File-Like ICN Collections (FLIC)
draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-04
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (icnrg RG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Christian Tschudin , Christopher A. Wood , Marc Mosko , David R. Oran | ||
| Last updated | 2022-10-24 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Experimental | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | IRTF state | Active RG Document | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-04
ICNRG C. Tschudin
Internet-Draft University of Basel
Intended status: Experimental C.A. Wood
Expires: 27 April 2023 Cloudflare
M.E. Mosko
PARC, Inc.
D. Oran, Ed.
Network Systems Research & Design
24 October 2022
File-Like ICN Collections (FLIC)
draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-04
Abstract
This document describes a simple "index table" data structure and its
associated Information Centric Networking (ICN) data objects for
organizing a set of primitive ICN data objects into a large, File-
Like ICN Collection (FLIC). At the core of this collection is a
_manifest_ which acts as the collection's root node. The manifest
contains an index table with pointers, each pointer being a hash
value pointing to either a final data block or another index table
node.
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 27 April 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. FLIC as an ICN experimental tool . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. FLIC Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Name Constructors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Manifest Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5. Pointer Annotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6. Manifest Grammar (ABNF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7. Manifest Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.7.1. Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.8. Manifest Encryption Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.8.1. AEAD Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.8.2. RSA-OAEP Key Transport Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.9. Protocol Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.9.1. CCNx Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.9.1.1. CCNx Hash Naming Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.9.1.2. CCNx Single Prefix Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.9.1.3. CCNx Segmented Prefix Strategy . . . . . . . . . 22
3.9.1.4. CCNx Hybrid Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.9.2. NDN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.9.2.1. NDN Hash Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.9.2.2. NDN Single Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.9.2.3. NDN Segmented Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.9.2.4. NDN Hybrid Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.10. Example Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.10.1. Leaf-only data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.10.2. Linear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4. Experimenting with FLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. Usage Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1. Locating FLIC leaf and manifest nodes . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2. Seeking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3. Block-level de-duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.4. Growing ICN collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.5. Re-publishing a FLIC under a new name . . . . . . . . . . 30
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.1. FLIC Payload Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.2. FLIC Manifest Metadata and Annotation TLVs . . . . . . . 32
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.1. Integrity and Origin Authentication of FLIC Manifests . . 33
7.2. Confidentiality of Manifest Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.3. Privacy of names and linkability of access patterns . . . 34
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix A. Building Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Introduction
ICN architectures, such as Content-Centric Networking (CCNx)[RFC8569]
and Named Data Networking [NDN], are well suited for static content
distribution. Each piece of (possibly immutable) static content is
assigned a name by its producer. Consumers fetch this content using
said name. Optionally, consumers may specify the full name of
content, which includes its name and a unique (with overwhelming
probability) cryptographic digest of said content.
| Note: The reader is assumed to be familiar with general ICN
| concepts from CCNx or NDN. For general ICN terms, this
| document uses the terminology defined in [RFC7927]. Where more
| specificity is needed, we utilize CCNx [RFC8569] terminology
| where a Content Object is the data structure that holds
| application payload. Terms defined specifically for FLIC are
| enumerated below in Section 3.1.
To enable requests with full names, consumers need a priori knowledge
of content digests. A Manifest, a form of catalog, is a data
structures commonly employed to store and transport this information.
Typically, ICN manifests are signed content objects (data) which
carry a collection of hash digests. As content objects, a manifest
itself may be fetched by full name. A manifest may contain either
hash digests of, or pointers to, either other manifests or content
objects. A collection of manifests and content objects represents a
large piece of application data, e.g., one that cannot otherwise fit
in a single content object. Because a manifest contains a collection
of hashes, it is by definition non-circular because one cannot hash
the manifest before filling it in.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
Structurally, this relationship between manifests and content objects
is reminiscent of the UNIX inode concept with index tables and memory
pointers. In this document, we specify a simple, yet extensible,
manifest data structure called FLIC - _File-Like ICN Collection_.
FLIC is suitable for ICN protocol suites such as CCNx and NDN. We
describe the FLIC design, grammar, and various use cases, e.g.,
ordered fetch, seeking, de-duplication, extension, and variable-sized
encoding. We also include FLIC encoding examples for CCNx and NDN.
The purpose of a manifest is to concisely name, and hence point to,
the constiuent pieces of a larger object. A FLIC manifest does this
by using a _root_ manifest to name and cryptographically sign the
data structure and then use concise lists of hash-based names to
indicate the constituent pieces. This maintains strong security from
a single signature. A Manifest entry gives one enough information to
create an _Interest_ for that entry, so it must specify the name, the
hash digest, and if needed, the locators.
FLIC is a distributed data structure illustrated by the following
picture.
root manifest
.------------------------------------.
| optional name: |
| /icn/name/of/this/flic |
| |
| HashGroup (HG): |
| optional metadata: |
| overall digest, locator, etc. | .------.
| hash-valued data pointer -----------> | data |
| ... | `------' sub manifest
| hash-valued manifest pointer ------. .------------------.
| | `--> | ----->
| optional additional HashGroups | | ----->
| | `------------------'
| optional signature |
`------------------------------------'
Figure 1: A FLIC manifest and its directed acyclic graph
A key design decision is how one names the root manifest, the
application data, and subsidiary manifests. FLIC uses the concept of
a Name Constructor. The root manifest (in fact, any FLIC manifest)
may include a Name Constructor that instructs a manifest reader how
to properly create Interests for the associated application data and
subsidiary manifests. The Name Constructors allow interest
construction using a well-known, application-independent set of
rules. Some name constructor forms are tailored towards specific ICN
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
protocols, such as CCNx or NDN; some are more general and could work
with many protocols. We describe the allowed Name Constructor
methods in Section 3.3. There are also particulars of how to encode
the name schema in a given ICN protocol, which we describe in
Section 3.9.
FLIC has encodings for CCNx (Section 3.9.1) as per RFC 8609 [RFC8609]
and for NDN (Section 3.9.2).
An example implementation in Python may be found at
[FLICImplementation].
1.1. FLIC as an ICN experimental tool
FLIC enables experimentation with how to structure and retrieve large
data objects and collections in ICN. By having a common data
structure applications can rely on, with a common library of code
that can be used to create and parse manifest data structures,
applications using ICN protocols can both avoid unnecessary
reinvention and also have enhanced interoperability. Since the
design attempts to balance simplicity, universality, and
extensibility, there are a number of important experimental goals to
achieve that may wind up in conflict with one another. We provide a
partial list of these experimental issues in Section 4. It is also
important for users of FLIC to understand that some flexibility and
extensions might be removed if use cases do not materialize to
justify their inclusion in an eventual standard.
1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Design Overview
The FLIC design adopts the proven UNIX inode concept of direct and
indirect pointers, but without the specific structural forms of
direct versus indirect. FLIC is a collection of pointers, and when
one de-references the pointer it could be an application object or
another FLIC manifest. The pointers in FLIC use hash-based naming of
Content Objects analogous to the function block numbers play in UNIX
inodes.
Because FLIC uses hash-based pointers as names, FLIC graphs are
inherently acyclic. Both CCNx and NDN support hash-based naming,
though the details differ (see Section 3.9.1 and Section 3.9.2).
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
The FLIC datastructure is an acyclic digraph of Content Objects. In
this document, our examples are trees, but that is not a requirement.
For example, a de-duplication representation might have a common
object with many 0s and that object could be references from multiple
places in the tree. As another example, there could be a common sub-
collection of objects organized in a Manifest, and that sub-manifest
could be included in multiple places.
In FLIC terms, a direct pointer links to application-level data,
which is a Content Object with application data in the Payload. An
indirect pointer links to a Content Object with a FLIC Manifest in
the Payload.
| Note: A substantial advantage of using hash-based naming is
| that it permits block-level de-duplication of application data
| because two blocks with the same payload will have the same
| hash name.
