A TCP and TLS Transport for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
draft-tschofenig-core-coap-tcp-tls-02

CORE                                                     C. Bormann, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                   Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Standards Track                                S. Lemay
Expires: September 10, 2015                         V. Solorzano Barboza
                                                      Zebra Technologies
                                                           H. Tschofenig
                                                                ARM Ltd.
                                                           March 9, 2015

A TCP and TLS Transport for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
               draft-tschofenig-core-coap-tcp-tls-02.txt

Abstract

   The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) has been designed with TCP as
   an underlying transport protocol.  The Constrained Application
   Protocol (CoAP), which has been inspired by HTTP, has on the other
   hand been defined to make use of UDP.  Therefore, reliable delivery
   and a simple congestion control and flow control mechanism are
   provided by the message layer of the CoAP protocol.

   A number of environments benefit from the use of CoAP directly over a
   reliable byte stream that already provides these services.  This
   document defines the use of CoAP over TCP as well as CoAP over TLS.

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 http://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 10, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         TCP/TLS Transport for CoAP             March 2015

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://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.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Constrained Application Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  CoAP URI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  coap+tcp URI scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  coaps+tcp URI scheme  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Service Name and Port Number Registration . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  URI Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.3.  ALPN Protocol ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   The Internet protocol stack is organized in layers, namely link
   layer, internet layer, transport layer, and the application layer
   ([RFC1122]).

   IP emerged as the waist of the hour glass and supports a variety of
   link layers and new link layer technologies can be added in the
   future, without affecting IP.

   Combined with the end-to-end principle, the hour glass indicates the
   level of protocol understanding that intermediaries need to have in
   order to forward IP packets between a sender and a receiver (absent
   any specific application layer entities, such as proxies or caches).
   Having IP as the waist means that anyone can extend the layers above
   the network layer in the way they want to communicate end-to-end,
   including defining new transport layer protocols.

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         TCP/TLS Transport for CoAP             March 2015

   Unfortunately, some network deployments depart from this
   architecture.  The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252]
   was designed for Internet of Things (IoT) deployments, assuming that
   UDP can be used freely - UDP [RFC0768], or DTLS [RFC6347] over UDP,
   is a good choice for transferring small amounts of data in networks
   that follow the IP architecture.  Some CoAP deployments, however, may
   have to integrate well with existing enterprise infrastructure, where
   the use of UDP-based protocols may not be well-received or even
   supported by firewalls.  Middleboxes that are unaware of the IoT can
   make the use of UDP brittle.

   As a separate consideration, some environments benefit from the more
   advanced congestion control and flow control capabilities provided by
   TCP.  For instance, CoAP back-end processors in a cloud environment
   may want to connect between each other via TCP instead of UDP; a TCP-
   to-UDP gateway can be used at the cloud boundary to talk to the UDP-
   based IoT.

   To make both IoT devices and their associated back-end processors
   work smoothly in these demanding environments, CoAP needs to make use
   of a different transport protocol, namely TCP [RFC0793] and in some
   situations even TLS [RFC5246].

   The present document document describes a shim header that conveys
   length information about each CoAP message included.  Modifications
   to CoAP beyond the replacement of the message layer (e.g., to
   introduce further optimizations) are intentionally avoided.

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
   [RFC2119].

3.  Constrained Application Protocol

   The interaction model of CoAP over TCP is very similar to the one for
   CoAP over UDP with the key difference that TCP voids the need to
   provide certain transport layer protocol features, such as reliable
   delivery, fragmentation and reassembly, as well as congestion
   control, at the CoAP level.  The protocol stack is illustrated in
   Figure 1 (derived from [RFC7252], Figure 1).

