Network Working Group                                          M. Piraux
Internet-Draft                                            O. Bonaventure
Intended status: Informational                                 UCLouvain
Expires: 28 April 2022                                         F. Rochet
                                                 University of Edinburgh
                                                         25 October 2021


           TCPLS: Modern Transport Services with TCP and TLS
                         draft-piraux-tcpls-00

Abstract

   This document specifies a protocol leveraging TCP and TLS to provide
   modern transport services such as multiplexing, connection migration
   and multipath in a secure manner.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/mpiraux/draft-piraux-tcpls.

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 28 April 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.






Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


   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
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Modern Transport Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  TCPLS Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Multiple Streams  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Multiple TCP connections  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.1.  Joining TCP connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.2.  Failover  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.3.  Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.4.  Multipath transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Record protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Closing a TCPLS session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  TCPLS Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  TCPLS TLS Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.1.1.  TCPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.1.2.  TCPLS Join  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  TCPLS Frames  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.2.1.  Padding frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.2.2.  Ping frame  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.2.3.  Stream frame  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       5.2.4.  ACK frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       5.2.5.  New Token frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       5.2.6.  Connection Reset frame  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  TCPLS TLS Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.2.  TCPLS Frames  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19








Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


1.  Introduction

   The TCP/IP protocol stack continuously evolves.  In the early days,
   most applications were interacting with the transport layer (mainly
   TCP, but also UDP) using the socket API.  This is illustrated in
   Figure 1.

   +------------------------------+
   |          Application         |
   +------------------------------+
   |            TCP/UDP           |
   +------------------------------+
   |             IPv4             |
   +------------------------------+

               Figure 1: The classical TCP/IP protocol stack

   The TCP/IP stack has slowly evolved and the figure above does not
   anymore describe current Internet applications.  IPv6 is now widely
   deployed next to IPv4 in the network layer.  In the transport layer,
   protocols such as SCTP [RFC4960] or DCCP [RFC6335] and TCP extensions
   including Multipath TCP [RFC8684] or tcpcrypt [RFC8548] have been
   specified.  The security aspects of the TCP/IP protocol suite are
   much more important today than in the past [RFC7258].  Many
   applications rely on TLS [RFC8446] and their stack is similar to the
   one shown in Figure 2.

   +------------------------------+
   |          Application         |
   +------------------------------+
   |             TLS              |
   +------------------------------+
   |             TCP              |
   +------------------------------+
   |          IPv4/IPv6           |
   +------------------------------+

                  Figure 2: Today's TCP/IP protocol stack

   Recently, the IETF went one step further in improving the transport
   layer with the QUIC protocol [RFC9000].  QUIC is a new secure
   transport protocol primarily designed for HTTP/3.  It includes the
   reliability and congestion control features that are part of TCP and
   integrates the security features of TLS 1.3 [RFC8446].  This close
   integration between the reliability and security features brings a
   lot of benefits in QUIC.  QUIC runs above UDP to be able to pass
   through most middleboxes and to be implementable in user space.
   While QUIC reuses TLS, it does not strictly layer TLS on top of UDP



Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


   as DTLS [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13].  This organization, illustrated in
   Figure 3 provides much more flexibility than simply layering TLS
   above UDP.  For example, the QUIC migration capabilities enable an
   application to migrate an existing QUIC session from an IPv4 path to
   an IPv6 one.

   +------------------------------+
   |          Application         |
   +------------------------------+
   |..........                    |
   |   TLS   |   QUIC   ..........|
   |..........          |   UDP   |
   +------------------------------+
   |          IPv4/IPv6           |
   +------------------------------+

                       Figure 3: QUIC protocol stack

   In this document, we revisit how TCP and TLS 1.3 can be used to
   provide modern transport services to applications.  We apply a
   similar principle and combine TCP and TLS 1.3 in a protocol that we
   call TCPLS.  TCPLS leverages the security features of TLS 1.3 like
   QUIC, but without begin simply layered above a single TCP connection.
   In addition, TCPLS reuses the existing TCP stacks and TCP's wider
   support in current networks.  A preliminary version of the TCPLS
   protocol is described in [CONEXT21].

