ACE Working Group M. Tiloca
Internet-Draft R. Hoeglund
Intended status: Standards Track L. Seitz
Expires: January 7, 2020 RISE AB
F. Palombini
Ericsson AB
July 06, 2019
Group OSCORE Profile of the Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments Framework
draft-tiloca-ace-group-oscore-profile-00
Abstract
This document specifies a profile for the Authentication and
Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework. The
profile uses Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE) and/or Group OSCORE to provide communication security
between a Client and (a group of) Resource Server(s). Furthermore,
the profile uses (Group) OSCORE to provide server authentication, and
OSCORE to achieve proof-of-possession for a key owned by the Client
and bound to an OAuth 2.0 Access Token. Also, the profile provides
proof-of-group-membership for the Client, by securely binding the
pre-established Group OSCORE Security Context to the pairwise OSCORE
Security Context newly established with the Resource Server.
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 January 7, 2020.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Pre-Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Access Token Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Access Token Posting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Secure Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Client-AS Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. C-to-AS: POST to Token Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.1. 'context_id' Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2. 'salt' Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. AS-to-C: Access Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Client-RS Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. C-to-RS POST to authz-info Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. RS-to-C: 2.01 (Created) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. OSCORE Setup - Client Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4. OSCORE Setup - Resource Server Side . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.5. Access Rights Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Secure Communication with the AS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Discarding the Security Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. CBOR Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. ACE Profile Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.2. OAuth Parameters Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.3. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registry . . . . . . . . 25
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A. Profile Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction
A number of applications rely on a group communication model, where a
Client can access a resource shared by multiple Resource Servers at
once, e.g. over IP multicast. Typical examples are switching of
luminaries, actuators control, and distribution of software updates.
Secure communication in the group can be achieved by sharing a set of
key material, which is typically provided upon joining the group.
For some instances of such applications, it may be just fine to
enforce access control in a straightforward and plain fashion. That
is, it is assumed that any Client authorized to join the group and to
get the group key material, is also implicitly authorized as a group
member to perform any action at any resource of any Server in the
group. An example of an application where such implicit
authorization might be used is a lighting scenario, where the
lightbulbs are the Servers, while the user account on an app on the
user's phone is the Client. In this case, it might be fine to not
require additional authorization evidence from any user account, if
it is acceptable that any current group member is also authorized to
switch on and off any light, or to check their status.
However, in different instances of such applications, the approach
above is not desirable, as different group members are intended to
have different access rights to resources of other group members. An
example of an application where a more fine-grained authorization
approach is preferable is the control of smart locks acting as
Servers in the group, where: a first type of Client, e.g. a user
account of a child, is allowed to only query the status of the smart
locks; whereas a second type of Client, e.g. a user account of a
parent, is allowed to both query and change the status of the smart
locks. Further similar examples concern the enforcement of different
sets of permissions in groups with sensor/actuator devices, e.g.
thermostats, acting as Servers.
Hence, in this latter case, being a legitimate group member and
having obtained the group key material does not imply any particular
access rights. Thus, a more fine-grained access control model has to
be enforced, e.g. by using the Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments (ACE) framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
That is, a Client has to first obtain authorization credentials in
the form of an OAuth 2.0 Access Token, and post it to the Resource
Server(s) in the group before accessing the intended resources.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
The ACE framework delegates to separate profile documents how to
secure communications between the Client and the Resource Server.
However each of the current profiles of ACE defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-
oscore-profile][I-D.ietf-ace-dtls-authorize][I-D.ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-pr
ofile] admits a single security protocol that cannot be used to
protect group messages sent over IP multicast.
This document specifies a profile of ACE, where a Client uses CoAP
[RFC7252] to communicate to a single Resource Server, or CoAP over IP
multicast [RFC7390][I-D.dijk-core-groupcomm-bis] to communicate to
multiple Resource Servers that are members of a group and share a
common set of resources. This profile uses two complementary
security protocols to provide secure communication between the Client
and the Resource Server(s).
That is, this document defines the use of either Object Security for
Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE)
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security] or Group OSCORE
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm] to protect unicast requests
addressed to a single Resource Server, as well as possible responses.
Additionally, it defines the use of Group OSCORE to protect multicast
requests sent to a group of Resource Servers, as well as possible
individual responses. The Client and the Resource Servers need to
have already joined an OSCORE group, for instance by using the
approach defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore] which is also
based on ACE.
The Client authorizes its access to the Resource Server by using an
Access Token, which is bound to a key (the proof-of-possession key).
This profile uses OSCORE to achieve proof of possession, and OSCORE
or Group OSCORE to achieve server authentication. Furthermore, this
profile provides proof of Client's membership to the correct OSCORE
group, by securely binding the pre-established Group OSCORE Security
Context to the pairwise OSCORE Security Context newly established
between the Client and the Resource Server.
OSCORE specifies how to use CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
[RFC8152] to secure CoAP messages. Group OSCORE builds on OSCORE to
support group communication, and ensures source authentication by
means of digital countersignatures embedded in protected messages.
1.1. 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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts
related to the CoAP protocol [RFC7252], as well as related to the
protection and processing of CoAP messages through OSCORE
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security], also in group communication
scenarios through Group OSCORE [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].
These include the concept of Group Manager, as the entity responsible
for a set of groups where communications among members are secured
with Group OSCORE.
This document also refers to "pairwise OSCORE Security Context", i.e.
an OSCORE Security Context established between only one Client and
one Resource Server, and used to communicate with OSCORE
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security].
Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts
described in the ACE framework for authentication and authorization
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], as well as in the OSCORE profile of ACE
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]. The terminology for entities in the
considered architecture is defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. In
particular, this includes Client (C), Resource Server (RS), and
Authorization Server (AS).