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         TCP/TLS Transport for CoAP             March 2015

           +----------------------+
           |      Application     |
           +----------------------+
           +----------------------+
           |  Requests/Responses  |  CoAP (RFC7252)
           |----------------------|
           |    Message adapter   |  this document
           +----------------------+
           +-----------+    ^
           |    TLS    |    |
           +-----------+    v
           +----------------------+
           |          TCP         |
           +----------------------+

              Figure 1: The CoAP over TLS/TCP Protocol Stack

   TCP offers features that are not available in UDP and consequently
   have been provided in the message layer of CoAP.  Since TCP offers
   reliable delivery, there is no need to offer a redundant
   acknowledgement at the CoAP messaging layer.

   Hence, the only message type supported when using CoAP over TCP is
   the Non-confirmable message (NON).  By nature of TCP, a NON over TCP
   is still transmitted reliably.  Figure 2 (derived from [RFC7252],
   Figure 3) shows this message exchange graphically.  A UDP-to-TCP
   gateway will therefore discard all empty messages, such as empty ACKs
   (after operating on them at the message layer), and re-pack the
   contents of all non-empty CON, NON, or ACK messages (i.e., those ACK
   messages that have a piggy-backed response) into NON messages.

   Similarly, there is no need to detect duplicate delivery of a
   message.  In UDP CoAP, the Message ID is used for relating
   acknowledgements to Confirmable messages as well as for duplicate
   detection.  Since the Message ID thus is not meaningful over TCP, it
   is elided (as indicated by the dashes in Figure 2).

           Client              Server
              |                  |
              |   NON [------]   |
              +----------------->|
              |                  |

               Figure 2: NON Message Transmission over TCP.

   As a result of removing the message layer in CoAP over TCP, the only
   supported message type from the ones CoAP over UDP provides is the

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         TCP/TLS Transport for CoAP             March 2015

   NON type.  A response is sent back as defined in [RFC7252], as
   illustrated in Figure 3 (derived from [RFC7252], Figure 6).

           Client              Server
              |                  |
              |   NON [------]   |
              | GET /temperature |
              |   (Token 0x74)   |
              +----------------->|
              |                  |
              |   NON [------]   |
              |   2.05 Content   |
              |   (Token 0x74)   |
              |     "22.5 C"     |
              |<-----------------+
              |                  |

                      Figure 3: NON Request/Response.

4.  Message Format

   The CoAP message format defined in [RFC7252], as shown in Figure 4,
   relies on the datagram transport (UDP, or DTLS over UDP) for keeping
   the individual messages separate.

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Ver| T |  TKL  |      Code     |          Message ID           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Token (if any, TKL bytes) ...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Options (if any) ...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|    Payload (if any) ...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 4: RFC 7252 defined CoAP Message Format.

   In a stream oriented transport protocol such as TCP, some other form
   of delimiting messages is needed.  For this purpose, CoAP over TCP
   introduces a length field.  Figure 5 shows the 2-byte shim header
   carrying length information prepending the CoAP message header.

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         TCP/TLS Transport for CoAP             March 2015

        0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Message Length         |Ver| T |  TKL  |      Code     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Token (if any, TKL bytes) ...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Options (if any) ...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|    Payload (if any) ...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 5: CoAP Header with prepended Shim Header.

   The 'Message Length' field is a 16-bit unsigned integer in network
   byte order.  It provides the length of the subsequent CoAP message
   (including the CoAP header but excluding this message length field)
   in bytes.  T is always the code for NON (1).  The Message ID is
   meaningless and thus elided.  The semantics of the other CoAP header
   fields is left unchanged.

4.1.  Discussion

   One might wish that, when CoAP is used over TLS, then the TLS record
   layer length field could be used in place of the shim header length.
   Each CoAP message would be transported in a separate TLS record layer
   message, making the shim header that includes the length information
   redundant.