The FLIC structure that is expected most applications would use
consists of a root manifest with a strong cryptographic signature and
then cryptographically strong (e.g. SHA256 [SHS]) hash names as
pointers to other manifests. The advantage of this structure is that
the single signature in the root manifest covers the entire data
structure no matter how many additional manifests are in the data
structure. Another advantage of this structure is it removes the
need to use chunk (CCNx) or segment (NDN) name components for the
subordinate manifests.
Another usage is to have a signed Root Manifest with a single pointer
to the Top Manifest. The Top Manifest maybe a CCNx Nameless object.
This method allows an intermediary service to respond to client
requests with its own signed Manifest that then points to a small
Root manifest. The client trusts the intermediary's reponse because
of the intermediary's signature, and then trusts the content because
of the Root manifest. In some cases, the intermediary could embed
the Root Manifest (because it is small) and avoid additional round
trips before beginning download. This technique is used in a
peer-to-peer sharing protocol [ProjectOrigin].
FLIC supports manifest encryption separate from application payload
encryption (See Section 3.8). It has a flexible encryption envelope
to support various encryption algorithms and key discovery
mechanisms. The byte layout allows for in-place encryption and
decryption.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
A limitation of this approach is that one cannot construct a hash-
based name for a child until one knows the payload of that child. In
practical terms, this means that one must have the complete
application payload available at the time of manifest creation.
FLIC's design allows straightforward applications that just need to
traverse a linear set of related objects to do so simply, but FLIC
has two extensibility mechanisms that allow for more sophisticated
uses: manifest metadata, and pointer annotations. These are
described in Section 3.4 and Section 3.5 respectively.
FLIC goes to considerable lengths to allow creation and parsing by
application-independent library code. Therefore, any options used by
applications in the data structure or encryption capabilities MUST
NOT require applications to have application-specific Manifest
traversal algorithms. This ensures that such application agnostic
libraries can always successfully parse and traverse any FLIC
Manifest by ignoring the optional capabilities.
The reader may find it useful to refer to Section Example Usages
(Section 5) from time to time to see worked out examples.
3. FLIC Structure
3.1. Terminology
Data Object: a CCNx nameless Content Object that usually only has
Payload. It might also have an ExpiryTime to limit the lifetime
of the data.
Direct Pointer: borrowed from inode terminology, it is a CCNx link
using a content object hash restriction and a locator name to
point to a Data Object.
Hash Group: KA collection of pointers. A Manifest should have
atleast one Hash Group. A Hash Group may have its own associated
meta data and Name Constructor.
Indirect Pointer: borrowed from inode terminology, it is a CCNx link
using a content object hash restriction and a locator name to
point to a manifest content object.
Internal Manifest: some or all pointers are indirect. The order and
number of each is up to the manifest builder. By convention, all
the direct manifests come first, then the indirect.
Leaf Manifest: all pointers are direct pointers.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
Locator: A routing hint in an Interest used by forwarding to get the
Interest to where it can be matched based on its Name Constructor-
derived name.
Manifest: a CCNx ContentObject with PayloadType 'Manifest' and a
Payload of the encoded manifest. A leaf manifest only has direct
pointers. An internal manifest has a mixture of direct and
indirect pointers.
Manifest Waste: a metric used to measure the amount of waste in a
manifest tree. Waste is the number of unused pointers. For
example, a leaf manifest might be able to hold 40 direct pointers,
but only 30 of them are used, so the waste of this node is 10.
Manifest tree waste is the sum of waste over all manifests in a
tree.
Name Constructor: The specification of how to construct an Interest
for a Manifest entry.
Root Manifest: A signed, named, manifest that points to nameless
manifest nodes. This structure means that the internal tree
structure of internal and leaf manifests have no names and thus
may be located anywhere in a namespace, while the root manifest
has a name to fetch it by.
Top Manifest: One useful manifest structure is to use a Root
manifest that points to a single Internal manifest called the Top
Manifest. The Top manifest the begins the structure used to
organize manifests. It is also possible to elide the two and use
only a root manifest that also serves in the role of the top
manifest.
3.2. Locators
Locators are routing hints used by forwarders to get an Interest to a
node in the network that can resolve the Interest's name. In some
naming conventions, the name might only be a hash-based name so the
Locator is the only available routing information. Locators exist in
both CCNx and NDN, though the specific protocol mechanisms differ. A
FLIC manifest represents locators in the same way for both ICN
protocols inside Name Constructors (Section 3.3), though they are
encoded differently in the underlying protocol. See Section 3.9 for
encoding differences.
A manifest Node may define one or more Locator prefixes that can be
used in the construction of Interests from the pointers in the
manifest. The Locators are inherited when walking a manifest tree,
so they do not need to be defined everywhere. It is RECOMMENDED that
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
only the Root manifest contain Locators so that a single operation
can update the locators. One use case when storing application
payloads at different replicas is to replace the Root manifest with a
new one that contains locators for the current replicas.
3.3. Name Constructors
A Manifest may define zero or more name constructors in
NameConstructorDefinitions (NCD) located in the Manifest Node. An
NCD associates a Name Constructor Id (NCID) to a Name Constructor.
The NCID is used in other parts of the Manifest to refer to that
specific definition.
A manifest organizes pointers inside Hash Groups. Each Hash Group
uses an NCID to indicate what Name Constructor to use to fetch the
pointers inside the group.
NCID 0 is the default name constructor. If it is not defined in an
NCD, it is assumed to be a HashNamingConstructor. A Manifest may re-
define the default as needed.
A Manifest MUST use locally unique NCIDs in the NCD.
NCDs and their associated NCIDs are inherited as one traverses a
manifest. That is, a manifest consumer must remember the NCDs as it
traverses manifests. If it encounters a HashGroup that uses an
unknown NCID, the RECOMMENDED action is to report a malformed
manifest to the user.
A Manifest may update an NCID. If a child manifest re-defines an
NCID, the manifest consumer MUST use the new definition from that
point forward under that Manifest branch.
It is RECOMMENDED that only the root or similar top-level manifest
define NCDs and they not be re-defined in subsequent manifests.
We expect that an application constructing a Manifest will take one
of three approaches to name constructors. The advantage of using, or
re-defining, the default name constructor is that any hash groups
that use it do not need to specify an NCID and thus might save some
space.
* A manifest might define (or use) a default name constructor and
mix subsequent Manifest and Data objects under that same
namespace. The manifest only needs to use one Hash Group and can
freely mix Manifest and Data pointers.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
* A manifest might define (or use) a default name constructor for
subsequent Manifests and define a second NCD for the application
data. This places all subsequent manifests under the default
constructor and places all application data under the second NCD.
The Manifest must use at least two Hash Groups.
There are a few options on how to organize the Hash Groups:
(1) Manifest Hash Group followed by Data Hash group,
(2) Data Hash Group followed by Manifest Hash Group,
(3) Intermix multiple manifest and data hash groups for
interleaved reading, or
(4) use a data-on-leaf only approach: the interior manifests
would use the manifest hash group and the leaves would use
the data hash group. Other organizations are possible.
* Define multiple NCDs for subsequent manifests and data, or not use
the default NCD, or use some other organization.
In this specification, we define the following four types of Name
Constructors. Additional name constructor types may be specified in
a subsequent revision of the specification. Here, we informally
define the name constructors. Section 3.6 specifies the encoding of
each name constructor.
Type 0 (Interest-Derived Naming): Use whatever name was used in the
Interest to retrieve this Manifest, less a hash component, and
append the desired hash value.
Type 1 (Data-Derived Naming): Use the Manifest Name, less a hash
component, as the Interest name, and append the desired hash
value.
Type 2 (Prefix List): The NCD specifies a list of 1 or more name
prefixes. The consumer may use any (or all) of those prefixes
with the desired hash appended.
Type 3 (Segmented Naming): As in Type 2, but the consumer MUST track
Segment Numbers. If the Hash Group provides Segment Number
annotations for each pointer, it MUST use those numbers.
Otherwise, the consumer MUST use a 0-based counter that follows
the traversal order.