Note that, unless otherwise indicated, the term "endpoint" is used
here following its OAuth definition, aimed at denoting resources such
as /token and /introspect at the AS, and /authz-info at the RS. This
document does not use the CoAP definition of "endpoint", which is "An
entity participating in the CoAP protocol".
2. Protocol Overview
This section provides an overview on how to use the ACE framework for
authentication and authorization [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] to secure
communications between a Client and a (set of) Resource Server(s)
using OSCORE [I-D.ietf-core-object-security] and/or Group OSCORE
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].
An overview of the protocol flow for this profile is shown in
Figure 1. In the figure, it is assumed that C, RS1 and RS2 have
previously joined an OSCORE group with Group Identifier (gid)
"abcd0000", and got assigned Sender ID (sid) "0", "1" and "2" in the
group, respectively. It is also assumed that both RS1 and RS2 are
associated with the same AS. For simplicity, the figure does not
show the preliminary phase where C, R1 and R2 join the OSCORE group.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
C RS1 RS2 AS
| [--- Resource Request --->] | | |
| | | |
| [<--- AS Information -----] | | |
| | | |
|-------- POST /token ------------------------------------------------>|
| (aud: RS1, sid: 0, gid: abcd0000) | |
| | | |
|<---------------------------------- Access Token + RS Information ----|
| | (aud: RS1, sid: 0, gid: abcd0000) |
|---- POST /authz-info ------>| | |
| (access_token, N1) | | |
| | | |
|<--- 2.01 Created (N2) ------| | |
| | | |
/Pairwise OSCORE Sec /Pairwise OSCORE Sec | |
Context Derivation/ Context Derivation/ | |
| | | |
|-------- POST /token ------------------------------------------------>|
| (aud: RS2, sid: 0, gid: abcd0000) | |
| | | |
|<---------------------------------- Access Token + RS Information ----|
| | (aud: RS2, sid: 0, gid: abcd0000) |
| | | |
|----- POST /authz-info ------------------->| |
| (access_token, N1') | | |
| | | |
|<--- 2.01 Created (N2') -------------------| |
| | | |
/Pairwise OSCORE Sec | /Pairwise OSCORE Sec |
Context Derivation/ | Context Derivation/ |
| | | |
|------ OSCORE Request ------->| | |
| ?(N1, N2, abcd0000) | | |
| | | |
|<----- OSCORE Response -------| | |
| | | |
|-- Group OSCORE Request --+-->| | |
| (kid: 0, gid: abcd0000) \--------------->| |
| | | |
|<--- Group OSCORE Response ---| | |
| (kid: 1) | | |
| | | |
|<--- Group OSCORE Response ----------------| |
| (kid: 2) | | |
| ... | | |
Figure 1: Protocol Overview.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
2.1. Pre-Conditions
Using Group OSCORE requires both the Client and the Resource Servers
to have previously joined an OSCORE group. This especially includes
the derivation of the Group OSCORE Security Context and the
assignment of unique Sender IDs to use in the group. Nodes may join
the OSCORE group through the respective Group Manager by using the
approach defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore] which is also
based on ACE.
As a pre-requisite for this profile, the Client has to have
successfully joined the OSCORE group where also the Resource Servers
(RSs) are members. Depending on the limited information initially
available, the Client may have to first discover the exact OSCORE
group used by the RSs for the resources of interest, e.g. by using
the approach defined in [I-D.tiloca-core-oscore-discovery].
2.2. Access Token Retrieval
This profile requires that the Client retrieves an Access Token from
the AS for the resource(s) it wants to access on each of the RSs,
using the /token endpoint, as specified in Section 5.6 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. In a general case, it can be assumed
that different RSs are associated to different ASs, even if the RSs
are members of a same OSCORE group.
In the Access Token request to the AS, the Client MUST include the
Group Identifier of the OSCORE group and its own Sender ID in that
group. The AS MUST include these pieces of information in the Access
Token and in the Access Token response to the Client.
To gain knowledge of the AS in charge of a resource hosted at a RS,
the Client MAY first send an initial Unauthorized Resource Request
message to that RS. Then, the RS denies the request and replies to
the Client by specifying the address of its AS, as defined in
Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. The Access Token request
and response MUST be confidentiality-protected and ensure
authenticity. This profile RECOMMENDS the use of OSCORE between the
Client and the AS, but TLS [RFC5246][RFC8446] or DTLS
[RFC6347][I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] MAY be used additionally or instead.
2.3. Access Token Posting
After having retrieved the Access Token from the AS, the Client
generates a nonce N1 and posts both the Access Token and N1 to the
RS, using the /authz-info endpoint and mechanisms specified in
Section 5.8 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and Content-Format =
application/ace+cbor.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
If the Access Token is valid, the RS replies to this POST request
with a 2.01 (Created) response with Content-Format = application/
ace+cbor, which contains a nonce N2 in a CBOR map. Also, the RS
concatenates N1 with N2, and further concatenates the result with the
Group Identifier of the OSCORE group specified in the Access Token.
The RS sets the ID Context in the pairwise OSCORE Security Context
(see Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-core-object-security]) to N1 concatenated
with N2 concatenated with the Group Identifier of the OSCORE group.
Then, the RS derives the complete pairwise OSCORE Security Context
associated with the received Access Token, following Section 3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security]. During the derivation process, the
RS uses the ID Context above, plus the parameters in the Access
Token. The derivation process uses also the Master Secret of the
OSCORE group, that the RS knows as a group member, as well as the
Sender ID of the Client in the OSCORE group, which is specified in
the Access Token. This ensures that the pairwise OSCORE Security
Context is securely bound to the Group OSCORE Security Context of the
OSCORE group.
