Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without Server-Side State
RFC 4507
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(May 2006; No errata)
Obsoleted by RFC 5077
Was draft-salowey-tls-ticket (individual in sec area)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Joseph Salowey , Hao Zhou , Hannes Tschofenig , Pasi Eronen | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 4507 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Russ Housley | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group J. Salowey
Request for Comments: 4507 H. Zhou
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
P. Eronen
Nokia
H. Tschofenig
Siemens
May 2006
Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session
Resumption without Server-Side State
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism that enables the Transport Layer
Security (TLS) server to resume sessions and avoid keeping per-client
session state. The TLS server encapsulates the session state into a
ticket and forwards it to the client. The client can subsequently
resume a session using the obtained ticket.
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Protocol ........................................................3
3.1. Overview ...................................................4
3.2. SessionTicket TLS Extension ................................6
3.3. NewSessionTicket Handshake Message .........................7
3.4. Interaction with TLS Session ID ............................8
4. Recommended Ticket Construction .................................9
5. Security Considerations ........................................10
5.1. Invalidating Sessions .....................................11
5.2. Stolen Tickets ............................................11
5.3. Forged Tickets ............................................11
5.4. Denial of Service Attacks .................................11
5.5. Ticket Protection Key Management ..........................12
5.6. Ticket Lifetime ...........................................12
5.7. Alternate Ticket Formats and Distribution Schemes .........12
5.8. Identity Privacy, Anonymity, and Unlinkability ............12
6. Acknowledgements ...............................................13
7. IANA Considerations ............................................13
8. References .....................................................14
8.1. Normative References ......................................14
8.2. Informative References ....................................14
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
1. Introduction
This document defines a way to resume a Transport Layer Security
(TLS) session without requiring session-specific state at the TLS
server. This mechanism may be used with any TLS ciphersuite. This
document applies to both TLS 1.0 defined in [RFC2246] and TLS 1.1
defined in [RFC4346]. The mechanism makes use of TLS extensions
defined in [RFC4366] and defines a new TLS message type.
This mechanism is useful in the following situations:
1. servers that handle a large number of transactions from different
users
2. servers that desire to cache sessions for a long time
3. ability to load balance requests across servers
4. embedded servers with little memory
2. Terminology
Within this document, the term 'ticket' refers to a cryptographically
protected data structure that is created by the server and consumed
by the server to rebuild session-specific state.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Protocol
This specification describes a mechanism to distribute encrypted
session-state information in the form of a ticket. The ticket is
created by a TLS server and sent to a TLS client. The TLS client
presents the ticket to the TLS server to resume a session.
Implementations of this specification are expected to support both
mechanisms. Other specifications can take advantage of the session
tickets, perhaps specifying alternative means for distribution or
selection. For example, a separate specification may describe an
alternate way to distribute a ticket and use the TLS extension in
this document to resume the session. This behavior is beyond the
scope of the document and would need to be described in a separate
specification.
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
3.1. Overview
The client indicates that it supports this mechanism by including a
SessionTicket TLS extension in the ClientHello message. The
extension will be empty if the client does not already possess a
ticket for the server. The extension is described in Section 3.2.
If the server wants to use this mechanism, it stores its session
state (such as ciphersuite and master secret) to a ticket that is
encrypted and integrity-protected by a key known only to the server.
The ticket is distributed to the client using the NewSessionTicket
TLS handshake message described in Section 3.3. This message is sent
during the TLS handshake before the ChangeCipherSpec message, after
the server has successfully verified the client's Finished message.
Client Server
ClientHello
(empty SessionTicket extension)------->
ServerHello
(empty SessionTicket extension)
Certificate*
ServerKeyExchange*
CertificateRequest*
<-------- ServerHelloDone
Certificate*
ClientKeyExchange
CertificateVerify*
[ChangeCipherSpec]
Finished -------->
NewSessionTicket
[ChangeCipherSpec]
<-------- Finished
Application Data <-------> Application Data
Figure 1: Message flow for full handshake issuing new session ticket
The client caches this ticket along with the master secret and other
parameters associated with the current session. When the client
wishes to resume the session, it includes the ticket in the
SessionTicket extension within the ClientHello message. The server
then decrypts the received ticket, verifies the ticket's validity,
retrieves the session state from the contents of the ticket, and uses
this state to resume the session. The interaction with the TLS
Session ID is described in Section 3.4. If the server successfully
verifies the client's ticket, then it may renew the ticket by
including a NewSessionTicket handshake message after the ServerHello.