   +------------------------------+
   |          Application         |
   +------------------------------+
   |..........                    |
   |   TLS   |   TCPLS  ..........|
   |..........          |   TCP   |
   +------------------------------+
   |          IPv4/IPv6           |
   +------------------------------+

                Figure 4: TCPLS in the TCP/IP protocol stack

   In this document, we use the term TLS/TCP to refer to the TLS 1.3
   protocol running over one TCP connection.  We reserve the word TCPLS
   for the protocol proposed in this document.

   This document is organized as follows.  First, Section 3 summarizes
   the different types of services that modern transports expose to
   application.  Section 4 gives an overview of TCPLS and how it
   supports these services.  Finally, Section 5 describes the TCPLS in
   more details and the TLS Extensions introduced in this document.



Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


2.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Modern Transport Services

   Application requirements and the devices they run on evolve over
   time.  In the early days, most applications involved single-file
   transfer and ran on single-homed computers with a fixed-line network.
   Today, web-based applications require exchanging multiple objects,
   with different priorities, on devices that can move from one access
   network to another and that often have multiple access networks
   available.  Security is also a key requirement of applications that
   evolved from only guaranteeing the confidentiality and integrity of
   application messages to also preventing pervasive monitoring.

   With TCP and TLS/TCP, applications use a single connection that
   supports a single bytestream in each direction.  Some TCP
   applications such as HTTP/2 [RFC7540] use multiple streams, but these
   are mapped to a single TCP connection which leads to Head-of-Line
   (HoL) blocking when packet losses occur.  SCTP [RFC4960] supports
   multiple truly-concurrent streams and QUIC adopted a similar approach
   to prevent HoL blocking.

   Modern transport services also changed the utilization of the
   underlying network.  With TCP, when a host creates a connection, it
   is bound to the IP addresses used by the client and the server during
   the handshake.  When the client moves and receives a different IP
   address, it has to reestablish all TCP connections bound to the
   previous address.  When the client and the server are dual-stack,
   they cannot easily switch from one address family to another.  Happy
   Eyeballs [RFC8305] provides a partial answer to this problem for web
   applications with heuristics that clients can use to probe TCP
   connections with different address families.  With Multipath TCP, the
   client and the server can learn other addresses of the remote host
   and combine several TCP connections within a single Multipath TCP
   connection that is exposed to the application.  This supports various
   use cases [RFC8041].  QUIC [RFC9000] enables applications to migrate
   from one network path to another, but not to simultaneously use
   different paths.







Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


4.  TCPLS Overview

   In order for TCPLS to be widely compatible with middleboxes that
   inspect TCP segments and TLS records, TCPLS does not modify the TCP
   connection establishment and only adds a TLS extension to the TLS
   handshake.  Figure 5 illustrates the opening of a TCPLS session which
   starts with the TCP 3-way handshake, followed by the TLS handshake.
   In the Extensions of the ClientHello and in the server
   EncryptedExtensions, the tcpls TLS Extension is introduced to
   announce the support of TCPLS.

   Client                                   Server
    |                    SYN                    |
    |------------------------------------------>|
    |                  SYN+ACK                  |
    |<------------------------------------------|
    |       ACK, TLS ClientHello + tcpls        |
    |------------------------------------------>|
    |  TLS ServerHello, TLS EncryptedExtensions |
    |                          + tcpls, ...     |
    |<------------------------------------------|
    |               TLS Finished                |
    |------------------------------------------>|
    |                                           |

                     Figure 5: Starting a TCPLS session

   TCP/TLS offers a single encrypted bytestream service to the
   application.  To achieve this, TLS records are used to encrypt and
   secure chunks of the application bytestream and are then sent through
   the TCP bytestream.  TCPLS leverages TLS records in a different way.
   TCPLS defines its own framing mechanism that allows encoding both
   application data and control information.  A TCPLS frame is the basic
   unit of information for TCPLS.  One or more TCPLS frames can be
   placed inside a TLS record.  A TCPLS frame always fits in a single
   record.  This TLS record is then reliably transported by a TCP
   connection.  Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between TCPLS
   frames and TLS records.













Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


     TCPLS Data     TCP Control   TCPLS Data     TCPLS Data
     abcdef         0010010       ghijkl         mnopq...
     <--------->   <----------->  <--------->   <------------>
    /                                        /
   /                                      /
   |                                   /
   |                                /
   |                             /
   |                          /
   |                       /
   |                   /
   +----------------+     +-----------------+
   |   TLS record n |     | TLS record n+1  |  ....
   +----------------+     +-----------------+

         Figure 6: The first TLS record contains three TCPLS frames

4.1.  Multiple Streams

   TCPLS extends the service provided by TCP with streams.  Streams are
   independent bidirectional bytestreams that can be used by
   applications to concurrently convey several objects over a TCPLS
   session.  Streams can be opened by the client and by the server.