In Type 0, the consumer uses some name N to fetch a manifest. When
the consumer receives the Manifest back, it begins issuing interests
for the content using the same name N, but with the hash pointers
from the manifest.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
In Type 1, the consumer uses some name N to fetch a manifest. The
consumer receives a manifest back with name M inside the Manifest
Content Object. The consumer then uses the name M plus hash pointers
from the manifest.
In Type 2, the consumer receives a manifest and begins traversing it.
If it visits a Hash Group with a PrefixSchema Name Constructor, then
that Name Constructor provides a list of 1 or more locators to use.
The consumer may use any or all of the provided locators, plus the
hash pointer, to fetch the contents.
In Type 3, if a Hash Group has a SegmentedSchema Name Constructor,
then the consumer uses the same mechanism as Type 2, but with the
addition of a Segment Number in the name. Segmented naming is only
compatible with deterministic traversal orders or if the Manifest
provides Segment Number annotations for each pointer. If the Hash
Group provides hints about other traversal orders, then it must also
provide Segment Number annotations for each prefix.
3.4. Manifest Metadata
The FLIC Manifest may be extended by defining TLVs that apply to the
Manifest as a whole, or alternatively, individually to every data
object pointed to by the Manifest. This basic specification does not
specify any, but metadata TLVs may be defined through additional RFCs
or via Vendor TLVs. FLIC uses a Vendor TLV structure identical to
[RFC8609] for vendor-specific annotations that require no
standardization process.
For example, some applications may find it useful to allow
specialized consumers such as _repositories_ (for example
[repository]) or enhanced forwarder caches to pre-place, or
adaptively pre-fetch data in order to improve robustness and/or
retrieval latency. Metadata can supply hints to such entities about
what subset of the compound object to fetch and in what order.
| Note: FLICs ability to use separate namespaces for the Manifest
| and the underlying Data allows different encryption keys to be
| used, hence giving a network element like a cache or repository
| access to the Manifest data does not as a side effect reveal
| the contents of the application data itself.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
3.5. Pointer Annotations
FLIC allows each manifest pointer to be annotated with extra data.
Annotations allow applications to exploit metadata about each Data
Object pointed to without having to first fetch the corresponding
Content Object. This specification defines one such annotation. The
_SizeAnnotation_ specifies the number of application layer octets
covered by the pointer.
An annotation may, for example, give hints about a desirable
traversal order for fetching the data, or an importance/precedence
indication to aid applications that do not require every content
object pointed to in the manifest to be fetched. This can be very
useful for real-time or streaming media applications that can perform
error concealment when rendering the media.
Additional annotations may be defined through additional RFCs or via
Vendor TLVs. FLIC uses a Vendor TLV structure identical to [RFC8609]
for vendor-specific annotations that require no standardization
process.
3.6. Manifest Grammar (ABNF)
The manifest grammar is mostly, but not entirely independent of the
ICN protocol used to encode and transport it. The TLV encoding
therefore follows the corresponding ICN protocol, so for CCNx FLIC
uses 2 octet length, 2 octet type and for NDN uses the 1/3/5 octet
types and lengths (see [NDNTLV] for details). There are also some
differences in how one structures and resolves links. [RFC8569]
defines HashValue and Link for CCNx encodings. The NDN
ImplicitSha256DigestComponent defines HashValue and NDN Delegation
(from Link Object) defines Link for NDN. Section 3.9 below specifies
these differences.
The basic structure of a FLIC manifest comprises a security context,
a node, and an authentication tag. The security context and
authentication tag are not needed if the node is unencrypted. A node
is made up of a set of metadata, the NodeData, that applies to the
entire node, and one or more HashGroups that contain pointers.
The NodeData element defines the namespaces used by the manifest.
There may be multiple namespaces, depending on how one names
subsequent manifests or data objects. Each HashGroup may reference a
single namespace to control how one forms Interests from the
HashGroup. If one is using separate namespaces for manifests and
application data, one needs at least two hash groups. For a manifest
structure of "MMMDDD," (where M means manifest (indirect pointer) and
D means data (direct pointer)) for example, one would have a first
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
HashGroup for the child manifests with its namespace and a second
HashGroup for the data pointers with the other namespace. If one
used a structure like "MMMDDDMMM," then one would need three hash
groups.
TYPE = 2OCTET / {1,3,5}OCTET ; As per CCNx or NDN TLV
LENGTH = 2OCTET / {1,3,5}OCTET ; As per CCNx or NDN TLV
Manifest = TYPE LENGTH [SecurityCtx] (EncryptedNode / Node) [AuthTag]
SecurityCtx = TYPE LENGTH AlgorithmCtx
AlgorithmCtx = AEADCtx / RsaKemCtx
AuthTag = TYPE LENGTH *OCTET ; e.g. AEAD authentication tag
EncryptedNode = TYPE LENGTH *OCTET ; Encrypted Node
Node = TYPE LENGTH [NodeData] 1*HashGroup
NodeData = TYPE LENGTH [SubtreeSize] [SubtreeDigest] [Locators]
0*Vendor 0*NcDef
SubtreeSize = TYPE LENGTH INTEGER
SubtreeDigest = TYPE LENGTH HashValue
NcDef = TYPE LENGTH NcId NcSchema
NcId = TYPE LENGTH INTEGER
NcSchema = InterestDerivedSchema / DataDerivedSchema /
PrefixSchema / SegmentedSchema
InterestDerivedSchema = TYPE LENGTH [ProtocolFlags]
DataDerivedSchema = TYPE LENGTH [ProtocolFlags]
PrefixSchema = TYPE LENGTH Locators [ProtocolFlags]
SegmentedSchema = TYPE LENGTH Locators [ProtocolFlags]
Locators = TYPE LENGTH 1*Link
HashValue = TYPE LENGTH *OCTET ; As per ICN Protocol
Link = TYPE LENGTH *OCTET ; As per ICN protocol
ProtocolFlags = TYPE LENGTH *OCTET
; ICN-specific flags, e.g. must be fresh
HashGroup = TYPE LENGTH [GroupData] (Ptrs / AnnotatedPtrs)
Ptrs = TYPE LENGTH *HashValue
AnnotatedPtrs = TYPE LENGTH *PointerBlock
PointerBlock = TYPE LENGTH *Annotation Ptr
Ptr = TYPE LENGTH HashValue
Annotation = SizeAnnotation / Vendor
SizeAnnotation = TYPE LENGTH Integer
Vendor = TYPE LENGTH PEN *OCTET
GroupData = TYPE LENGTH [NcId] [LeafSize] [LeafDigest]
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
[SubtreeSize] [SubtreeDigest]
LeafSize = TYPE LENGTH INTEGER
LeafDigest = TYPE LENGTH HashValue
AEADCtx = TYPE LENGTH AEADData
AEADData = KeyNum AEADNonce Mode
KeyNum = TYPE LENGTH INTEGER
AEADNonce = TYPE LENGTH 1*OCTET
AEADMode = TYPE LENGTH (AEAD_AES_128_GCM / AEAD_AES_256_GCM /
AEAD_AES_128_CCM / AEAD_AES_128_CCM)
RsaKemCtx = 2 LENGTH RsaKemData
RsaKemData = KeyId AEADNonce AEADMode WrappedKey LocatorPrefix
KeyId = TYPE LENGTH HashValue; ID of Key Encryption Key
WrappedKey = TYPE LENGTH 1*OCTET
LocatorPrefix = TYPE LENGTH Link
Figure 2: FLIC Grammar
SecurityCtx: information about how to decrypt an EncryptedNode. The
structure will depend on the specific encryption algorithm.
AlgorithmId: The ID of the encryption method (e.g. preshared key, a
broadcast encryption scheme, etc.)
AlgorithmData: The context for the encryption algorithm.
EncryptedNode: An opaque octet string with an optional
authentication tag (i.e. for AEAD authentication tag)
Node: A plain-text manifest node. The structure allows for in-place
encryption/decryption.
