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

Versions: (draft-rescorla-tls-dtls-connection-id) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

TLS                                                     E. Rescorla, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                RTFM, Inc.
Updates: 6347 (if approved)                           H. Tschofenig, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                              T. Fossati
Expires: August 31, 2019                                     Arm Limited
                                                       February 27, 2019


                  Connection Identifiers for DTLS 1.2
                  draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-03

Abstract

   This document specifies the Connection ID (CID) construct for the
   Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol version 1.2.

   A CID is an identifier carried in the record layer header that gives
   the recipient additional information for selecting the appropriate
   security association.  In "classical" DTLS, selecting a security
   association of an incoming DTLS record is accomplished with the help
   of the 5-tuple.  If the source IP address and/or source port changes
   during the lifetime of an ongoing DTLS session then the receiver will
   be unable to locate the correct security context.

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 August 31, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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



Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


   (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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The "connection_id" Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Record Layer Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Record Payload Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix B.  Working Group Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix C.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix D.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol was designed
   for securing connection-less transports, like UDP.  DTLS, like TLS,
   starts with a handshake, which can be computationally demanding
   (particularly when public key cryptography is used).  After a
   successful handshake, symmetric key cryptography is used to apply
   data origin authentication, integrity and confidentiality protection.
   This two-step approach allows endpoints to amortize the cost of the



Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


   initial handshake across subsequent application data protection.
   Ideally, the second phase where application data is protected lasts
   over a longer period of time since the established keys will only
   need to be updated once the key lifetime expires.

   In the current version of DTLS, the IP address and port of the peer
   are used to identify the DTLS association.  Unfortunately, in some
   cases, such as NAT rebinding, these values are insufficient.  This is
   a particular issue in the Internet of Things when devices enter
   extended sleep periods to increase their battery lifetime.  The NAT
   rebinding leads to connection failure, with the resulting cost of a
   new handshake.

   This document defines an extension to DTLS 1.2 to add a CID to the
   DTLS record layer.  The presence of the CID is negotiated via a DTLS
   extension.

2.  Conventions and 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 RFC
   2119 [RFC2119].

   This document assumes familiarity with DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347].

3.  The "connection_id" Extension

   This document defines the "connection_id" extension, which is used in
   ClientHello and ServerHello messages.

   The extension type is specified as follows.

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

   The extension_data field of this extension, when included in the
   ClientHello, MUST contain the ConnectionId structure.  This structure
   contains the CID value the client wishes the server to use when
   sending messages to the client.  A zero-length CID value indicates
   that the client is prepared to send with a CID but does not wish the
   server to use one when sending.  Alternatively, this can be
   interpreted as the client wishes the server to use a zero-length CID;
   the result is the same.






Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


     struct {
         opaque cid<0..2^8-1>;
     } ConnectionId;

   A server willing to use CIDs will respond with a "connection_id"
   extension in the ServerHello, containing the CID it wishes the client
   to use when sending messages towards it.  A zero-length value
   indicates that the server will send with the client's CID but does
   not wish the client to include a CID (or again, alternately, to use a
   zero-length CID).

   Because each party sends the value in the "connection_id" extension
   it wants to receive as a CID in encrypted records, it is possible for
   an endpoint to use a globally constant length for such connection
   identifiers.  This can in turn ease parsing and connection lookup,
   for example by having the length in question be a compile-time
   constant.  Implementations, which want to use variable-length CIDs,
   are responsible for constructing the CID in such a way that its
   length can be determined on reception.  Such implementations must
   still be able to send CIDs of different length to other parties.
   Note that there is no CID length information included in the record
   itself.

   In DTLS 1.2, CIDs are exchanged at the beginning of the DTLS session
   only.  There is no dedicated "CID update" message that allows new
   CIDs to be established mid-session, because DTLS 1.2 in general does
   not allow TLS 1.3-style post-handshake messages that do not
   themselves begin other handshakes.  When a DTLS session is resumed or
   renegotiated, the "connection_id" extension is negotiated afresh.

