Request-Tag option
draft-amsuess-core-request-tag-00
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-03-27
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
CoRE Working Group C. Amsuess
Internet-Draft Energy Harvesting Solutions
Intended status: Standards Track March 27, 2017
Expires: September 28, 2017
Request-Tag option
draft-amsuess-core-request-tag-00
Abstract
This memo describes an optional extension to the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP, [RFC7252] and [RFC7959]) that allows
matching of request blocks. This primarily serves to transfer the
security properties that Object Security of CoAP (OSCOAP,
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security]) provides for single requests to
blockwise transfers. The security of blockwise transfer in OSCOAP is
reflected on in a dedicated section.
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 http://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 28, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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
Amsuess Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Request-Tag option March 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Request-Tag option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. For inclusion in OSCOAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security properties of blockwise transfer . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Blockwise transfer cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Attack scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. "Promote Valjean" (on blockwise case SN) . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. "Free the hitman" (blockwise case SN or SS) . . . . . 10
4. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Use of Request-Tag by proxies . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B.1. OSCOAP inner-blockwise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B.2. Use by proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The OSCOAP protocol provides a security layer for CoAP that, given a
security context shared with a peer, provides
o encryption of payload and some options,
o integrity protection of the encrypted data and some more message
options,
o protection against replays once a request has reached the server,
and
o protected matching between request and response messages.
It does not (and should not) provide sequential delivery. In
particular, it does not protect against requests being delayed; the
corresponding attack and mitigation is described in
[I-D.mattsson-core-coap-actuators].
The goal of this memo is to provide protection to the bodies of a
blockwise fragmented request/response pair that is equivalent to the
protection that would be provided if the complete request and
Amsuess Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Request-Tag option March 2017
Show full document text