rfc9916.original   rfc9916.txt 
Path Computation Element D. Dhody Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Request for Comments: 9916 Huawei
Updates: 8253 (if approved) S. Turner Updates: 8253 S. Turner
Intended status: Standards Track sn3rd Category: Standards Track sn3rd
Expires: 12 July 2024 R. Housley ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Housley
Vigil Security Vigil Security
9 January 2024 January 2026
Updates for PCEPS: TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions Updates to the Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path
draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-04 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Abstract Abstract
Section 3.4 of RFC 8253 specifies TLS connection establishment Section 3.4 of RFC 8253 specifies TLS connection establishment
restrictions for PCEPS; PCEPS refers to usage of TLS to provide a restrictions for PCEPS; PCEPS refers to usage of TLS to provide a
secure transport for PCEP (Path Computation Element Communication secure transport for the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol). This document adds restrictions to specify what PCEPS Protocol (PCEP). This document adds restrictions to specify what
implementations do if they support more than one version of the TLS PCEPS implementations do if they support more than one version of the
protocol and to restrict the use of TLS 1.3's early data. TLS protocol and to restrict the use of TLS 1.3's early data.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Path Computation
Element Working Group mailing list (mailto:pce@ietf.org), which is
archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/. Subscribe
at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 July 2024. 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/rfc9916.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions
3. TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. Normative References
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.2. Informative References
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Section 3.4 of [RFC8253] specifies TLS connection establishment Section 3.4 of [RFC8253] specifies TLS connection establishment
restrictions for PCEPS; PCEPS refers to usage of TLS to provide a restrictions for PCEPS; PCEPS refers to usage of TLS to provide a
secure transport for PCEP (Path Computation Element Communication secure transport for the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol) [RFC5440]. This document adds restrictions to specify what Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]. This document adds restrictions to
PCEPS implementations do if they support more than one version of the specify what PCEPS implementations do if they support more than one
TLS protocol, e.g., TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and TLS 1.3 version of the TLS protocol, e.g., TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and TLS 1.3
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], and to restrict the use of TLS 1.3's early [RFC9846], and to restrict the use of TLS 1.3's early data, which is
data, which is also known as 0-RTT data. All other provisions set also known as 0-RTT data. All other provisions set forth in
forth in [RFC8253] are unchanged, including connection initiation, [RFC8253] are unchanged, including connection initiation, message
message framing, connection closure, certificate validation, peer framing, connection closure, certificate validation, peer identity,
identity, and failure handling. and failure handling.
2. Conventions and Definitions 2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions 3. TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions
Section 3.4 of [RFC8253] Step 1 includes restrictions on PCEPS TLS Step 1 in Section 3.4 of [RFC8253] includes restrictions on PCEPS TLS
connection establishment. This document adds the following connection establishment. This document adds the following
restrictions: restrictions:
* Implementations that support multiple versions of the TLS protocol * Implementations that support multiple versions of the TLS protocol
MUST prefer to negotiate the latest version of the TLS protocol; MUST prefer to negotiate the latest version of the TLS protocol;
see Section 4.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]. see Section 4.2.1 of [RFC9846].
* PCEPS implementations that support TLS 1.3 or later MUST NOT use * PCEPS implementations that support TLS 1.3 or later MUST NOT use
early data. early data.
NOTE: Early data (aka 0-RTT data) is a mechanism defined in TLS 1.3 | NOTE: Early data (aka 0-RTT data) is a mechanism defined in TLS
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] that allows a client to send data | 1.3 [RFC9846] that allows a client to send data ("early data")
("early data") as part of the first flight of messages to a | as part of the first flight of messages to a server. Note that
server. Note that TLS 1.3 can be used without early data as per | TLS 1.3 can be used without early data as per Appendix F.5 of
Appendix F.5 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]. In fact, early data is | [RFC9846]. In fact, early data is permitted by TLS 1.3 only
permitted by TLS 1.3 only when the client and server share a Pre- | when the client and server share a Pre-Shared Key (PSK), either
Shared Key (PSK), either obtained externally or via a previous | obtained externally or via a previous handshake. The client
handshake. The client uses the PSK to authenticate the server and | uses the PSK to authenticate the server and to encrypt the
to encrypt the early data. | early data.
NOTE: As noted in Section 2.3 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], the | NOTE: As noted in Section 2.3 of [RFC9846], the security
security properties for early data are weaker than those for | properties for early data are weaker than those for subsequent
subsequent TLS- protected data. In particular, early data is not | TLS-protected data. In particular, early data is not forward
forward secret, and there is no protection against the replay of | secret, and there is no protection against the replay of early
early data between connections. Appendix E.5 of | data between connections. Appendix E.5 of [RFC9846] requires
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] requires applications not use early data | applications not use early data without a profile that defines
without a profile that defines its use. | its use.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
The Security Considerations of PCEP [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8253], The security considerations of PCEP [RFC5440] [RFC8231] [RFC8253]
[RFC8281], and [RFC8283]; TLS 1.2 [RFC5246]; TLS 1.3 [RFC8281] [RFC8283], TLS 1.2 [RFC5246], TLS 1.3 [RFC9846], and TLS/
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], and; [RFC9325] apply here as well. DTLS recommendations [RFC9325] apply here as well.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations. This document has no IANA actions.
6. Implementation Status
| Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before
| publication, as well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalogue of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
At the time of posting the -04 version of this document, there are no
known implementations of this mechanism. It is believed that one
vendor has implementation, but these plans are too vague to make any
further assertions.
7. References
7.1. Normative References 6. References
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] 6.1. Normative References
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-09, 7 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
rfc8446bis-09>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5246>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8253>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC9325] Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati, [RFC9325] Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9325>. 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.
7.2. Informative References [RFC9846] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 9846, DOI 10.17487/RFC9846, January
2026, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9846>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 6.2. Informative References
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8281>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An [RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control", Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017, RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8283>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Stephane Litkowski, Cheng Li, We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Stephane Litkowski, Cheng Li,
and Andrew Stone for their review. and Andrew Stone for their review.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Huawei
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Sean Turner Sean Turner
sn3rd sn3rd
Email: sean@sn3rd.com Email: sean@sn3rd.com
Russ Housley Russ Housley
Vigil Security, LLC Vigil Security, LLC
516 Dranesville Road 516 Dranesville Road
Herndon, VA, 20170 Herndon, VA 20170
United States of America United States of America
Email: housley@vigilsec.com Email: housley@vigilsec.com
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
144 lines changed or deleted 88 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.