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

Versions: (draft-amsuess-core-repeat-request-tag) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

CoRE Working Group                                            C. Amsuess
Internet-Draft
Updates: 7252 (if approved)                                  J. Mattsson
Intended status: Standards Track                             G. Selander
Expires: September 10, 2020                                  Ericsson AB
                                                          March 09, 2020


             CoAP: Echo, Request-Tag, and Token Processing
                  draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-09

Abstract

   This document specifies enhancements to the Constrained Application
   Protocol (CoAP) that mitigate security issues in particular use
   cases.  The Echo option enables a CoAP server to verify the freshness
   of a request or to force a client to demonstrate reachability at its
   claimed network address; it is now the recommeded way to mitigate
   amplification attacks.  The Request-Tag option allows the CoAP server
   to match block-wise message fragments belonging to the same request.
   The update to the client Token processing requirements of RFC 7252
   forbids non-secure reuse of Tokens to ensure binding of responses to
   requests when CoAP is used with security.

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 September 10, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   (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
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Request Freshness and the Echo Option . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Request Freshness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  The Echo Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1.  Echo Option Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Echo Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Applications of the Echo Option . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Protecting Message Bodies using Request Tags  . . . . . . . .  11
     3.1.  Fragmented Message Body Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.2.  The Request-Tag Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.2.1.  Request-Tag Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.3.  Request-Tag Processing by Servers . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.4.  Setting the Request-Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.5.  Applications of the Request-Tag Option  . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.5.1.  Body Integrity Based on Payload Integrity . . . . . .  15
       3.5.2.  Multiple Concurrent Block-wise Operations . . . . . .  16
       3.5.3.  Simplified Block-Wise Handling for Constrained
               Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     3.6.  Rationale for the Option Properties . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     3.7.  Rationale for Introducing the Option  . . . . . . . . . .  17
     3.8.  Block2 / ETag Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   4.  Token Processing for Secure Request-Response Binding  . . . .  18
     4.1.  Request-Response Binding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.2.  Updated Token Processing Requirements for Clients . . . .  19
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.1.  Token reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   6.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Appendix A.  Methods for Generating Echo Option Values  . . . . .  24
   Appendix B.  Request-Tag Message Size Impact  . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix C.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30




Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


1.  Introduction

   The initial Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) suite of
   specifications ([RFC7252], [RFC7641], and [RFC7959]) was designed
   with the assumption that security could be provided on a separate
   layer, in particular by using DTLS ([RFC6347]).  However, for some
   use cases, additional functionality or extra processing is needed to
   support secure CoAP operations.  This document specifies security
   enhancements to the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP).

   This document specifies two CoAP options, the Echo option and the
   Request-Tag option: The Echo option enables a CoAP server to verify
   the freshness of a request, synchronize state, or force a client to
   demonstrate reachability at its claimed network address.  The
   Request-Tag option allows the CoAP server to match message fragments
   belonging to the same request, fragmented using the CoAP block-wise
   Transfer mechanism, which mitigates attacks and enables concurrent
   block-wise operations.  These options in themselves do not replace
   the need for a security protocol; they specify the format and
   processing of data which, when integrity protected using e.g.  DTLS
   ([RFC6347]), TLS ([RFC8446]), or OSCORE ([RFC8613]), provide the
   additional security features.

   This document updates [RFC7252] with a recommendation that servers
   use the Echo option to mitigate amplification attacks.

   The document also updates the Token processing requirements for
   clients specified in [RFC7252].  The updated processing forbids non-
   secure reuse of Tokens to ensure binding of responses to requests
   when CoAP is used with security, thus mitigating error cases and
   attacks where the client may erroneously associate the wrong response
   to a request.

   Each of the following sections provides a more detailed introduction
   to the topic at hand in its first subsection.

1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Unless otherwise specified, the terms "client" and "server" refers to
   "CoAP client" and "CoAP server", respectively, as defined in
   [RFC7252].  The term "origin server" is used as in [RFC7252].  The
   term "origin client" is used in this document to denote the client



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   from which a request originates; to distinguish from clients in
   proxies.

   The terms "payload" and "body" of a message are used as in [RFC7959].
   The complete interchange of a request and a response body is called a
   (REST) "operation".  An operation fragmented using [RFC7959] is
   called a "block-wise operation".  A block-wise operation which is
   fragmenting the request body is called a "block-wise request
   operation".  A block-wise operation which is fragmenting the response
   body is called a "block-wise response operation".

   Two request messages are said to be "matchable" if they occur between
   the same endpoint pair, have the same code and the same set of
   options except for elective NoCacheKey options and options involved
   in block-wise transfer (Block1, Block2 and Request-Tag).  Two
   operations are said to be matchable if any of their messages are.

   Two matchable block-wise operations are said to be "concurrent" if a
   block of the second request is exchanged even though the client still
   intends to exchange further blocks in the first operation.
   (Concurrent block-wise request operations from a single endpoint are
   impossible with the options of [RFC7959] (see the last paragraphs of
   Sections 2.4 and 2.5) because the second operation's block overwrites
   any state of the first exchange.).

   The Echo and Request-Tag options are defined in this document.

2.  Request Freshness and the Echo Option

2.1.  Request Freshness

   A CoAP server receiving a request is in general not able to verify
   when the request was sent by the CoAP client.  This remains true even
   if the request was protected with a security protocol, such as DTLS.
   This makes CoAP requests vulnerable to certain delay attacks which
   are particularly perilous in the case of actuators
   ([I-D.mattsson-core-coap-actuators]).  Some attacks can be mitigated
   by establishing fresh session keys, e.g. performing a DTLS handshake
   for each request, but in general this is not a solution suitable for
   constrained environments, for example, due to increased message
   overhead and latency.  Additionally, if there are proxies, fresh DTLS
   session keys between server and proxy does not say anything about
   when the client made the request.  In a general hop-by-hop setting,
   freshness may need to be verified in each hop.

   A straightforward mitigation of potential delayed requests is that
   the CoAP server rejects a request the first time it appears and asks




Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   the CoAP client to prove that it intended to make the request at this
   point in time.

