TCP-ENO: Encryption Negotiation Option
draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-18

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (tcpinc WG)
Last updated 2017-11-30
Replaces draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Experimental
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Reviews GENART, SECDIR will not review this version
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication (wg milestones: Nov 2015 - Adopt first WG docum..., Dec 2016 - Submit unauthenticat... )
Document shepherd David Black
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2017-10-18)
IESG IESG state Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Mirja K├╝hlewind
Send notices to David Black <david.black@dell.com>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state None
Network Working Group                                          A. Bittau
Internet-Draft                                                    Google
Intended status: Experimental                                  D. Giffin
Expires: June 3, 2018                                Stanford University
                                                              M. Handley
                                               University College London
                                                             D. Mazieres
                                                     Stanford University
                                                                E. Smith
                                                       Kestrel Institute
                                                       November 30, 2017

                 TCP-ENO: Encryption Negotiation Option
                      draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-18

Abstract

   Despite growing adoption of TLS, a significant fraction of TCP
   traffic on the Internet remains unencrypted.  The persistence of
   unencrypted traffic can be attributed to at least two factors.
   First, some legacy protocols lack a signaling mechanism (such as a
   "STARTTLS" command) by which to convey support for encryption, making
   incremental deployment impossible.  Second, legacy applications
   themselves cannot always be upgraded, requiring a way to implement
   encryption transparently entirely within the transport layer.  The
   TCP Encryption Negotiation Option (TCP-ENO) addresses both of these
   problems through a new TCP option-kind providing out-of-band, fully
   backward-compatible negotiation of encryption.

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 June 3, 2018.

Bittau, et al.            Expires June 3, 2018                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   tcpeno                    November 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Design goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  TCP-ENO Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  ENO Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  The Global Suboption  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  TCP-ENO Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.4.  Specifying Suboption Data Length  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.5.  The Negotiated TEP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.6.  TCP-ENO Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.7.  Data in SYN Segments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.8.  Negotiation Transcript  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   5.  Requirements for TEPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.1.  Session IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  Future Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   8.  Design Rationale  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.1.  Handshake Robustness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.2.  Suboption Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.3.  Passive Role Bit  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.4.  Application-aware Bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     8.5.  Use of ENO Option Kind by TEPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.6.  Unpredictability of Session IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
Show full document text