NodeData: the metadata about the Manifest node
SubtreeSize: The size of all application data at and below the Node
or Group
SubtreeDigest: The cryptographic digest of all application data at
and below the Node or Group
Locators: An array of routing hints to find the manifest components
HashGroup: A set of child pointers and associated metadata
Ptrs: A list of one or more Hash Values
GroupData: Metadata that applies to a HashGroup
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
LeafSize: Size of all application data immediately under the Group
(i.e. via direct pointers)
LeafDigest: Digest of all application data immediately under the
Group
Ptr: The ContentObjectHash of a child, which may be a data
ContentObject (i.e. with Payload) or another Manifest Node.
3.7. Manifest Trees
3.7.1. Traversal
FLIC manifests use a pre-order traversal. This means they are read
top to bottom, left to right. The algorithms in Figure 3 show the
pre-order forward traversal code and the reverse-order traversal
code, which we use below to construct such a tree. This document
does not mandate how to build trees. Appendix A provides a detailed
example of building inode-like trees.
If using Annotated Pointers, an annotation could influence the
traversal order.
preorder(node)
if (node = null)
return
visit(node)
for (i = 0, i < node.child.length, i++)
preorder(node.child[i])
reverse_preorder(node)
if (node = null)
return
for (i = node.child.length - 1, i >= 0, i-- )
reverse_preorder(node.child[i]) visit(node)
Figure 3: Traversal Pseudocode
In terms of the FLIC grammar, one expands a node into its hash
groups, visiting each hash group in order. In each hash group, one
follows each pointer in order. Figure 4 shows how hash groups inside
a manifest expand like virtual children in the tree. The in-order
traversal is M0, HG1, M1, HG3, D0, D1, D2, HG2, D3, D4.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
M0 ____
| \
HG1 HG2
| \ | \
M1 D2 D3 D4
|
HG3
| \
D0 D1
Figure 4: Node Expansion
Using the example manifest tree shown in Figure 6, the in-order
traversal would be: Root, M0, M1, D0, D1, D2, M2, D3, D4, D5, M3, D6,
D7, D8.
3.8. Manifest Encryption Modes
This document specifies two encryption modes. The first is a
preshared key mode, where the parties are assumed to have the
decryption keys already. It uses AES-GCM or AES-CCM. This is
useful, for example, when using a key agreement protocol such as
CCNxKE [I-D.wood-icnrg-ccnxkeyexchange]. The second is an RSA key
encapsulation mode (RsaKem [RFC5990]), which may be used for group
keying.
Additional modes may be defined in subsequent specifications. We
expect that an RSA KemDem mode and Elliptic Curve mode should be
specified.
All encryption modes use standard encryption algorithms and
specifications. Where appropriate, we adopt the TLS 1.2 standards
for how to use the encryption algorithms. This section specifies how
to encode algorithm parameters or ICN-specific data.
For group key based encryption, we use RsaKem. This specification
only details the pertinent aspects of the encryption. It describes
how a consumer locates the appropriate keys in the ICN namespace. It
does not specify aspects of a key manager which may or may not be
used as part of key distribution and management, nor does it specify
the protocol between a key manager and a publisher. In its simpliest
form, the publisher could be the key manager, in which case there is
no extra protocol needed between the publisher and key manager.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
While the preshared key algorithm is limited in use, the AES
encryption mode described applies to the group key mechanisms too.
The group key mechanism facilitates the distribution of the shared
key without an on-line key agreement protocol like (the expired
draft) CCNxKE [I-D.wood-icnrg-ccnxkeyexchange].
3.8.1. AEAD Mode
This mechanism uses AES-GEM [AESGCM] or AES-CCM [RFC3310] for
manifest encryption. A publisher creating a SecurityCtx SHOULD use
the mechanisms in [RFC6655] for AES-CCM Nonce generation and
[RFC5288] for AES-GCM Nonce generation.
As these references specify, it is essential that the publisher
creating a Manifest never use a Nonce more than once for the same
key. For keys exchanged via a session protocol, such as CCNx, the
publisher MUST use unique nonces on each Manifest for that session.
If the key is derived via a group key mechanism, the publisher MUST
ensure that the same Nonce is not used more than once for the same
Content Encryption Key.
The AEAD Mode uses [RFC5116] defined symbols AEAD_AES_128_CCM,
AEAD_AES_128_GCM, AEAD_AES_256_CCM and AEAH_AES_256_GCM to specify
the key length and algorithm.
The KeyNum identifies a key on the receiver. The key MUST be exactly
of the length specific by the Mode. Many receivers may have the same
key with the same KeyNum.
When a Consumer reads a manifest that specifies a KeyNum, the
consumer SHOULD verify that the Manifest's publisher is an expected
one for the KeyNum's usage. This trust mechanism employed to
ascertain whether the publisher is expected is beyond the scope of
this document, but we provide an outline of one such possible trust
mechanism. When a consumer learns a shared key and KeyNum, it
associates that KeyNum with the publisher ID used in a public key
signature. When the consumer receives a signed manifest (e.g. the
root manifest of a manifest tree), the consumer matches the KeyNum's
publisher with the Manifest's publisher.
Each encrypted manifest node has a full security context (KeyNum,
Nonce, Mode). The AEAD decryption is independent for each manifest
so Manifest objects can be fetched and decrypted in any order. This
design also ensures that if a manifest tree points to the same
subtree repeatedly, such as for deduplication, the decryptions are
all idempotent.
To encrypt a Manifest, the publisher:
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
1. Removes any SecurityCtx or AuthTag from the Manifest.
2. Creates a SecurityCtx and adds it to the Manifest.
3. Treats the Manifest TLV through the end of the Node TLV Length as
unencrypted authenticated Header. That includes anything from
the start of the Manifest up to but not including the start of
the Node's body.
4. Treats the body of the Node to the end of the Manifest as
encrypted data.
5. Appends the AEAD AuthTag to the end of the Manifest, increasing
the Manifest's length
6. Changes the TLV type of the Node to EncryptedNode.
To decrypt a Manifest, the consumer:
1. Verifies that the KeyNum exists and the publisher is trusted for
that KeyNum.
2. Saves the AuthTag and removes it from the Manifest, decreasing
the Manifest length.
3. Changes the EncryptedNode type to Node.
4. Treats everything from the Manifest TLV through the end of the
Node Length as unencrypted authenticated Header. That is, all
bytes from the start of the Manifest up to but not including the
start of the Node's body.
5. Treats the body of the Node to the end of the Manifest as
encrypted data.
6. Verifies and decrypts the data using the key and saved AuthTag.
7. If the decryption fails, the consumer SHOULD notify the user and
stop further processing of the manifest.
3.8.2. RSA-OAEP Key Transport Mode
The RSA-OAEP mode uses RSA-OAEP (see RFC8017 Sec 7.1 [RFC8017] and
[RSAKEM]) to encrypt a symmetric key that is used to encrypt the
Manifest. We call this RSA key the Key Encryption Key (KEK) and each
group member has this private key. A separate key distribuiton
system is responsible for distributing the KEK. For our purposes, it
is reasonable to assume that the KEK private key is available at a
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
Locator and that group members can decrypt this private key.
The symmetric key MUST be one that is compatible with the AEAD Mode,
i.e. a 128-bit or 256-bit random number. Further, the symmetric key
MUST fit in the OAEP envelope (which will be true for normal-sized
keys).
Any group key protocol and system needed are outside the scope of
this document. We assume there is a Key Manager (KM) and a Publisher
(P) and a set of group members. Through some means, the Publisher
therefore has at its disposal:
* A Content Encryption Key (CEK), i.e. the symmetric key.
* The RSA-OAEP wrapped CEK.
* The KeyId of the KEK used to wrap the CEK.
* The Locator of the KEK, which is shared under some group key
protocol.
This Manifest specification requires that if a group member fetches
the KEK key at Locator it can decrypt the WrappedKey and retrieve the
CEK.