   Streams are identified by a 32-bit unsigned integer.  The parity of
   this number indicates the initiator of the stream.  The client opens
   even-numbered streams while the server opens odd-numbered streams.
   Streams are opened in sequence, e.g. a client that has opened stream
   0 will use stream 2 as the next one.

   Data is exchanged using Stream frames whose format is described in
   Section 5.2.3.  Each Stream frame carries a chunk of data of a given
   stream.  Applications can mark the end of a stream to close it.

   Similarly to HTTP/2 [RFC7540], conveying several streams on a single
   TCP connection introduces Head-of-Line (HoL) blocking between the
   streams.  To alleviate this, TCPLS provides means to the application
   to choose the degree of HoL blocking resilience it needs for its
   application objects by spreading streams among different underlying
   TCP connections.











Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


4.2.  Multiple TCP connections

   TCPLS is not restricted to using a single TCP connection to exchange
   frames.  A TCPLS session starts with the TCP connection that was used
   to transport the TLS handshake.  After this handshake, other TCP
   connections can be added to a TCPLS session, either to spread the
   load or for failover.  TCPLS manages the utilization of the
   underlying TCP connections within a TCPLS session.

   Multipath TCP enables both the client and the server to establish
   additional TCP connections.  However, experience has shown that
   additional subflows are only established by the clients.  TCPLS
   focuses on this deployment and only allows clients to create
   additional TCP connections.

   Using Multipath TCP, a client can try to establish a new TCP
   connection at any time.  If a server wishes to restrict the number of
   TCP connections that correspond to one Multipath TCP connection, it
   has to respond with RST to the in excess connection attempts.  TCPLS
   takes another approach.  To control the number of connections that a
   client can establish, a TCPLS server supplies unique tokens.  A
   client includes one of the server supplied tokens when it attaches a
   new TCP connection to a TCPLS session.  Each token can only be used
   once, hence limiting the amount of additional TCP connections.

4.2.1.  Joining TCP connections

   The TCPLS server provides tokens to the client in order to join new
   TCP connections to the TCPLS session.  Figure 7 illustrates a client
   and server first establishing a new TCPLS session as described in
   Section 4.  Then the server sends a token over this connection using
   the New Token frame.  Each token has a sequence number (e.g. 1) and a
   value (e.g. "abc").  The client uses this token to open a new TCP
   connection and initiates the TCPLS handshake.  It adds the token
   inside the TCPLS Join TLS extension in the ClientHello.

                <-1.TCPLS Handshake->
          .---------------------------------.
          |            <-2.New Token(1,abc) |
          v                                 v
   +--------+                            +--------+
   | Client |                            | Server |
   +--------+                            +--------+
          ^                                 ^
          | 3.TCPLS Handshake + Join(abc)-> |      Legend:
          .---------------------------------.        --- TCP connection

                   Figure 7: Joining a new TCP connection



Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


   When receiving a TCPLS Join Extension, the server validates the token
   and associates the TCP connection to the TCPLS session.

   Each TCP connection that is part of a TCPLS session is identified by
   a 32-bit unsigned integer called its Connection ID.  The first TCP
   connection of a session corresponds to Connection ID 0.  When joining
   a new connection, the sequence number of the token, i.e. 1 in our
   example, becomes the Connection ID of the connection.  The Connection
   ID enables the Client and the Server to identify a specific TCP
   connection within a given TCPLS session.

4.2.2.  Failover

   TCPLS supports two types of failover.  In make-before-break, the
   client creates a TCP connection using the procedure described in
   Section 4.2.1 but only uses it once the initial connection fails.

   In break-before-make, the client creates the initial TCP connection
   and uses it for the TCPLS handshake and the data.  The server
   advertises one or more tokens over this connection.  Upon failure of
   the initial TCP connection, the client initiates a second TCP
   connection using the server-provided token.

   In both cases, some records sent by the client or the server might be
   in transit when the failure occurs.  Some of these records could have
   been partially received but not yet delivered to the TCPLS layer when
   the underlying TCP connection fails.  Other records could have
   already been received, decrypted and data of their frames could have
   been delivered to the application.  To prevent data losses and
   duplication, TCPLS includes its own acknowledgments.