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
Client Server
ClientHello
(SessionTicket extension) -------->
ServerHello
(empty SessionTicket extension)
NewSessionTicket
[ChangeCipherSpec]
<-------- Finished
[ChangeCipherSpec]
Finished -------->
Application Data <-------> Application Data
Figure 2: Message flow for abbreviated handshake using new
session ticket
A recommended ticket format is given in Section 4.
If the server cannot or does not want to honor the ticket, then it
can initiate a full handshake with the client.
In the case that the server does not wish to issue a new ticket at
this time, it just completes the handshake without including a
SessionTicket extension or NewSessionTicket handshake message. This
is shown below (this flow is identical to Figure 1 in RFC 2246,
except for the session ticket extension in the first message):
Client Server
ClientHello
(SessionTicket extension) -------->
ServerHello
Certificate*
ServerKeyExchange*
CertificateRequest*
<-------- ServerHelloDone
Certificate*
ClientKeyExchange
CertificateVerify*
[ChangeCipherSpec]
Finished -------->
[ChangeCipherSpec]
<-------- Finished
Application Data <-------> Application Data
Figure 3: Message flow for server completing full handshake
without issuing new session ticket
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
If the server rejects the ticket, it may still wish to issue a new
ticket after performing the full handshake as shown below (this flow
is identical to Figure 1, except the SessionTicket extension in the
Client Hello is not empty):
Client Server
ClientHello
(SessionTicket extension) -------->
ServerHello
(empty SessionTicket extension)
Certificate*
ServerKeyExchange*
CertificateRequest*
<-------- ServerHelloDone
Certificate*
ClientKeyExchange
CertificateVerify*
[ChangeCipherSpec]
Finished -------->
NewSessionTicket
[ChangeCipherSpec]
<-------- Finished
Application Data <-------> Application Data
Figure 4: Message flow for server rejecting ticket, performing full
handshake and issuing new session ticket
3.2. SessionTicket TLS Extension
The SessionTicket TLS extension is based on [RFC4366]. The format of
the ticket is an opaque structure used to carry session-specific
state information. This extension may be sent in the ClientHello and
ServerHello.
If the client possesses a ticket that it wants to use to resume a
session, then it includes the ticket in the SessionTicket extension
in the ClientHello. If the client does not have a ticket and is
prepared to receive one in the NewSessionTicket handshake message,
then it MUST include a zero-length ticket in the SessionTicket
extension. If the client is not prepared to receive a ticket in the
NewSessionTicket handshake message then it MUST NOT include a
SessionTicket extension unless it is sending a non-empty ticket it
received through some other means from the server.
The server uses an zero length SessionTicket extension to indicate to
the client that it will send a new session ticket using the
NewSessionTicket handshake message described in Section 3.3. The
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
server MUST send this extension in the ServerHello if it wishes to
issue a new ticket to the client using the NewSessionTicket handshake
message. The server MUST NOT send this extension if it does not
receive one in the ClientHello.
If the server fails to verify the ticket, then it falls back to
performing a full handshake. If the ticket is accepted by the server
but the handshake fails, the client SHOULD delete the ticket.
The SessionTicket extension has been assigned the number 35. The
format of the SessionTicket extension is given at the end of this
section.
struct {
opaque ticket<0..2^16-1>;
} SessionTicket;
3.3. NewSessionTicket Handshake Message
This message is sent by the server during the TLS handshake before
the ChangeCipherSpec message. This message MUST be sent if the
server included a SessionTicket extension in the ServerHello. This
message MUST NOT be sent if the server did not include a
SessionTicket extension in the ServerHello. In the case of a full
handshake, the server MUST verify the client's Finished message
before sending the ticket. The client MUST NOT treat the ticket as
valid until it has verified the server's Finished message. If the
server determines that it does not want to include a ticket after it
has included the SessionTicket extension in the ServerHello, then it
sends a zero-length ticket in the NewSessionTicket handshake message.