In one example, a publisher could request a key for a group and the
Key Manager could securely communicate (CEK, Wapped_CEK, KeyId,
Locator) back to the publisher. The Key Manager is responsible for
publishing the Locator. In another example, the publisher could be a
group member and have a group private key in which case the publisher
can create their own key encryption key, publish it under the Locator
and proceed. The publisher generates CEK, Wrapped_CEK, KeyId, and a
Locator on its own.
To create the wrapped key using a Key Encryption Key:
1. Obtain the CEK in binary format (e.g. 32 bytes for 256 bits)
2. RSA encrypt the CEK using the KEK public key with OAEP padding,
following RFC8017 Sec 7.1 [RFC8017]. The encryption is not
signed because the root Manifest must have been signed by the
publisher already.
To decrypt the wrapped key using a Key Encryption Key:
1. RSA decrypt the WrappedKey using the KEK private key with OAEP
padding, following RFC8017 Sec 7.1 [RFC8017].
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
2. Verify the unwrapped key is a valid length for the AEADMode.
To encrypt a Manifest, the publisher:
1. Acquires the set of (CEK, Wrapped_CEK, KeyId, Locator).
2. Creates a SecurityCtx and adds it to the Manifest. The
SecurityCtx includes an AEADNonce and AEADMode, as per AEAD mode.
3. Encrypts the Manifest as per AEAD Mode using the RSA-OAEP
SecurityCtx and CEK.
To decrypt a Manifest, the consumer:
1. Acquires the KEK from the Key Locator. If the consumer already
has a cached copy of the KeyId in memory, it may use that cached
key.
2. SHOULD verify that it trusts the Manifest publisher to use the
provided key Locator.
3. Decrypts the WrappedKey to get the CEK. If the consumer has
already decrypted the same exact WrappedKey TLV block, it may use
that cached CEK.
4. Using the CEK, AEADNonce, and AEADMode, decrypt the Manifest as
per AEAD Mode, ignoring the KeyNum steps.
3.9. Protocol Encodings
3.9.1. CCNx Encoding
In CCNx, application data content objects use a PayloadType of
T_PAYLOADTYPE_DATA. In order to clearly distinguish FLIC Manifests
from application data, a different payload type is required.
Therefore this specification defines a new payload type of
T_PAYLOADTYPE_FLIC.
ManifestContentObject = TYPE LENGTH [Name] [ExpiryTime] PayloadType Payload
Name = TYPE LENGTH *OCTET ; As per RFC8569
ExpiryTime = TYPE LENGTH *OCTET ; As per RFC8569
PayloadType = TYPE LENGTH T_PAYLOADTYPE_FLIC ; Value TBD
Payload : TYPE LENGTH *OCTET ; the serialized Manifest object
Figure 5: CCNx Embedding Grammar
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
3.9.1.1. CCNx Hash Naming Strategy
The Hash Naming Strategy uses CCNx nameless content objects. This
means that only the Root Manifest should have a name embedded in the
Content object. All other are CCNx nameless objects. The Manifest
should provide a set of Locators that the client may use to form the
Interests.
It proceeds as follows:
* The Root Manifest content object bound to a name assigned by the
publisher and signed by the publisher. It also may have a set of
Locators used to fetch the remainder of the manifest. The root
manifest has a single HashPointer that points to the Top Manifest.
It may also have cache control directives, such as ExpiryTime.
* The Root Manifest has an NsDef that specifies HashSchema. Its
GroupData uses that NsId. All internal and leaf manifests use the
same GroupData NsId. A Manifest Tree MAY omit the NsDef and NsId
elements and rely on the default being HashSchema.
* The Top Manifest is a nameless CCNx content object. It may have
cache control directies.
* Internal and Leaf manifests are nameless CCNx content objects,
possibly with cache control directives.
* The Data content objects are nameless CCNx content objects,
possibly with cache control directives.
* To form an Interest for a direct or indirect pointer, use a Name
from one of the Locators and put the pointer HashValue into the
ContentObjectHashRestriction.
3.9.1.2. CCNx Single Prefix Strategy
The Single Prefix strategy uses a named Root manifest and then all
other data and sub-manifest objects use the same Name. They are
differentiated only by their hash.
It proceeds as follows:
* The Root Manifest content object has a name used to fetch the
manifest. It is signed by the publisher. It has a single Locator
used to fetch the remainder of the manifest using the commong
Single Prefix name. It has a single HashPointer that points to
the Top Manifest. It may also have cache control directives, such
as ExpiryTime.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
* The Root Manifest has an NsDef that specifies PrefixSchema with
the Locator for the single prefix.
* The Top Manifest has the name SinglePrefixName. It may have cache
control directies. Its GroupData elements must have an NsId that
references the NsDef.
* An Internal or Leaf manifest has the name SinglePrefixName,
possibly with cache control directives. Its GroupData elements
must have an NsId that references the NsDef.
* The Data content objects have the name SinglePrefixName, possibly
with cache control directives.
* To form an Interest for a direct or indirect pointer, use
SinglePrefixName as the Name and put the pointer HashValue into
the ContentObjectHashRestriction.
3.9.1.3. CCNx Segmented Prefix Strategy
The Segmented Prefix schema uses a different name in all Content
Objects and distinguishes them via their ContentObjectHash. Note
that in CCNx, using a SegmentedPrefixSchema means that only the Root
Manifest has a Locator for the Segmented Prefix (minus the segment
number).
| *Optional*: Use AnnotatedPointers to indicate the segment
| number of each hash pointer to avoid needing to infer the
| segment numbers.
It proceeds as follows:
* The Root Manifest content object has a name used to fetch the
manifest. It is signed by the publisher. It has a set of
Locators used to fetch the remainder of the manifest. It has a
single HashPointer that points to the Top Manifest. It may also
have cache control directives, such as ExpiryTime.
* The Root Manifest has an NsDef that specifies SegmentedPrefix and
the SegmentedPrefixSchema element specifies the
SegmentedPrefixName.
* The publisher tracks the chunk number of each content object
within the NsId. Objects are be numbered in their traversal
order. Within each manifest, the name can be constructed from the
SegmentedPrefixName plus a Chunk name component.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
* The Top Manifest has the name SegmentedPrefixName plus chunk
number. It may have cache control directies. It's GroupData
elements must have an NsId that references the NsDef.
* An Internal or Leaf manifest has the name SegmentedPrefixName plus
chunk number, possibly with cache control directives. Its
GroupData elements must have an NsId that references the NsDef.
* The Data content objects have the name SegmentedPrefixName plus
chunk number, possibly with cache control directives.
* To form an Interest for a direct or indirect pointer, use
SegmentedPrefixName plus chunk number as the Name and put the
pointer HashValue into the ContentObjectHashRestriction. A
consumer must track the chunk number in traversal order for each
SegmentedPrefixSchema NsId.
3.9.1.4. CCNx Hybrid Strategy
A manifest may use multiple schemas. For example, the application
payload in data content objects might use SegmentedPrefix while the
manifest content objects might use HashNaming.
The Root Manifest should specify an NsDef with a first NsId (say 1)
as the HashNaming schema and a second NsDef with a second NsId (say
2) as the SegmentedPrefix schema along with the SegmentedPrefixName.
Each manifest (Top, Internal, Leaf) uses two or more HashGroups,
where each HashGroup has only Direct (with the second NsId) or
Indirect (with the first NsId). The number of hash groups will
depend on how the publisher wishes to interleave direct and indirect
pointers.
Manifests and data objects derive their names according to the
application's naming schema.
3.9.2. NDN Encoding
In NDN, all Manifest Data objects use a ContentType of FLIC (1024),
while all application data content objects use a PayloadType of Blob.
3.9.2.1. NDN Hash Naming
In NDN Hash Naming, a Data Object has a 0-length name. This means
that an Interest will only have an ImplicitDigest name component in
it. This method relies on using NDN Forwarding Hints.