   However, RFC 5246 says that "Client message boundaries are not
   preserved in the record layer (i.e., multiple client messages of the
   same ContentType MAY be coalesced into a single TLSPlaintext record,
   or a single message MAY be fragmented across several records)."
   While the Record Layer provides length information about of
   subsequent application data and handshaking payloads TLS
   implementations typically do not support an API interface that would
   provide access to the record layer delimiting information.  An
   additional problem with this approach is that this approach would
   remove the potential optimization of packing several CoAP messages
   into one record layer message, which is normally a way to amortize
   the record layer and MAC overhead over all these messages.

   In summary, we are not pursuing this idea for an optimization.

   One other observation is that the message size limitations defined in
   Section 4.6 of [RFC7252] are no longer strictly necessary.
   Consenting [how?] implementations may want to interchange messages
   with payload sizes than 1024 bytes, potentially also obviating the

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         TCP/TLS Transport for CoAP             March 2015

   need for the Block protocol [I-D.ietf-core-block].  It must be noted
   that entirely getting rid of the block protocol is not a generally
   applicable solution, as:

   o  a UDP-to-TCP gateway may simply not have the context to convert a
      message with a Block option into the equivalent exchange without
      any use of a Block option.

   o  large messages might also cause undesired head-of-line blocking.

   The general assumption is therefore that the block protocol will
   continue to be used over TCP, even if applications occasionally do
   exchange messages with payload sizes larger than desirable in UDP.

5.  CoAP URI

   CoAP [RFC7252] defines the "coap" and "coaps" URI schemes for
   identifying CoAP resources and providing a means of locating the
   resource.  RFC 7252 defines these resources for use with CoAP over
   UDP.

   The present specification introduces two new URI schemes, namely
   "coap+tcp" and "coaps+tcp".  The rules from Section 6 of [RFC7252]
   apply to these two new URI schemes.

   [RFC7252], Section 8 (Multicast CoAP), does not apply to the URI
   schemes defined in the present specification.

   Resources made available via one of the "coap+tcp" or "coaps+tcp"
   schemes have no shared identity with the other scheme or with the
   "coap" or "coaps" scheme, even if their resource identifiers indicate
   the same authority (the same host listening to the same port).  The
   schemes constitute distinct namespaces and, in combination with the
   authority, are considered to be distinct origin servers.

5.1.  coap+tcp URI scheme

   coap-tcp-URI = "coap+tcp:" "//" host [ ":" port ] path-abempty
                  [ "?" query ]

   The semantics defined in [RFC7252], Section 6.1, applies to this URI
   scheme, with the following changes:

   o  The port subcomponent indicates the TCP port at which the CoAP
      server is located.  (If it is empty or not given, then the default
      port 5683 is assumed, as with UDP.)

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         TCP/TLS Transport for CoAP             March 2015

5.2.  coaps+tcp URI scheme

   coaps-tcp-URI = "coaps+tcp:" "//" host [ ":" port ] path-abempty
                   [ "?" query ]

   The semantics defined in [RFC7252], Section 6.2, applies to this URI
   scheme, with the following changes:

   o  The port subcomponent indicates the TCP port at which the TLS
      server for the CoAP server is located.  If it is empty or not
      given, then the default port 443 is assumed (this is different
      from the default port for "coaps", i.e., CoAP over DTLS over UDP).

   o  When CoAP is exchanged over TLS port 443 then the "TLS Application
      Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension" [RFC7301] MUST be used to
      allow demultiplexing at the server-side unless out-of-band
      information ensures that the client only interacts with a server
      that is able to demultiplex CoAP messages over port 443.  This
      would, for example, be true for many Internet of Things
      deployments where clients are pre-configured to only ever talk
      with specific servers.  [[_1: Shouldn't we simply always require
      ALPN? --cabo]]

6.  Security Considerations

   This document defines how to convey CoAP over TCP and TLS.  It does
   not introduce new vulnerabilities beyond those described already in
   the CoAP specification.  CoAP [RFC7252] makes use of DTLS 1.2 and
   this specification consequently uses TLS 1.2 [RFC5246].  CoAP MUST
   NOT be used with older versions of TLS.  Guidelines for use of cipher
   suites and TLS extensions can be found in [I-D.ietf-dice-profile].