If the server successfully verifies the client's ticket, then it MAY
renew the ticket by including a NewSessionTicket handshake message
after the ServerHello in the abbreviated handshake. The client
should start using the new ticket as soon as possible after it
verifies the server's Finished message for new connections. Note
that since the updated ticket is issued before the handshake
completes, it is possible that the client may not put the new ticket
into use before it initiates new connections. The server MUST NOT
assume that the client actually received the updated ticket until it
successfully verifies the client's Finished message.
The NewSessionTicket handshake message has been assigned the number 4
and its definition is given at the end of this section. The
ticket_lifetime_hint field contains a hint from the server about how
long the ticket should be stored. The value indicates the lifetime
in seconds as a 32-bit unsigned integer in network byte order. A
value of zero is reserved to indicate that the lifetime of the ticket
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
is unspecified. A client SHOULD delete the ticket and associated
state when the time expires. It MAY delete the ticket earlier based
on local policy. A server MAY treat a ticket as valid for a shorter
or longer period of time than what is stated in the
ticket_lifetime_hint.
struct {
HandshakeType msg_type;
uint24 length;
select (HandshakeType) {
case hello_request: HelloRequest;
case client_hello: ClientHello;
case server_hello: ServerHello;
case certificate: Certificate;
case server_key_exchange: ServerKeyExchange;
case certificate_request: CertificateRequest;
case server_hello_done: ServerHelloDone;
case certificate_verify: CertificateVerify;
case client_key_exchange: ClientKeyExchange;
case finished: Finished;
case session_ticket: NewSessionTicket; /* NEW */
} body;
} Handshake;
struct {
uint32 ticket_lifetime_hint;
opaque ticket<0..2^16-1>;
} NewSessionTicket;
3.4. Interaction with TLS Session ID
If a server is planning on issuing a SessionTicket to a client that
does not present one, it SHOULD include an empty Session ID in the
ServerHello. If the server includes a non-empty session ID, then it
is indicating intent to use stateful session resume. If the client
receives a SessionTicket from the server, then it discards any
Session ID that was sent in the ServerHello.
When presenting a ticket, the client MAY generate and include a
Session ID in the TLS ClientHello. If the server accepts the ticket
and the Session ID is not empty, then it MUST respond with the same
Session ID present in the ClientHello. This allows the client to
easily differentiate when the server is resuming a session from when
it is falling back to a full handshake. Since the client generates a
Session ID, the server MUST NOT rely upon the Session ID having a
particular value when validating the ticket. If a ticket is
presented by the client, the server MUST NOT attempt to use the
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
Session ID in the ClientHello for stateful session resume.
Alternatively, the client MAY include an empty Session ID in the
ClientHello. In this case, the client ignores the Session ID sent in
the ServerHello and determines if the server is resuming a session by
the subsequent handshake messages.
4. Recommended Ticket Construction
This section describes a recommended format and protection for the
ticket. Note that the ticket is opaque to the client, so the
structure is not subject to interoperability concerns, and
implementations may diverge from this format. If implementations do
diverge from this format, they must take security concerns seriously.
Clients MUST NOT examine the ticket under the assumption that it
complies with this document.
The server uses two different keys: one 128-bit key for AES [AES] in
CBC mode [CBC] encryption and one 128-bit key for HMAC-SHA1 [RFC2104]
[SHA1].
The ticket is structured as follows:
struct {
opaque key_name[16];
opaque iv[16];
opaque encrypted_state<0..2^16-1>;
opaque mac[20];
} ticket;
Here, key_name serves to identify a particular set of keys used to
protect the ticket. It enables the server to easily recognize
tickets it has issued. The key_name should be randomly generated to
avoid collisions between servers. One possibility is to generate new
random keys and key_name every time the server is started.
The actual state information in encrypted_state is encrypted using
128-bit AES in CBC mode with the given IV. The MAC is calculated
using HMAC-SHA1 over key_name (16 octets)and IV (16 octets), followed
by the length of the encrypted_state field (2 octets) and its
contents (variable length).