2.2.  The Echo Option

   This document defines the Echo option, a a lightweight challenge-
   response mechanism for CoAP that enables a CoAP server to verify the
   freshness of a request.  A fresh request is one whose age has not yet
   exceeded the freshness requirements set by the server.  The freshness
   requirements are application specific and may vary based on resource,
   method, and parameters outside of CoAP such as policies.  The Echo
   option value is a challenge from the server to the client included in
   a CoAP response and echoed back to the server in one or more CoAP
   requests.  The Echo option provides a convention to transfer
   freshness indicators that works for all CoAP methods and response
   codes.

   This mechanism is not only important in the case of actuators, or
   other use cases where the CoAP operations require freshness of
   requests, but also in general for synchronizing state between CoAP
   client and server, cryptographically verify the aliveness of the
   client, or force a client to demonstrate reachability at its claimed
   network address.  The same functionality can be provided by echoing
   freshness indicators in CoAP payloads, but this only works for
   methods and response codes defined to have a payload.  The Echo
   option provides a convention to transfer freshness indicators that
   works for all methods and response codes.

2.2.1.  Echo Option Format

   The Echo Option is elective, safe-to-forward, not part of the cache-
   key, and not repeatable, see Figure 1, which extends Table 4 of
   [RFC7252]).

+--------+---+---+---+---+-------------+--------+------+---------+---+---+
| No.    | C | U | N | R | Name        | Format | Len. | Default | E | U |
+--------+---+---+---+---+-------------+--------+------+---------+---+---+
| TBD248 |   |   | x |   | Echo        | opaque | 1-40 | (none)  | x | x |
+--------+---+---+---+---+-------------+--------+------+---------+---+---+

      C = Critical, U = Unsafe, N = NoCacheKey, R = Repeatable,
      E = Encrypt and Integrity Protect (when using OSCORE)

                       Figure 1: Echo Option Summary

   The Echo option value is generated by a server, and its content and
   structure are implementation specific.  Different methods for
   generating Echo option values are outlined in Appendix A.  Clients



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   and intermediaries MUST treat an Echo option value as opaque and make
   no assumptions about its content or structure.

   When receiving an Echo option in a request, the server MUST be able
   to verify that the Echo option value (a) was generated by the server
   or some other party that the server trusts, and (b) fulfills the
   freshness requirements of the application.  Depending on the
   freshness requirements the server may verify exactly when the Echo
   option value was generated (time-based freshness) or verify that the
   Echo option was generated after a specific event (event-based
   freshness).  As the request is bound to the Echo option value, the
   server can determine that the request is not older that the Echo
   option value.

   When the Echo option is used with OSCORE [RFC8613] it MAY be an Inner
   or Outer option, and the Inner and Outer values are independent.
   OSCORE servers MUST only produce Inner Echo options unless they are
   merely testing for reachability of the client (the same as proxies
   may do).  The Inner option is encrypted and integrity protected
   between the endpoints, whereas the Outer option is not protected by
   OSCORE and visible between the endpoints to the extent it is not
   protected by some other security protocol.  E.g. in the case of DTLS
   hop-by-hop between the endpoints, the Outer option is visible to
   proxies along the path.

2.3.  Echo Processing

   The Echo option MAY be included in any request or response (see
   Section 2.4 for different applications).

   The application decides under what conditions a CoAP request to a
   resource is required to be fresh.  These conditions can for example
   include what resource is requested, the request method and other data
   in the request, and conditions in the environment such as the state
   of the server or the time of the day.

   If a certain request is required to be fresh, the request does not
   contain a fresh Echo option value, and the server cannot verify the
   freshness of the request in some other way, the server MUST NOT
   process the request further and SHOULD send a 4.01 Unauthorized
   response with an Echo option.  The server MAY include the same Echo
   option value in several different response messages and to different
   clients.  Examples of this could be time-based freshness when several
   responses are sent closely after each other or event-based freshness
   with no event taking place between the responses.

   The server may use request freshness provided by the Echo option to
   verify the aliveness of a client or to synchronize state.  The server



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   may also include the Echo option in a response to force a client to
   demonstrate reachability at its claimed network address.  Note that
   the Echo option does not bind a request to any particular previous
   response, but provides an indication that the client had access to
   the previous response at the time when it created the request.

   Upon receiving a 4.01 Unauthorized response with the Echo option, the
   client SHOULD resend the original request with the addition of an
   Echo option with the received Echo option value.  The client MAY send
   a different request compared to the original request.  Upon receiving
   any other response with the Echo option, the client SHOULD echo the
   Echo option value in the next request to the server.  The client MAY
   include the same Echo option value in several different requests to
   the server.

   A client MUST only send Echo values to endpoints it received them
   from (where as defined in [RFC7252] Section 1.2, the security
   association is part of the endpoint).  In OSCORE processing, that
   means sending Echo values from Outer options (or from non-OSCORE
   responses) back in Outer options, and those from Inner options in
   Inner options in the same security context.

   Upon receiving a request with the Echo option, the server determines
   if the request is required to be fresh.  If not, the Echo option MAY
   be ignored.  If the request is required to be fresh and the server
   cannot verify the freshness of the request in some other way, the
   server MUST use the Echo option to verify that the request is fresh.
   If the server cannot verify that the request is fresh, the request is
   not processed further, and an error message MAY be sent.  The error
   message SHOULD include a new Echo option.

   One way for the server to verify freshness is that to bind the Echo
   value to a specific point in time and verify that the request is not
   older than a certain threshold T.  The server can verify this by
   checking that (t1 - t0) < T, where t1 is the request receive time and
   t0 is the time when the Echo option value was generated.  An example
   message flow is shown in Figure 2.














Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


             Client   Server
                |       |
                +------>|        Code: 0.03 (PUT)
                |  PUT  |       Token: 0x41
                |       |    Uri-Path: lock
                |       |     Payload: 0 (Unlock)
                |       |
                |<------+        Code: 4.01 (Unauthorized)
                |  4.01 |       Token: 0x41
                |       |        Echo: 0x437468756c687521 (t0)
                |       |
                +------>| t1     Code: 0.03 (PUT)
                |  PUT  |       Token: 0x42
                |       |    Uri-Path: lock
                |       |        Echo: 0x437468756c687521 (t0)
                |       |     Payload: 0 (Unlock)
                |       |
                |<------+        Code: 2.04 (Changed)
                |  2.04 |       Token: 0x42
                |       |

          Figure 2: Example Message Flow for Time-Based Freshness

   Another way for the server to verify freshness is to maintain a cache
   of values associated to events.  The size of the cache is defined by
   the application.  In the following we assume the cache size is 1, in
   which case freshness is defined as no new event has taken place.  At
   each event a new value is written into the cache.  The cache values
   MUST be different for all practical purposes.  The server verifies
   freshness by checking that e0 equals e1, where e0 is the cached value
   when the Echo option value was generated, and e1 is the cached value
   at the reception of the request.  An example message flow is shown in
   Figure 3.


















Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


           Client   Server
              |       |
              +------>|        Code: 0.03 (PUT)
              |  PUT  |       Token: 0x41
              |       |    Uri-Path: lock
              |       |     Payload: 0 (Unlock)
              |       |
              |<------+        Code: 4.01 (Unauthorized)
              |  4.01 |       Token: 0x41
              |       |        Echo: 0x436F6D69632053616E73 (e0)
              |       |
              +------>| e1     Code: 0.03 (PUT)
              |  PUT  |       Token: 0x42
              |       |    Uri-Path: lock
              |       |        Echo: 0x436F6D69632053616E73 (e0)
              |       |     Payload: 0 (Unlock)
              |       |
              |<------+        Code: 2.04 (Changed)
              |  2.04 |       Token: 0x42
              |       |

         Figure 3: Example Message Flow for Event-Based Freshness

   When used to serve freshness requirements (including client aliveness
   and state synchronizing), the Echo option value MUST be integrity
   protected between the intended endpoints, e.g. using DTLS, TLS, or an
   OSCORE Inner option ([RFC8613]).  When used to demonstrate
   reachability at a claimed network address, the Echo option SHOULD
   contain the client's network address, but MAY be unprotected.

   A CoAP-to-CoAP proxy MAY set an Echo option on responses, both on
   forwarded ones that had no Echo option or ones generated by the proxy
   (from cache or as an error).  If it does so, it MUST remove the Echo
   option it recognizes as one generated by itself on follow-up
   requests.  However, it MUST relay the Echo option of responses
   unmodified, and MUST relay the Echo option of requests it does not
   recognize as generated by itself unmodified.

   The CoAP server side of CoAP-to-HTTP proxies MAY request freshness,
   especially if they have reason to assume that access may require it
   (e.g. because it is a PUT or POST); how this is determined is out of
   scope for this document.  The CoAP client side of HTTP-to-CoAP
   proxies SHOULD respond to Echo challenges themselves if they know
   from the recent establishing of the connection that the HTTP request
   is fresh.  Otherwise, they SHOULD respond with 503 Service
   Unavailable, Retry-After: 0 and terminate any underlying Keep-Alive
   connection.  They MAY also use other mechanisms to establish
   freshness of the HTTP request that are not specified here.



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


2.4.  Applications of the Echo Option

   1.  Actuation requests often require freshness guarantees to avoid
       accidental or malicious delayed actuator actions.  In general,
       all non-safe methods (e.g.  POST, PUT, DELETE) may require
       freshness guarantees for secure operation.

       *  The same Echo value may be used for multiple actuation
          requests to the same server, as long as the total round-trip
          time since the Echo option value was generated is below the
          freshness threshold.

       *  For actuator applications with low delay tolerance, to avoid
          additional round-trips for multiple requests in rapid
          sequence, the server may include the Echo option with a new
          value even in a successful response to a request,
          irrespectively of whether the request contained an Echo option
          or not.  The client then uses the Echo option with the new
          value in the next actuation request, and the server compares
          the receive time accordingly.

   2.  A server may use the Echo option to synchronize properties (such
       as state or time) with a requesting client.  A server MUST NOT
       synchronize a property with a client which is not the authority
       of the property being synchronized.  E.g. if access to a server
       resource is dependent on time, then server MUST NOT synchronize
       time with a client requesting access unless it is time authority
       for the server.

       *  If a server reboots during operation it may need to
          synchronize state or time before continuing the interaction.
          For example, with OSCORE it is possible to reuse a partly
          persistently stored security context by synchronizing the
          Partial IV (sequence number) using the Echo option, see
          Section 7.5 of [RFC8613].

       *  A device joining a CoAP group communication [RFC7390]
          protected with OSCORE [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm] may be
          required to initially verify freshness and synchronize state
          or time with a client by using the Echo option in a unicast
          response to a multicast request.  The client receiving the
          response with the Echo option includes the Echo option with
          the same value in a request, either in a unicast request to
          the responding server, or in a subsequent group request.  In
          the latter case, the Echo option will be ignored except by the
          responding server.





Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   3.  A server that sends large responses to unauthenticated peers
       SHOULD mitigate amplification attacks such as described in
       Section 11.3 of [RFC7252] (where an attacker would put a victim's
       address in the source address of a CoAP request).  The
       RECOMMENDED way to do this is to ask a client to Echo its request
       to verify its source address.  This needs to be done only once
       per peer and limits the range of potential victims from the
       general Internet to endpoints that have been previously in
       contact with the server.  For this application, the Echo option
       can be used in messages that are not integrity protected, for
       example during discovery.

       *  In the presence of a proxy, a server will not be able to
          distinguish different origin client endpoints.  Following from
          the recommendation above, a proxy that sends large responses
          to unauthenticated peers SHOULD mitigate amplification
          attacks.  The proxy SHOULD use Echo to verify origin
          reachability as described in Section 2.3.  The proxy MAY
          forward idempotent requests immediately to have a cached
          result available when the client's Echoed request arrives.

       *  Amplification mitigation should be used when the the response
          would be more than three times the size of the request,
          considering the complete frame on the wire as it is typically
          sent across the Internet.  In practice, this allows UDP data
          of at least 152 Bytes without further checks.

       *  When an Echo response is sent to mitigate amplification, it
          MUST be sent as a piggybacked or non-confirmable response,
          never as a separate one (which would cause amplification due
          to retransmission).

   4.  A server may want to use the request freshness provided by the
       Echo to verify the aliveness of a client.  Note that in a
       deployment with hop-by-hop security and proxies, the server can
       only verify aliveness of the closest proxy.

3.  Protecting Message Bodies using Request Tags

3.1.  Fragmented Message Body Integrity

   CoAP was designed to work over unreliable transports, such as UDP,
   and include a lightweight reliability feature to handle messages
   which are lost or arrive out of order.  In order for a security
   protocol to support CoAP operations over unreliable transports, it
   must allow out-of-order delivery of messages using e.g. a sliding
   replay window such as described in Section 4.1.2.6 of DTLS
   ([RFC6347]).



