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

Versions: (draft-tschofenig-layered-tls) 00 01

Network Working Group                                           O. Friel
Internet-Draft                                                 R. Barnes
Intended status: Standards Track                             M. Pritikin
Expires: February 1, 2019                                          Cisco
                                                           H. Tschofenig
                                                             ARM Limited
                                                              M. Baugher
                                                              Consultant
                                                           July 31, 2018


                         Application-Layer TLS
                        draft-friel-tls-atls-01

Abstract

   This document specifies how TLS sessions can be established at the
   application layer over untrusted transport between clients and
   services for the purposes of establishing secure end-to-end encrypted
   communications channels.  Transport layer encodings for application
   layer TLS records are specified for HTTP and CoAP transport.
   Explicit identification of application layer TLS packets enables
   middleboxes to provide transport services and enforce suitable
   transport policies for these payloads, without requiring access to
   the unencrypted payload content.  Multiple scenarios are presented
   identifying the need for end-to-end application layer encryption
   between clients and services, and the benefits of reusing the well-
   defined TLS protocol, and a standard TLS stack, to accomplish this
   are described.  Application software architectures for building, and
   network architectures for deploying application layer TLS are
   outlined.

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 https://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 February 1, 2019.



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Application Layer End-to-End Security Use Cases . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Bootstrapping Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.1.  Constrained Device Connecting over a Closed Network .   5
       3.2.2.  Constrained Device Connecting over the Internet . . .   6
   4.  Current Approaches to Application Layer End-to-End Security .   7
     4.1.  Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Signal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Google ALTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  ATLS Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Architecture Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Application Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.1.1.  Application Architecture Benefits . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.1.2.  ATLS Packet Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.1.3.  ATLS Session Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.1.4.  ATLS Record Inspection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.1.5.  Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  Functional Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.3.  Network Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Key Exporting and Application Data Encryption . . . . . . . .  15
     7.1.  Key Exporter Label  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     7.2.  Cipher Suite Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     7.3.  Key Derivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  ATLS Session Establishment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  ATLS over HTTP Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.1.  Protocol Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.2.  Content-Type Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.3.  HTTP Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


     9.4.  ATLS Session Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.5.  Session Establishment and Key Exporting . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.6.  Application Data Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.7.  Illustrative ATLS over HTTP Session Establishment . . . .  19
     9.8.  ATLS and HTTP CONNECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   10. ATLS over CoAP Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   11. RTT Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   14. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Appendix A.  TLS Software Stack Configuration . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Appendix B.  Pseudo Code  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     B.1.  OpenSSL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     B.2.  Java JSSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Appendix C.  Example ATLS Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30

1.  Introduction

   There are multiple scenarios where there is a need for application
   layer end-to-end security between clients and application services.
   Two examples include:

   o  Bootstrapping devices that must connect to HTTP application
      services across untrusted TLS interception middleboxes

   o  Constrained devices connecting via gateways to application
      services, where different transport layer protocols may be in use
      on either side of the gateway, with the gateway transcoding
      between the different transport layer protocols.

   These two scenarios are described in more detail in Section 3.

   Related to this document, there is ongoing work across the industry
   to define requirements for end-to-end security.
   [I-D.hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs] documents requirements for CoAP
   [RFC7252] End-to-End Security.  The Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) has
   published a candidate standard Lightweight Machine to Machine
   Requirements [LwM2M] which defines multiple requirements for end-to-
   end security.

   This document describes how clients and applications can leverage
   standard TLS software stacks to establish secure end-to-end encrypted
   connections at the application layer.  The connections may establish
   TLS [RFC5246] [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] or DTLS [RFC6347]
   [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] sessions.  There are multiple advantages to
   reuse of existing TLS software stacks for establishment of
   application layer secure connections.  These include:



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   o  many clients and application services already include a TLS
      software stack, so there is no need to include yet another
      software stack in the software build

   o  no need to define a new cryptographic negotiation, authentication,
      and key exchange protocol between clients and services

   o  provides standards based PKI mutual authentication between clients
      and services

   o  no need to train software developers on how to use a new
      cryptographic protocols or libraries

   o  automatically benefit from new cipher suites by simply upgrading
      the TLS software stack

   o  automatically benefit from new features, bugfixes, etc. in TLS
      software stack upgrades

   This document also explicitly defines how application layer TLS
   connections can be established using HTTP [RFC7230] [RFC7540] or CoAP
   as transport layers.  This document does not preclude the user of
   other transport layers, however defining how application layer TLS
   connections can be established over other transport layers such as
   [ZigBee] or [Bluetooth] is beyond the scope of this document.

   Explicitly identifying application layer TLS packets enables
   transport layer middleboxes to provide transport capabilities and
   enforce suitable transport policies for these payloads, without
   requiring access to unencrypted application data.

2.  Terminology

   Application layer TLS is referred to as ATLS throughout this
   document.

3.  Application Layer End-to-End Security Use Cases

   This section describes in more detail the bootstrapping and
   constrained device use cases mentioned in the introduction.

3.1.  Bootstrapping Devices

   There are far more classes of clients being deployed on today's
   networks than at any time previously.  This poses challenges for
   network administrators who need to manage their network and the
   clients connecting to their network, and poses challenges for client




Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   vendors and client software developers who must ensure that their
   clients can connect to all required services.

   One common example is where a client is deployed on a local domain
   TCP/IP network that protects its perimeter using a TLS terminating
   middlebox, and the client needs to establish a secure connection to a
   service in a different network via the middlebox.  This is
   illustrated in Figure 1.

