Separating Crypto Negotiation and Communication
draft-kuehlewind-taps-crypto-sep-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-10-30
Replaces draft-kuehlewind-crypto-sep
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                      M. Kuehlewind
Internet-Draft                                                ETH Zurich
Intended status: Informational                                  T. Pauly
Expires: May 3, 2018                                             C. Wood
                                                              Apple Inc.
                                                        October 30, 2017

            Separating Crypto Negotiation and Communication
                  draft-kuehlewind-taps-crypto-sep-01

Abstract

   Secure transport protocols often consist of three logically distinct
   components: transport, control (handshake), and record protection.
   Typically, such a protocol contains a single module that is
   responsible for all three functions.  However, in many cases, this
   coupling is unnecessary.  For example, while cryptographic context
   and endpoint capabilities need to be known before encrypted
   application data can be sent on a specific transport connection,
   there is otherwise no technical constraint that a cryptographic
   handshake must be performed on said connection.  This document
   recommends a logical separation between transport, control, and
   record components of secure transport protocols.  We compare existing
   protocols such as Transport Layer Security, QUIC, and IKEv2+ESP in
   the context of this logical separation.

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 May 3, 2018.

Kuehlewind, et al.         Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              crypto separation               October 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.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Protocol Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Control-Transport Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Control-Record Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Transport-Record Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Existing Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Benefits of Separation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Reducing Connection Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Protocol Flexibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.3.  Protocol Capability Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Secure transport protocols are generally composed of three pieces:

   1.  A transport protocol to handle the transfer of data.

   2.  A record protocol to frame, encrypt and/or authenticate data

   3.  A control protocol to perform cryptographic handshakes, negotiate
       shared secrets, and maintain state during the lifetime of
       cryptographic session including session resumption and key
       refreshment.  (In the context of TLS, the control protocol is
       called the handshake protocol.)

Kuehlewind, et al.         Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              crypto separation               October 2017

   For ease of deployment and standardization, among other reasons,
   these constituents are often tightly coupled.  For example, in TLS
Show full document text