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   The block-wise transfer mechanism [RFC7959] extends CoAP by defining
   the transfer of a large resource representation (CoAP message body)
   as a sequence of blocks (CoAP message payloads).  The mechanism uses
   a pair of CoAP options, Block1 and Block2, pertaining to the request
   and response payload, respectively.  The block-wise functionality
   does not support the detection of interchanged blocks between
   different message bodies to the same resource having the same block
   number.  This remains true even when CoAP is used together with a
   security protocol such as DTLS or OSCORE, within the replay window
   ([I-D.mattsson-core-coap-actuators]), which is a vulnerability of
   CoAP when using RFC7959.

   A straightforward mitigation of mixing up blocks from different
   messages is to use unique identifiers for different message bodies,
   which would provide equivalent protection to the case where the
   complete body fits into a single payload.  The ETag option [RFC7252],
   set by the CoAP server, identifies a response body fragmented using
   the Block2 option.

3.2.  The Request-Tag Option

   This document defines the Request-Tag option for identifying request
   bodies, similar to ETag, but ephemeral and set by the CoAP client.
   The Request-Tag is intended for use as a short-lived identifier for
   keeping apart distinct block-wise request operations on one resource
   from one client, addressing the issue described in Section 3.1.  It
   enables the receiving server to reliably assemble request payloads
   (blocks) to their message bodies, and, if it chooses to support it,
   to reliably process simultaneous block-wise request operations on a
   single resource.  The requests must be integrity protected if they
   should protect against interchange of blocks between different
   message bodies.  The Request-Tag option is only used in requests that
   carry the Block1 option, and in Block2 requests following these.

   In essence, it is an implementation of the "proxy-safe elective
   option" used just to "vary the cache key" as suggested in [RFC7959]
   Section 2.4.

3.2.1.  Request-Tag Option Format

   The Request-Tag option is not critical, is safe to forward,
   repeatable, and part of the cache key, see Figure 4, which extends
   Table 4 of [RFC7252]).








Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


+--------+---+---+---+---+-------------+--------+------+---------+---+---+
| No.    | C | U | N | R | Name        | Format | Len. | Default | E | U |
+--------+---+---+---+---+-------------+--------+------+---------+---+---+
| TBD292 |   |   |   | x | Request-Tag | opaque |  0-8 | (none)  | x | x |
+--------+---+---+---+---+-------------+--------+------+---------+---+---+

      C = Critical, U = Unsafe, N = NoCacheKey, R = Repeatable,
      E = Encrypt and Integrity Protect (when using OSCORE)

                   Figure 4: Request-Tag Option Summary

   Request-Tag, like the block options, is both a class E and a class U
   option in terms of OSCORE processing (see Section 4.1 of [RFC8613]):
   The Request-Tag MAY be an Inner or Outer option.  It influences the
   Inner or Outer block operation, respectively.  The Inner and Outer
   values are therefore independent of each other.  The Inner option is
   encrypted and integrity protected between client and server, and
   provides message body identification in case of end-to-end
   fragmentation of requests.  The Outer option is visible to proxies
   and labels message bodies in case of hop-by-hop fragmentation of
   requests.

   The Request-Tag option is only used in the request messages of block-
   wise operations.

   The Request-Tag mechanism can be applied independently on the server
   and client sides of CoAP-to-CoAP proxies as are the block options,
   though given it is safe to forward, a proxy is free to just forward
   it when processing an operation.  CoAP-to-HTTP proxies and HTTP-to-
   CoAP proxies can use Request-Tag on their CoAP sides; it is not
   applicable to HTTP requests.

3.3.  Request-Tag Processing by Servers

   The Request-Tag option does not require any particular processing on
   the server side outside of the processing already necessary for any
   unknown elective proxy-safe cache-key option: The option varies the
   properties that distinguish block-wise operations (which includes all
   options except elective NoCacheKey and except Block1/2), and thus the
   server can not treat messages with a different list of Request-Tag
   options as belonging to the same operation.

   To keep utilizing the cache, a server (including proxies) MAY discard
   the Request-Tag option from an assembled block-wise request when
   consulting its cache, as the option relates to the operation-on-the-
   wire and not its semantics.  For example, a FETCH request with the
   same body as an older one can be served from the cache if the older's
   Max-Age has not expired yet, even if the second operation uses a



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   Request-Tag and the first did not.  (This is similar to the situation
   about ETag in that it is formally part of the cache key, but
   implementations that are aware of its meaning can cache more
   efficiently, see [RFC7252] Section 5.4.2).

   A server receiving a Request-Tag MUST treat it as opaque and make no
   assumptions about its content or structure.

   Two messages carrying the same Request-Tag is a necessary but not
   sufficient condition for being part of the same operation.  For one,
   a server may still treat them as independent messages when it sends
   2.01/2.04 responses for every block.  Also, a client that lost
   interest in an old operation but wants to start over can overwrite
   the server's old state with a new initial (num=0) Block1 request and
   the same Request-Tag under some circumstances.  Likewise, that
   results in the new message not being part of he old operation.

   As it has always been, a server that can only serve a limited number
   of block-wise operations at the same time can delay the start of the
   operation by replying with 5.03 (Service unavailable) and a Max-Age
   indicating how long it expects the existing operation to go on, or it
   can forget about the state established with the older operation and
   respond with 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) to later blocks on the
   first operation.

3.4.  Setting the Request-Tag

   For each separate block-wise request operation, the client can choose
   a Request-Tag value, or choose not to set a Request-Tag. It needs to
   be set to the same value (or unset) in all messages belonging to the
   same operation, as otherwise they are treated as separate operations
   by the server.

   Starting a request operation matchable to a previous operation and
   even using the same Request-Tag value is called request tag
   recycling.  The absence of a Request-Tag option is viewed as a value
   distinct from all values with a single Request-Tag option set;
   starting a request operation matchable to a previous operation where
   neither has a Request-Tag option therefore constitutes request tag
   recycling just as well (also called "recycling the absent option").

   Clients that use Request-Tag for a particular purpose (like in
   Section 3.5) MUST NOT recycle a request tag unless the first
   operation has concluded.  What constitutes a concluded operation
   depends on that purpose, and is defined there.

   When Block1 and Block2 are combined in an operation, the Request-Tag
   of the Block1 phase is set in the Block2 phase as well for otherwise



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   the request would have a different set of options and would not be
   recognized any more.