It proceeds as follows:
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
* The Root Manifest Data has a name used to fetch the manifest. It
is signed by the publisher. It has a set of Locators used to
fetch the remainder of the manifest. It has a single HashPointer
that points to the Top Manifest. It may also have cache control
directives.
* The Root Manifest has an NsDef that specifies HashSchema. Its
GroupData uses that NsId. All internal and leaf manifests use the
same GroupData NsId. A Manifest Tree MAY omit the NsDef and NsId
elements and rely on the default being HashSchema.
* The Top Manifest has a 0-length Name. It may have cache control
directies.
* Internal and Leaf manifests has a 0-length Name, possibly with
cache control directives.
* The application Data use a 0-length name, possibly with cache
control directives.
* To form an Interest for a direct or indirect pointer, the name is
only the Implicit Digest name component derived from a pointer's
HashValue. The ForwardingHints come from the Locators. In NDN,
one may use one or more locators within a single Interest.
3.9.2.2. NDN Single Prefix
In Single Prefix, the Data name is a common prefix used between all
objects in that namespace, without a Segment or other counter. They
are distinguished via the Implicit Digest name component. The FLIC
Locators go in the ForwardingHints.
It proceeds as follows:
* The Root Manifest Data object has a name used to fetch the
manifest. It is signed by the publisher. It has a set of
Locators used to fetch the remainder of the manifest. It has a
single HashPointer that points to the Top Manifest. It may also
have cache control directives.
* The Root Manifest has an NsDef that specifies SinglePrefix and the
SinglePrefixSchema element specifies the SinglePrefixName.
* The Top Manifest has the name SinglePrefixName. It may have cache
control directies. Its GroupData elements must have an NsId that
references the NsDef.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
* An Internal or Leaf manifest has the name SinglePrefixName,
possibly with cache control directives. Its GroupData elements
must have an NsId that references the NsDef.
* The Data content objects have the name SinglePrefixName, possibly
with cache control directives.
* To form an Interest for a direct or indirect pointer, use
SinglePrefixName as the Name and append the pointer's HashValue
into an ImplicitDigest name component. Set the ForwardingHints
from the FLIC locators.
3.9.2.3. NDN Segmented Prefix
In Segmented Prefix, the Data name is a common prefix plus a segment
number, so each manifest or application data object has a unique full
name before the implicit digest. This means the consumer must
maintain a counter for each SegmentedPrefix namespace.
| *Optional*: Use AnnotatedPointers to indicate the segment
| number of each hash pointer to avoid needing to infer the
| segment numbers.
It proceeds as follows:
* The Root Manifest Data object has a name used to fetch the
manifest. It is signed by the publisher. It has a set of
Locators used to fetch the remainder of the manifest. It has a
single HashPointer that points to the Top Manifest. It may also
have cache control directives.
* The Root Manifest has an NsDef that specifies SegmentedPrefix and
the SegmentedPrefixSchema element specifies the
SegmentedPrefixName.
* The publisher tracks the segment number of each Data object within
a SegmentedPrefix NsId. Data is numbered in traversal order.
Within each manifest, the name is constructed from the
SegmentedPrefixName plus a Segment name component.
* The Top Manifest has the name SegmentedPrefixName plus segment
number. It may have cache control directies. Its GroupData
elements must have an NsId that references the NsDef.
* An Internal or Leaf manifest has the name SegmentedPrefixName plus
segment number, possibly with cache control directives. Its
GroupData elements must have an NsId that references the NsDef.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
* The Data content objects have the name SegmentedPrefixName plus
chunk number, possibly with cache control directives.
* To form an Interest for a direct or indirect pointer, use
SegmentedPrefixName plus segment number as the Name and put the
pointer HashValue into the ImplicitDigest name component. A
consumer must track the segment number in traversal order for each
SegmentedPrefixSchema NsId.
3.9.2.4. NDN Hybrid Schema
A manifest may use multiple schemas. For example, the application
payload in data content objects might use SegmentedPrefix while the
manifest content objects might use HashNaming.
The Root Manifest should specify an NsDef with a first NsId (say 1)
as the HashNaming schema and a second NsDef with a second NsId (say
2) as the SegmentedPrefix schema along with the SegmentedPrefixName.
Each manifest (Top, Internal, Leaf) uses two or more HashGroups,
where eash HashGroup has only Direct (with the second NsId) or
Indirect (with the first NsId). The number of hash groups will
depend on how the publisher wishes to interleave direct and indirect
pointers.
Manifests and data objects derive their names according to the
application's naming schema.
3.10. Example Structures
3.10.1. Leaf-only data
Root
|
______ M0 _____
/ | \
M1 M2 M3
/ | \ / | \ / | \
D0 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8
Figure 6: Leaf-only manifest tree
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
3.10.2. Linear
Of special interest are "skewed trees" where a pointer to a manifest
may only appear as last pointer of (sub-) manifests. Such a tree
becomes a sequential list of manifests with a maximum of datapointers
per manifest packet. Beside the tree shape we also show this data
structure in form of packet content where D stands for a data pointer
and M is the hash of a manifest packet.
Root -> M0 ----> M1 ----> ...
|->DDDD |->DDDD
4. Experimenting with FLIC
FLIC is expected to enable a number of salient experiments in the use
of ICN protools by applications. These experiments will help not
only to inform the desirable structure of ICN applications but
reflect back to the features included in FLIC to evaluate their
usefulness to those applications. While many interesting design
aspects of FLIC remain to be discovered through experience, a number
of important questions to be answered through experimentation
include:
* use for just files or other collections like directories
* use for particular applications, like streaming media manifests
* utility of pointer annotations to optimize retrieval
* utility of the encryption options for use by repositories and
forwarders
* need for application metadata in manifests
5. Usage Examples
5.1. Locating FLIC leaf and manifest nodes
The names of manifest and data objects are often missing or not
unique, unless using specific naming conventions. In this example,
we show how using manifest locators is used to generate Interests.
Take for example the figure below where the root manifest is named by
hash h0. It has nameless children with hashes with hashes h1 ... hN.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
Objects:
manifest(name=/a/b/c, ptr=h1, ptr=hN) - has hash h0
nameless(data1) - has hash h1
...
nameless(dataN) - has hash hN
Query for the manifest:
interest(name=/a/b/c, implicitDigest=h0)
Figure 7: Data Organization
After obtaining the manifest, the client fetches the contents. In
this first instance, the manifest does not provide any Locators data
structure, so the client must continue using the name it used for the
manifest.
interest(name=/a/b/c, implicitDigest=h1)
...
interest(name=/a/b/c, implicitDigest=hN)
Figure 8: Data Interests
Using the locator metadata entry, this behavior can be changed:
Objects:
manifest(name=/a/b/c,
hashgroup(loc=/x/y/z, ptr=h1)
hashgroup(ptr=h2) - has hash h0
nameless(data1) - has hash h1
nameless(data2) - has hash h2
Queries:
interest(name=/a/b/c, implicitDigest=h0)
interest(name=/x/y/z, implicitDigest=h1)
interest(name=/a/b/c, implicitDigest=h2)
Figure 9: Using Locators
5.2. Seeking
Fast seeking (without having to sequentially fetch all content) works
by skipping over entries for which we know their size. The following
expression shows how to compute the byte offset of the data pointed
at by pointer P_i, call it offset_i. In this formula, let P_i.size
represent the Size value of the _i_-th pointer.
offset_i = \sum_{k=1}^{i-1} > P_k.size.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
With this offset, seeking is done as follows:
Input: seek_pos P, a FLIC manifest with a hash group having N entries
Output: pointer index i and byte offset o, or out-of-range error
Algorithm:
offset = 0
for i in 1..N do
if (P > offset + P_i.size)
return (i, P - offset)
offset += P_i.size
return out-of-range
Figure 10: Seeking Algorithm
Seeking in a BlockHashGroup is different since offsets can be quickly
computed. This is because the size of each pointer P_i except the
last is equal to the SizePerPtr value. For a BlockHashGroup with N
pointers, OverallByteCount D, and SizePerPointer L, the size of P_N
is equal to the following:
D - ((N - 1) * L)
In a BlockHashGroup with k pointers, the size of P_k is equal to:
D - L * (k - 1)
Using these, the seeking algorithm can be thus simplified to the
following:
Input: seek_pos P, a FLIC manifest with a hash group having
OverallByteCount S and SizePerPointer L.
