[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                          M. Tuexen
INTERNET DRAFT                                                Siemens AG
                                                            A. Jungmaier
                                                     University of Essen
Expires December 22, 2001                                  June 22, 2001

                             TLS over SCTP

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of [RFC2026].

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

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


This document describes the usage of the Transport Layer Security (TLS)
protocol, as defined in [RFC2246], over the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP), as defined in [RFC2960].

The user of TLS can take advantage of the following features provided by

     -    Support of multiple streams to avoid head of line blocking.

     -    Support of multi-homing to provide network level fault

     -    Support of dynamic reconfiguration of IP-addresses.

Tuexen, Jungmaier                                               [Page 1]

Internet Draft                TLS over SCTP                    June 2001

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Overview

This document describes the usage of the Transport Layer Security (TLS)
protocol, as defined in [RFC2246], over the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP), as defined in [RFC2960].

TLS is designed to run on top of a byte-stream oriented transport
protocol providing a reliable, in-sequence delivery.  Thus, TLS is
currently mainly being used on top of the Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP), as defined in [RFC793].

Comparing TCP and SCTP, the latter provides additional features and this
document shows how TLS should be used with SCTP to provide some of these
additional features to the TLS user.

This document defines

     -    how to use the multiple streams feature of SCTP.

     -    how to handle the message oriented nature of SCTP.

It should be noted that the TLS user can take advantage of the multi-
homing support of SCTP. The dynamic reconfiguration of IP-addresses as
described in [SCTPEXT] can also be used with the described solution.

The method described in this document does not require any changes of
TLS or SCTP. It is only required that SCTP implementations support the
optional feature of fragmentation of SCTP user messages.

1.2.  Terminology

This document uses the following terms:

          A SCTP association.

          A TLS connection.

          A TLS session.

          An unidirectional stream of a SCTP association. It is uniquely
          identified by a stream identifier.

Tuexen, Jungmaier                                               [Page 2]

Internet Draft                TLS over SCTP                    June 2001

1.3.  Abbreviations

     MTU:  Maximum Transmission Unit

     SCTP: Stream Control Transmission Protocol

     TCP:  Transmission Control Protocol

     TLS:  Transport Layer Security

2.  Conventions

in this document, are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3.  SCTP Requirements

3.1.  Number of Inbound and Outbound Streams

When establishing associations used by TLS, the SCTP user MUST request
an identical number of inbound and outbound streams from the SCTP layer.
This rule makes sure that the association will have the same number of
streams in both directions.  A pair consisting of two streams with the
same stream identifier is considered and used as one bi-directional

Thus an SCTP association can be considered as a set of bi-directional

3.2.  Fragmentation of User Messages

To avoid the knowledge and handling of the MTU inside TLS, SCTP MUST
provide fragmentation of user messages, which is an optional feature of
[RFC2960].  Since SCTP is a message oriented protocol, it must be able
to transmit all TLS records as SCTP user messages.  Thus the supported
maximum length of SCTP user messages MUST be at least 2^14 + 2048 + 5 =
18437 bytes, which is the maximum length of a TLSCiphertext, as defined
in [RFC2246].

Therefore, SCTP takes care of fragmenting and reassembling the TLS
records in order to avoid IP-fragmentation.

4.  Connections and Bi-directional Streams

TLS makes use of multiple bi-directional streams by establishing a
connection over each bi-directional stream.  This means that the number
of connections for an association is limited by the number of bi-

Tuexen, Jungmaier                                               [Page 3]

Internet Draft                TLS over SCTP                    June 2001

directional streams.

The TLS handshake protocol is used on each bi-directional stream
separately.  Each handshake can be

     -    a full handshake or

     -    an abbreviated handshake that resumes a TLS session with a
          session id from another connection (on the same or another

After completing the handshake for a connection, the bi-directional
stream can be used for TLS-based user data transmission.  It should also
be noted that the handshakes for the different connections are
independent and can be delayed until the bi-directional stream is used
for user data transmission.

5.  Examples

In these examples we consider the case of an association with two bi-
directional streams.

