Echo and Request-Tag
draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-02
CoRE Working Group C. Amsuess
Internet-Draft
Updates: 7252 (if approved) J. Mattsson
Intended status: Standards Track G. Selander
Expires: December 31, 2018 Ericsson AB
June 29, 2018
Echo and Request-Tag
draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-02
Abstract
This document specifies several security enhancements to the
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). Two optional extensions are
defined: the Echo option and the Request-Tag option. Each of these
options provide additional features to CoAP and protects against
certain attacks. The document also updates the processing
requirements on the Token of [RFC7252]. The updated Token processing
ensures secure binding of responses to requests.
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 December 31, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Amsuess, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Echo and Request-Tag June 2018
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Request Freshness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Fragmented Message Body Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Request-Response Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. The Echo Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Echo Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. The Request-Tag Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Request-Tag processing by servers . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. Setting the Request-Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4.1. Body Integrity Based on Payload Integrity . . . . . . 12
3.4.2. Multiple Concurrent Blockwise Operations . . . . . . 13
3.4.3. Simplified block-wise Handling for constrained
proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5. Rationale for the option properties . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6. Rationale for introducing the option . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Block2 / ETag Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Token Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Methods for Generating Echo Option Values . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Request-Tag Message Size Impact . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction
The initial Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) suite of
specifications ([RFC7252], [RFC7641], and [RFC7959]) was designed
with the assumption that security could be provided on a separate
Show full document text