Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols
draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (lwig WG)
Last updated 2019-01-02
Replaces draft-mattsson-lwig-security-protocol-comparison
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                        J. Mattsson
Internet-Draft                                              F. Palombini
Intended status: Informational                               Ericsson AB
Expires: July 6, 2019                                    January 2, 2019

                 Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols
            draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-02

Abstract

   This document analyzes and compares per-packet message size overheads
   when using different security protocols to secure CoAP.  The analyzed
   security protocols are DTLS 1.2, DTLS 1.3, TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3, and
   OSCORE.  DTLS and TLS are analyzed with and without 6LoWPAN-GHC
   compression.  DTLS is analyzed with and without Connection ID.

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 July 6, 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
   (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.

Mattsson & Palombini      Expires July 6, 2019                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           CoAP Security Overhead             January 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Overhead of Security Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  DTLS 1.2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.1.  DTLS 1.2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.2.  DTLS 1.2 with 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.3.  DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.4.  DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID and 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . .   5
     2.2.  DTLS 1.3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1.  DTLS 1.3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.2.  DTLS 1.3 with 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.3.  DTLS 1.3 with Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.4.  DTLS 1.3 with Connection ID and 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . .   7
     2.3.  TLS 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.1.  TLS 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.2.  TLS 1.2 with 6LoWPAN-GHC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.4.  TLS 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.4.1.  TLS 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.4.2.  TLS 1.3 with 6LoWPAN-GHC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.5.  OSCORE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   3.  Overhead with Different Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   This document analyzes and compares per-packet message size overheads
   when using different security protocols to secure CoAP over UPD
   [RFC7252] and TCP [RFC8323].  The analyzed security protocols are
   DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347], DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13], TLS 1.2
   [RFC5246], TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], and OSCORE
   [I-D.ietf-core-object-security].  The DTLS and TLS record layers are
   analyzed with and without compression.  DTLS is anlyzed with and
   without Connection ID [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id].  Readers are
   expected to be familiar with some of the terms described in RFC 7925
   [RFC7925], such as ICV.

2.  Overhead of Security Protocols

   To enable comparison, all the overhead calculations in this section
Show full document text