   Traditionally, this has been enabled by the network administrator
   deploying the necessary certificate authority trusted roots on the
   client.  This can be achieved at scale using standard tools that
   enable the administrator to automatically push trusted roots out to
   all client machines in the network from a centralized domain
   controller.  This works for personal computers, laptops and servers
   running standard Operating Systems that can be centrally managed.
   This client management process breaks for multiple classes of clients
   that are being deployed today, there is no standard mechanism for
   configuring trusted roots on these clients, and there is no standard
   mechanism for these clients to securely traverse middleboxes.

   +--------+    C->M TLS    +-----------+   M->S TLS   +---------+
   | Client |--------------->| Middlebox |------------->| Service |
   +--------+                +-----------+              +---------+
       ^                                                     ^
       |                                                     |
       +-----------Client to Service ATLS Connection---------+

                      Figure 1: Bootstrapping Devices

   The ATLS mechanism defined in this document enables clients to
   traverse middleboxes and establish secure connections to services
   across network domain boundaries.  The purpose of this connection may
   simply be to facilitate a bootstrapping process, for example
   [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra], whereby the client securely
   discovers the local domain certificate authorities required to
   establish a trusted network layer TLS connection to the middlebox.

3.2.  Constrained Devices

   Two constrained device use cases are outlined here.

3.2.1.  Constrained Device Connecting over a Closed Network

   There are industry examples of home smart lighting systems where the
   smart light bulbs connect using ZigBee to a gateway device.  A
   controller application running on a mobile device connects to the
   gateway using CoAP over DTLS.  The controller can then control the



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   light bulbs by sending messages and commands via the gateway.  The
   gateway device has full access to all messages sent between the light
   bulbs and the controller application.

   A generic use case similar to the smart lighting system outlined
   above has an IoT device talking ZigBee to a gateway, with the gateway
   in turn talking CoAP over DTLS to a controller application running on
   a mobile device.  This is illustrated in Figure 2.

   There are scenarios where the messages sent between the IoT device
   and the controller application must not be exposed to the gateway
   function.  Additionally, the end devices (the IoT device and the
   controller application service) have no visibility to and no
   guarantees about what transport layer security and encryption is
   enforced across all hops end-to-end as they only have visibility to
   their immediate next hop.  ATLS addresses these concerns.

   +--------+    ZigBee     +---------+  CoAP/DTLS   +------------+
   | Device |-------------->| Gateway |------------->| Mobile App |
   +--------+               +---------+              +------------+
       ^                                                   ^
       |                                                   |
       +--------Device to Mobile App ATLS Connection-------+

                   Figure 2: IoT Closed Network Gateway

3.2.2.  Constrained Device Connecting over the Internet

   A somewhat similar example has an IoT device connecting to a gateway
   using a suitable transport mechanism such as ZigBee, CoAP, MQTT, etc.
   The gateway function in turn talks HTTP over TLS (or, for example,
   HTTP over QUIC) to an application service over the Internet.  This is
   illustrated in Figure 3.

   The gateway may not be trusted and all messages between the IoT
   device and the application service must be end-to-end encrypted.
   Similar to the previous use case, the endpoints have no guarantees
   about what level of transport layer security is enforced across all
   hops.  Again, ATLS addresses these concerns.

   +--------+  CoAP/DTLS    +------------------+  HTTP/TLS   +---------+
   | Device |-------------->| Internet Gateway |------------>| Service |
   +--------+               +------------------+             +---------+
       ^                                                          ^
       |                                                          |
       +---------Device to Cloud Service ATLS Connection----------+

                      Figure 3: IoT Internet Gateway



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


4.  Current Approaches to Application Layer End-to-End Security

   End-to-end security at the application layer is increasing seen as a
   key requirement across multiple applications and services.  Some
   examples of end-to-end security mechanisms are outlined here.  All
   the solutions outlined here have some common characteristics.  The
   solutions:

   o  do not rely on transport layer security

   o  define a new handshake protocol for establishment of a secure end-
      to-end session

4.1.  Noise

   [Noise] is a framework for cryptographic protocols based on Elliptic
   Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) key agreement, AEAD encryption, and
   BLAKE2 and SHA2 hash functions.  Noise is currently used by WhatsApp,
   WireGuard, and Lightning.