   If DTLS peers have not negotiated the use of CIDs then the RFC
   6347-defined record format and content type MUST be used.

   If DTLS peers have negotiated the use of a CIDs using the ClientHello
   and the ServerHello messages then the peers need to take the
   following steps.

   The DTLS peers determine whether incoming and outgoing messages need
   to use the new record format, i.e., the record format containing the
   CID.  The new record format with the the tls12_cid content type is
   only used once encryption is enabled.  Plaintext payloads never use
   the new record type and the CID content type.

   For sending, if a zero-length CID has been negotiated then the RFC
   6347-defined record format and content type MUST be used (see
   Section 4.1 of [RFC6347]) else the new record layer format with the
   tls12_cid content type defined in Figure 1 MUST be used.




Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


   When transmitting a datagram with the tls12_cid content type, the new
   MAC computation defined in Section 5 MUST be used.

   For receiving, if the tls12_cid content type is set, then the CID is
   used to look up the connection and the security association.  If the
   tls12_cid content type is not set, then the connection and security
   association is looked up by the 5-tuple and a check MUST be made to
   determine whether the expected CID value is indeed zero length.  If
   the check fails, then the datagram MUST be dropped.

   When receiving a datagram with the tls12_cid content type, the new
   MAC computation defined in Section 5 MUST be used.  When receiving a
   datagram with the RFC 6347-defined record format the MAC calculation
   defined in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC6347] (and Section 4.1.2.4 of
   {{RFC6347} for use with AEAD ciphers) MUST be used.

4.  Record Layer Extensions

   This specification defines the DTLS 1.2 record layer format and
   [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] specifies how to carry the CID in DTLS 1.3.

   To allow a receiver to determine whether a record has a CID or not,
   connections which have negotiated this extension use a distinguished
   record type tls12_cid(25).  Use of this content type has the
   following three implications:

   -  The CID field is present and contains one or more bytes.

   -  The MAC calculation follows the process described in Section 5.

   -  The true content type is inside the encryption envelope, as
      described below.

   When CIDs are being used, the content to be sent is first wrapped
   along with the true content type and padding into a
   DTLSInnerPlaintext value prior to encryption.  The DTLSInnerPlaintext
   value is then encrypted.  Figure 1 illustrates the record format.














Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


        struct {
            ContentType type;
            ProtocolVersion version;
            uint16 epoch;                         // DTLS field
            uint48 sequence_number;               // DTLS field
            uint16 length;
            opaque fragment[DTLSPlaintext.length];
        } DTLSPlaintext;

        struct {
            opaque content[DTLSPlaintext.length];
            ContentType type;
            uint8 zeros[length_of_padding];
        } DTLSInnerPlaintext;

        struct {
            ContentType special_type = tls12_cid; /* 25 */
            ProtocolVersion version;
            uint16 epoch;                         // DTLS field
            uint48 sequence_number;               // DTLS field
            opaque cid[cid_length];               // New field
            uint16 length;
            opaque encrypted_record[TLSCiphertext.length];
        } DTLSCiphertext;

               Figure 1: DTLS 1.2 Record Format with the CID

   content  This field contains the byte encoding of a handshake, an
      alert message, or the raw bytes of the application's data to send.

   type  The DTLSInnerPlaintext.type value contains the content type of
      the record.  This is the non-obfuscated (true) content type.

   zeros  An arbitrary-length run of zero-valued bytes may appear in the
      cleartext after the type field.  This provides an opportunity for
      senders to pad any DTLS record by a chosen amount as long as the
      total stays within record size limits.  See Section 5.4 of
      [RFC8446] for more details.  (Note that the term TLSInnerPlaintext
      in RFC 8446 refers to DTLSInnerPlaintext in this specification.)

   special_type  The outer opaque_type field of a DTLSCiphertext record
      is always set to the value 25 (tls12_cid).  The actual content
      type of the record is found in DTLSInnerPlaintext.type after
      decryption.  By encapsulating the true content type inside the
      encrypted payload the outer content type (special_type) can be
      used to signal the new record layer format containing the CID.





Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


   version  The DTLSCiphertext.version field describes the protocol
      being employed.  This document describes an extension to DTLS
      version 1.2.

   length  The DTLSCiphertext.length field indicates the length (in
      bytes) of the following DTLSCiphertext.encrypted_record, which is
      the sum of the lengths of the content and the padding, plus one
      for the inner content type, plus any expansion added by the AEAD
      algorithm.

   cid  The CID value of length indicated with cid_length, as agreed
      during the exchange.

   encrypted_record  The AEAD-encrypted form of the serialized
      DTLSInnerPlaintext structure.

   Other fields are defined in RFC 6347.  Note that this specification
   does not make use of the DTLSCompressed structure.

5.  Record Payload Protection

   This specification changes the MAC calculation defined in
   Section 4.1.2 of RFC 6347.  At the time of writing ciphers using
   authenticated encryption with additional data (AEAD) were state-of-
   the-art.  Hence, this specification updates only the additional data
   calculation defined in Section 6.2.3.3 of [RFC5246], which is re-used
   by Section 4.1.2.1 of [RFC6347].

   The additional data calculation is extended as follows:

       additional_data = seq_num + type + version +
                         cid + cid_length + length;

       where "+" denotes concatenation.

   seq_num  As described in Section 6.2.3.3 of [RFC5246] this 64-bit
      value is formed by concatenating the epoch and the sequence number
      in the order they appear on the wire.

   type  This value contains the outer-header content type, i.e. the
      tls12_cid.

   version  This value contains the version number.

   length  This value contains the length information in the outer-
      header.

   cid  Value of the negotiated CID.



Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


   cid_length  1 byte field indicating the length of the negotiated CID.

6.  Examples

   Figure 2 shows an example exchange where a CID is used uni-
   directionally from the client to the server.  To indicate that a
   zero-length CID we use the term 'connection_id=empty'.












































Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


   Client                                             Server
   ------                                             ------

   ClientHello                 -------->
   (connection_id=empty)


                               <--------      HelloVerifyRequest
                                                        (cookie)

   ClientHello                 -------->
   (connection_id=empty)
   (cookie)

                                                     ServerHello
                                             (connection_id=100)
                                                     Certificate
                                               ServerKeyExchange
                                              CertificateRequest
                               <--------         ServerHelloDone

   Certificate
   ClientKeyExchange
   CertificateVerify
   [ChangeCipherSpec]
   Finished                    -------->
   <CID=100>

                                              [ChangeCipherSpec]
                               <--------                Finished


   Application Data            ========>
   <CID=100>

                               <========        Application Data

   Legend:

   <...> indicates that a connection id is used in the record layer
   (...) indicates an extension
   [...] indicates a payload other than a handshake message

               Figure 2: Example DTLS 1.2 Exchange with CID

   Note: In the example exchange the CID is included in the record layer
   once encryption is enabled.  In DTLS 1.2 only one handshake message
   is encrypted, namely the Finished message.  Since the example shows



Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


   how to use the CID for payloads sent from the client to the server
   only the record layer payload containing the Finished messagen
   contains a CID.  Application data payloads sent from the client to
   the server contain a CID in this example as well.

7.  Security and Privacy Considerations

   The CID replaces the previously used 5-tuple and, as such, introduces
   an identifier that remains persistent during the lifetime of a DTLS
   connection.  Every identifier introduces the risk of linkability, as
   explained in [RFC6973].

   In addition, endpoints can use the CID to attach arbitrary metadata
   to each record they receive.  This may be used as a mechanism to
   communicate per-connection information to on-path observers.  There
   is no straightforward way to address this with CIDs that contain
   arbitrary values; implementations concerned about this SHOULD refuse
   to use connection ids.

