Part 1-3", 2002.


Authors' Addresses

   Dragan Ignjatic
   Polycom
   1000 W. 14th Street
   North Vancouver, BC  V7P 3P3
   Canada

   Phone: +1 604 982 3424
   Email: dignjatic@polycom.com






Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


   Lakshminath Dondeti
   QUALCOMM
   5775 Morehouse drive
   San Diego, CA  92121
   US

   Phone: +1 858 845 1267
   Email: ldondeti@qualcomm.com


   Francois Audet
   Nortel
   4655 Great America Parkway
   Santa Clara, CA  95054
   US

   Phone: +1 408 495 3756
   Email: audet@nortel.com


   Ping Lin
   Nortel
   250 Sidney St.
   Belleville, Ontario  K8P3Z3
   Canada

   Phone: +1 613 967 5343
   Email: linping@nortel.com























Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                 MIKEY-RSA-R                   August 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Ignjatic, et al.        Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 19]


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