   Clients are encouraged to generate compact messages.  This means
   sending messages without Request-Tag options whenever possible, and
   using short values when the absent option can not be recycled.

   The Request-Tag options MAY be present in request messages that carry
   no Block option (for example, because a Request-Tag unaware proxy
   reassembled them), and MUST be ignored in those.

   The Request-Tag option MUST NOT be present in response messages.

3.5.  Applications of the Request-Tag Option

3.5.1.  Body Integrity Based on Payload Integrity

   When a client fragments a request body into multiple message
   payloads, even if the individual messages are integrity protected, it
   is still possible for a man-in-the-middle to maliciously replace a
   later operation's blocks with an earlier operation's blocks (see
   Section 2.5 of [I-D.mattsson-core-coap-actuators]).  Therefore, the
   integrity protection of each block does not extend to the operation's
   request body.

   In order to gain that protection, use the Request-Tag mechanism as
   follows:

   o  The individual exchanges MUST be integrity protected end-to-end
      between client and server.

   o  The client MUST NOT recycle a request tag in a new operation
      unless the previous operation matchable to the new one has
      concluded.

      If any future security mechanisms allow a block-wise transfer to
      continue after an endpoint's details (like the IP address) have
      changed, then the client MUST consider messages sent to _any_
      endpoint address within the new operation's security context.

   o  The client MUST NOT regard a block-wise request operation as
      concluded unless all of the messages the client previously sent in
      the operation have been confirmed by the message integrity
      protection mechanism, or are considered invalid by the server if
      replayed.

      Typically, in OSCORE, these confirmations can result either from
      the client receiving an OSCORE response message matching the



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


      request (an empty ACK is insufficient), or because the message's
      sequence number is old enough to be outside the server's receive
      window.

      In DTLS, this can only be confirmed if the request message was not
      retransmitted, and was responded to.

   Authors of other documents (e.g. applications of [RFC8613]) are
   invited to mandate this behavior for clients that execute block-wise
   interactions over secured transports.  In this way, the server can
   rely on a conforming client to set the Request-Tag option when
   required, and thereby conclude on the integrity of the assembled
   body.

   Note that this mechanism is implicitly implemented when the security
   layer guarantees ordered delivery (e.g.  CoAP over TLS [RFC8323]).
   This is because with each message, any earlier message can not be
   replayed any more, so the client never needs to set the Request-Tag
   option unless it wants to perform concurrent operations.

3.5.2.  Multiple Concurrent Block-wise Operations

   CoAP clients, especially CoAP proxies, may initiate a block-wise
   request operation to a resource, to which a previous one is already
   in progress, which the new request should not cancel.  A CoAP proxy
   would be in such a situation when it forwards operations with the
   same cache-key options but possibly different payloads.

   For those cases, Request-Tag is the proxy-safe elective option
   suggested in [RFC7959] Section 2.4 last paragraph.

   When initializing a new block-wise operation, a client has to look at
   other active operations:

   o  If any of them is matchable to the new one, and the client neither
      wants to cancel the old one nor postpone the new one, it can pick
      a Request-Tag value (including the absent option) that is not in
      use by the other matchable operations for the new operation.

   o  Otherwise, it can start the new operation without setting the
      Request-Tag option on it.

3.5.3.  Simplified Block-Wise Handling for Constrained Proxies

   The Block options were defined to be unsafe to forward because a
   proxy that would forward blocks as plain messages would risk mixing
   up clients' requests.




Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   In some cases, for example when forwarding block-wise request
   operations, appending a Request-Tag value unique to the client can
   satisfy the requirements on the proxy that come from the presence of
   a block option.

   This is particularly useful to proxies that strive for stateless
   operation as described in [I-D.ietf-core-stateless] Section 4.

   The precise classification of cases in which such a Request-Tag
   option is sufficient is not trivial, especially when both request and
   response body are fragmented, and out of scope for this document.

3.6.  Rationale for the Option Properties

   The Request-Tag option can be elective, because to servers unaware of
   the Request-Tag option, operations with differing request tags will
   not be matchable.

   The Request-Tag option can be safe to forward but part of the cache
   key, because to proxies unaware of the Request-Tag option will
   consider operations with differing request tags unmatchable but can
   still forward them.

   The Request-Tag option is repeatable because this easily allows
   stateless proxies to "chain" their origin address.  They can perform
   the steps of Section 3.5.3 without the need to create an option value
   that is the concatenation of the received option and their own value,
   and can simply add a new Request-Tag option unconditionally.

   In draft versions of this document, the Request-Tag option used to be
   critical and unsafe to forward.  That design was based on an
   erroneous understanding of which blocks could be composed according
   to [RFC7959].

3.7.  Rationale for Introducing the Option

   An alternative that was considered to the Request-Tag option for
   coping with the problem of fragmented message body integrity
   (Section 3.5.1) was to update [RFC7959] to say that blocks could only
   be assembled if their fragments' order corresponded to the sequence
   numbers.

   That approach would have been difficult to roll out reliably on DTLS
   where many implementations do not expose sequence numbers, and would
   still not prevent attacks like in [I-D.mattsson-core-coap-actuators]
   Section 2.5.2.





Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


3.8.  Block2 / ETag Processing

   The same security properties as in Section 3.5.1 can be obtained for
   blockwise response operations.  The threat model here is not an
   attacker (because the response is made sure to belong to the current
   request by the security layer), but blocks in the client's cache.

   Rules stating that response body reassembly is conditional on
   matching ETag values are already in place from Section 2.4 of
   [RFC7959].

   To gain equivalent protection to Section 3.5.1, a server MUST use the
   Block2 option in conjunction with the ETag option ([RFC7252],
   Section 5.10.6), and MUST NOT use the same ETag value for different
   representations of a resource.

4.  Token Processing for Secure Request-Response Binding

4.1.  Request-Response Binding

   A fundamental requirement of secure REST operations is that the
   client can bind a response to a particular request.  If this is not
   ensured, a client may erroneously associate the wrong response to a
   request.  The wrong response may be an old response for the same
   resource or for a completely different resource (see e.g.
   Section 2.3 of [I-D.mattsson-core-coap-actuators]).  For example, a
   request for the alarm status "GET /status" may be associated to a
   prior response "on", instead of the correct response "off".