   The current Noise protocol framework defines mechanisms for proving
   possession of a private key, but does not define authentication
   mechanisms.  Section 14 "Security Considerations" of Noise states:
   ~~~ it's up to the application to determine whether the remote
   party's static public key is acceptable ~~~

4.2.  Signal

   The [Signal] protocol provides end-to-end encryption and uses EdDSA
   signatures, Triple Diffie-Hellman handshake for shared secret
   establishment, and the Double Ratchet Algorithm for key management.
   It is used by Open Whisper Systems, WhatsApp and Google.

   Similar to Noise, Signal does not define an authentication mechanism.
   The current [X3DH] specification states in section 4.1
   "Authentication":

   Methods for doing this are outside the scope of this document

4.3.  Google ALTS

   Google's Application Layer Transport Security [ALTS] is a mutual
   authentication and transport encryption system used for securing
   Remote Procedure Call (RPC) communications within Google's
   infrastructure.  ALTS uses an ECDH handshake protocol and a record
   protocol containing AES encrypted payloads.





Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


4.4.  Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE

   There is ongoing work to standardise [I-D.selander-ace-cose-ecdhe].
   This defines a ECDH SIGMA based authenticated key exchange algorithm
   using COSE and COBR objects.

5.  ATLS Goals

   The high level goals driving the design of this mechanism are:

   o  enable authenticated key exchange at the application layer by
      reusing existing technologies

   o  ensure that ATLS packets are explicitly identified thus ensuring
      that any middleboxes or gateways at the transport layer are
      content aware

   o  leverage existing TLS stacks and handshake protocols thus avoiding
      introducing new software or protocol dependencies in clients and
      applications

   o  reuse existing TLS [RFC5246] [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] and DTLS
      [RFC6347] [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] specifications as is without
      requiring any protocol changes or software stack changes

   o  do not mandate constraints on how the TLS stack is configured or
      used

   o  be forward compatible with future TLS versions

   o  avoid introducing TLS protocol handling logic or semantics into
      the application layer i.e. TLS protocol knowledge and logic is
      handled by the TLS stack, not the application

   o  ensure the client and server software implementations are as
      simple as possible

6.  Architecture Overview

6.1.  Application Architecture

   TLS software stacks allow application developers to 'unplug' the
   default network socket transport layer and read and write TLS records
   directly from byte buffers.  This enables application developers to
   create application layer TLS sessions, extract the raw TLS record
   bytes from the bottom of the TLS stack, and transport these bytes
   over any suitable transport.  The TLS software stacks can generate
   byte streams of full TLS flights which may include multiple TLS



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   records.  Additionally, TLS software stacks support Keying Material
   Exporters [RFC5705] and allow applications to export keying material
   from established TLS sessions.  This keying material can then be used
   by the application for encryption of data outside the context of the
   TLS session.  This is illustrated in Figure 4 below.

                       +------------+                    +---------+
    Handshake Records  |            | Handshake Records  |         |
   ------------------->|            |------------------->|         |
                       |            |                    |  Byte   |
    Unencrypted Data   |    TLS     | Encrypted Data     |         |
   ------------------->|            |------------------->| Buffers |
                       |  Software  |                    |         |
    Encrypted Data     |            | Unencrypted Data   |         |
   ------------------->|   Stack    |------------------->|         |
                       |            |                    +---------+
    Keying Material    |            |
   <-------------------|            |
                       + -----------+

                      Figure 4: TLS Stack Interfaces

   These TLS software stack APIs enable application developers to build
   the software architectures illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6.

   In both architectures, the application creates and interacts with an
   application layer TLS session in order to generate and consume raw
   TLS records.  The application transports these raw TLS records inside
   transport layer message bodies using whatever standard transport
   layer stack is suitable for the application or architecture.  This
   document does not place any restrictions on the choice of transport
   layer and any suitable protocol such as HTTP, TCP, CoAP, ZigBee,
   Bluetooth, etc. could be used.

   The transport layer will typically encrypt data, and this encryption
   is completely independent from any application layer encryption.  The
   transport stack may create a transport layer TLS session.  The
   application layer TLS session and transport layer TLS session can
   both leverage a shared, common TLS software stack.  This high level
   architecture is applicable to both clients and application services.
   The key differences between the architectures are as follows.

   In the model illustrated in Figure 5, the application sends all
   sensitive data that needs to be securely exchanged with the peer
   application through the Application TLS session in order to be
   encrypted and decrypted.  All sensitive application data is thus
   encoded within TLS records by the TLS stack, and these TLS records
   are transmitted over the transport layer.



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   +-------------+
   |             |    App
   |             |    Data    +---------+
   | Application |<---------->|   App   |      +---------+
   |             |    TLS     |   TLS   |----->|   TLS   |
   |             |  Records   | Session |      |  Stack  |
   |        +--->|<---------->|         |      +---------+
   |        |    |            +---------+           ^
   |        |    |                                  |?
   |        |    | Transport +-----------+    +------------+
   |        |    |  Payload  | Transport |    | Transport  |
   |        +--->|<--------->|   Stack   |--->| Encryption |-->Packets
   +-------------+           +-----------+    +------------+

             Figure 5: TLS Stack used for all data encryption

   In the model illustrated in Figure 6, the application establishes an
   application layer TLS session purely for the purposes of key
   exchange.  Therefore, the only TLS records that are sent or received
   by the application layer are TLS handshake records.  Once the
   application layer TLS session is established, the application uses
   Keying Material Exporter [RFC5705] APIs to export keying material
   from the TLS stack from this application layer TLS session.  The
   application can then use these exported keys to derive suitable
   shared encryption keys with its peer for exchange of encrypted data.