   A TCPLS receiver acknowledges the received records using the ACK
   frame.  Records are acknowledged after the record protection has been
   successfully removed.  This enables the sender to know which records
   have been received.  TCPLS enables the endpoint to send
   acknowledgments for a TCP connection over any connections, e.g. not
   only the receiving connection.

4.2.3.  Migration

   To migrate from a given TCP connection, an endpoint stops
   transmitting over this TCP connection and sends the following frames
   on other TCP connections.  It leverages the acknowledgments to
   retransmit the frames of TLS records that have not been yet
   acknowledged.






Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


   When an endpoint abortfully closes a TCP connection, its peer
   leverages the acknowlegments to retransmit the TLS records that were
   not acknowlegded.

4.2.4.  Multipath transport

   TCPLS also supports the utilization of different TCP connections,
   over different paths or interfaces, to improve throughput or spread
   stream frames over different TCP connections.  When the endpoints
   have opened several TCP connections, they can send frames over the
   connections.  TCPLS can send all the stream frames belonging to a
   given stream over one or more underlying TCP connections.  The latter
   enables bandwidth aggregation by using TCP connections established
   over different network paths.

4.3.  Record protection

   When adding new TCP connections to a TCPLS session, an endpoint does
   not complete the TLS handshake.  TCPLS provides a nonce construction
   for TLS record protection that is used for all connections of a
   session.  This reduces the cryptographic cost of adding connections.
   The endpoints SHOULD send TLS messages to form an apparent complete
   TLS handshake to middleboxes.

   In order to use the TLS session over multiple connections, TCPLS adds
   a record sequence number space per connection that is maintained
   independently at both sides.  Each record sent over a TCPLS session
   is identified by the Connection ID of its connection and its record
   sequence number.  Each record nonce is constructed as defined in
   Figure 8.

   N                  N-32                   64                    0
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                    client/server_write_iv                     |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
            XOR                                        XOR
   +-------------------+                      +--------------------+
   |   Connection ID   |                      | Conn. record sequ. |
   +-------------------+                      +--------------------+

               Figure 8: TCPLS TLS record nonce construction

   This construction guarantees that every TLS record sent over the TLS
   session is protected with a unique nonce.  As in TLS 1.3, the per-
   connection record sequence is implicit.






Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


4.4.  Closing a TCPLS session

   Endpoints notify their peers that they do not intend to send more
   data over a given TCPLS session by sending a TLS Alert
   "close_notify".  The alert can be sent over one or more TCP
   connections of the session.  The alert MUST be sent before closing
   the last TCP connection of the TCPLS session.  The endpoint MAY close
   its side of the TCP connections after sending the alert.

   When all TCP connections of a session are closed and the TLS Alert
   "close_notify" was exchanged in both directions, the TCPLS session is
   considered as closed.

   We leave defining an abortful and idle session closure mechanisms for
   future versions of this document.

5.  TCPLS Protocol

5.1.  TCPLS TLS Extensions

   This document specifies two TLS extensions used by TCPLS.  The first,
   "tcpls", is used to announce the support of TCPLS.  The second,
   "tcpls_join", is used to join a TCP connection to a TCPLS session.
   Their types are defined as follows.

   enum {
       tcpls(TBD1),
       tcpls_join(TBD2),
       (65535)
   } ExtensionType;

   The table below indicates the TLS messages where these extensions can
   appear.  "CH" indicates ClientHello while "EE" indicates
   EncryptedExtensions.

                   +============+======================+
                   | Extension  | Allowed TLS messages |
                   +============+======================+
                   | tcpls      | CH, EE               |
                   +------------+----------------------+
                   | tcpls_join | CH                   |
                   +------------+----------------------+

                      Table 1: TLS messages allowed to
                         carry TCPLS TLS Extensions






Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


5.1.1.  TCPLS

   The "tcpls" extension is used by the client and the server to
   announce their support of TCPLS.  The extension contains no value.
   When it is present in both the ClientHello and the
   EncryptedExtensions, the endpoints MUST use TCPLS after completing
   the TLS handshake.