Output: pointer index i and byte offset o, or out-of-range error
Algo:
if (P > S)
return out-of-range
i = floor(P / L)
if (i > N)
return out-of-range # bad FLIC encoding
o = P mod L
return (i, o)
Figure 11: Seeking Algorithm
| *Note*: In both cases, if the pointer at position i is a
| manifest pointer, this algorithm has to be called once more,
| seeking to seek_pos o inside that manifest.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
5.3. Block-level de-duplication
Consider a huge file, e.g. an ISO image of a DVD or program in binary
be patched. In this case, all existing encoded ICN chunks can remain
in the repository while only the chunks for the patch itself is added
to a new manifest data structure, as is shown in the diagram below.
For example, the venti archival file system of Plan9 [venti] uses
this technique.
old_mfst - - > h1 --> oldData1 <-- h1 < - - new_mfst
\ - > h2 --> oldData2 <-- h2 < - - /
\ replace3 <-- h5 < - -/
\- > h3 --> oldData3 /
\ > h4 --> oldData4 <-- h4 < - /
Figure 12: De-duplication
5.4. Growing ICN collections
A log file, for example, grows over time. Instead of having to re-
FLIC the grown file it suffices to construct a new manifest with a
manifest pointer to the old root manifest plus the sequence of data
hash pointers for the new data (or additional sub-manifests if
necessary).
| *Note* that this tree will not be skewed (anymore).
old data < - - - mfst_old <-- h_old - - mfst_new
/
new data1 <-- h_1 - - - - - - - - -/
new data2 /
... /
new dataN <-- h_N - - - - - - - -/
Figure 13: Growing A Collection
5.5. Re-publishing a FLIC under a new name
There are several use cases for republishing a collection under a new
namespace, or having one collection exist under several namespaces:
* It can happen that a publisher's namespace is part of a service
provider's prefix. When switching provider, the publisher may
want to republish the old data under a new name.
* A publishes wishes to distribute its content to several
repositories and would like a result to be delivered from the
repository for consumers who have good connectivity to that
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
repository. For example, the publisher /alpha wishes to place
content at /beta and /gamma, but routing only to /alpha would not
send a request to either /beta or /gamma. The operators of of
/beta and /gamma could create a named and signed version of the
root manifest with appropriate keys (or delegate that to /alpha)
so the results are always delivered by the corresponding
repository without having to change the bulk of the manifest tree.
This can easily be achieved with a single nameless root manifest for
the large FLIC plus arbitrarily many per-name manifests (which are
signed by whomever wants to publish this data):
data < - nameless_mfst() <-- h < - mfst(/com/example/east/the/flic)
< - mfst(/com/example/west/old/the/flic)
< - mfst(/internet/archive/flic234)
Figure 14: Relocating A Collection
| Note that the hash computation (of h) only requires reading the
| nameless root manifest, not the entire FLIC.
This example points out the problem of HashGroups having their own
locator metadata elements: A retriever would be urged to follow these
hints which are "hardcoded" deep inside the FLIC but might have
become outdated. We therefore recommend to name FLIC manifests only
at the highest level (where these names have no locator function).
Child nodes in a FLIC manifest should not be named as these names
serve no purpose except retrieving a sub-tree's manifest by name, if
would be required.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to perform the actions in the following sub-
sections.
| IANA should also note that FLIC uses the definitions of
| AEAD_AES_128_GCM, AEAD_AES_128_CCM, AEAD_AES_256_GCM,
| AEAD_AES_256_CCM from [RFC5116].
6.1. FLIC Payload Type
Register FLIC as a Payload Type in the _CCNx Payload Types_ Registry
referring to the description in Section 3.9.1 as follows:
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
+======+====================+================================+
| Type | Name | Reference |
+======+====================+================================+
| TBA | T_PAYLOADTYPE_FLIC | Section 3.9.1 and |
| | | Section 3.6.2.2.1 of [RFC8609] |
+------+--------------------+--------------------------------+
Table 1: FLIC CCNx Payload Type
6.2. FLIC Manifest Metadata and Annotation TLVs
Create the following registry to be titled _FLIC Manifest Metadata
and Annotation TLVs_ Manifest Metadata is described in Section 3.4;
Pointer Annotations are described in Section 3.5. The registration
procedure is *Specification Required*. The Type value is 2 octets.
The range is 0x0000-0xFFFF. Allocate a value for the single
_SizeAnnotation_ TLV.
+======+===================+====================+
| Type | Name | Reference |
+======+===================+====================+
| TBA | T_SIZE_ANNOTATION | Size (Section 3.5) |
+------+-------------------+--------------------+
Table 2: FLIC Manifest Metadata and
Annotation TLVs
7. Security Considerations
TODO Need a discussion on:
* signing and hash chaining security. (*Note: Did I cover this
adequately below?*)
* republishing under a new namespace. (*Note: need help here - is
this to reinforce that you can re-publish application data by
creating a new root Manifest and signing that, requiring only one
signature to change?*)
* encryption mechanisms. (*Note: did I cover this adequately
below?*)
* encryption key distribution mechanisms.(*Note: not sure what needs
to be said here*)
* discussion of privacy, leaking of linkability information - *could
really use some help here*.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
*Anything else?????*.
7.1. Integrity and Origin Authentication of FLIC Manifests
A FLIC Manifest is used to describe how to form Interests to access
large CCNx or NDN application data. The Manifest is itself either an
individual content object, or a tree of content objects linked
together via the corresponding content hashes. The NDN and CCnx
protocol architectures directly provide both individual object
integrity (using cryptographically strong hashes) and data origin
authentication (using signatures). The protocol specifications,
[NDN] and CCNx [RFC8609] respectively, provide the protocol machinery
and keying to support strong integrity and authentication.
Therefore, FLIC utilizes the existing protocol specifications for
these functions, rather than providing its own. There are a few
subtle differences in the handling of signatures and keys in NDN and
CCNx worth recapitulating here:
* NDN in general adds a signature to every individual data packet
rather than aggregating signatures via some object-level scheme.
When employing FLIC Manifests to multi-packet NDN objects, it is
expected that the individual packet signatures would be elided and
the signture on the Manifest used instead.
* In contrast, CCNx is biased to have primitive objects or pieces
thereof be "nameless" in the sense they are identified only by
their hashes rather than each having a name directly bound to the
content through an individual signature. Therefore, CCNx depends
heavily on FLIC (or an alternative method) to provide the name and
the signed binding of the name to the content described in the
Manifest
A FLIC Manifest therefore gets integrity of its individual pieces
through the existing secure hashing procedures of the underlying
protocols. Origin authentication of the entire Manifest is achieved
through hash chaining and applying a signature *only* to the root
Manifest of a manifest tree. It is important to note that the Name
of the Manifest, which is what the signature is bound to, need not
bear any particular relationship to the names of the application
objects pointed to in the Manifest via Name Constructors. This has a
number of important benefits described in Section 3.3.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
7.2. Confidentiality of Manifest Data
ICN protocol architectures like CCNx and NDN, while providing
integrity and origin authentication as described above, leaves
confidentiality issues entirely in the domain of the ICN application.
