TCP-ENO: Encryption Negotiation Option
draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-09
| The information below is for an old version of the document |
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (tcpinc WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-08-02
|
|
Replaces |
|
draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
Experimental
|
|
Formats |
|
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
|
Reviews |
|
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
Submitted to IESG for Publication
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
David Black
|
|
Shepherd write-up |
|
Show
(last changed 2017-06-08)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
Publication Requested
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
Mirja Kühlewind
|
|
Send notices to |
|
David Black <david.black@dell.com>
|
Network Working Group A. Bittau
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Experimental D. Giffin
Expires: February 3, 2018 Stanford University
M. Handley
University College London
D. Mazieres
Stanford University
E. Smith
Kestrel Institute
August 2, 2017
TCP-ENO: Encryption Negotiation Option
draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-09
Abstract
Despite growing adoption of TLS, 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 February 3, 2018.
Bittau, et al. Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft tcpeno August 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Design goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. TCP-ENO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. ENO option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. The global suboption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. TCP-ENO roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Specifying suboption data length . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. The negotiated TEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. TCP-ENO handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.7. Data in SYN segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.8. Negotiation transcript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Requirements for TEPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Session IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Future developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Design rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1. Handshake robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Suboption data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.3. Passive role bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.4. Use of ENO option kind by TEPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Show full document text