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
struct {
ProtocolVersion protocol_version;
CipherSuite cipher_suite;
CompressionMethod compression_method;
opaque master_secret[48];
ClientIdentity client_identity;
uint32 timestamp;
} StatePlaintext;
enum {
anonymous(0),
certificate_based(1),
psk(2)
} ClientAuthenticationType;
struct {
ClientAuthenticationType client_authentication_type;
select (ClientAuthenticationType) {
case anonymous: struct {};
case certificate_based:
ASN.1Cert certificate_list<0..2^24-1>;
case psk:
opaque psk_identity<0..2^16-1>; /* from [RFC4279] */
}
} ClientIdentity;
The structure StatePlaintext stores the TLS session state including
the master_secret. The timestamp within this structure allows the
TLS server to expire tickets. To cover the authentication and key
exchange protocols provided by TLS, the ClientIdentity structure
contains the authentication type of the client used in the initial
exchange (see ClientAuthenticationType). To offer the TLS server
with the same capabilities for authentication and authorization, a
certificate list is included in case of public-key-based
authentication. The TLS server is therefore able to inspect a number
of different attributes within these certificates. A specific
implementation might choose to store a subset of this information or
additional information. Other authentication mechanisms, such as
Kerberos [RFC2712], would require different client identity data.
5. Security Considerations
This section addresses security issues related to the usage of a
ticket. Tickets must be authenticated and encrypted to prevent
modification or eavesdropping by an attacker. Several attacks
described below will be possible if this is not carefully done.
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
Implementations should take care to ensure that the processing of
tickets does not increase the chance of denial of service as
described below.
5.1. Invalidating Sessions
The TLS specification requires that TLS sessions be invalidated when
errors occur. [CSSC] discusses the security implications of this in
detail. In the analysis in this paper, failure to invalidate
sessions does not pose a security risk. This is because the TLS
handshake uses a non-reversible function to derive keys for a session
so information about one session does not provide an advantage to
attack the master secret or a different session. If a session
invalidation scheme is used, the implementation should verify the
integrity of the ticket before using the contents to invalidate a
session to ensure that an attacker cannot invalidate a chosen
session.
5.2. Stolen Tickets
An eavesdropper or man-in-the-middle may obtain the ticket and
attempt to use the ticket to establish a session with the server;
however, since the ticket is encrypted and the attacker does not know
the secret key, a stolen ticket does not help an attacker resume a
session. A TLS server MUST use strong encryption and integrity
protection for the ticket to prevent an attacker from using a brute
force mechanism to obtain the ticket's contents.
5.3. Forged Tickets
A malicious user could forge or alter a ticket in order to resume a
session, to extend its lifetime, to impersonate as another user, or
to gain additional privileges. This attack is not possible if the
ticket is protected using a strong integrity protection algorithm
such as a keyed HMAC-SHA1.
5.4. Denial of Service Attacks
The key_name field defined in the recommended ticket format helps the
server efficiently reject tickets that it did not issue. However, an
adversary could store or generate a large number of tickets to send
to the TLS server for verification. To minimize the possibility of a
denial of service, the verification of the ticket should be
lightweight (e.g., using efficient symmetric key cryptographic
algorithms).
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
5.5. Ticket Protection Key Management
A full description of the management of the keys used to protect the
ticket is beyond the scope of this document. A list of RECOMMENDED
practices is given below.
o The keys should be generated securely following the randomness
recommendations in [RFC4086].
o The keys and cryptographic protection algorithms should be at
least 128 bits in strength.
o The keys should not be used for any other purpose than generating
and verifying tickets.
o The keys should be changed regularly.
o The keys should be changed if the ticket format or cryptographic
protection algorithms change.
5.6. Ticket Lifetime
The TLS server controls the lifetime of the ticket. Servers
determine the acceptable lifetime based on the operational and
security requirements of the environments in which they are deployed.
The ticket lifetime may be longer than the 24-hour lifetime
recommended in [RFC2246]. TLS clients may be given a hint of the
lifetime of the ticket. Since the lifetime of a ticket may be
unspecified, a client has its own local policy that determines when
it discards tickets.
5.7. Alternate Ticket Formats and Distribution Schemes
If the ticket format or distribution scheme defined in this document
is not used, then great care must be taken in analyzing the security
of the solution. In particular, if confidential information, such as
a secret key, is transferred to the client, it MUST be done using
secure communication so as to prevent attackers from obtaining or
modifying the key. Also, the ticket MUST have its integrity and
confidentiality protected with strong cryptographic techniques to
prevent a breach in the security of the system.