Finally, the RS stores the association between the authorization
information from the Access Token, and the Group Identifier of the
OSCORE group together with the Sender ID of the Client in that group.
After having received the nonce N2, the Client sets the ID Context in
its pairwise OSCORE Security Context (see Section 3 of
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security]) to N1 concatenated with N2
concatenated with the Group Identifier of the OSCORE group. Then,
the Client derives the complete pairwise OSCORE Security Context,
following Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-core-object-security]. During the
derivation process, the Client uses the ID Context above, plus the
parameters received from the AS. The derivation process uses also
the Master Secret of the OSCORE group, that the Client knows as a
group member, as well as its own Sender ID in the OSCORE group.
When the Client communicates with the RS using the pairwise OSCORE
Security Context, the RS achieves proof-of-possession of the
credentials bound to the Access Token. Also, the RS verifies that
the Client is a legitimate member of the OSCORE group.
Finally, when the Client communicates with the RS using the Group
OSCORE Security Context, the RS verifies that the Client is the exact
group member with the same Sender ID associated to the Access Token.
This occurs when verifying a request protected with Group OSCORE,
since it embeds a countersignature computed also over the Client's
Sender ID included in the message.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
2.4. Secure Communication
The Client can send a request protected with OSCORE to the RS. This
message may contain the ID Context value, i.e. N1 concatenated with
N2 concatenated with the Group Identifier of the OSCORE group. If
the request is correctly verified, then the RS stores the pairwise
OSCORE Security Context, and uses it to protect the possible
response, as well as further communications with the Client, until
the Access Token expires. This pairwise OSCORE Security Context is
discarded if the same Access Token is re-used to successfully derive
a new pairwise OSCORE Security Context. Once the Client has received
a valid secure response, it does not continue to include the ID
Context value in following requests.
As discussed in Section 2 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile], the use
of random nonces N1 and N2 during the exchange between the Client and
the RS prevents the reuse of AEAD nonces and keys with different
messages, in case of re-derivation of the pairwise OSCORE Security
Context both for Clients and Resource Servers from an old non-expired
Access Token, e.g. in case of reboot of either the Client or the RS.
Furthermore, the Client can send a request protected with Group
OSCORE [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]. This can be a unicast
request addressed to the RS, or a multicast request addressed to the
OSCORE group where the RS is also a member. To this end, the Client
uses the Group OSCORE Security Context already established upon
joining the OSCORE group, e.g. by using the approach defined in
[I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore]. The RS may send a response back
to the Client, protecting it by means of the same Group OSCORE
Security Context.
3. Client-AS Communication
This section details the Access Token POST Request that the Client
sends to the /token endpoint of the AS, as well as the related Access
Token response.
Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-core-object-security] defines how to derive
a pairwise OSCORE Security Context based on a shared Master Secret
and a set of other parameters, established between the OSCORE client
and server.
The Client receives these pieces of information from the AS during
the exchange described in this section. In particular, the proof-of-
possession key (pop-key) provisioned by the AS MUST be used to build
the Master Secret in OSCORE (see Section 4.3 and Section 4.4).
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
3.1. C-to-AS: POST to Token Endpoint
The Client-to-AS request is specified in Section 5.6.1 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. The Client MUST send this POST request
to the /token endpoint over a secure channel that guarantees
authentication, message integrity and confidentiality.
The POST request is formatted as the analogous Client-to-AS request
in the OSCORE profile of ACE (see Section 3.1 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]), with the following additional
parameters included in the payload.
o 'context_id', defined in Section 3.1.1 of this specification.
This parameter includes the Group ID of the OSCORE group that the
Client has previously joined and wants to use to communicate with
the RS. If the Group ID is structured according to the {Prefix +
Epoch} scheme defined in Appendix C of
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm], the Client MUST indicate the
zeroed-epoch Group ID, i.e. with the Epoch part set to zero.
o 'salt', defined in Section 3.1.2 of this specification. This
parameter includes the Sender ID that the Client has received in
the OSCORE group, whose identifier is indicated in the
'context_id' parameter above, upon previously joining it. That
is, its value is the Sender ID that the Client uses to communicate
in the OSCORE group, whereas it does not relate to the Sender ID
to be assigned for use in the pairwise OSCORE Security Context
with the RS.
An example of such a request, in CBOR diagnostic notation without the
tag and value abbreviations is reported in Figure 2.
Header: POST (Code=0.02)
Uri-Host: "as.example.com"
Uri-Path: "token"
Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor"
Payload:
{
"audience" : "tempSensor4711",
"scope" : "read",
"salt" : h'00',
"context_id" : h'abcd0000'
}
Figure 2: Example C-to-AS POST /token request for an Access Token
bound to a symmetric key.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
Later on, the Client may want to update its current access rights,
without changing the existing pairwise OSCORE Security Context with
the RS. In this case, like in the OSCORE profile of ACE (see
Section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]), the Client MUST
include in its POST request to the /token endpoint a req_cnf object,
where the 'kid' field carries the Client's identifier, that was
assigned by the AS as per Section 3.2. That is, the Client's
identifier is the value of the 'clientId' parameter in the OSCORE
Security Context object of the 'cnf' parameter, in the AS-to-C Access
Token response providing the original Access Token (see Section 3.2).
The AS can use this identifier to determine the shared secret for
preparing the proof-of-possession Access Token. Therefore, the
received value MUST identify a symmetric key that was previously
generated by the AS, as a shared secret for communications between
the Client and the RS. In particular, the AS MUST verify that the
received value identifies a proof-of-possession key and Access Token
that have previously been issued to the requesting Client. If that
is not the case, the Client-to-AS request MUST be declined with the
error code 'invalid_request', as defined in Section 5.6.3 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
An example of such a request, in CBOR diagnostic notation without the
tag and value abbreviations is reported in Figure 3.