   In HTTPS, this type of binding is always assured by the ordered and
   reliable delivery as well as mandating that the server sends
   responses in the same order that the requests were received.  The
   same is not true for CoAP where the server (or an attacker) can
   return responses in any order and where there can be any number of
   responses to a request (see e.g.  [RFC7641]).  In CoAP, concurrent
   requests are differentiated by their Token.  Note that the CoAP
   Message ID cannot be used for this purpose since those are typically
   different for REST request and corresponding response in case of
   "separate response", see Section 2.2 of [RFC7252].

   CoAP [RFC7252] does not treat Token as a cryptographically important
   value and does not give stricter guidelines than that the Tokens
   currently "in use" SHOULD (not SHALL) be unique.  If used with a
   security protocol not providing bindings between requests and
   responses (e.g.  DTLS and TLS) Token reuse may result in situations
   where a client matches a response to the wrong request.  Note that
   mismatches can also happen for other reasons than a malicious




Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   attacker, e.g. delayed delivery or a server sending notifications to
   an uninterested client.

   A straightforward mitigation is to mandate clients to not reuse
   Tokens until the traffic keys have been replaced.  One easy way to
   accomplish this is to implement the Token as a counter starting at
   zero for each new or rekeyed secure connection.

4.2.  Updated Token Processing Requirements for Clients

   As described in Section 4.1, the client must be able to verify that a
   response corresponds to a particular request.  This section updates
   the Token processing requirements for clients in [RFC7252] to always
   assure a cryptographically secure binding of responses to requests
   for secure REST operations like "coaps".  The Token processing for
   servers is not updated.  Token processing in Section 5.3.1 of
   [RFC7252] is updated by adding the following text:

   When CoAP is used with a security protocol not providing bindings
   between requests and responses, the Tokens have cryptographic
   importance.  The client MUST make sure that Tokens are not used in a
   way so that responses risk being associated with the wrong request.
   One easy way to accomplish this is to implement the Token (or part of
   the Token) as a sequence number starting at zero for each new or
   rekeyed secure connection, this approach SHOULD be followed.

5.  Security Considerations

   The availability of a secure pseudorandom number generator and truly
   random seeds are essential for the security of the Echo option
   (except when using counting Echo values).  If no true random number
   generator is available, a truly random seed must be provided from an
   external source.  As each pseudoranom number must only be used once,
   an implementation need to get a new truly random seed after reboot,
   or continously store state in nonvolatile memory, see ([RFC8613],
   Appendix B.1.1) for issues and solution approaches for writing to
   nonvolatile memory.

   A single active Echo value with 64 (pseudo-)random bits gives the
   same theoretical security level as a 64-bit MAC (as used in e.g.
   AES_128_CCM_8).  Unless a counting Echo value is used, the Echo
   option value MUST contain 32 (pseudo-)random bits that are not
   predictable for any other party than the server, and SHOULD contain
   64 (pseudo-)random bits.  A server MAY use different security levels
   for different uses cases (client aliveness, request freshness, state
   synchronization, network address reachability, etc.).





Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   The security provided by the Echo and Request-Tag options depends on
   the security protocol used.  CoAP and HTTP proxies require (D)TLS to
   be terminated at the proxies.  The proxies are therefore able to
   manipulate, inject, delete, or reorder options or packets.  The
   security claims in such architectures only hold under the assumption
   that all intermediaries are fully trusted and have not been
   compromised.

   Counting Echo values can only be used to show freshness relative to
   numbered events, and are the legitimate case for Echo values shorter
   than four bytes, which are not necessarily secret.  They MUST only be
   used when the request Echo values are integrity protected.

   Servers SHOULD use a monotonic clock to generate timestamps and
   compute round-trip times.  Use of non-monotonic clocks is not secure
   as the server will accept expired Echo option values if the clock is
   moved backward.  The server will also reject fresh Echo option values
   if the clock is moved forward.  Non-monotonic clocks MAY be used as
   long as they have deviations that are acceptable given the freshness
   requirements.  If the deviations from a monotonic clock are known, it
   may be possible to adjust the threshold accordingly.

   An attacker may be able to affect the server's system time in various
   ways such as setting up a fake NTP server or broadcasting false time
   signals to radio-controlled clocks.

   Servers MAY use the time since reboot measured in some unit of time.
   Servers MAY reset the timer at certain times and MAY generate a
   random offset applied to all timestamps.  When resetting the timer,
   the server MUST reject all Echo values that was created before the
   reset.

   Servers that use the List of Cached Random Values and Timestamps
   method described in Appendix A may be vulnerable to resource
   exhaustion attacks.  One way to minimize state is to use the
   Integrity Protected Timestamp method described in Appendix A.

5.1.  Token reuse

   Reusing Tokens in a way so that responses are guaranteed to not be
   associated with the wrong request is not trivial as on-path attackers
   may block, delay, and reorder messages, requests may be sent to
   several servers, and servers may process requests in any order and
   send many responses to the same request.  The use of a sequence
   number is therefore recommended when CoAP is used with a security
   protocol that does not providing bindings between requests and
   responses such as DTLS or TLS.




Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   For a generic response to a confirmable request over DTLS, binding
   can only be claimed without out-of-band knowledge if

   o  the original request was never retransmitted,

   o  the response was piggybacked in an Acknowledgement message (as a
      confirmable or non-confirmable response may have been transmitted
      multiple times), and

   o  if observation was used, the same holds for the registration, all
      re-registrations, and the cancellation.

   (In addition, for observations, any responses using that Token and a
   DTLS sequence number earlier than the cancellation Acknowledgement
   message need to be discarded.  This is typically not supported in
   DTLS implementations.)

   In some setups, Tokens can be reused without the above constraints,
   as a different component in the setup provides the associations:

   o  In CoAP over TLS, retransmissions are not handled by the CoAP
      layer and the replay window size is always exactly 1.  When a
      client is sending TLS protected requests without Observe to a
      single server, the client can reuse a Token as soon as the
      previous response with that Token has been received.

   o  Requests whose responses are cryptographically bound to the
      requests (like in OSCORE) can reuse Tokens indefinitely.

   In all other cases, a sequence number approach is RECOMMENDED as per
   Section 4.

   Tokens that cannot be reused need to be handled appropriately.  This
   could be solved by increasing the Token as soon as the currently used
   Token cannot be reused, or by keeping a list of all blacklisted
   Tokens.