   The application encrypts and decrypts sensitive data using these
   shared encryption keys using any suitable cryptographic library
   (which may be part of the same library that provides the TLS stack),
   and transports the encrypted data directly over the transport layer.






















Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   +--------------+
   |              |
   | Application  |
   |              |
   | +-------+    |            +---------+
   | | App   |    | Key Export |         |
   | | Data  |<---|<-----------|         |
   | | Crypto|    |            |   App   |
   | +-------+    |    TLS     |   TLS   |      +---------+
   |    ^         | Handshake  | Session |----->|   TLS   |
   |    |         |  Records   |         |      |  Stack  |
   |    |    +--->|<---------->|         |      +---------+
   |    |    |    |            +---------+           ^
   |    |    |    |                                  |?
   |    |    |    | Transport +-----------+    +------------+
   |    |    |    |  Payload  | Transport |    | Transport  |
   |    +----+--->|<--------->|   Stack   |--->| Encryption |-->Packets
   +--------------+           +-----------+    +------------+

         Figure 6: TLS stack used for key agreement and exporting

   The choice of which application architecture to use will depend on
   the overall solution architecture, and the underlying transport layer
   or layers in use.  While the choice of application architecture is
   outside the scope of this document, some considerations are outlined
   here.

   o  for constrained devices, every single byte of payload is
      important.  [I-D.mattsson-core-security-overhead] analyses the
      overhead of TLS headers compared with OSCORE
      [I-D.ietf-core-object-security] illustrating the additional
      overhead associated with TLS headers.  It may be more appropriate
      to use the architecture defined in Figure 6 in order to establish
      shared encryption keys, and then transport encrypted data directly
      without the overhead of unwanted TLS record headers.

   o  when using HTTP as a transport layer, it may be more appropriate
      to use the architecture defined in Figure 6 in order to avoid any
      TLS session vs. HTTP session affinity issues.

6.1.1.  Application Architecture Benefits

   There are several benefits to using a standard TLS software stack to
   establish an application layer secure communications channel between
   a client and a service.  These include:

   o  no need to define a new cryptographic negotiation and exchange
      protocol between client and service



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   o  automatically benefit from new cipher suites by simply upgrading
      the TLS software stack

   o  automatically benefit from new features, bugfixes, etc. in TLS
      software stack upgrades

6.1.2.  ATLS Packet Identification

   It is recommended that ATLS packets are explicitly identified by a
   standardized, transport-specific identifier enabling any gateways and
   middleboxes to identify ATLS packets.  Middleboxes have to contend
   with a vast number of applications and network operators have
   difficulty configuring middleboxes to distinguish unencrypted but not
   explicitly identified application data from end-to-end encrypted
   data.  This specification aims to assist network operators by
   explicitly identifying ATLS packets.  The HTTP and CoAP encodings
   documented in Section 9 and Section 10 explicitly identify ATLS
   packets.

6.1.3.  ATLS Session Tracking

   The ATLS application service establishes multiple ATLS sessions with
   multiple clients.  As TLS sessions are stateful, the application
   service must be able to correlate ATLS records from different clients
   across the relevant ATLS sessions.  The details of how session
   tracking is implemented are outside the scope of this document.
   Recommendations are given in Section 9 and Section 10, but session
   tracking is application and implementation specific.

6.1.4.  ATLS Record Inspection

   It should not be necessary for the application layer to have to
   inspect, parse or understand the contents of ATLS records.  No
   constraints are placed on the ContentType contained within the
   transported TLS records.  The TLS records may contain handshake,
   application_data, alert or change_cipher_spec messages.  If new
   ContentType messages are defined in future TLS versions, these may
   also be transported using this protocol.

6.1.5.  Implementation

   Pseudo code illustrating how to read and write TLS records directly
   from byte buffers using both OpenSSL BIO functions and Java JSSE
   SSLEngine is given in the appendices.  A blog post by [Norrell]
   outlines a similar approach to leveraging OpenSSL BIO functions, and
   Oracle publish example code for leveraging [SSLEngine].





Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


6.2.  Functional Design

   [ todo: insert Hannes functional design section here including the
   policy layers ]

   Policy examples:

   Mention that the app layer policy could be to not do ATLS if the
   transport layer establishes an e2e session with the peer. e.g. for
   HTTP use cases where there is no middlebox and cert validation
   passes.

   Mention that the client could report in the ATLS session any
   middlebox cert seen at the transport layer.

6.3.  Network Architecture

   An example network deployment is illustrated in Figure 7.  It shows a
   constrained client connecting to an application service via an
   internet gateway.  The client uses CoAP over DTLS to communicate with
   the gateway.  The gateway extracts the messages the client sent over
   CoAP and sends these messages inside HTTP message bodies to the
   application service.  It also shows a TLS terminator deployed in
   front of the application service.  The client establishes a transport
   layer CoAP/DTLS connection with the gateway (C->G DTLS), the gateway
   in turn opens a transport layer TLS connection with the TLS
   terminator deployed in front of the service (G->T TLS).  The client
   can ignore any certificate validation errors when it connects to the
   gateway.  CoAP messages are transported between the client and the
   gateway, and HTTP messages are transported between the client and the
   service.  Finally, application layer TLS messages are exchanged
   inside the CoAP and HTTP message bodies in order to establish an end-
   to-end TLS session between the client and the service (C->S TLS).


















Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


          +----------+        +----------+
          | App Data |        | App Data |
          +----------+        +----------+         +----------+
          | C->S TLS |        | C->S TLS |         | App Data |
          +----------+        +----------+         +----------+
          |   CoAP   |        |   HTTP   |         | C->S TLS |
          +----------+        +----------+         +----------+
          | C->G DTLS|        | M->T TLS |         |   HTTP   |
          +----------+        +----------+         +----------+
          |   UDP    |        |   TCP    |         |   TCP    |
          +----------+        +----------+         +----------+

   +--------+      +-----------+      +----------------+     +---------+