7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  Service Name and Port Number Registration

   IANA is requested to assign the port number 5683 and the service name
   "coap+tcp", in accordance with [RFC6335].

   Service Name.
      coap+tcp

   Transport Protocol.
      tcp

   Assignee.
      IESG <iesg@ietf.org>

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft         TCP/TLS Transport for CoAP             March 2015

   Contact.
      IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>

   Description.
      Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)

   Reference.
      [RFCthis]

   Port Number.
      5683

   Similarly, IANA is requested to assign the service name "coaps+tcp",
   in accordance with [RFC6335].  However, no separate port number is
   used for coaps over TCP; instead, the ALPN protocol ID defined in
   Section 7.3 is used over port 443.

   Service Name.
      coaps+tcp

   Transport Protocol.
      tcp

   Assignee.
      IESG <iesg@ietf.org>

   Contact.
      IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>

   Description.
      Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)

   Reference.
      [RFC7301], [RFCthis]

   Port Number.
      443 (see also Section 7.3 of [RFCthis]})

7.2.  URI Schemes

   This document registers two new URI schemes, namely "coap+tcp" and
   "coaps+tcp", for the use of CoAP over TCP and for CoAP over TLS over
   TCP, respectively.  The "coap+tcp" and "coaps+tcp" URI schemes can
   thus be compared to the "http" and "https" URI schemes.

   The syntax of the "coap" and "coaps" URI schemes is specified in
   Section 6 of [RFC7252] and the present document re-uses their

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft         TCP/TLS Transport for CoAP             March 2015

   semantics for "coap+tcp" and "coaps+tcp", respectively, with the
   exception that TCP, or TLS over TCP is used as a transport protocol.

   IANA is requested to add these new URI schemes to the registry
   established with [RFC4395].

7.3.  ALPN Protocol ID

   This document requests a value from the "Application Layer Protocol
   Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs" created by [RFC7301]:

   Protocol:
      CoAP

   Identification Sequence:
      0x63 0x6f 0x61 0x70 ("coap")

   Reference:
      [RFCthis]

8.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Stephen Berard, Geoffrey Cristallo, Olivier
   Delaby, Michael Koster, Matthias Kovatsch, Szymon Sasin, and Zach
   Shelby for their feedback.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-dice-profile]
              Tschofenig, H. and T. Fossati, "A TLS/DTLS Profile for the
              Internet of Things", draft-ietf-dice-profile-10 (work in
              progress), March 2015.

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
              793, September 1981.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4395]  Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
              Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 35, RFC
              4395, February 2006.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft         TCP/TLS Transport for CoAP             March 2015

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, June 2014.

   [RFC7301]  Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
              Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, July 2014.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-core-block]
              Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, "Blockwise transfers in CoAP",
              draft-ietf-core-block-16 (work in progress), October 2014.

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              August 1980.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

   [RFC6335]  Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
              Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
              Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
              Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165, RFC
              6335, August 2011.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.

Authors' Addresses

   Carsten Bormann (editor)
   Universitaet Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   Bremen  D-28359
   Germany

   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Email: cabo@tzi.org

   Simon Lemay
   Zebra Technologies
   820 W. Jackson Blvd.suite 700
   Chicago  60607
   United States of America

   Phone: +1-847-634-6700
   Email: slemay@zebra.com

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft         TCP/TLS Transport for CoAP             March 2015

   Valik Solorzano Barboza
   Zebra Technologies
   820 W. Jackson Blvd. suite 700
   Chicago  60607
   United States of America

   Phone: +1-847-634-6700
   Email: vsolorzanobarboza@zebra.com

   Hannes Tschofenig
   ARM Ltd.
   110 Fulbourn Rd
   Cambridge  CB1 9NJ
   Great Britain

   Email: Hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:   http://www.tschofenig.priv.at

Bormann, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 12]