   When the Token (or part of the Token) contains a sequence number, the
   encoding of the sequence number has to be chosen in a way to avoid
   any collisions.  This is especially true when the Token contains more
   information than just the sequence number, e.g. serialized state as
   in [I-D.ietf-core-stateless].

6.  Privacy Considerations

   Implementations SHOULD NOT put any privacy sensitive information in
   the Echo or Request-Tag option values.  Unencrypted timestamps MAY
   reveal information about the server such as location or time since



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   reboot, or that the server will accept expired certificates.
   Timestamps MAY be used if Echo is encrypted between the client and
   the server, e.g. in the case of DTLS without proxies or when using
   OSCORE with an Inner Echo option.

   Like HTTP cookies, the Echo option could potentially be abused as a
   tracking mechanism to link to different requests to the same client.
   This is especially true for pre-emptive Echo values.  Servers MUST
   NOT use the Echo option to correlate requests for other purposes than
   freshness and reachability.  Clients only send Echo to the same from
   which they were received.  Compared to HTTP, CoAP clients are often
   authenticated and non-mobile, and servers can therefore often
   correlate requests based on the security context, the client
   credentials, or the network address.  When the Echo option increases
   a server's ability to correlate requests, clients MAY discard all
   pre-emptive Echo values.

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to add the following option numbers to the "CoAP
   Option Numbers" registry defined by [RFC7252]:

   [

The editor is asked to suggest the numbers after TBD, as those satisfy the construction requirements set out in RFC7252:
Echo is NoCacheKey but not Unsafe or Critical, so it needs to end with 11100 in binary representation;
Request-Tag has no properties so it needs to end with 00 and not with 11100).

Request-Tag are picked to not waste the precious space of less-than-one-byte options,
but such that its offset from the Block1 option it regularly occurs with can still be expressed in an 1-byte offset (27 + (13 + 255) > 292).

Echo was picked to be the shortest it can be in an empty message as a NoCacheKey option
(11100 in binary does not fit in a nibble, and two lower ones are already taken),
and as high as possible to keep room for other options that might typically occur in pairs and might still use optimization around low numbers.

   ]

               +--------+-------------+-------------------+
               | Number | Name        | Reference         |
               +--------+-------------+-------------------+
               | TBD248 | Echo        | [[this document]] |
               |        |             |                   |
               | TBD292 | Request-Tag | [[this document]] |
               +--------+-------------+-------------------+

                       Figure 5: CoAP Option Numbers





Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7959]  Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]
              Tiloca, M., Selander, G., Palombini, F., and J. Park,
              "Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP",
              draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-06 (work in progress),
              November 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-core-stateless]
              Hartke, K., "Extended Tokens and Stateless Clients in the
              Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", draft-ietf-core-
              stateless-04 (work in progress), December 2019.

   [I-D.mattsson-core-coap-actuators]
              Mattsson, J., Fornehed, J., Selander, G., Palombini, F.,
              and C. Amsuess, "Controlling Actuators with CoAP", draft-
              mattsson-core-coap-actuators-06 (work in progress),
              September 2018.

   [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>.






Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   [RFC7390]  Rahman, A., Ed. and E. Dijk, Ed., "Group Communication for
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7390,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7390, October 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7390>.

   [RFC7641]  Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7641>.

   [RFC8323]  Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K.,
              Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained
              Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets",
              RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC8323, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8323>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC8613]  Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
              (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>.

Appendix A.  Methods for Generating Echo Option Values

   The content and structure of the Echo option value are implementation
   specific and determined by the server.  Two simple mechanisms for
   time-based freshness are outlined in this section, the first is
   RECOMMENDED in general, and the second is RECOMMENDED in case the
   Echo option is encrypted between the client and the server.

   Different mechanisms have different tradeoffs between the size of the
   Echo option value, the amount of server state, the amount of
   computation, and the security properties offered.  A server MAY use
   different methods and security levels for different uses cases
   (client aliveness, request freshness, state synchronization, network
   address reachability, etc.).

   1.  List of Cached Random Values and Timestamps.  The Echo option
   value is a (pseudo-)random byte string.  The server caches a list
   containing the random byte strings and their transmission times.
   Assuming 72-bit random values and 32-bit timestamps, the size of the
   Echo option value is 9 bytes and the amount of server state is 13n
   bytes, where n is the number of active Echo Option values.  The
   security against an attacker guessing echo values is given by s = bit
   length of r - log2(n).  The length of r and the maximum allowed n



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   should be set so that the security level is harmonized with other
   parts of the deployment, e.g., s >= 64.  If the server loses time
   continuity, e.g. due to reboot, the entries in the old list MUST be
   deleted.

         Echo option value: random value r
         Server State: random value r, timestamp t0

   2.  Integrity Protected Timestamp.  The Echo option value is an
   integrity protected timestamp.  The timestamp can have different
   resolution and range.  A 32-bit timestamp can e.g. give a resolution
   of 1 second with a range of 136 years.  The (pseudo-)random secret
   key is generated by the server and not shared with any other party.
   The use of truncated HMAC-SHA-256 is RECOMMENDED.  With a 32-bit
   timestamp and a 64-bit MAC, the size of the Echo option value is 12
   bytes and the Server state is small and constant.  The security
   against an attacker guessing echo values is given by the MAC length.
   If the server loses time continuity, e.g. due to reboot, the old key
   MUST be deleted and replaced by a new random secret key.  Note that
   the privacy considerations in Section 6 may apply to the timestamp.
   A server MAY want to encrypt its timestamps, and, depending on the
   choice of encryption algorithms, this may require a nonce to be
   included in the Echo option value.

         Echo option value: timestamp t0, MAC(k, t0)
         Server State: secret key k

   Other mechanisms complying with the security and privacy
   considerations may be used.  The use of encrypted timestamps in the
   Echo option increases security, but typically requires an IV to be
   included in the Echo option value, which adds overhead and makes the
   specification of such a mechanism slightly more complicated than the
   two mechanisms specified here.

Appendix B.  Request-Tag Message Size Impact

   In absence of concurrent operations, the Request-Tag mechanism for
   body integrity (Section 3.5.1) incurs no overhead if no messages are
   lost (more precisely: in OSCORE, if no operations are aborted due to
   repeated transmission failure; in DTLS, if no packages are lost), or
   when block-wise request operations happen rarely (in OSCORE, if there
   is always only one request block-wise operation in the replay
   window).

