TLS Ticket Requests
draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-00
Network Working Group T. Pauly
Internet-Draft Apple Inc.
Intended status: Informational D. Schinazi
Expires: July 22, 2019 Google LLC
C. Wood
Apple Inc.
January 18, 2019
TLS Ticket Requests
draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-00
Abstract
TLS session tickets enable stateless connection resumption for
clients without server-side per-client state. Servers vend session
tickets to clients, at their discretion, upon connection
establishment. Clients store and use tickets when resuming future
connections. Moreover, clients should use tickets at most once for
session resumption, especially if such keying material protects early
application data. Single-use tickets bound the number of parallel
connections a client may initiate by the number of tickets received
from a given server. To address this limitation, this document
describes a mechanism by which clients may specify the desired number
of tickets needed for future connections.
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 July 22, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Pauly, et al. Expires July 22, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TLS Ticket Requests January 2019
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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Ticket Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
As per [RFC5077], and as described in [RFC8446], TLS servers send
clients session tickets at their own discretion in NewSessionTicket
messages. Clients are in complete control of how many tickets they
may use when establishing future and subsequent connections. For
example, clients may open multiple TLS connections to the same server
for HTTP, or may race TLS connections across different network
interfaces. The latter is especially useful in transport systems
that implement Happy Eyeballs [RFC8305]. Since connection
concurrency and resumption is controlled by clients, a standard
mechanism to request more than one ticket is desirable.
This document specifies a new TLS extension - ticket_request - that
may be used by clients to express their desired number of session
tickets. Servers may use this extension as a hint of the number of
NewSessionTicket messages to vend. This extension is only applicable
to TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] and future versions of TLS.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
as shown here.
Pauly, et al. Expires July 22, 2019 [Page 2]
Show full document text