RATS Conceptual Messages Wrapper
draft-ftbs-rats-msg-wrap-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Henk Birkholz , Ned Smith , Thomas Fossati , Hannes Tschofenig | ||
| Last updated | 2022-10-12 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap, draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ftbs-rats-msg-wrap-00
Remote ATtestation ProcedureS H. Birkolz
Internet-Draft Fraunhofer SIT
Intended status: Standards Track N. Smith
Expires: 15 April 2023 Intel
T. Fossati
H. Tschofenig
arm
12 October 2022
RATS Conceptual Messages Wrapper
draft-ftbs-rats-msg-wrap-00
Abstract
This document defines two encapsulation formats for RATS conceptual
messages (e.g., evidence, attestation results, endorsements and
reference values.)
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Remote ATtestation
ProcedureS Working Group mailing list (rats@ietf.org), which is
archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/thomas-fossati/draft-ftbs-rats-msg-wrap.
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 15 April 2023.
Birkolz, et al. Expires 15 April 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RATS CMW October 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 (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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Conceptual Message Wrapper Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. CMW Array . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. CMW CBOR Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
The RATS architecture defines a handful of conceptual messages
(Section 8 of [I-D.ietf-rats-architecture]). Each conceptual message
can have multiple serialization formats (Section 9 of
[I-D.ietf-rats-architecture]). The same serialized message may have
to be transported via different protocols - for example, EAT
[I-D.ietf-rats-eat] evidence in a "background check" topological
arrangement, AR4SI [I-D.ietf-rats-ar4si] attestation results in
"passport" mode.
In order to minimize the cost associated with registration and
maximize interoperability, it is desirable to reuse their typing
information across such boundaries.
This document defines two encapsulation formats for RATS conceptual
messages that aim to achieve the goals stated above.
Birkolz, et al. Expires 15 April 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RATS CMW October 2022
These encapsulation formats are designed to be:
* Self-describing - which removes the dependency on the framing
provided by the embedding protocol (or the storage system) to
convey exact typing information.
* Based on media types - which allows amortising their registration
cost across many different usage scenarios.
A protocol designer could use these formats, for example, to convey
evidence, endorsements or reference values in certificates and CRLs
extensions ([DICE-arch]), to embed attesation results or evidence as
first class authentication credentials in TLS handshake messages
[I-D.fossati-tls-attestation], to transport attestation-related
payloads in RESTful APIs, or for stable storage of attestation
results in form of file system objects.
2. Conventions and Definitions
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.
In this document, CDDL [RFC8610] [RFC9165] is used to describe the
data formats.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the vocabulary and concepts
defined in [I-D.ietf-rats-architecture].
3. Conceptual Message Wrapper Encodings
Two types of RATS Conceptual Message Wrapper (CMW) are specified in
this document:
1. a CMW using a CBOR or a JSON array (Section 3.1)
2. a CMW based on CBOR tags (Section 3.2).
3.1. CMW Array
The CMW array illustrated in Figure 1 is composed of two members:
* type: ether a text string representing a media-type [RFC6838] or
an unsigned integer corresponding to a CoAP Content-Format
[RFC7252]
Birkolz, et al. Expires 15 April 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RATS CMW October 2022
* value: the RATS conceptual message serialized according to the
value defined in the type member.
A CMW array can be encoded as CBOR [STD94] or JSON [RFC8259].
When using JSON, the value field is encoded as Base64 using the URL
and filename safe alphabet (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) without padding.
When using CBOR, the value field is serialized as a CBOR bytes
string.
