Network Working Group M. Tuexen Internet-Draft Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences Intended status: Standards Track C. Hohendorf Expires: April 25, 2007 University of Duisburg-Essen E. Rescorla RTFM, Inc. October 22, 2006 Datagram Transport Layer Security for Stream Control Transmission Protocol draft-tuexen-dtls-for-sctp-01.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract This document describes the usage of the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol over the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP). Tuexen, et al. Expires April 25, 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft DTLS for SCTP October 2006 The user of DTLS over SCTP can take advantage of all features provided by SCTP and its extensions, especially support of o multiple streams to avoid head of line blocking. o multi-homing to provide network level fault tolerance. o unordered delivery. o partial reliable data transfer. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. DTLS considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. SCTP considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8 Tuexen, et al. Expires April 25, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft DTLS for SCTP October 2006 1. Introduction 1.1. Overview This document describes the usage of the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol, as defined in RFC DTLS [8], over the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), as defined in RFC2960 [4] and RFC3309 [5]. TLS is designed to run on top of a byte-stream oriented transport protocol providing a reliable, in-sequence delivery. Thus, TLS is currently mainly being used on top of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), as defined in RFC0793 [1]. TLS over SCTP as described in RFC3436 [6] has some serious limitations: o It does not support the unordered delivery of SCTP user messages. o It does not support partial reliablility as defined in RFC3758 [7]. o It only supports the usage of the same number of streams in both directions. o It uses a TLS connection for every bidirectional stream, which requires a substantial amount of resources and message exchanges if a large number of streams is used. DTLS over SCTP as described in this document overcomes these limitations of TLS over SCTP. The user of DTLS over SCTP can use all services provided by SCTP and its paritial reliability extension. The dynamic modification of the IP-addresses used by the SCTP enp- points is alos supported. The method described in this document requires that the SCTP implementation supports the optional feature of fragmentation of SCTP user messages and the SCTP authentication extension defined in SCTP- AUTH [9]. 1.2. Terminology This document uses the following terms: Association: An SCTP association. Tuexen, et al. Expires April 25, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft DTLS for SCTP October 2006 Connection: A TLS connection. Session: A TLS session. Stream: A unidirectional stream of an SCTP association. It is uniquely identified by a stream identifier. 1.3. Abbreviations DTLS: Datagram Transport Layer Security MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit SCTP: Stream Control Transmission Protocol TCP: Transmission Control Protocol TLS: Transport Layer Security 2. Conventions The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD. SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [2]. 3. DTLS considerations 3.1. Message fragmentation The DTLS layer MUST NOT perform message fragmentation. The SCTP layer will perform this task. Thus the supported maximum length of SCTP user messages MUST be at least 2^14 + 2048 + 5 = 18437 bytes. Every DTLS message MUST be handled as one user message for SCTP. 3.2. Message sizes DTLS imposes an limit in the user message size. This limit applies also to DTLS/SCTP. 3.3. Replay detection Replay detection of DTLS MUST not be used. Tuexen, et al. Expires April 25, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft DTLS for SCTP October 2006 3.4. Changing of Cipher Specs Whenever Cipher Specs are changed a new shared secret MUST be derived from the master secret and used for SCTP-AUTH. The shared key identifier used by SCTP-AUTH MUST be incremented. 4. SCTP considerations 4.1. Stream usage All DTLS control messages MUST be transported on stream 0 with unlimited reliability and with the ordered delivery feature. User data messages MAY be transported over stream 0 but users SHOULD use other streams for better performance. 4.2. Chunk handling The DATA, SACK and FORWARD-TSN chunks of SCTP MUST be sent in an authenticated way as described in SCTP-AUTH [9]. Other chunks MAY be sent in an authenticated way. This makes sure that an attacker can not modify the stream a message is sent in or affect the ordered/unordered delivery of the message. It is also not possible for an attacker to drop messages and use forged FORWARD-TSN and SACK chunks to hide this dropping. 4.3. Handling of endpoint-pair shared secrets The endpoint-pair shared secret for Shared Key Identifier 0 is empty. After DTLS cipher specs are changed, a 64 byte shared secret is derived from the master secret and used a the new end-point pair shared secret. The shared Key identifier MUST be incremented by 1. If it is 65535, the next value MUST be 1. The next version of the ID will specify how the shared secret is derived from the master secret. 5. IANA Considerations This document does not require any actions from IANA. 6. Security Considerations This section is not complete yet. Tuexen, et al. Expires April 25, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft DTLS for SCTP October 2006 7. Normative References [1] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981. [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [3] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January 1999. [4] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L., and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000. [5] Stone, J., Stewart, R., and D. Otis, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Checksum Change", RFC 3309, September 2002. [6] Jungmaier, A., Rescorla, E., and M. Tuexen, "Transport Layer Security over Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 3436, December 2002. [7] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P. Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004. [8] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer Security", draft-rescorla-dtls-05 (work in progress), June 2005. [9] Tuexen, M., "Authenticated Chunks for Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-auth-04 (work in progress), September 2006. [10] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-15 (work in progress), June 2006. Tuexen, et al. Expires April 25, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft DTLS for SCTP October 2006 Authors' Addresses Michael Tuexen Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences Stegerwaldstr. 39 48565 Steinfurt Germany Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de Carsten Hohendorf University of Duisburg-Essen Ellernstrasse 29 Essen, SC 45326 Germany Email: hohend@iem.uni-due.de Eric Rescorla RTFM, Inc. 2064 Edgewood Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA Phone: +1 650-320-8549 Email: ekr@rtfm.com Tuexen, et al. Expires April 25, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft DTLS for SCTP October 2006 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Tuexen, et al. Expires April 25, 2007 [Page 8]