rfc:rfc9430
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) O. Bergmann Request for Comments: 9430 TZI Updates: 9202 J. Preuß Mattsson Category: Standards Track G. Selander ISSN: 2070-1721 Ericsson
July 2023
Extension of the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) to
Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Abstract
This document updates "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" (RFC 9202) by specifying that the profile applies to TLS as well as DTLS.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9430.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 2. Terminology 3. Specific Changes to RFC 9202 4. Connection Establishment 5. IANA Considerations 6. Security Considerations 7. References 7.1. Normative References 7.2. Informative References Acknowledgments Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework [RFC9200] defines an architecture for lightweight authentication between the Client, Resource Server (RS), and Authorization Server (AS), where the Client and RS may be constrained. "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" [RFC9202] only specifies the use of DTLS [RFC9147] for transport layer security between the nodes in the ACE architecture but works equally well for Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8446]. For many constrained implementations, the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) over UDP [RFC7252] is the first choice, but when deploying ACE in networks controlled by other entities (such as the Internet), UDP might be blocked on the path between the Client and the Resource Server, and the Client might have to fall back to CoAP over TCP [RFC8323] for NAT or firewall traversal. This dual support for security over TCP as well as UDP is already supported by the Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) profile [RFC9203].
This document updates [RFC9202] by specifying that the profile applies to TLS as well as DTLS. It only impacts the transport layer security channel between the Client and Resource Server. The same access rights are valid in case transport layer security is provided by either DTLS or TLS. The same access token can be used by either DTLS or TLS between a given (Client, RS) pair. Therefore, the value coap_dtls in the ace_profile parameter of an Authorization Server to Client (AS-to-Client) response or in the ace_profile claim of an access token indicates that either DTLS or TLS can be used for transport layer security.
2. Terminology
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.
Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts described in [RFC9200] and [RFC9202].
3. Specific Changes to RFC 9202
The main changes to [RFC9202] specified in this document are limited to replacing "DTLS" with "DTLS/TLS" throughout the document. This essentially impacts the use of secure transport, as described in Sections 3.2.2, 3.3.2, 4, and 5.
In addition to this, the Client and Resource Server behavior is updated to describe the case where either or both DTLS and TLS may be available, as described in the following section.
4. Connection Establishment
Following the procedures defined in [RFC9202], a Client can retrieve an access token from an Authorization Server in order to establish a security association with a specific Resource Server. The ace_profile parameter in the Client-to-AS request and AS-to-Client response is used to determine the ACE profile that the Client uses towards the Resource Server.
The ace_profile parameter indicates the use of the DTLS profile for ACE, as defined in [RFC9202]. Therefore, the Client typically first tries using DTLS to connect to the Resource Server. If this fails, the Client MAY try to connect to the Resource Server via TLS.
As resource-constrained devices are not expected to support both transport layer security mechanisms, Clients and Resource Servers SHOULD support DTLS and MAY support TLS. A Client that implements either TLS or DTLS but not both might fail in establishing a secure communication channel with the Resource Server altogether. Nonconstrained Clients and Resource Servers SHOULD support both TLS and DTLS.
Note that a communication setup with an a priori unknown Resource Server typically employs an initial unauthorized resource request, as illustrated in Section 2 of [RFC9202]. If this message exchange succeeds, the Client SHOULD first use the same underlying transport protocol for the establishment of the security association to the Resource Server (i.e., DTLS for UDP, and TLS for TCP).
As a consequence, the selection of the transport protocol used for the initial unauthorized resource request also depends on the transport layer security mechanism supported by the Client. Clients that support either DTLS or TLS but not both SHOULD use the transport protocol underlying the supported transport layer security mechanism for an initial unauthorized resource request to the Resource Server, as in Section 2 of [RFC9202].
5. IANA Considerations
In the "ACE Profiles" registry, the Description and Reference fields have been updated as follows for coap_dtls:
Name: coap_dtls
Description: Profile for delegating client Authentication and
Authorization for Constrained Environments by establishing a
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) or Transport Layer
Security (TLS) channel between resource-constrained nodes.
CBOR Value: 1
Reference: [RFC9202], RFC 9430
6. Security Considerations
The security consideration and requirements in [RFC9202], TLS 1.3 [RFC8446], and BCP 195 [RFC8996] [RFC9325] also apply to this document.
7. References
7.1. 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/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[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/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8323] Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K.,
Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained
Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets",
RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC8323, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8323>.
[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/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC9147] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9147>.
[RFC9200] Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and
H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments Using the OAuth 2.0 Framework
(ACE-OAuth)", RFC 9200, DOI 10.17487/RFC9200, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9200>.
[RFC9202] Gerdes, S., Bergmann, O., Bormann, C., Selander, G., and
L. Seitz, "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
Profile for Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments (ACE)", RFC 9202,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9202, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9202>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC8996] Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS
1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8996>.
[RFC9203] Palombini, F., Seitz, L., Selander, G., and M. Gunnarsson,
"The Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE) Profile of the Authentication and Authorization
for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework", RFC 9203,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9203, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9203>.
[RFC9325] Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Marco Tiloca for reviewing this specification.
Authors' Addresses
Olaf Bergmann Universität Bremen TZI D-28359 Bremen Germany Email: bergmann@tzi.org
John Preuß Mattsson Ericsson AB SE-164 80 Stockholm Sweden Email: john.mattsson@ericsson.com
Göran Selander Ericsson AB SE-164 80 Stockholm Sweden Email: goran.selander@ericsson.com
/home/gen.uk/domains/wiki.gen.uk/public_html/data/pages/rfc/rfc9430.txt · Last modified: 2023/07/12 02:35 by 127.0.0.1