   | Client |----->|  Gateway  |----->| TLS Terminator |---->| Service |
   +--------+      +-----------+      +----------------+     +---------+
      ^                                                           ^
      |                                                           |
      +-------------Client to Service ATLS Connection-------------+

         Figure 7: Constrained Device Gateway Network Architecture

   Another typical network deployment is illustrated in Figure 8.  It
   shows a client connecting to a service via a middlebox.  It also
   shows a TLS terminator deployed in front of the service.  The client
   establishes a transport layer TLS connection with the middlebox (C->M
   TLS), the middlebox in turn opens a transport layer TLS connection
   with the TLS terminator deployed in front of the service (M->T TLS).
   The client can ignore any certificate validation errors when it
   connects to the middlebox.  HTTP messages are transported over this
   layer between the client and the service.  Finally, application layer
   TLS messages are exchanged inside the HTTP message bodies in order to
   establish an end-to-end TLS session between the client and the
   service (C->S TLS).


















Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


          +----------+        +----------+
          | App Data |        | App Data |
          +----------+        +----------+         +----------+
          | C->S TLS |        | C->S TLS |         | App Data |
          +----------+        +----------+         +----------+
          |   HTTP   |        |   HTTP   |         | C->S TLS |
          +----------+        +----------+         +----------+
          | C->M TLS |        | M->T TLS |         |   HTTP   |
          +----------+        +----------+         +----------+
          |   TCP    |        |   TCP    |         |   TCP    |
          +----------+        +----------+         +----------+

   +--------+      +-----------+      +----------------+     +---------+
   | Client |----->| Middlebox |----->| TLS Terminator |---->| Service |
   +--------+      +-----------+      +----------------+     +---------+
      ^                                                           ^
      |                                                           |
      +-------------Client to Service ATLS Connection-------------+

               Figure 8: HTTP Middlebox Network Architecture

7.  Key Exporting and Application Data Encryption

   When solutions implement the architecture described in Figure 6, they
   leverage [RFC5705] for key exporting from the ATLS session.  The
   client and service then use the exported keys to derive shared
   encryption keys.  The encryption keys are then used with a suitable
   cipher suite to encrypt application data for exchange with the peer.

7.1.  Key Exporter Label

   A new TLS Exporter Label is defined for ATLS key exporting.  Its
   value is:

   TLS Exporter Label: application-layer-tls

7.2.  Cipher Suite Selection

   Application layer encryption performed outside the context of the
   ATLS session using exported keys should use the cipher suite
   negotiated during ATLS session establishment.

7.3.  Key Derivation

   [RFC5705] key exporting functions allow specification of the number
   of bytes of keying material that should be exported from the TLS
   session.  The application should export the exact number of bytes




Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   required to generate the necessary client and server cipher suite
   encryption key and IV values.

   [[TODO]] Maybe need to reference the relevant sections from
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-23#section-7 and
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246#section-6.3.

8.  ATLS Session Establishment

   Figure 9 illustrates how an ATLS session is established using the key
   exporting architectural model shown in Figure 6.  The outline is as
   follows:

   o  the client creates an ATLS session object

   o  the client initiates a TLS handshake on the session

   o  the client extracts the TLS records for the first TLS flight (the
      first RTT)

   o  the client sends the TLS records over the transport layer to the
      server

   o  on receipt of the TLS flight, the server creates an ATLS session
      object

   o  the server injects the received TLS flight into the session

   o  the server extracts the TLS records for the first TLS flight
      response

   o  the server sends the TLS response records over the transport layer
      to the client

   o  the client injects the received TLS records into its TLS session
      completing the first full RTT

   o  the client and server repeat the above process and complete the
      second RTT

   o  once the ATLS session is up, both sides export keying material

   o  both sides now can exchange data encrypted using shared keys
      derived from the keying material

   +-------------------------------+  +-------------------------------+
   |             Client            |  |           ATLS Server         |
   +---------+---+-----+---+-------+  +-------+---+-----+---+---------+



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   |  ATLS   |  | App |  |Transport|  |Transport|  | App |  |  ATLS   |
   | Session |  +-----+  |  Stack  |  |  Stack  |  +-----+  | Session |
   +---------+     |     +---------+  +---------+     |     +---------+
        |          |         |             |          |          |
        |          |         |             |          |          |
        |          |         |             |          |          |
        |  Create  |         |             |          |          |
        |  Session |         |             |          |          |
    +   |<---------|         |             |          |          |
    |   |  Start   |         |             |          |          |
    |   | Handshake|         |             |          |          |
    |   |<---------|         |             |          |          |
    |   |   TLS    |         |             |          |          |
    |   | Records  |  Pack   |             |          |          |
    |   |--------->| Records |             |          |          |
        |          |-------->| send packet | Unpack   |          |
    R   |          |         |------------>| Records  | Create   |
    T   |          |         |             |--------->| Session  |
    T   |          |         |             |          |--------->|
        |          |         |             |          |   TLS    |
    1   |          |         |             |          | Records  |
        |          |         |             |          |--------->|
    |   |          |         |             |          |   TLS    |
    |   |          |         |             |  Pack    | Records  |
    |   |          |         |             | Records  |<---------|
    |   |          | Unpack  |send response|<---------|          |
    |   |   TLS    | Records |<------------|          |          |
    |   | Records  |<--------|             |          |          |
    +   |<---------|         |             |          |          |
        |   TLS    |         |             |          |          |
        | Records  |         |             |          |          |
    +   |--------->|-------->|------------>|--------->|--------->|
    |   |          |         |             |          |          |
