TCP-ENO: Encryption Negotiation Option
draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (tcpinc WG)
Last updated 2015-10-14 (latest revision 2015-09-30)
Replaces draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Experimental
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state AD is watching
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Martin Stiemerling
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          A. Bittau
Internet-Draft                                                  D. Boneh
Intended status: Experimental                                  D. Giffin
Expires: April 2, 2016                               Stanford University
                                                              M. Handley
                                               University College London
                                                             D. Mazieres
                                                     Stanford University
                                                                E. Smith
                                                       Kestrel Institute
                                                      September 30, 2015

                 TCP-ENO: Encryption Negotiation Option
                      draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-00

Abstract

   Despite growing adoption of TLS [RFC5246], a significant fraction of
   TCP traffic on the Internet remains unencrypted.  The persistence of
   unencrypted traffic can be attributed to at least two factors.
   First, some legacy protocols lack a signaling mechanism (such as a
   "STARTTLS" command) by which to convey support for encryption, making
   incremental deployment impossible.  Second, legacy applications
   themselves cannot always be upgraded, requiring a way to implement
   encryption transparently entirely within the transport layer.  The
   TCP Encryption Negotiation Option (TCP-ENO) addresses both of these
   problems through a new TCP option kind providing out-of-band, fully
   backward-compatible negotiation of encryption.

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 April 2, 2016.

Bittau, et al.            Expires April 2, 2016                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   tcpeno                   September 2015

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The TCP-ENO option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  TCP-ENO roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  TCP-ENO handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.1.  Handshake examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3.  General suboptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.4.  Negotiation transcript  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Requirements for encryption specs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  Session IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.2.  Option kind sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  API extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.1.  Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.2.  Simultaneous open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.3.  Multiple Session IDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.4.  Suboption data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
Show full document text