EST over secure CoAP (EST-coaps)
draft-vanderstok-ace-coap-est-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-06-12
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf xml 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                                                             S. Kumar
Internet-Draft                                 Philips Lighting Research
Intended status: Standards Track                         P. van der Stok
Expires: December 14, 2017                                    Consultant
                                                           P. Kampanakis
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                              M. Furuhed
                                                             Nexus Group
                                                                 S. Raza
                                                               RISE SICS
                                                           June 12, 2017

                    EST over secure CoAP (EST-coaps)
                    draft-vanderstok-ace-coap-est-02

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.  Provisioning these devices in a secure manner with keys
   (often called secure bootstrapping) used to encrypt and authenticate
   messages, is the subject of Bootstrapping of Remote Secure Key
   Infrastructures (BRSKI) [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] and
   6tisch Secure Join [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join].
   Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) [RFC7030], based on TLS and
   HTTP, is used in BRSKI.  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) for secure
   bootstrapping and certificate enrollment. 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 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

Kumar, et al.           Expires December 14, 2017               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                  EST-coaps                      June 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 December 14, 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  EST operational differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Conformance to RFC7925 profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Protocol Design and Layering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Discovery and URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Payload format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Message Bindings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.4.  CoAP response codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.5.  Message fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Transport Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  DTLS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.2.  6tisch approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Proxying  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.1.  Content-Format registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  Resource Type registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
Show full document text