Header: POST (Code=0.02)
Uri-Host: "as.example.com"
Uri-Path: "token"
Content-Format: "application/ace+cbor"
Payload:
{
"audience" : "tempSensor4711",
"scope" : "read",
"req_cnf" : {
"kid" : 'myclient'
}
}
Figure 3: Example C-to-AS POST /token request for updating rights to
an Access Token bound to a symmetric key.
3.1.1. 'context_id' Parameter
The 'context_id' parameter is an OPTIONAL parameter of the Access
Token request message defined in Section 5.6.1. of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. This parameter provides a value that the
Client wishes to use with the RS as a hint for a security context.
Its exact content is profile specific.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
3.1.2. 'salt' Parameter
The 'salt' parameter is an OPTIONAL parameter of the Access Token
request message defined in Section 5.6.1. of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. This parameter provides a value that the
Client wishes to use as salt with the RS, for deriving cryptographic
key material. Its exact content is profile specific.
3.2. AS-to-C: Access Token
After having verified the POST request to the /token endpoint and
that the Client is authorized to obtain an Access Token corresponding
to its Access Token request, the AS responds as defined in
Section 5.6.2 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. If the Client request
was invalid, or not authorized, the AS returns an error response as
described in Section 5.6.3 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
The AS can signal that the use of OSCORE and Group OSCORE is REQUIRED
for a specific Access Token by including the 'profile' parameter with
the value "coap_group_oscore" in the Access Token response. This
means that the Client MUST use OSCORE and/or Group OSCORE towards all
the Resource Servers for which this Access Token is valid.
In particular, the Client MUST follow Section 4.3 to derive the
pairwise OSCORE Security Context to use for communications with the
RS. Additionally, the Client has already established the related
Group OSCORE Security Context to communicate with members of the
OSCORE group, upon previously joining that group.
Usually, it is assumed that constrained devices will be pre-
configured with the necessary profile, so that this kind of profile
negotiation can be omitted.
The Access Token response to the Client is analogous to the one in
the OSCORE profile of ACE, as described in Section 3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]. In particular, the AS provides also
the following additional information in the OSCORE_Security_Context
object, which is defined in Section 3.2.1 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile] and included in the 'cnf' parameter
(see Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-params]) of the Access Token
response.
o The 'salt' field in the OSCORE_Security_Context object MUST be
present. The field MUST contain the value of the 'salt' parameter
from the Access Token request received from the Client.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
o The 'contextId' field in the OSCORE_Security_Context object MUST
be present. The field MUST contain the value of the 'context_id'
parameter from the Access Token request received from the Client.
The same parameters MUST be included as metadata of the issued Access
Token. This profile RECOMMENDS the use of CBOR web tokens (CWT) as
specified in [RFC8392]. If the Access Token is a CWT, the same
OSCORE_Security_Context structure considered above MUST be placed in
the 'cnf' claim of the Access Token.
As discussed in Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile],
collisions of client identifiers may appear in the RS, in case a
resource is associated to multiple ASs. In such a case, the RS needs
to have a mechanism in place to disambiguate identifiers or mitigate
the effect of their collision.
Figure 4 shows an example of such an AS response, in CBOR diagnostic
notation without the tag and value abbreviations.
Header: Created (Code=2.01)
Content-Type: "application/ace+cbor"
Payload:
{
"access_token" : h'a5037674656d7053656e73 ...'
(remainder of access token omitted for brevity),
"profile" : "coap_group_oscore",
"expires_in" : 3600,
"cnf" : {
"OSCORE_Security_Context" : {
"alg" : "AES-CCM-16-64-128",
"clientId" : b64'qA',
"serverId" : b64'Qg',
"ms" : h'f9af838368e353e78888e1426bd94e6f',
"salt" : h'00',
"context_id" : h'abcd0000'
}
}
}
Figure 4: Example AS-to-C Access Token response with the Group OSCORE
profile.
Figure 5 shows an example CWT, containing the necessary OSCORE
parameters in the 'cnf' claim, in CBOR diagnostic notation without
tag and value abbreviations.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
{
"aud" : "tempSensorInLivingRoom",
"iat" : "1360189224",
"exp" : "1360289224",
"scope" : "temperature_g firmware_p",
"cnf" : {
"OSCORE_Security_Context" : {
"alg" : "AES-CCM-16-64-128",
"clientId" : 'client',
"serverId" : 'server',
"ms" : h'f9af838368e353e78888e1426bd94e6f',
"salt" : h'00',
"context_id" : h'abcd0000'
}
}
Figure 5: Example CWT with OSCORE parameters (CBOR diagnostic
notation).
The same CWT as in Figure 5, using the value abbreviations defined in
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]
and encoded in CBOR is shown in Figure 6.
NOTE: it should be checked (and in case fixed) that the values used
below (which are not yet registered) are the final values registered
in IANA.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
A5 # map(5)
03 # unsigned(3)
76 # text(22)
74656D7053656E736F72496E4C6976696E67526F6F6D
# "tempSensorInLivingRoom"
06 # unsigned(6)
1A 5112D728 # unsigned(1360189224)
04 # unsigned(4)
1A 51145DC8 # unsigned(1360289224)
09 # unsigned(9)
78 18 # text(24)
74656D70657261747572655F67206669726D776172655F70
# "temperature_g firmware_p"
08 # unsigned(8)
A1 # map(1)
04 # unsigned(4)
A6 # map(6)
05 # unsigned(5)
0A # unsigned(10)
02 # unsigned(2)
46 # bytes(6)
636C69656E74 # "client"
03 # unsigned(3)
46 # bytes(6)
736572766572 # "server"
01 # unsigned(1)
50 # bytes(16)
F9AF838368E353E78888E1426BD94E6F
06 # unsigned(6)
41 # bytes(1)
00
07 # unsigned(7)
44 # bytes(4)
ABCD0000
Figure 6: Example CWT with OSCORE parameters.