5.8. Identity Privacy, Anonymity, and Unlinkability
This document mandates that the content of the ticket is
confidentiality protected in order to avoid leakage of its content,
such as user-relevant information. As such, it prevents disclosure
of potentially sensitive information carried within the ticket.
The initial handshake exchange, which was used to obtain the ticket,
might not provide identity confidentiality of the client based on the
properties of TLS. Another relevant security threat is the ability
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
for an on-path adversary to observe multiple TLS handshakes where the
same ticket is used and therefore to conclude that they belong to the
same communication endpoints. Application designers that use the
ticket mechanism described in this document should consider that
unlinkability [ANON] is not necessarily provided.
While a full discussion of these topics is beyond the scope of this
document, it should be noted that it is possible to issue a ticket
using a TLS renegotiation handshake that occurs after a secure tunnel
has been established by a previous handshake. This may help address
some privacy and unlinkability issues in some environments.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following people for their help
with preparing and reviewing this document: Eric Rescorla, Mohamad
Badra, Tim Dierks, Nelson Bolyard, Nancy Cam-Winget, David McGrew,
Rob Dugal, Russ Housley, Amir Herzberg, Bernard Aboba, and members of
the TLS working group.
[CSSC] describes a solution that is very similar to the one described
in this document and gives a detailed analysis of the security
considerations involved. [RFC2712] describes a mechanism for using
Kerberos [RFC4120] in TLS ciphersuites, which helped inspire the use
of tickets to avoid server state. [EAP-FAST] makes use of a similar
mechanism to avoid maintaining server state for the cryptographic
tunnel. [SC97] also investigates the concept of stateless sessions.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned a TLS extension number of 35 to the SessionTicket
TLS extension from the TLS registry of ExtensionType values defined
in [RFC4366].
IANA has assigned a TLS HandshakeType number 4 to the
NewSessionTicket handshake type from the TLS registry of
HandshakeType values defined in [RFC4346].
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
RFC 2246, January 1999.
[RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
[RFC4366] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen,
J., and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Extensions", RFC 4366, April 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[AES] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Advanced
Encryption Standard (AES)", Federal Information
Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 197,
November 2001.
[ANON] Pfitzmann, A. and M. Hansen, "Anonymity, Unlinkability,
Unobservability, Pseudonymity, and Identity Management -
A Consolidated Proposal for Terminology",
http://dud.inf.tu-dresden.de/literatur/
Anon_Terminology_v0.26-1.pdf, Draft 0.26, December 2005.
[CBC] National Institute of Standards and Technology,
"Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation -
Methods and Techniques", NIST Special Publication 800-
38A, December 2001.
[CSSC] Shacham, H., Boneh, D., and E. Rescorla, "Client-side
caching for TLS", Transactions on Information and System
Security (TISSEC) , Volume 7, Issue 4, November 2004.
[EAP-FAST] Cam-Winget, N., McGrew, D., Salowey, J., and H. Zhou,
"EAP Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling (EAP-
FAST)", Work in Progress, April 2005.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997.
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
[RFC2712] Medvinsky, A. and M. Hur, "Addition of Kerberos Cipher
Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 2712,
October 1999.
[RFC4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
[RFC4120] Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The
Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120,
July 2005.
[RFC4279] Eronen, P. and H. Tschofenig, "Pre-Shared Key
Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
RFC 4279, December 2005.
[SC97] Aura, T. and P. Nikander, "Stateless Connections",
Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Information and Communication Security (ICICS '97), 1997.
[SHA1] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
Hash Standard (SHS)", Federal Information Processing
Standards (FIPS) Publication 180-2, August 2002.
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
Authors' Addresses
Joseph Salowey
Cisco Systems
2901 3rd Ave
Seattle, WA 98121
US
EMail: jsalowey@cisco.com
Hao Zhou
Cisco Systems
4125 Highlander Parkway
Richfield, OH 44286
US
EMail: hzhou@cisco.com
Pasi Eronen
Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 407
FIN-00045 Nokia Group
Finland
EMail: pasi.eronen@nokia.com
Hannes Tschofenig
Siemens
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
Munich, Bayern 81739
Germany
EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 4507 Stateless TLS Session Resumption May 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Salowey, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]