5.1.  Two Bi-directional Streams with Full Handshake

Just after the association has been established the client sends two
ClientHello messages on the bi-directional streams 0 and 1.  After a
full handshake has been completed on each bi-directional stream, TLS-
based user data transmission can take place.  It is possible that on the
bi-directional stream 0 the handshake has been completed, and user data
transmission is ongoing, while on the bi-directional stream 1 the
handshake has not been completed, or vice versa.

5.2.  Two Bi-directional Streams with an Abbreviated Handshake

After establishing the association, the client starts a full handshake
on the bi-directional stream 0.  The server provides a session
identifier which allows session resumption.  After the full handshake
has been completed, the client initiates an abbreviated handshake on the
bi-directional stream 1 using the session identifier from the handshake
on the bi-directional stream 0.  User data can be transmitted on the bi-
directional stream 0, but not on the bi-directional stream stream 1 in
that state.  After completion of the abbreviated handshake on the bi-
directional stream 1, user data can be transmitted on both streams.

Whether or not to use abbreviated handshakes during the setup phase of a
TLS connection over an SCTP association depends on several factors:

Tuexen, Jungmaier                                               [Page 4]

Internet Draft                TLS over SCTP                    June 2001

     -    the complexity and duration of the initial handshake
          processing (also determined by the number of connections),

     -    the network performance (round-trip times, bandwidth).

Abbreviated handshakes can reduce computational complexity of the
handshake considerably, in case that this is a limiting resource.  If a
large number of connections need to be established, it may be of
advantage to use the TLS session resumption feature.  On the other hand,
before an abbreviated handshakes can take place, a full handshake needs
to have completed. In networks with large round-trip time delays, it may
be favorable to perform a number of full handshakes in parallel.
Therefore, both possibilities are allowed.

5.3.  Two Bi-directional Streams with a Delayed Abbreviated Handshake

This example resembles the last one, but after the completion of the
full handshake on the bi-directional stream 0, the abbreviated handshake
on the bi-directional stream 1 is not started immediately.  The bi-
directional stream 0 can be used for user data transmission.  It is only
when the user also wants to transmit data on the bi-directional stream 1
that the abbreviated handshake for the bi-directional stream 1 is

This allows the user of TLS to request a large number of bi-directional
streams without having to provide all the resources at association
start-up if not all bi-directional streams are used right from the

5.4.  Two Bi-directional Streams without Full Handshakes

This example is like the second or third one, but an abbreviated
handshake is used for both bi-directional streams. This requires the
existence of a valid session identifier from connections handled by
another association.

6.  Security Considerations

Using TLS on top of SCTP does not provide any new security issues beside
the ones discussed in [RFC2246] and [RFC2960].

7.  Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank P. Calhoun, E. Rescorla, J. Wood and
many others for their invaluable comments and suggestions.

Tuexen, Jungmaier                                               [Page 5]

Internet Draft                TLS over SCTP                    June 2001

8.  References

[SCTPEXT]   R. R. Stewart, Q. Xie, M. Tuexen, I. Rytina, "SCTP
            Extensions for Dynamic Reconfiguration of IP Addresses and
            Enforcement of Flow and Message Limits", <draft-ietf-tsvwg-
            addip-sctp-01.txt>, February 2001.

[RFC793]    J. Postel (ed.), "Transmission Control Protocol", STP 7, RFC
            793, September 1981.

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

[RFC2026]   S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
            RFC 2026, October 1996.

[RFC2246]   T. Diercks, C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC
            2246, January 1999.

[RFC2960]   R. R. Stewart et al., "Stream Control Transmission
            Protocol", RFC 2960, November 2000.

9.  Authors' Addresses

Michael Tuexen                Tel.:   +49 89 722 47210
Siemens AG                    e-mail: Michael.Tuexen@icn.siemens.de
D-81359 Munich

Andreas Jungmaier             Tel.:   +49 201 1837636
University of Essen           e-mail: ajung@exp-math.uni-essen.de
Networking Technology Group at the IEM
Ellernstrasse 29
D-45326 Essen

             This Internet Draft expires December 22, 2001.

Tuexen, Jungmaier                                               [Page 6]

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