CoAP Option Extensions: Profile and Sec-flag
draft-wang-core-profile-secflag-options-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Lei Wang , Wendong Wang , Lei Zhu , Fang Yu | ||
| Last updated | 2012-07-01 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-wang-core-profile-secflag-options-00
CoRE Lei. Wang
Internet-Draft Wendong. Wang
Intended status: Informational BUPT
Expires: January 3, 2013 Lei. Zhu
Fang. Yu
Huawei Technologies
July 2, 2012
CoAP Option Extensions: Profile and Sec-flag
draft-wang-core-profile-secflag-options-00
Abstract
This memo adds two Options for the Constrained Application Protocol
(CoAP): Profile and Sec-flag. The Profile Option is indicating the
identification of an application using CoAP. The Sec-flag Option
complements the security considerations of CoAP
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 January 3, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Wang, et al. Expires January 3, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoAP Profile and Sec-flag Options July 2012
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Profile Option Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Sec-flag Option Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Profile Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Profile Option Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Profile Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Sec-flag Option Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Wang, et al. Expires January 3, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoAP Profile and Sec-flag Options July 2012
1. Introduction
CoAP is a specialized web transfer protocol for machine-to-machine
applications such as smart energy and building automation using with
constrained nodes and networks. This memo adds two new options for
CoAP: Profile and Sec-flag.
The main purpose of the Profile Option is indicating the
identification of an application using CoAP, by reading this option
some intermediaries (e.g. proxy) and transport networks could
distinguish different applications and do some differentiated
processing.
The Sec-flag Option complements the security considerations, enabling
NoSec pattern in a segment of the communication link path between the
client and server, by taking care of only establishing and
maintaining lower layer security instead of DTLS in these
intermediate networks.
1.1. Terminology
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. Motivation
2.1. Profile Option Extension
CoAP is a light-weight web protocol and can be used in constrained
devices, fulfilling machine-to-machine requirements. Because of its
features, more and more M2M applications MAY adopt CoAP.
CoAP applications SHOULD use an operator's network as the transport
bearer. Different machine-to-machine applications MAY have different
Quality of Service (QoS) requirements in terms of required bit rates
as well as acceptable packet delays and packet loss rates. When
application data is transmitted through the transport network, the
network MAY need to identify different machine-to-machine services to
do some differentiated processing, applying different control
policies with subscriptions. Before applying control policies to
applications, transport networks SHOULD identify them and distinguish
each one from another referring to application identification, and
then networks MAY apply different policies- treatment to different
applications. Some intermediaries (e.g.CoAP proxy) MAY also would
like to distinguish different applications and do some differentiated
processing such as caching application data in different priorities.
Wang, et al. Expires January 3, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoAP Profile and Sec-flag Options July 2012
This memo describes the extensions to CoAP protocol and is to provide
expanding proposal(s) to fulfill the motivations and requirements,
defining an additional Option for the Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP): Profile. The Profile Option is defined as the
identification of CoAP applications. When CoAP messages are
transmitted through the transport network, network entities MAY use
some technologies to read the option!_s Option Value to identify the
application, then apply control policies with the subscription of
application owner.
2.2. Sec-flag Option Extension
The transmission path between the client and server MAY consist of
several segments: Transport Network domain based on existing
standards 3GPP, TISPAN, IETF,etc.,and M2M Area Network Domain based
on existing standards and technologies like DLMS, CEN, CENELEC,PLT,
Zigbee, M-BUS, KNX, etc. The application data MAY be transmitted
through different networks between the client and server.
The basic CoAP protocol defines the DTLS binding. DTLS overhead is
expensive for some networks. Intermediate network domain MAY have
some independent and reliable security standards (e.g. ZigBee
standard). In some cases, CoAP could use these security standards
instead of DTLS to avoid DTLS overhead in some intermediate networks.
The Sec-flag Option can be used to indicate the security information
and ensure the integrality of the security mechanism.
3. Profile Option
3.1. Profile Option Definition
The Profile Option indicates the identification of CoAP applications.
Transport network entities MAY use some technologies to read the
Option Value and then apply corresponding policy control.
This option is "elective" and the Option Number is even. It MUST NOT
occur more than once.
The detailed definitions and encoding SHOULD refer to the description
of Option Format in [I-D.ietf-core-coap].
The SDNV[RFC5050] encoding can be used.
Wang, et al. Expires January 3, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoAP Profile and Sec-flag Options July 2012
+-----+----------+--------+-------------+---------+---------+
| No. | C/E | Name | Format | Length | Default |
+-----+----------+--------+-------------+---------+---------+
| 2n | Elective |Profile |(see below) | 2B | (empty) |
+-----+----------+--------+-------------+---------+---------+
4. Profile Option
The Sec-flag Option complements the security considerations, enabling
NoSec pattern in one or more segments of the communication link path
between the client and server.
4.1. Sec-flag Option Definition
+-----+----------+--------+-------------+---------+---------+
| No. | C/E | Name | Format | Length | Default |
+-----+----------+--------+-------------+---------+---------+
| 2n+1| Critical |Sec-flag|(see below) | 1B | (empty) |
+-----+----------+--------+-------------+---------+---------+
The Sec-flag Option is used for indicating the lower layer security.
This option is "critical" and the Option Number is odd.
The detailed definitions and encoding SHOULD refer to the description
of Option Format in [I-D.ietf-core-coap]. The value is made up of
security indication.
The SDNV[RFC5050] encoding can be used.
5. Security Considerations
To be defined.
6. IANA Considerations
The following entries are added to the CoAP Option Numbers registry:
Wang, et al. Expires January 3, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoAP Profile and Sec-flag Options July 2012
+---------+----------+-------------+
| Number | Name | Reference |
+---------+----------+-------------+
| 2n | Profile | RFC XXXX |
+---------+----------+-------------+
| 2n+1 | Sec-flag | RFC XXXX |
+---------+----------+-------------+
7. References
7.1. Normative Reference
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]
Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., and B. Frank,
"Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)",
draft-ietf-core-coap-10 (work in progress), June 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.fossati-core-publish-monitor-options]
Fossati, T., Giacomin, P., and S. Loreto, "Publish and
Monitor Options for CoAP",
draft-fossati-core-publish-monitor-options-01 (work in
progress), March 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Lei Wang
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
Xitucheng road 10
Haidian District, Beijing 100876
P. R. China
Email: wleiblue@163.com
Wang, et al. Expires January 3, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoAP Profile and Sec-flag Options July 2012
Wendong Wang
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
Xitucheng road 10
Haidian District, Beijing 100876
P. R. China
Email: wdwang@bupt.edu.cn
Lei Zhu
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, Q20 No.156 Beiqing Rd.Z-park
Haidian District, Beijing 100095
P. R. China
Email: lei.zhu@huawei.com
Fang Yu
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, Q20 No.156 Beiqing Rd.Z-park
Haidian District, Beijing 100095
P. R. China
Email: grace.yufang@huawei.com
Wang, et al. Expires January 3, 2013 [Page 7]