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