If the Client has requested an update to its access rights with
reference to the same pairwise OSCORE Security Context, which is
valid and authorized, the AS MUST omit the 'cnf' parameter in the
Access Token response, and MUST include the Client identifier in the
'kid' field of the 'cnf' parameter of the Access Token. The Client
identifier needs to be provisioned, in order for the RS to identify
the previously generated pairwise OSCORE Security Context.
Figure 7 shows an example of such an AS response, in CBOR diagnostic
notation without the tag and value abbreviations.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
Header: Created (Code=2.01)
Content-Type: "application/ace+cbor"
Payload:
{
"access_token" : h'a5037674656d7053656e73 ...'
(remainder of access token omitted for brevity),
"profile" : "coap_group_oscore",
"expires_in" : 3600
}
Figure 7: Example AS-to-C Access Token response with the Group OSCORE
profile, for update of access rights.
Figure 8 shows an example CWT, containing the necessary OSCORE
parameters in the 'cnf' claim for update of access rights, in CBOR
diagnostic notation without tag and value abbreviations.
{
"aud" : "tempSensorInLivingRoom",
"iat" : "1360189224",
"exp" : "1360289224",
"scope" : "temperature_h",
"cnf" : {
"kid" : b64'qA'
}
}
Figure 8: Example CWT with OSCORE parameters for update of access
rights.
4. Client-RS Communication
This section details the POST request and response to the /authz-info
endpoint between the Client and the RS. With respect to the
exchanged messages and their content, the Client and the RS perform
as defined in Section 4 of the OSCORE profile of ACE
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile].
That is, the Client generates a nonce N1 and posts it to the RS,
together with the Access Token that includes the material provisioned
by the AS. Then, the RS generates a nonce N2, and derives a pairwise
OSCORE Security Context as described Section 3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security]. In particular, it uses the two
nonces established with the Client and two shared secrets, together
with additional pieces of information specified in the Access Token.
The proof-of-possession required to bind the Access Token to the
Client is implicitly performed by generating the pairwise OSCORE
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
Security Context using the pop-key as part of the OSCORE Master
Secret, for both the Client and the RS. In addition, the derivation
of the pairwise OSCORE Security Context takes as input also
information related to the OSCORE group, i.e. the Master Secret and
Group Identifier of the group, as well as the Sender ID of the Client
in the group. Hence, the derived pairwise OSCORE Security Context is
also securely bound to the Group OSCORE Security Context of the
OSCORE Group.
Therefore, an attacker using a stolen Access Token cannot generate a
valid pairwise OSCORE Security Context and thus cannot prove
possession of the pop-key. Also, if a Client legitimately owns an
Access Token but has not joined the OSCORE group, that Client cannot
generate a valid pairwise OSCORE Security Context either, since it
lacks the Master Secret used in the OSCORE group.
4.1. C-to-RS POST to authz-info Endpoint
The Client MUST generate a nonce N1 and post it to the /authz-info
endpoint of the RS together with the Access Token, as defined in
Section 4.1 of the OSCORE profile of ACE
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile].
The same recommendations, considerations and behaviors defined in
Section 4.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile] hold for this
specification.
4.2. RS-to-C: 2.01 (Created)
The RS MUST verify the validity of the Access Token as defined in
Section 4.2 of the OSCORE profile of ACE
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile], with the following additions.
o The RS checks that the OSCORE_Security_Context object in the 'cnf'
claim of the Access Token includes the 'salt' parameter.
o The RS checks that the OSCORE_Security_Context object in the 'cnf'
claim of the Access Token includes the 'context_id' parameter.
Also, the RS checks that the value of the 'context_id' parameter
coincides with the one of the (zeroed-epoch) group identifier of
the OSCORE group associated to the resources targeted by the scope
in the Access Token.
If any of the checks above fails, the RS MUST consider the Access
Token non valid, and MUST respond to the Client with an error
response code equivalent to the CoAP code 4.00 (Bad Request).
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
If the Access Token is valid and further checks on its content are
successful, the RS MUST generate a nonce N2 and include it in the
2.01 (Created) response to the Client, as defined in Section 4.2 of
the OSCORE profile of ACE [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile].
Further recommendations, considerations and behaviors defined in
Section 4.2 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile] hold for this
specification.
4.3. OSCORE Setup - Client Side
Once having received the 2.01 (Created) response from the RS,
following the POST request to the authz-info endpoint, the Client
MUST extract the nonce N2 from the 'nonce' parameter and the client
identifier from the 'clientId' (if present) in the CBOR map in the
payload of the response.
Note that, if present in the 2.01 (Created) response, the 'clientId'
parameter supersedes the analogous parameter possibly provided by the
AS to C in Section 3.2. Also, note that this identifier is used by C
as Sender ID in the pairwise OSCORE Security Context to be
established with the RS, and is different as well as unrelated to the
Sender ID of C in the OSCORE group.
