Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols
draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (lwig WG)
Last updated 2019-03-11
Replaces draft-mattsson-lwig-security-protocol-comparison
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
On Agenda lwig at IETF-104
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
LWIG Working Group                                           J. Mattsson
Internet-Draft                                              F. Palombini
Intended status: Informational                               Ericsson AB
Expires: September 12, 2019                               March 11, 2019

                 Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols
            draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-03

Abstract

   This document analyzes and compares the sizes of key exchange flights
   and the per-packet message size overheads when using different
   security protocols to secure CoAP.  The analyzed security protocols
   are DTLS 1.2, DTLS 1.3, TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3, EDHOC, OSCORE, and Group
   OSCORE.  The DTLS and TLS record layers are analyzed with and without
   6LoWPAN-GHC compression.  DTLS is analyzed with and without
   Connection ID.

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 September 12, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Mattsson & Palombini   Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols       March 2019

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Overhead of Key Exchange Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  DTLS 1.3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1.  Message Sizes RPK + ECDHE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.2.  Message Sizes PSK + ECDHE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.2.3.  Message Sizes PSK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.2.4.  Cached Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.2.5.  Resumption  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.2.6.  Without Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       2.2.7.  DTLS Raw Public Keys  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     2.3.  TLS 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.3.1.  Message Sizes RPK + ECDHE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.3.2.  Message Sizes PSK + ECDHE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       2.3.3.  Message Sizes PSK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     2.4.  EDHOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       2.4.1.  Message Sizes RPK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       2.4.2.  Message Sizes Certificates  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       2.4.3.  Message Sizes PSK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       2.4.4.  message_1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       2.4.5.  message_2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       2.4.6.  message_3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       2.4.7.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     2.5.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   3.  Overhead for Protection of Application Data . . . . . . . . .  28
     3.1.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     3.2.  DTLS 1.2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       3.2.1.  DTLS 1.2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       3.2.2.  DTLS 1.2 with 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       3.2.3.  DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       3.2.4.  DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID and 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . .  32
     3.3.  DTLS 1.3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
       3.3.1.  DTLS 1.3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
       3.3.2.  DTLS 1.3 with 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       3.3.3.  DTLS 1.3 with Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
Show full document text