Therefore, since FLIC is an application-level construct in both NDN
and CCNx, it is incumbent on this specification for FLIC to provide
the desired confidentiality properties using encryption. One could
leave the specification of Manifest encryption entirely in the hands
of the individual application utilizing FLIC, but this would be
undesirable for a number of reasons:
* The sensitivity of the information in a Manifest may be different
from the sensitivity of the application data it describes. In
some cases, it may not be necessary to encrypt manifests, or to
encrypt them with a different keying scheme from that used for the
application data
* One of the major capabilities enabled by FLIC is to allow
repositories or forwarding caches to operate on Manifests (see in
particular Section 3.4). In order to allow such intermediaries to
interpret manifests without revealing the underlying application
data, separate encryption and keying is necessary
* A strong design goal of FLIC is _universality_ such that it can be
used transparently by many different ICN applications. This
argues that FLIC should have a set of common encryption and keying
capabilities that can be delegated to library code and not have to
be re-worked by each individual application (see Section 2,
Paragraph 11)
Therefore, this specification directly specifies two encryption
encapsulations and associated links to key management, as described
in Section 3.8. As more experience is gained with various use cases,
additional encryption capabilities may be needed and hence we expect
the encryption aspects of this specification to evolve over time.
7.3. Privacy of names and linkability of access patterns
What to say here, if anything?
8. References
8.1. Normative References
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3310] Niemi, A., Arkko, J., and V. Torvinen, "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP) Digest Authentication Using Authentication
and Key Agreement (AKA)", RFC 3310, DOI 10.17487/RFC3310,
September 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3310>.
[RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated
Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>.
[RFC5288] Salowey, J., Choudhury, A., and D. McGrew, "AES Galois
Counter Mode (GCM) Cipher Suites for TLS", RFC 5288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5288, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5288>.
[RFC5990] Randall, J., Kaliski, B., Brainard, J., and S. Turner,
"Use of the RSA-KEM Key Transport Algorithm in the
Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 5990,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5990, September 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5990>.
[RFC6655] McGrew, D. and D. Bailey, "AES-CCM Cipher Suites for
Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6655, July 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6655>.
[RFC8017] Moriarty, K., Ed., Kaliski, B., Jonsson, J., and A. Rusch,
"PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.2",
RFC 8017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8017, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8017>.
[RFC8569] Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
Networking (CCNx) Semantics", RFC 8569,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8569, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8569>.
[RFC8609] Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
Networking (CCNx) Messages in TLV Format", RFC 8609,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8609, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8609>.
8.2. Informative References
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
[AESGCM] Dworkin, M., "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of
Operation: Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and GMAC", National
Institute of Standards and Technology SP 800-38D, 2007,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-38D>.
[FLICImplementation]
Mosko, M., "FLIC Implementation in Python", various,
<https://github.com/mmosko/ccnpy>.
[I-D.wood-icnrg-ccnxkeyexchange]
Mosko, M., Uzun, E., and A. Christopher Wood, "CCNx Key
Exchange Protocol Version 1.0", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-wood-icnrg-ccnxkeyexchange-02, 6
July 2017, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wood-
icnrg-ccnxkeyexchange-02.txt>.
[NDN] "Named Data Networking", various,
<https://named-data.net/project/execsummary/>.
[NDNTLV] "NDN Packet Format Specification.", 2016,
<http://named-data.net/doc/ndn-tlv/>.
[ProjectOrigin]
Mosko, M., "Peer-to-Peer Sharing with CCNx 1.0", 2014,
<https://github.com/PARC/CCNxReports/blob/master/
SelectedTopics/p2pshare.pdf>.
[repository]
"Repo Protocol Specification", Various,
<https://redmine.named-data.net/projects/repo-ng/wiki/
Repo_Protocol_Specification>.
[RFC7927] Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I.,
Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch,
"Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Research
Challenges", RFC 7927, DOI 10.17487/RFC7927, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7927>.
[RSAKEM] Barker, E., Chen, L., Roginsky, A., Vassilev, A., Davis,
R., and S. Simon, "Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key-
Establishment Using Integer Factorization Cryptography",
National Institute of Standards and Technology SP 800-56B
Rev. 2, 2019, <https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Br2>.
[SHS] Technology, N. I. O. S. A., "Secure Hash Standard, United
States of American, National Institute of Science and
Technology, Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)
180-4", National Institute of Standards and Technology SP
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
180-4, 2012,
<https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/
fips180-4_final.pdf>.
[venti] "Venti: a new approach to archival storage", Bell Labs
Document Archive /sts/doc, 2002,
<http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/venti/>.
Appendix A. Building Trees
This appendix describes one method to build trees. It constructs a
pre-order tree in a single pass of the application data, going from
the tail to the beginning. This allows us to work up the right side
of the tree in a single pass, then work down each left branch until
we exhaust the data. Using the reverse-order traversal, we create
the right-most-child manifest, then its parent, then the indirect
pointers of that parent, then the parent's direct pointers,then the
parent of the parent (repeating). This process uses recursion, as it
is the clearest way to show the code. A more optimized approach
could do it in a true single pass.
Because we're building from the bottom up, we use the term 'level' to
be the distance from the right-most child up. Level 0 is the bottom-
most level of the tree, such as where node 7 is:
1
2 3
4 5 6 7
preorder: 1 2 4 5 3 6 7
reverse: 7 6 3 5 4 2 1
The Python-like pseudocode build_tree(data, n, k, m) algorithm
creates a tree of n data objects. The data[] array is an array of
Content Objects that hold application payload; the application data
has already been packetized into n Content Object packets.An interior
manifest node has k direct pointers and m indirect pointers.
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
build_tree(data[0..n-1], n, k, m)
# data is an array of Content Objects (Data in NDN) with application payload.
# n is the number of data items
# k is the number of direct pointers per internal node
# m is the number of indirect pointers per internal node
segment = namedtuple('Segment', 'head tail')(0, n)
level = 0
# This bootstraps the process by creating the right most child manifest
# A leaf manifest has no indirect pointers, so k+m are direct pointers
root = leaf_manifest(data, segment, k + m)
# Keep building subtrees until we're out of direct pointers
while not segment.empty():
level += 1
root = bottom_up_preorder(data, segment, level, k, m, root)
return root
bottom_up_preorder(data, segment, level, k, m, right_most_child=None)
manifest = None
if level == 0:
assert right_most_child is None
# build a leaf manifest with only direct pointers
manifest = leaf_manifest(data, segment, k + m)
else:
# If the number of remaining direct pointers will fit
# in a leaf node, make one of those. Otherwise, we need to be
# an interior node
if right_most_child is None and segment.length() <= k + m:
manifest = leaf_manifest(data, segment, k+m)
else:
manifest = interior_manifest(data, segment, level, k, m, right_most_child)
return manifest
leaf_manifest(data, segment, count)
# At most count items, but never go before the head
start = max(segment.head(), segment.tail() - count)
manifest = Manifest(data[start:segment.tail])
segment.tail -= segment.tail() - start
return manifest
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
interior_manifest(data, segment, level, k, m, right_most_child)
children = []
if right_most_child is not None:
children.append(right_most_child)
interior_indirect(data, segment, level, k, m, children)
interior_direct(data, segment, level, k, m, children)
manifest = Manifest(children)
return manifest, tail
interior_indirect(data, segment, level, k, m, children)
# Reserve space at the head of the segment for this node's
# direct pointers before descending to children. We want
# the top of the tree packed.
reserve_count = min(k, segment.tail - segment.head)
segment.head += reserve_count
while len(children) < m and not segment.head == segment.tail:
child = bottom_up_preorder(data, segment, level - 1, k, m)
# prepend
children.insert(0, child)
# Pull back our reservation and put those pointers in our direct children
segment.head -= reserve_count
interior_direct(data, segment, level, k, m, children)
while len(children) < k+m and not segment.head == segment.tail:
pointer = data[segment.tail() - 1]
children.insert(0, pointer)
segment.tail -= 1
Authors' Addresses
Christian Tschudin
University of Basel
Email: christian.tschudin@unibas.ch
Christopher A. Wood
Cloudflare
Email: caw@heapingbits.net
Marc Mosko
PARC, Inc.
Email: marc.mosko@parc.com
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft FLIC October 2022
David Oran (editor)
Network Systems Research & Design
Email: daveoran@orandom.net
Tschudin, et al. Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 40]