Then, the Client performs the following actions, in order to set up
and fully derive the pairwise OSCORE Security Context for
communicating with the RS.
o The Client MUST set the ID Context of the pairwise OSCORE Security
Context as the concatenation of: the nonce N1; the nonce N2; and
the Group Identifier GID of the OSCORE group. The concatenation
occurs in this order: ID Context = N1 | N2 | GID, where | denotes
byte string concatenation.
o The Client MUST set the Master Salt of the pairwise OSCORE
Security Context as the concatenation of MSalt and GMSalt, where:
i) MSalt is the Sender ID that the Client has in the OSCORE group;
while ii) GMSalt is the (optional) Master Salt in the Group OSCORE
Security Context, which is known to the Client as a member of the
OSCORE group. The concatenation occurs in this order: Master Salt
= MSalt | GMSalt, where | denotes byte string concatenation.
o The Client MUST set the Master Secret of the pairwise OSCORE
Security Context to the concatenation of MSec and GMSec, where: i)
MSec is the value of the 'ms' parameter in the
OSCORE_Security_Context object of the 'cnf' parameter, received
from the AS in Section 3.2; while ii) GMSec is the Master Secret
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
of the Group OSCORE Security Context, which is known to the Client
as a member of the OSCORE group.
o The Client MUST set the Recipient ID as indicated in the
corresponding parameter received from the AS in Section 3.2, i.e.
to the value of the 'serverId' parameter in the
OSCORE_Security_Context object of the 'cnf' parameter.
o The Client MUST set the AEAD Algorithm, HKDF, and Replay Window as
indicated in the corresponding parameters received from the AS in
Section 3.2, if present in the OSCORE_Security_Context object of
the 'cnf' parameter. In case these parameters are omitted, the
default values are used as described in Section 3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security].
o The client MUST set the Sender ID as indicated in the 'clientId'
parameter from the 2.01 (Created) response, if present.
Otherwise, the Client MUST set the Sender ID as indicated in the
response from the AS in Section 3.2, i.e. to the value of the
'clientId' parameter in the OSCORE_Security_Context object of the
'cnf' parameter.
Finally, the client MUST derive the complete pairwise OSCORE Security
Context following Section 3.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-core-object-security].
From then on, when communicating with the RS to access the resources
as specified by the authorization information, the Client MUST use
the newly established pairwise OSCORE Security Context or the Group
OSCORE Security Context of the OSCORE Group where both the Client and
the RS are members.
If any of the expected parameters is missing (e.g. any of the
mandatory parameters from the AS, or 'clientId' both from the AS and
in the 2.01 (Created) response from the RS), the Client MUST stop the
exchange, and MUST NOT derive the pairwise OSCORE Security Context.
The Client MAY restart the exchange, to get the correct security
material.
Then, the Client uses this pairwise OSCORE Security Context to send
requests to RS protected with OSCORE. In the first request sent to
the RS, the Client MAY include the kid context if the application
needs to, with value the ID Context, i.e. N1 concatenated with N2
concatenated with GID. Besides, the Client uses the Group OSCORE
Security Context for protecting unicast requests to the RS, or
multicast requests to the OSCORE group including also the RS.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
4.4. OSCORE Setup - Resource Server Side
After validation of the Access Token as defined in Section 4.2 and
after sending the 2.01 (Created) response, the RS performs the
following actions, in order to set up and fully derive the pairwise
OSCORE Security Context created to communicate with the Client.
o The RS MUST set the ID Context of the pairwise OSCORE Security
Context as the concatenation of: the nonce N1; the nonce N2; and
the Group Identifier GID of the OSCORE group. The concatenation
occurs in this order: ID Context = N1 | N2 | GID, where | denotes
byte string concatenation.
o The RS MUST set the Master Salt of the pairwise OSCORE Security
Context as the concatenation of MSalt and GMSalt, where: i) MSalt
is the Sender ID that the Client has in the OSCORE group, as
specified in the 'salt' parameter in the OSCORE_Security_Context
object of the 'cnf' claim, included in the Access Token received
from the Client (see Section 4.1); while ii) GMSalt is the
(optional) Master Salt in the Group OSCORE Security Context, which
is known to the RS as a member of the OSCORE group. The
concatenation occurs in this order: Master Salt = MSalt | GMSalt,
where | denotes byte string concatenation.
o The RS MUST set the Master Secret of the pairwise OSCORE Security
Context to the concatenation of MSec and GMSec, where: i) MSec is
the value of the 'ms' parameter in the OSCORE_Security_Context
object of the 'cnf' claim, included in the Access Token received
from the Client (see Section 4.1); while ii) GMSec is the Master
Secret of the Group OSCORE Security Context, which is known to the
RS as a member of the OSCORE group.
o The RS MUST set the Sender ID of the pairwise OSCORE Security
Context from the corresponding parameter received from the Client
in the Access Token (see Section 4.1), i.e. to the value of the
'serverId' parameter in the OSCORE_Security_Context object of the
'cnf' claim.
o The RS MUST set the Recipient ID of the pairwise OSCORE Security
Context from either what it indicated in the 2.01 (Created)
response if included (see Section 4.2 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]), or from the corresponding
parameter received from the Client in the Access Token (see
Section 4.1), i.e. to the value of the 'clientId' parameter in the
OSCORE_Security_Context object of the 'cnf' claim.
o The RS MUST set the AEAD Algorithm, HKDF, and Replay Window from
the corresponding parameters received from the Client in the
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
Access Token (see Section 4.1), if present in the
OSCORE_Security_Context object of the 'cnf' claim. In case these
parameters are omitted, the default values are used as described
in Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-core-object-security].
Finally, the RS MUST derive the complete pairwise OSCORE Security
Context following Section 3.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-core-object-security].
Once having completed the derivation above, the RS MUST associate the
authorization information from the Access Token with the just
established pairwise OSCORE Security Context.
