EST over secure CoAP (EST-coaps)
draft-vanderstok-ace-coap-est-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-12-13
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml 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)
ACE                                                      P. van der Stok
Internet-Draft                                                Consultant
Intended status: Standards Track                           P. Kampanakis
Expires: June 15, 2018                                     Cisco Systems
                                                                S. Kumar
                                               Philips Lighting Research
                                                           M. Richardson
                                                                     SSW
                                                              M. Furuhed
                                                             Nexus Group
                                                                 S. Raza
                                                               RISE SICS
                                                       December 12, 2017

                    EST over secure CoAP (EST-coaps)
                    draft-vanderstok-ace-coap-est-03

Abstract

   Low-resource devices in a Low-power and Lossy Network (LLN) can
   operate in a mesh network using the IPv6 over Low-power Wireless
   Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN) and IEEE 802.15.4 link-layer
   standards.  Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) [RFC7030] is used
   for authenticated/authorized endpoint certificate enrollment (and
   optionally key provisioning) through a Certificate Authority (CA) or
   Registration Authority (RA).  Example low-resource uses cases for EST
   are: secure bootstrapping and certificate enrollment.

   Low-resource devices often use the lightweight Constrained
   Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] for message exchanges.  This
   document defines how low-resource devices are expected to use EST
   over secure CoAP (EST-coaps). 6LoWPAN fragmentation management and
   extensions to CoAP registries are needed to enable EST-coaps.

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

van der Stok, et al.      Expires June 15, 2018                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  EST-coaps                  December 2017

   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 June 15, 2018.

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
   (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.  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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  EST operational differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Conformance to RFC7925 profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Protocol Design and Layering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Payload format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Message Bindings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  CoAP response codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  Message fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Discovery and URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  DTLS Transport Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Proxying  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.1.  Content-Format registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.2.  Resource Type registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.1.  proxy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.2.  EST server considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
Show full document text