Birkolz, et al. Expires 15 April 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RATS CMW October 2022
cmw = [ type, value ]
type = coap-content-format / media-type
coap-content-format = uint .size 2
media-type = text .abnf ("media-type" .cat RFC6838)
value = cbor-bytes / base64-string
cbor-bytes = bytes
base64-string = text .regexp "[A-Za-z0-9_-]+"
RFC6838 = '
media-type = type-name "/" subtype-name *1("+" suffix) parameters
type-name = restricted-name
subtype-name = restricted-name
; see https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-structured-suffix/
suffix = "xml" / "json" / "ber" / "cbor" / "der" / "fastinfoset" /
"wbxml" / "zip" / "tlv" / "json-seq" / "sqlite3" / "jwt" /
"gzip" / "cbor-seq" / "zstd"
parameters = *(";" parameter-name "=" parameter-value)
parameter-name = restricted-name
parameter-value = *VCHAR
restricted-name = restricted-name-first *126restricted-name-chars
restricted-name-first = ALPHA / DIGIT
restricted-name-chars = ALPHA / DIGIT / "!" / "#" / "$" / "&" / "-" /
"^" / "_"
restricted-name-chars =/ "." ; Characters before first dot always
; specify a facet name
restricted-name-chars =/ "+" ; Characters after last plus always
; specify a structured syntax suffix
VCHAR = %x21-7E ; Visible (printing) characters
ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A-Z / a-z
DIGIT = %x30-39 ; 0-9
'
Figure 1: CDDL definition
Birkolz, et al. Expires 15 April 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RATS CMW October 2022
3.2. CMW CBOR Tags
CBOR Tags used as CMW are derived from CoAP Content Format values.
If a CoAP Content Format exists for a RATS conceptual message, the
TN() transform defined in Appendix B of [RFC9277] can be used to
derive a CBOR tag in range [1668546817, 1668612095].
4. Examples
The (equivalent) examples below assume the media-type application/
vnd.example.rats-conceptual-msg has been registered alongside a
corresponding CoAP content format 30001. The CBOR tag 1668576818 is
derived applying the TN transform as described in Section 3.2.
[
30001,
h'abcdabcd'
]
Figure 2: CBOR encoding
[
"application/vnd.example.rats-conceptual-msg",
"q82rzQ"
]
Figure 3: JSON encoding
1668576818(h'abcdabcd')
Figure 4: CBOR tag
5. Security Considerations
TODO Security
6. IANA Considerations
When registering a new media type for evidence, in addition to its
syntactical description, the author SHOULD provide a public and
stable description of the signing and appraisal procedures associated
with the data format.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
Birkolz, et al. Expires 15 April 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RATS CMW October 2022
[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/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4648>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838>.
[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/rfc/rfc7252>.
[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/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8610>.
[RFC9165] Bormann, C., "Additional Control Operators for the Concise
Data Definition Language (CDDL)", RFC 9165,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9165, December 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9165>.
[RFC9277] Richardson, M. and C. Bormann, "On Stable Storage for
Items in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)",
RFC 9277, DOI 10.17487/RFC9277, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9277>.
[STD94] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949>.
Birkolz, et al. Expires 15 April 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RATS CMW October 2022
7.2. Informative References
[DICE-arch]
Trusted Computing Group, "DICE Attestation Architecture",
March 2021, <https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-
content/uploads/DICE-Attestation-Architecture-
r23-final.pdf>.
[I-D.fossati-tls-attestation]
Tschofenig, H., Fossati, T., Howard, P., Mihalcea, I., and
Y. Deshpande, "Using Attestation in Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-fossati-
tls-attestation-01, 26 August 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fossati-tls-
attestation-01>.
[I-D.ietf-rats-ar4si]
Voit, E., Birkholz, H., Hardjono, T., Fossati, T., and V.
Scarlata, "Attestation Results for Secure Interactions",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats-ar4si-
03, 6 September 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-
ar4si-03>.
[I-D.ietf-rats-architecture]
Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and
W. Pan, "Remote Attestation Procedures Architecture", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats-architecture-
22, 28 September 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-
architecture-22>.
[I-D.ietf-rats-eat]
Lundblade, L., Mandyam, G., O'Donoghue, J., and C.
Wallace, "The Entity Attestation Token (EAT)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats-eat-16, 9
October 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-rats-eat-16>.
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Authors' Addresses
Henk Birkolz
Fraunhofer SIT
Birkolz, et al. Expires 15 April 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RATS CMW October 2022
Email: henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de
Ned Smith
Intel
Email: ned.smith@intel.com
Thomas Fossati
arm
Email: thomas.fossati@arm.com
Hannes Tschofenig
arm
Email: hannes.tschofenig@arm.com
Birkolz, et al. Expires 15 April 2023 [Page 9]