5.1.2.  TCPLS Join

   struct {
       opaque token<32>;
   } Join;

   The "tcpls_join" extension is used by the client to join the TCP
   connection on which it is sent to a TCPLS session.  The extension
   contains a Token provided by the server.  The client MUST NOT send
   more than one "tcpls_join" extension in its ClientHello.  When
   receiving a ClientHello with this extension, the server checks that
   the token is valid and joins the TCP connection to the corresponding
   TCPLS session.  When the token is not valid, the server MUST abort
   the handshake with an illegal_parameter alert.

   By controlling the amount of tokens given to the client, the server
   can control the number of active TCP connections of a TCPLS session.
   The server SHOULD replenish the tokens when TCP connections are
   removed from the TCPLS session.

5.2.  TCPLS Frames

   TCPLS uses TLS Application Data records to exchange TCPLS frames.
   After decryption, the record payload consists of a sequence of TCPLS
   frames.  A frame is a Type-Value unit, starting with a byte
   indicating its frame type followed by type-specific fields.  Table 2
   lists the frames specified in this document.
















Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


         +============+==================+=======+===============+
         | Type value | Frame name       | Rules | Definition    |
         +============+==================+=======+===============+
         | 0x00       | Padding          | N     | Section 5.2.1 |
         +------------+------------------+-------+---------------+
         | 0x01       | Ping             |       | Section 5.2.2 |
         +------------+------------------+-------+---------------+
         | 0x02-0x03  | Stream           |       | Section 5.2.3 |
         +------------+------------------+-------+---------------+
         | 0x04       | ACK              | N     | Section 5.2.4 |
         +------------+------------------+-------+---------------+
         | 0x05       | New Token        | S     | Section 5.2.5 |
         +------------+------------------+-------+---------------+
         | 0x06       | Connection Reset |       | Section 5.2.6 |
         +------------+------------------+-------+---------------+

                           Table 2: TCPLS frames

   The "Rules" column in Table 2 indicates special requirements
   regarding certain frames.

   N:  Non-ack-eliciting.  Receiving this frame does not elicit the
      sending of a TCPLS acknowledgment.

   S:  Server only.  This frame MUST NOT be sent by the client.

5.2.1.  Padding frame

   This frame has no semantic value.  It can be used to mitigate traffic
   analysis on the TLS records of a TCPLS session.  The Padding frame
   has no content.

   Padding frame {
       Type (8) = 0x00,
   }

                       Figure 9: Padding frame format

5.2.2.  Ping frame

   This frame is used to elicit an acknowledgment from its peer.  It has
   no content.  When an endpoint receives a Ping frame, it acknowledges
   the TLS record that contains this frame.  This frame can be used by
   an endpoint to check that its peer can receive TLS records over a
   particular TCP connection.






Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


   Ping frame {
       Type (8) = 0x01,
   }

                        Figure 10: Ping frame format

5.2.3.  Stream frame

   This frame is used to carry chunks of data of a given stream.

   Stream frame {
       Type (7) = 0x01,
       FIN (1),
       Stream ID (32),
       Offset (64),
       Length (16),
       Stream Data (...),
   }

                       Figure 11: Stream frame format

   FIN:  The last bit of the frame type bit indicates that this Stream
      frame ends the stream when its value is 1.  The last byte of the
      stream is at the sum of the Offset and Length fields of this
      frame.

   Stream ID:  A 32-bit unsigned integer indicating the ID of the stream
      this frame relates to.

   Offset:  A 64-bit unsigned integer indicating the offset in bytes of
      the carried data in the stream.

   Length:  A 16-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the
      Stream Data field.

5.2.4.  ACK frame

   This frame is sent by the receiver to acknowledge the receipt of TLS
   records on a particular TCP connection of the TCPLS session.
   Although the reliability of the data exchange on a connection is
   handled by TCP, there are situations such as the failure of a TCP
   connection where a sender does not know whether the TLS frames that
   it sent have been correctly received by the peer.  The ACK frame
   allows a TCPLS receiver to indicate the highest TLS record sequence
   number received on aspecific connection.  The ACK frame can be sent
   over any TCP connection of a TCPLS session.





Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


   ACK frame {
       Type (8) = 0x04,
       Connection ID (32),
       Highest Record Sequence Received (64),
   }

                        Figure 12: ACK frame format

   Connection ID:  A 32-bit unsigned integer indicating the TCP
      connection for which the acknowledgment was sent.

   Highest Record Sequence Received:  A 64-bit unsigned integer
      indicating the highest TLS record sequence number received on the
      connection indicated by the Connection ID.