   An on-path adversary, who is able to observe the DTLS protocol
   exchanges between the DTLS client and the DTLS server, is able to
   link the observed payloads to all subsequent payloads carrying the
   same connection id pair (for bi-directional communication).  Without
   multi-homing or mobility, the use of the CID is not different to the
   use of the 5-tuple.

   With multi-homing, an adversary is able to correlate the
   communication interaction over the two paths, which adds further
   privacy concerns.

   Importantly, the sequence number makes it possible for a passive
   attacker to correlate packets across CID changes.  Thus, even if a
   client/server pair do a rehandshake to change CID, that does not
   provide much privacy benefit.

   The CID-enhanced record layer introduces record padding; a privacy
   feature not available with the original DTLS 1.2 RFC.  Padding allows
   to inflate the size of the ciphertext making traffic analysis more
   difficult.  More details about the padding can be found in
   Section 5.4 and Appendix E.3 of RFC 8446.

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate an entry to the existing TLS
   "ExtensionType Values" registry, defined in [RFC5246], for
   connection_id(TBD) defined in this document.





Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


   IANA is requested to allocate tls12_cid(25) in the "TLS ContentType
   Registry".

9.  References

9.1.  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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [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-dtls13-30 (work in progress),
              November 2018.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

9.3.  URIs

   [1] mailto:tls@ietf.org

   [2] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

   [3] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/index.html





Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


Appendix A.  History

   RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE THIS SECTION

   draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-03

   -  Updated list of contributors

   -  Updated list of contributors and acknowledgements

   -  Updated example

   -  Changed record layer design

   -  Changed record payload protection

   -  Updated introduction and security consideration section

   -  Author- and affiliation changes

   draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-02

   -  Move to internal content types a la DTLS 1.3.

   draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-01

   -  Remove 1.3 based on the WG consensus at IETF 101

   draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-00

   -  Initial working group version (containing a solution for DTLS 1.2
      and 1.3)

   draft-rescorla-tls-dtls-connection-id-00

   -  Initial version

Appendix B.  Working Group Information

   RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE THIS SECTION

   The discussion list for the IETF TLS working group is located at the
   e-mail address tls@ietf.org [1].  Information on the group and
   information on how to subscribe to the list is at
   https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls [2]

   Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/mail-
   archive/web/tls/current/index.html [3]



Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


Appendix C.  Contributors

   Many people have contributed to this specification and we would like
   to thank the following individuals for their contributions:

   * Yin Xinxing
     Huawei
     yinxinxing@huawei.com

   * Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
     RedHat
     nmav@redhat.com

   * Tobias Gondrom
     tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org

   Additionally, we would like to thank the Connection ID task force
   team members:

   -  Martin Thomson (Mozilla)

   -  Christian Huitema (Private Octopus Inc.)

   -  Jana Iyengar (Google)

   -  Daniel Kahn Gillmor (ACLU)

   -  Patrick McManus (Mozilla)

   -  Ian Swett (Google)

   -  Mark Nottingham (Fastly)

   The task force team discussed various design ideas, including
   cryptographically generated session
   ids using hash chains and public key encryption, but dismissed them
   due to their inefficiency.  The approach described in this
   specification is the simplest possible design that works given the
   limitations of DTLS 1.2.  DTLS 1.3 provides better privacy features
   and developers are encouraged to switch to the new version of DTLS,
   if these privacy properties are important in a given deployment.

   Finally, we want to thank the IETF TLS working group chairs, Chris
   Wood, Joseph Salowey, and Sean Turner, for their patience, support
   and feedback.






Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           DTLS 1.2 Connection ID            February 2019


Appendix D.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Achim Kraus for his review feedback.

Authors' Addresses

   Eric Rescorla (editor)
   RTFM, Inc.

   EMail: ekr@rtfm.com


   Hannes Tschofenig (editor)
   Arm Limited

   EMail: hannes.tschofenig@arm.com


   Thomas Fossati
   Arm Limited

   EMail: thomas.fossati@arm.com





























Rescorla, et al.         Expires August 31, 2019               [Page 14]


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