   In those situations, no message has any Request-Tag option set, and
   that can be recycled indefinitely.





Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   When the absence of a Request-Tag option can not be recycled any more
   within a security context, the messages with a present but empty
   Request-Tag option can be used (1 Byte overhead), and when that is
   used-up, 256 values from one byte long options (2 Bytes overhead) are
   available.

   In situations where those overheads are unacceptable (e.g. because
   the payloads are known to be at a fragmentation threshold), the
   absent Request-Tag value can be made usable again:

   o  In DTLS, a new session can be established.

   o  In OSCORE, the sequence number can be artificially increased so
      that all lost messages are outside of the replay window by the
      time the first request of the new operation gets processed, and
      all earlier operations can therefore be regarded as concluded.

Appendix C.  Change Log

   [ The editor is asked to remove this section before publication. ]

   o  Changes since draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-08:

      *  Make amplification attack mitigation by Echo an RFC7252
         updating recommendation

      *  Give some more concrete guidance to that use case in terms of
         sizes and message types

      *  Allow short (1-3 byte) Echo values for deterministic cases,
         with according security considerations

      *  Point out the tricky parts around Request-Tag for stateless
         proxies, and make that purely an outlook example with out-of-
         scope details

      *  Lift ban on Request-Tag options without Block1 (as they can
         legitimately be generated by an unaware proxy)

      *  Suggest concrete numbers for the options

   o  Changes since draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-07 (largely
      addressing Francesca's review):

      *  Request tag: Explicitly limit "MUST NOT recycle" requirement to
         particular applications

      *  Token reuse: upper-case RECOMMEND sequence number approach



Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


      *  Structure: Move per-topic introductions to respective chapters
         (this avoids long jumps by the reader)

      *  Structure: Group Block2 / ETag section inside new fragmentation
         (formerly Request-Tag) section

      *  More precise references into other documents

      *  "concurrent operations": Emphasise that all here only matters
         between endpoint pairs

      *  Freshness: Generalize wording away from time-based freshness

      *  Echo: Emphasise that no binding between any particular pair of
         responses and requests is established

      *  Echo: Add event-based example

      *  Echo: Clarify when protection is needed

      *  Request tag: Enhance wording around "not sufficient condition"

      *  Request tag: Explicitly state when a tag needs to be set

      *  Request tag: Clarification about permissibility of leaving the
         option absent

      *  Security considerations: wall clock time -> system time (and
         remove inaccurate explanations)

      *  Token reuse: describe blacklisting in a more implementation-
         independent way

   o  Changes since draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-06:

      *  Removed visible comment that should not be visible in Token
         reuse considerations.

   o  Changes since draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-05:

      *  Add privacy considerations on cookie-style use of Echo values

      *  Add security considerations for token reuse

      *  Add note in security considerations on use of nonvolatile
         memory when dealing with pseudorandom numbers





Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


      *  Appendix on echo generation: add a few words on up- and
         downsides of the encrypted timestamp alternative

      *  Clarifications around Outer Echo:

         +  Could be generated by the origin server to prove network
            reachability (but for most applications it MUST be inner)

         +  Could be generated by intermediaries

         +  Is answered by the client to the endpoint from which it
            received it (ie.  Outer if received as Outer)

      *  Clarification that a server can send Echo preemtively

      *  Refer to stateless to explain what "more information than just
         the sequence number" could be

      *  Remove explanations around 0.00 empty messags

      *  Rewordings:

         +  the attack: from "forging" to "guessing"

         +  "freshness tokens" to "freshness indicators" (to avoid
            confusion with the Token)

      *  Editorial fixes:

         +  Abstract and introduction mention what is updated in RFC7252

         +  Reference updates

         +  Capitalization, spelling, terms from other documents

   o  Changes since draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-04:

      *  Editorial fixes

         +  Moved paragraph on collision-free encoding of data in the
            Token to Security Considerations and rephrased it

         +  "easiest" -> "one easy"

   o  Changes since draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-03:

      *  Mention Token processing changes in title




Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


      *  Abstract reworded

      *  Clarify updates to Token processing

      *  Describe security levels from Echo length

      *  Allow non-monotonic clocks under certain conditions for
         freshness

      *  Simplify freshness expressions

      *  Describe when a Request-Tag can be set

      *  Add note on application-level freshness mechanisms

      *  Minor editorial changes

   o  Changes since draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-02:

      *  Define "freshness"

      *  Note limitations of "aliveness"

      *  Clarify proxy and OSCORE handling in presence of "echo"

      *  Clarify when Echo values may be reused

      *  Update security considerations

      *  Various minor clarifications

      *  Minor editorial changes

   o  Major changes since draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-01:

      *  Follow-up changes after the "relying on block-wise" change in
         -01:

         +  Simplify the description of Request-Tag and matchability

         +  Do not update RFC7959 any more

      *  Make Request-Tag repeatable.

      *  Add rationale on not relying purely on sequence numbers.

   o  Major changes since draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-00:




Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


      *  Reworded the Echo section.

      *  Added rules for Token processing.

      *  Added security considerations.

      *  Added actual IANA section.

      *  Made Request-Tag optional and safe-to-forward, relying on
         block-wise to treat it as part of the cache-key

      *  Dropped use case about OSCORE Outer-block-wise (the case went
         away when its Partial IV was moved into the Object-Security
         option)

   o  Major changes since draft-amsuess-core-repeat-request-tag-00:

      *  The option used for establishing freshness was renamed from
         "Repeat" to "Echo" to reduce confusion about repeatable
         options.

      *  The response code that goes with Echo was changed from 4.03 to
         4.01 because the client needs to provide better credentials.

      *  The interaction between the new option and (cross) proxies is
         now covered.

      *  Two messages being "Request-Tag matchable" was introduced to
         replace the older concept of having a request tag value with
         its slightly awkward equivalence definition.

Acknowledgments

   The authors want to thank Carsten Bormann, Francesca Palombini, and
   Jim Schaad for providing valuable input to the draft.

Authors' Addresses

   Christian Amsuess

   Email: christian@amsuess.com


   John Preuss Mattsson
   Ericsson AB

   Email: john.mattsson@ericsson.com




Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                  CoAP: ERT                     March 2020


   Goeran Selander
   Ericsson AB

   Email: goran.selander@ericsson.com















































Amsuess, et al.        Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 31]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/