5.2.5.  New Token frame

   This frame is used by the server to provide tokens to the client.
   Each token can be used to join a new TCP connection to the TCPLS
   session, as described in Section 4.2.1.  Clients MUST NOT send New
   Token frames.

   New Token frame {
       Type (8) = 0x05,
       Sequence (8),
       Token (256),
   }

                     Figure 13: New Token frame format

   Sequence:  A 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the sequence number of
      this token

   Token:  A 32-byte opaque value that can be used as a token by the
      client.

5.2.6.  Connection Reset frame

   This frame is used by the receiver to inform the sender that a TCP
   connection has been reset.

   Connection Reset frame {
       Type (8) = 0x06,
       Connection ID (32)
   }

                     Figure 14: Connection Reset format




Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


   Connection ID:  A 32-bit unsigned integer indicating the ID of the
      connection that failed.

6.  Security Considerations

   When issuing tokens to the client as presented in Section 4.2.1, the
   server SHOULD ensure that their values appear as random to observers
   and cannot be correlated together for a given TCPLS session.

   The security considerations for TLS apply to TCPLS.  The next
   versions of this document will elaborate on other security
   considerations following the guidelines of [RFC3552].

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to create a new "TCPLS" heading for the new
   registry described in Section 5.2.  New registrations in TCPLS
   registries follow the "Specification Required" policy of [RFC8126].

7.1.  TCPLS TLS Extensions

   IANA is requested to add the following entries to the existing "TLS
   ExtensionType Values" registry.

    +=======+================+=========+=============+===============+
    | Value | Extension Name | TLS 1.3 | Recommended | Reference     |
    +=======+================+=========+=============+===============+
    | TBD1  | tcpls          | CH, EE  | N           | This document |
    +-------+----------------+---------+-------------+---------------+
    | TBD2  | tcpls_join     | CH      | N           | This document |
    +-------+----------------+---------+-------------+---------------+

                                 Table 3

   Note that "Recommended" is set to N as these extensions are intended
   for uses as described in this document.

7.2.  TCPLS Frames

   IANA is requested to create a new registry "TCPLS Frames Types" under
   the "TCPLS" heading.

   The registry governs an 8-bit space.  Entries in this registry must
   include a "Frame name" field containing a short mnemonic for the
   frame type.  The initial content of the registry is present in
   Table 2, without the "Rules" column.

8.  References



Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


8.1.  Normative References

   [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/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [CONEXT21] Rochet, F., Assogba, E., Piraux, M., Edeline, K., Donnet,
              B., and O. Bonaventure, "TCPLS - Modern Transport Services
              with TCP and TLS", Proceedings of the The 17th
              International Conference on emerging Networking
              EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT'21) , December 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]
              Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
              Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
              1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-
              dtls13-43, 30 April 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              dtls13-43>.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3552>.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4960>.

   [RFC6335]  Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
              Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
              Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and



Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


              Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
              RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6335>.

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7258>.

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7540>.

   [RFC8041]  Bonaventure, O., Paasch, C., and G. Detal, "Use Cases and
              Operational Experience with Multipath TCP", RFC 8041,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8041, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8041>.

   [RFC8305]  Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
              Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8305>.

   [RFC8548]  Bittau, A., Giffin, D., Handley, M., Mazieres, D., Slack,
              Q., and E. Smith, "Cryptographic Protection of TCP Streams
              (tcpcrypt)", RFC 8548, DOI 10.17487/RFC8548, May 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8548>.

   [RFC8684]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Bonaventure, O., and C.
              Paasch, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with
              Multiple Addresses", RFC 8684, DOI 10.17487/RFC8684, March
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8684>.

   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.

Acknowledgments

   This work has been partially supported by the ``Programme de
   recherche d'interet general WALINNOV - MQUIC project (convention
   number 1810018)'' and European Union through the NGI Pointer
   programme for the TCPLS project (Horizon 2020 Framework Programme,
   Grant agreement number 871528).  The authors thank Quentin De Coninck
   and Louis Navarre for their comments on the first version of this
   draft.




Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                    TCPLS                     October 2021


Authors' Addresses

   Maxime Piraux
   UCLouvain

   Email: maxime.piraux@uclouvain.be


   Olivier Bonaventure
   UCLouvain

   Email: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be


   Florentin Rochet
   University of Edinburgh

   Email: frochet@ed.ac.uk

































Piraux, et al.            Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 19]