        |          |         |             |          | Session  |
    R   |          |         |             |          |    Up    |
    T   |          |         |             |          |<---------|
    T   |          |         |             |          |   TLS    |
        |          |         |             |          | Records  |
    2   |<---------|<--------|<------------|<---------|<---------|
        | Session  |         |             |          |          |
    |   |    Up    |         |             |          |          |
    +   |--------->|         |             |          |          |
        |  Export  |         |             |          |  Export  |
        |   Keys   |         |             |          |   Keys   |
        |--------->|         | E2E Session |          |<---------|
        |          |<--------|-------------|--------->|          |

                   Figure 9: ATLS Session Establishment



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


9.  ATLS over HTTP Transport

   The assumption is that the client will establish a transport layer
   connection to the server for exchange of HTTP messages.  The
   underlying transport layer connection could be over TCP or TLS.  The
   client will then establish an application layer TLS connection with
   the server by exchanging TLS records with the server inside HTTP
   message request and response bodies.

9.1.  Protocol Summary

   All ATLS records are transported unmodified as binary data within
   HTTP message bodies.  The application simply extracts the TLS records
   from the TLS stack and inserts them directly into HTTP message
   bodies.  Each message body contains a full TLS flight, which may
   contain multiple TLS records.

   The client sends all ATLS records to the server in the bodies of POST
   requests.

   The server sends all ATLS records to the client in the bodies of 200
   OK responses to the POST requests.

9.2.  Content-Type Header

   A new Content-Type header value is defined:

   Content-type: application/atls+octet-stream

   All message bodies containing ATLS records must set this Content-
   Type.  This enables middleboxes to readily identify ATLS payloads.

9.3.  HTTP Status Codes

   This document does not define any new HTTP status codes, and does not
   specify additional semantics or refine existing semantics for status
   codes.  This is the best current practice as outlined in
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis].

9.4.  ATLS Session Tracking

   The application service needs to track multiple client application
   layer TLS sessions so that it can correlate TLS records received in
   HTTP message bodies with the appropriate TLS session.  The
   application service should use stateful cookies [RFC6265] in order to
   achieve this as recommended in [I-D.ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis].





Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


9.5.  Session Establishment and Key Exporting

   It is recommended that applications using ATLS over HTTP transport
   only use ATLS for session establishment and key exchange, resulting
   in only 2 ATLS RTTs between the client and the application service.

   Key exporting must be carried out as described in Section 7.3.

9.6.  Application Data Encryption

   [editors note: I am on the fence about using [RFC8188] as this
   hardcodes the ciphersuite to aes128gcm.  It would be nice to use the
   cipher suite negotiated as part of ATLS session establishment. ]

9.7.  Illustrative ATLS over HTTP Session Establishment

   A client initiates an ATLS session by sending the first TLS flight in
   a POST request message body to the ATLS server.

   POST /atls
   Content-Type: application/atls+octet-stream

   <binary TLS client flight 1 records>

   The server handles the request, creates an ATLS session object, and
   replies by including its first TLS flight in a 200 OK message body.
   The server also sets a suitable cookie for session tracking purposes.

   200 OK
   Content-Type: application/atls+octet-stream
   Set-Cookie: my-atls-cookie=my-cookie-value

   <binary TLS server flight 1 records>

   The client handles the server first flight TLS records and replies
   with its second flight.

   POST /atls
   Content-Type: application/atls+octet-stream
   Cookie: my-atls-cookie=my-cookie-value

   <binary TLS client flight 2 records>

   The server handles the second flight, establishes the ATLS session,
   and replies with its second flight.






Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   200 OK
   Content-Type: application/atls+octet-stream

   <binary TLS server flight 2 records>

9.8.  ATLS and HTTP CONNECT

   It is worthwhile comparing and contrasting ATLS with HTTP CONNECT
   tunneling.

   First, let us introduce some terminology:

   o  HTTP Proxy: A HTTP Proxy operates at the application layer,
      handles HTTP CONNECT messages from clients, and opens tunnels to
      remote origin servers on behalf of clients.  If a client
      establishes a tunneled TLS connection to the origin server, the
      HTTP Proxy does not attempt to intercept or inspect the HTTP
      messages exchanged between the client and the server

   o  middlebox: A middlebox operates at the transport layer, terminates
      TLS connections from clients, and originates new TLS connections
      to services.  A middlebox inspects all messages sent between
      clients and services.  Middleboxes are generally completely
      transparent to applications, provided that the necessary PKI root
      Certificate Authority is installed in the client's trust store.

   HTTP Proxies and middleboxes are logically separate entities and one
   or both of these may be deployed in a network.

   HTTP CONNECT is used by clients to instruct a HTTP Forward Proxy
   deployed in the local domain to open up a tunnel to a remote origin
   server that is typically deployed in a different domain.  Assuming
   that TLS transport is used between both client and proxy, and proxy
   and origin server, the network architecture is as illustrated in
   Figure 10.  Once the proxy opens the transport tunnel to the service,
   the client establishes an end-to-end TLS session with the service,
   and the proxy is blindly transporting TLS records (the C->S TLS
   session records) between the client and the service.  From the client
   perspective, it is tunneling a TLS session to the service inside the
   TLS session it has established to the proxy (the C->P TLS session).
   No middlebox is attempting to intercept or inspect the HTTP messages
   between the client and the service.









Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


          +----------+        +----------+
          | C->S HTTP|        | C->S HTTP|
          +----------+        +----------+
          | C->S TLS |        | C->S TLS |
          +----------+        +----------+
          | C->P TLS |        | P->S TCP |
          +----------+        +----------+
          | C->P TCP |
          +----------+

   +--------+      +------------+      +---------+
   | Client |----->| HTTP Proxy |----->| Service |
   +--------+      +------------+      +---------+

                  Figure 10: HTTP Proxy transport layers

   A more complex network topology where the network operator has both a
   HTTP Proxy and a middlebox deployed is illustrated in Figure 11.  In