Furthermore, the RS MUST associate the authorization information from
the Access Token with the pair (GID, MSalt), where GID is the Group
Identifier of the OSCORE Group and MSalt is the Sender ID that the
Client has in that OSCORE group. The RS MUST keep this association
up-to-date over time.
Then, the RS uses this pairwise OSCORE Security Context to verify
requests from and send responses to the Client protected with OSCORE,
when this Security Context is used. If OSCORE verification fails,
error responses are used, as specified in Section 8 of
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security]. Besides, the RS uses the Group
OSCORE Security Context to verify (multicast) requests from and send
responses to the Client protected with Group OSCORE. If Group OSCORE
verification fails, error responses are used, as specified in
Section 6 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]. Additionally, for
every incoming request, if OSCORE or Group OSCORE verification
succeeds, the verification of access rights is performed as described
in Section 4.5.
After the expiration of the Access Token related to a pairwise OSCORE
Security Context and to a Group OSCORE Security Context, the RS MUST
NOT use the pairwise OSCORE Security Context and MUST respond with an
unprotected 4.01 (Unauthorized) error message. Also, if the Client
uses the Group OSCORE Security Context to send a request for any
resource intended for OSCORE group members and that requires an
active Access Token, the RS MUST respond with a 4.01 (Unauthorized)
error message protected with the Group OSCORE Security Context.
4.5. Access Rights Verification
The RS MUST follow the procedures defined in Section 5.8.2 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. If an RS receives an OSCORE-protected
request from a Client, the RS processes it according to
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security]. If an RS receives a Group OSCORE-
protected request from a Client, the RS processes it according to
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
If the OSCORE or Group OSCORE verification succeeds, and the target
resource requires authorization, the RS retrieves the authorization
information from the Access Token associated to the pairwise OSCORE
Security Context and to the Group OSCORE Security Context. Then, the
RS MUST verify that the authorization information covers the resource
and the action requested by the Client.
The response code MUST be 4.01 (Unauthorized) in case the Client has
not used either of the two Security Contexts associated with the
Access Token, or if the RS has no valid Access Token for the Client.
If the RS has an Access Token for the Client but not for the resource
that was requested, the RS MUST reject the request with a 4.03
(Forbidden). If the RS has an Access Token for the Client but it
does not cover the action that was requested on the resource, the RS
MUST reject the request with a 4.05 (Method Not Allowed).
5. Secure Communication with the AS
As specified in the ACE framework (Section 5.7 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]), the requesting entity (RS and/or Client)
and the AS communicate via the /introspection or /token endpoint.
The use of CoAP and OSCORE for this communication is RECOMMENDED in
this profile. Other protocols (such as HTTP and DTLS or TLS) MAY be
used instead.
If OSCORE is used, the requesting entity and the AS are expected to
have pre-established security contexts in place. How these security
contexts are established is out of the scope of this profile.
Furthermore the requesting entity and the AS communicate using OSCORE
([I-D.ietf-core-object-security]) through the /introspection endpoint
as specified in Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], and
through the /token endpoint as specified in Section 5.6 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
6. Discarding the Security Context
The Client and the RS MUST follow what is defined in Section 6 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile] about discarding the pairwise OSCORE
Security Context.
As members of an OSCORE Group, the Client and the RS may
independently leave the group or be forced to, e.g. if compromised or
suspected so. Upon leaving the OSCORE group, the Client or RS also
discards the Group OSCORE Security Context, which may anyway be
renewed by the Group Manager through a group rekeying process (see
Section 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]).
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
The Client or RS can acquire a new Group OSCORE Security Context, by
re-joining the OSCORE group, e.g. by using the approach defined in
[I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore]. In such a case, the Client
SHOULD request a new Access Token and post it to the RS, in order to
establish a new pairwise OSCORE Security Context and bind it to the
Group OSCORE Security Context obtained upon re-joining the group.
7. CBOR Mappings
The new parameters and claims defined in this document MUST be mapped
to CBOR types as specified in Figure 9, using the given integer
abbreviation for the map key.
/----------------+----------+------------\
| Parameter name | CBOR Key | Value Type |
|----------------+----------+------------|
| context_id | TBD1 | bstr |
| salt | TBD2 | bstr |
\----------------+----------+------------/
Figure 9: CBOR mappings for new parameters.
8. Security Considerations
This document specifies a profile for the Authentication and
Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. Thus the general security considerations
from the ACE framework also apply to this profile.
This specification inherits the security considerations from the
OSCORE profile of ACE [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]. Also, the
general security considerations about OSCORE
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security] hold for this document, as to the
specific use of OSCORE according to this profile.
Furthermore, the general security considerations about Group OSCORE
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm] hold for this document, as to the
specific use of Group OSCORE according to this profile.
Group OSCORE is designed to secure point-to-point as well as point-
to-multipoint communications, providing a secure binding between a
single request and multiple corresponding responses. In particular,
Group OSCORE fulfills the same security requirements of OSCORE, for
group requests and responses. To ensure source authentication of
messages, Group OSCORE uses digital countersignatures that group
members embed in their own transmitted messages.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
9. Privacy Considerations
This document specifies a profile for the Authentication and
Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. Thus the general privacy considerations
from the ACE framework also apply to this profile.
As this profile uses OSCORE and Group OSCORE, the privacy
considerations from [I-D.ietf-core-object-security] and
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm] apply to this document as well.
This profile also inherits the privacy considerations from the OSCORE
profile of ACE [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile].
10. IANA Considerations
This document has the following actions for IANA.
