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

Versions: (draft-santesson-tls-certcache) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 RFC 7924

INTERNET-DRAFT                               S. Santesson (3xA Security)
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                Q. Dang         (NIST)
Expires December 2009                                          June 2009


      Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extension
                  <draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-01.txt>


Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

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



Abstract

   This document defines a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension for
   cached information. This extension allows the TLS client to inform a
   server of cached information from previous TLS sessions, allowing the
   server to omit sending cached static information to the client during
   the TLS handshake protocol exchange.


1  Introduction

   TLS handshakes often include fairly static information such as server
   certificate and a list of trusted Certification Authorities (CAs).
   Static information such as a server certificate can be of
   considerable size. This is the case in particular if the server
   certificate is bundled with a complete certificate path, including



Santesson, et al.                                               [Page 1]


INTERNET DRAFT     TLS Cached Information Extension            June 2009


   all intermediary certificates up to the trust anchor public key.

   Significant benefits can be achieved in low bandwidth and high
   latency networks, in particular if the communication channel also has
   a relatively high rate of transmission errors, if a known and
   previously cached server certificate path can be omitted from the TLS
   handshake.

   This specification defines the Cached Information TLS extension,
   which may be used by a client and a server to exclude transmission of
   known cached parameters from the TLS handshake.


1.1  Terminology

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


2  Cached Information Extension

   A new extension type (cached_information(TBD)) is defined and used in
   both the client hello and server hello messages. The extension type
   is specified as follows.


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

   The "extension_data" field of this extension, when included in the
   client hello, SHALL contain "CachedInformation" according to the
   following structure:

      enum {
           certificate_chain(1), trusted_cas(2), (255)
      } CachedInformationType;

      struct {
           HashAlgorithm hash;
           opaque hash_value<1..255>;
      } CachedInformationHash;

      struct {
           CachedInformationType type;
           CachedInformationHash hashes<1..2^16-1>;
      } CachedObject;



Santesson, et al.                                               [Page 2]


INTERNET DRAFT     TLS Cached Information Extension            June 2009


      struct {
           CachedObject cached_info<1..2^24-1>;;
      } CachedInformation;


   Hash algorithm identifiers are provided by the RFC 5246 [RFC5246]
   HashAlgorithm registry. Compliant implementations MUST support
   sha1(2) as HashAlgorithm.

   When CachedInformationType identifies certificate_chain, then
   hash_value MUST include at least one hash value calculated over the
   certificate_list element of a server side Certificate message.

   When CachedInformationType identifies trusted_cas, then hash_value
   MUST include at least one hash value calculated over the
   certificate_authorities element of a server side CertificateRequest
   message.

   The client MUST NOT include hashes for multiple objects in the same
   CachedObject structure. If more than one hash is present in the
   CachedObject structure, they MUST be hashes over the same information
   object using different hash algorithms.

   Other specifications MAY define more CachedInformationType types.


4  Message flow

   Clients MAY include an extension of type "cached_information" in the
   (extended) client hello, which SHALL contain at least one
   CachedObject as specified in section 2. Clients MAY need the ability
   to cache different values depending on other information in the
   Client Hello that modify what values the server uses, in particular
   the Server Name Indication [RFC4366] value.

   Servers that receive an extended client hello containing a
   "cached_information" extension, MAY indicate that they support
   caching of information objects by including an extension of type
   "cached_information" with an empty extension_data field in their
   (extended) server hello.

   Following a successful exchange of "cached_information" extensions,
   the server may replace data objects identified through the client
   extension with any of the CachedInformationHash values received from
   the client, which matches the replaced object.

   The handshake protocol will proceed using the cached data as if it
   was provided in the handshake protocol. The finished message will



Santesson, et al.                                               [Page 3]


INTERNET DRAFT     TLS Cached Information Extension            June 2009


   however be calculated over the actual data exchanged in the handshake
   protocol. That is, the finished message will be calculated over the
   hash values of cached information objects and not over the cached
   objects that were omitted from transmission.


5  Security Considerations

   Hash algorithms used in this specification are required to have
   reasonable random properties in order to provide reasonably unique
   identifiers. Failure of a provided hash to correctly and uniquely
   identify the correct set of hashed parameters may at most lead to a
   failed TLS handshake followed by a new attempt without the cached
   information extension. No serious security threat requires selected
   hash algorithms to have strong collision resistance.


6  IANA Considerations

   1) Create an entry, cached_information(TBD), in the existing registry
      for ExtensionType (defined in RFC 5246 [RFC5246]).

   2) Establish a registry for TLS CachedInformationType values.  The
      first entries in the registry are certificate_chain(1) and
      trusted_cas(2). TLS CachedInformationType values in the inclusive
      range 0-63 (decimal) are assigned via RFC 5226 [RFC5226] Standards
      Action.  Values from the inclusive range 64-223 (decimal) are
      assigned via RFC 5226 Specification Required.  Values from the
      inclusive range 224-255 (decimal) are reserved for RFC 5226
      Private Use.





















Santesson, et al.                                               [Page 4]


INTERNET DRAFT     TLS Cached Information Extension            June 2009


7  Normative References


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


   [RFC5226]   T. Narten, H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
               IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
               May 2008

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

   [RFC4366]   S. Blake-Wilson, M. Nystrom, D. Hopwood, J. Mikkelsen,
               T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions",
               RFC 4366, April 2006




Authors' Addresses


   Stefan Santesson

   3xA Security AB
   Bjornstorp 744
   247 98 Genarp
   Sweden

   EMail: sts@aaa-sec.com


   Quynh Dang

   NIST
   100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930
   Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930
   USA

   Email: quynh.dang@nist.gov









Santesson, et al.                                               [Page 5]


INTERNET DRAFT     TLS Cached Information Extension            June 2009


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/licenseinfo).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.


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



Expires December 2009



























Santesson, et al.                                               [Page 6]


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