   this scenario, the proxy has tunneled the TLS session from the client
   towards the origin server, however the middlebox is intercepting and
   terminating this TLS session.  A TLS session is established between
   the client and the middlebox (C->M TLS), and not end-to-end between
   the client and the server.  It can clearly be seen that HTTP CONNECT
   and HTTP Proxies serve completely different functions than
   middleboxes.

   Additionally, the fact that the TLS session is established between
   the client and the middlebox can be problematic for two reasons:

   o  the middle box is inspecting traffic that is sent between the
      client and the service

   o  the client may not have the necessary PKI root Certificate
      Authority installed that would enable it to validate the TLS
      connection to the middlebox.  This is the scenario outlined in
      Section 3.1.















Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


          +----------+        +----------+       +----------+
          | C->S HTTP|        | C->S HTTP|       | C->S HTTP|
          +----------+        +----------+       +----------+
          | C->M TLS |        | C->M TLS |       | M->S TLS |
          +----------+        +----------+       +----------+
          | C->P TLS |        | P->M TCP |       | M->S TCP |
          +----------+        +----------+       +----------+
          | C->P TCP |
          +----------+

   +--------+      +------------+      +-----------+      +---------+
   | Client |----->| HTTP Proxy |----->| Middlebox |----->| Service |
   +--------+      +------------+      +-----------+      +---------+

           Figure 11: HTTP Proxy and middlebox transport layers

   As HTTP CONNECT can be used to establish a tunneled TLS connection,
   one hypothetical solution to this middlebox issue is for the client
   to issue a HTTP CONNECT command to a HTTP Reverse Proxy deployed in
   front of the origin server.  This solution is not practical for
   several reasons:

   o  if there is a local domain HTTP Forward Proxy deployed, this would
      result in the client doing a first HTTP CONNECT to get past the
      Forward Proxy, and then a second HTTP CONNECT to get past the
      Reverse Proxy.  No client or client library supports the concept
      of HTTP CONNECT inside HTTP CONNECT.

   o  if there is no local domain HTTP Proxy deployed, the client still
      has to do a HTTP CONNECT to the HTTP Reverse Proxy.  This breaks
      with standard and expected HTTP CONNECT operation, as HTTP CONNECT
      is only ever called if there is a local domain proxy.

   o  clients cannot generate CONNECT from XHR in web applications.

   o  this would require the deployment of a Reverse Proxy in front of
      the origin server, or else support of the HTTP CONNECT method in
      standard web frameworks.  This is not an elegant design.

   o  using HTTP CONNECT with HTTP 1.1 to a Reverse Proxy will break
      middleboxes inspecting HTTP traffic, as the middlebox would see
      TLS records when it expects to see HTTP payloads.

   In contrast to trying to force HTTP CONNECT to address a problem for
   which it was not designed to address, and having to address all the
   issues just outlined; ATLS is specifically designed to address the
   middlebox issue in a simple, easy to develop, and easy to deploy
   fashion.



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   o  ATLS works seamlessly with HTTP Proxy deployments

   o  no changes are required to HTTP CONNECT semantics

   o  no changes are required to HTTP libraries or stacks

   o  no additional Reverse Proxy is required to be deployed in front of
      origin servers

   It is also worth noting that if HTTP CONNECT to a Reverse Proxy were
   a conceptually sound solution, the solution still ultimately results
   in encrypted traffic traversing the middlebox that the middlebox
   cannot intercept and inspect.  That is ultimately what ATLS results
   in - traffic traversing the middle box that the middlebox cannot
   intercept and inspect.  Therefore, from a middlebox perspective, the
   differences between the two solutions are in the areas of solution
   complexity and protocol semantics.  It is clear that ATLS is a
   simpler, more elegant solution that HTTP CONNECT.

10.  ATLS over CoAP Transport

   [ todo: Help needed Hannes ]

11.  RTT Considerations

   The number of RTTs that take place when establishing a TLS session
   depends on the version of TLS and what capabilities are enabled on
   the TLS software stack.  For example, a 0-RTT exchange is possible
   with TLS1.3.

   If applications wish to ensure a predictable number of RTTs when
   establishing an application layer TLS connection, this may be
   achieved by configuring the TLS software stack appropriately.
   Relevant configuration parameters for OpenSSL and Java SunJSSE stacks
   are outlined in the appendix.

12.  IANA Considerations

   [[ TODO - New Content-Type and TLS Exporter Label must be registered.
   ]]

13.  Security Considerations

   [[ TODO ]]







Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


14.  Informative References

   [ALTS]     Google, "Application Layer Transport Security", December
              2017, <https://cloud.google.com/security/encryption-in-
              transit/application-layer-transport-security/>.

   [Bluetooth]
              Bluetooth, "Bluetooth Core Specification v5.0", 2016,
              <https://www.bluetooth.com/>.

   [I-D.hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs]
              Selander, G., Palombini, F., and K. Hartke, "Requirements
              for CoAP End-To-End Security", draft-hartke-core-e2e-
              security-reqs-03 (work in progress), July 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
              Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason,
              S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
              Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-
              keyinfra-16 (work in progress), June 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-core-object-security]
              Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
              (OSCORE)", draft-ietf-core-object-security-14 (work in
              progress), July 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis]
              Nottingham, M., "Building Protocols with HTTP", draft-
              ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-06 (work in progress), July 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]
              Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
              Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
              1.3", draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-28 (work in progress), July
              2018.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]
              Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28 (work in progress),
              March 2018.

   [I-D.mattsson-core-security-overhead]
              Mattsson, J., "Message Size Overhead of CoAP Security
              Protocols", draft-mattsson-core-security-overhead-02 (work
              in progress), November 2017.





Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   [I-D.selander-ace-cose-ecdhe]
              Selander, G., Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral
              Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", draft-selander-ace-
              cose-ecdhe-09 (work in progress), July 2018.

   [LwM2M]    Open Mobile Alliance, "Lightweight Machine to Machine
              Requirements", December 2017,
              <http://www.openmobilealliance.org/>.

   [Noise]    Perrin, T., "Noise Protocol Framework", October 2017,
              <http://noiseprotocol.org/>.

   [Norrell]  Norrell, ., "Use SSL/TLS within a different protocol with
              BIO pairs", 2016,
              <https://thekerneldiaries.com/2016/06/13/
              openssl-ssltls-within-a-different-protocol/>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [RFC5705]  Rescorla, E., "Keying Material Exporters for Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 5705, DOI 10.17487/RFC5705,
              March 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5705>.

   [RFC6265]  Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6265, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6265>.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
              January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.



Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   [RFC8188]  Thomson, M., "Encrypted Content-Encoding for HTTP",
              RFC 8188, DOI 10.17487/RFC8188, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8188>.

   [Signal]   Open Whisper Systems, "Signal Protocol", 2016,
              <https://signal.org/>.

   [SSLEngine]
              Oracle, "SSLEngineSimpleDemo.java", 2004, <https://docs.or
              acle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/security/jsse/samp
              les/sslengine/SSLEngineSimpleDemo.java>.

   [ZigBee]   ZigBee Alliance, "ZigBee Specification", 2012,
              <http://www.zigbee.org>.

Appendix A.  TLS Software Stack Configuration

   [[ EDITOR'S NOTE: We could include details here on how TLS stack
   configuration items control the number of round trips between the
   client and server.
   And just give two examples: OpenSSL and Java SunJSSE]]

Appendix B.  Pseudo Code

   This appendix gives both C and Java pseudo code illustrating how to
   inject and extract raw TLS records from a TLS software stack.  Please
   not that this is illustrative, non-functional pseudo code that does
   not compile.  Functioning proof-of-concept code is available on the
   following public repository [[ EDITOR'S NOTE: Add the URL here ]].

B.1.  OpenSSL

   OpenSSL provides a set of Basic Input/Output (BIO) APIs that can be
   used to build a custom transport layer for TLS connections.  This
   appendix gives pseudo code on how BIO APIs could be used to build a
   client application that completes a TLS handshake and exchanges
   application data with a service.














Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   char inbound[MAX];
   char outbound[MAX];
   int rx_bytes;
   SSL_CTX *ctx = SSL_CTX_new();
   SSL *ssl = SSL_new(ctx);

   // Create in-memory BIOs and plug in to the SSL session
   BOI* bio_in = BIO_new(BIO_s_mem());
   BOI* bio_out = BIO_new(BIO_s_mem());
   SSL_set_bio(ssl, bio_in, bio_out);

   // We are a client
   SSL_set_connect_state(ssl);

   // Loop through TLS flights until we are done
   do {
     // Calling SSL_do_handshake() will result in a full
     // TLS flight being written to the BIO buffer
     SSL_do_handshake(ssl);

     // Read the client flight that the TLS session
     // has written to memory
     BIO_read(bio_out, outbound, MAX);

     // POST the outbound bytes to the server using a suitable
     // function. Lets assume that the server response will be
     // written to the 'inbound' buffer
     num_bytes = postTlsRecords(outbound, inbound);

     // Write the server flight to the memory BIO so the TLS session
     // can read it. The next call to SSL_do_handshake() will handle
     // this received server flight
     BIO_write(bio_in, inbound, num_bytes);

   } while (!SSL_is_init_finished(ssl));

   // Send a message to the server. Calling SSL_write() will run the
   // plaintext through the TLS session and write the encrypted TLS
   // records to the BIO buffer
   SSL_write(ssl, "Hello World", strlen("Hello World"));

   // Read the TLS records from the BIO buffer and
   // POST them to the server
   BIO_read(bio_out, outbound, MAX);
   num_bytes = postTlsRecords(outbound, inbound);






Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


B.2.  Java JSSE

   The Java SSLEngine class "enables secure communications using
   protocols such as the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) or IETF RFC 2246
   "Transport Layer Security" (TLS) protocols, but is transport
   independent".  This pseudo code illustrates how a server could use
   the SSLEngine class to handle an inbound client TLS flight and
   generate an outbound server TLS flight response.











































Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


   SSLEngine sslEngine = SSLContext.getDefault().createSSLEngine();
   sslEngine.setUseClientMode(false);
   sslEngine.beginHandshake();

   // Lets assume 'inbound' has been populated with
   // the Client 1st Flight
   ByteBuffer inbound;

   // 'outbound' will be populated with the
   // Server 1st Flight response
   ByteBuffer outbound;

   // SSLEngine handles one TLS Record per call to unwrap().
   // Loop until the engine is finished unwrapping.
   while (sslEngine.getHandshakeStatus() ==
          HandshakeStatus.NEED_UNWRAP) {
     SSLEngineResult res = sslEngine.unwrap(inbound, outbound);

     // SSLEngine may need additional tasks run
     if (res.getHandshakeStatus() == NEED_TASK) {
       Runnable run = sslEngine.getDelegatedTask();
       run.run();
     }
   }

   // The SSLEngine has now finished handling all inbound TLS Records.
   // Check if it wants to generate outbound TLS Records. SSLEngine
   // generates one TLS Record per call to wrap().
   // Loop until the engine is finished wrapping.
   while (sslEngine.getHandshakeStatus() ==
          HandshakeStatus.NEED_WRAP) {
     SSLEngineResult res = sslEngine.wrap(inbound, outbound);

     // SSLEngine may need additional tasks run
     if (res.getHandshakeStatus() == NEED_TASK) {
       Runnable run = sslEngine.getDelegatedTask();
       run.run();
     }
   }

   // outbound ByteBuffer now contains a complete server flight
   // containing multiple TLS Records
   // Rinse and repeat!








Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                    ATLS                         July 2018


Appendix C.  Example ATLS Handshake

   [[ EDITOR'S NOTE: For completeness, include a simple full TLS
   handshake showing the raw binary flights, along with the HTTP
   request/response/headers.  And also the raw hex TLS records showing
   protocol bits ]]

Authors' Addresses

   Owen Friel
   Cisco

   Email: ofriel@cisco.com


   Richard Barnes
   Cisco

   Email: rlb@ipv.sx


   Max Pritikin
   Cisco

   Email: pritikin@cisco.com


   Hannes Tschofenig
   ARM Limited

   Email: hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net


   Mark Baugher
   Consultant

   Email: mark@mbaugher.com














Friel, et al.           Expires February 1, 2019               [Page 30]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.128b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/