10.1. ACE Profile Registry
IANA is asked to enter the following value into the "ACE Profile
Registry" defined in Section 8.7 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
o Profile name: coap_group_oscore
o Profile Description: Profile to secure communications between
constrained nodes using the Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments framework by: i) establishing a Pairwise
OSCORE Security Context and enabling OSCORE communication between
two members of an OSCORE group; ii) enabling authentication and
fine-grained authorization of members of an OSCORE group, that use
a pre-established Group OSCORE Security Context to communicate
with Group OSCORE.
o Profile ID: TBD (value between 1 and 255)
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [[this document]]
10.2. OAuth Parameters Registry
IANA is asked to enter the following values into the "OAuth
Parameters Registry" defined in Section 11.2 of [RFC6749].
o Name: "context_id"
o Parameter Usage Location: token request
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 3.1.1 of [[this document]]
o Name: "salt"
o Parameter Usage Location: token request
o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section 3.1.2 of [[this document]]
10.3. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings Registry
IANA is asked to enter the following values into the "OAuth
Parameters CBOR Mappings Registry" defined in Section 8.9 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
o Name: "context_id"
o CBOR Key: TBD1
o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section Section 3.1.1 of [[this document]]
o Name: "salt"
o CBOR Key: TBD2
o Change Controller: IESG
o Reference: Section Section 3.1.2 of [[this document]]
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.dijk-core-groupcomm-bis]
Dijk, E., Wang, C., and M. Tiloca, "Group Communication
for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", draft-
dijk-core-groupcomm-bis-00 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession]
Jones, M., Seitz, L., Selander, G., Erdtman, S., and H.
Tschofenig, "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR
Web Tokens (CWTs)", draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-
possession-06 (work in progress), February 2019.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]
Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and
H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments (ACE) using the OAuth 2.0
Framework (ACE-OAuth)", draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-24
(work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-params]
Seitz, L., "Additional OAuth Parameters for Authorization
in Constrained Environments (ACE)", draft-ietf-ace-oauth-
params-05 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]
Palombini, F., Seitz, L., Selander, G., and M. Gunnarsson,
"OSCORE profile of the Authentication and Authorization
for Constrained Environments Framework", draft-ietf-ace-
oscore-profile-07 (work in progress), February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security]
Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
"Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE)", draft-ietf-core-object-security-16 (work in
progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]
Tiloca, M., Selander, G., Palombini, F., and J. Park,
"Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP",
draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-05 (work in progress),
July 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
[RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
"CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ace-dtls-authorize]
Gerdes, S., Bergmann, O., Bormann, C., Selander, G., and
L. Seitz, "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
Profile for Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments (ACE)", draft-ietf-ace-dtls-
authorize-08 (work in progress), April 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore]
Tiloca, M., Park, J., and F. Palombini, "Key Management
for OSCORE Groups in ACE", draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-
oscore-02 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile]
Sengul, C., Kirby, A., and P. Fremantle, "MQTT-TLS profile
of ACE", draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-00 (work in
progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]
Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
1.3", draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-31 (work in progress), March
2019.
[I-D.tiloca-core-oscore-discovery]
Tiloca, M., Amsuess, C., and P. Stok, "Discovery of OSCORE
Groups with the CoRE Resource Directory", draft-tiloca-
core-oscore-discovery-03 (work in progress), July 2019.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7390] Rahman, A., Ed. and E. Dijk, Ed., "Group Communication for
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7390,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7390, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7390>.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
[RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
Appendix A. Profile Requirements
This appendix lists the specifications on this profile based on the
requirements of the ACE framework, as requested in Appendix C of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
o (Optional) discovery process of how the Client finds the right AS
for an RS it wants to send a request to: Not specified.
o Communication protocol the Client and the RS must use: CoAP.
o Security protocol(s) the Client and RS must use: OSCORE, i.e.
establishment of a pairwise OSCORE Security Context and exchange
of secure messages; and/or Group OSCORE, i.e. exchange of secure
messages by using a pre-established Group OSCORE Security Context.
o How the Client and the RS mutually authenticate: Implicitly by
possession of a common OSCORE Security Context (when using
OSCORE); and/or explicitly, by possession of a common Group OSCORE
Security Context and usage of digital countersignatures (when
using Group OSCORE).
o Content-format of the protocol messages: "application/ace+cbor".
o Proof-of-Possession protocol(s) and how to select one; which key
types (e.g. symmetric/asymmetric) supported: OSCORE algorithms;
pre-established symmetric keys.
o profile identifier: coap_group_oscore
o (Optional) how the RS talks to the AS for introspection: HTTP/CoAP
(+ TLS/DTLS/OSCORE).
o How the client talks to the AS for requesting a token: HTTP/CoAP
(+ TLS/DTLS/OSCORE).
o How/if the authz-info endpoint is protected: Security protocol
above.
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Group OSCORE Profile of ACE July 2019
o (Optional) other methods of token transport than the authz-info
endpoint: no.
Acknowledgments
The authors sincerely thank Goeran Selander for his comments and
feedback.
The work on this document has been partly supported by VINNOVA and
the Celtic-Next project CRITISEC.
Authors' Addresses
Marco Tiloca
RISE AB
Isafjordsgatan 22
Kista SE-16440 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: marco.tiloca@ri.se
Rikard Hoeglund
RISE AB
Isafjordsgatan 22
Kista SE-16440 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: rikard.hoglund@ri.se
Ludwig Seitz
RISE AB
Scheelevagen 17
Lund SE-22370 Lund
Sweden
Email: ludwig.seitz@ri.se
Francesca Palombini
Ericsson AB
Torshamnsgatan 23
Kista SE-16440 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com
Tiloca, et al. Expires January 7, 2020 [Page 29]