Internet-Draft | Key Provisioning for Group Communication | October 2021 |
Palombini & Tiloca | Expires 28 April 2022 | [Page] |
This document defines how to use the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework to distribute keying material and configuration parameters for secure group communication. Candidate group members acting as Clients and authorized to join a group can do so by interacting with a Key Distribution Center (KDC) acting as Resource Server, from which they obtain the keying material to communicate with other group members. While defining general message formats as well as the interface and operations available at the KDC, this document supports different approaches and protocols for secure group communication. Therefore, details are delegated to separate application profiles of this document, as specialized instances that target a particular group communication approach and define how communications in the group are protected. Compliance requirements for such application profiles are also specified.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-key-groupcomm.¶
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 28 April 2022.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 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.¶
This document builds on the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework and defines how to request, distribute and renew keying material and configuration parameters to protect message exchanges in a group communication environment.¶
Candidate group members acting as Clients and authorized to join a group can interact with the Key Distribution Center (KDC) acting as Resource Server and responsible for that group, in order to obtain the necessary keying material and parameters to communicate with other group members.¶
In particular, this document defines the operations and interface available at the KDC, as well as general message formats for the interactions between Clients and KDC. At the same time, communications in the group can rely on different approaches, e.g., based on multicast [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis] or on publish-subscribe messaging [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub], and can be protected in different ways.¶
Therefore, this document delegates details on the communication and security approaches used in a group to separate application profiles. These are specialized instances of this document, targeting a particular group communication approach and defining how communications in the group are protected, as well as the specific keying material and configuration parameters provided to group members. In order to ensure consistency and aid the development of such application profiles, this document defines a number of related compliance requirements (see Appendix A).¶
If the application requires backward and forward security, new keying material is generated and distributed to the group upon membership changes (rekeying). A group rekeying scheme performs the actual distribution of the new keying material, by rekeying the current group members when a new Client joins the group, and the remaining group members when a Client leaves the group. This can rely on different approaches, including efficient group rekeying schemes such as [RFC2093], [RFC2094] and [RFC2627].¶
Consistently with what is recommeded in the ACE framework, this document uses CBOR [RFC8949] for data encoding. However, using JSON [RFC8259] instead of CBOR is possible, by relying on the conversion method specified in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of [RFC8949].¶
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.¶
Readers are expected to be familiar with:¶
A principal interested to participate in group communication as well as already participating as a group member is interchangeably denoted as "Client" or "node".¶
Furthermore, this document uses "names" or "identifiers" for groups and nodes. Their different meanings are summarized below.¶
Group: a set of nodes that share common keying material and security parameters used to protect their communications with one another. That is, the term refers to a "security group".¶
This is not to be confused with an "application group", which has relevance at the application level and whose members share a common pool of resources or content. Examples of application groups are the set of all nodes deployed in a same physical room, or the set of nodes registered to a pub-sub topic.¶
The same security group might be associated to multiple application groups. Also, the same application group can be associated to multiple security groups. Further details and considerations on the mapping between the two types of group are out of the scope of this document.¶
This document additionally uses the following terminology:¶
The full procedure can be separated in two phases: the first one follows the ACE Framework, between Client, AS and KDC; the second one is the key distribution between Client and KDC. After the two phases are completed, the Client is able to participate in the group communication, via a Dispatcher entity.¶
The following participants (see Figure 1) take part in the authorization and key distribution.¶
Dispatcher: entity through which the Clients communicate with the group, when sending a message intended to multiple group members. That is, the Dispatcher distributes such a one-to-many message to the group members as intended recipients. A single-recipient message intended to only one group member may be delivered by alternative means, with no assistance from the Dispatcher.¶
Examples of a Dispatcher are: the Broker in a pub-sub setting; a relayer for group communication that delivers group messages as multiple unicast messages to all group members; an implicit entity as in a multicast communication setting, where messages are transmitted to a multicast IP address and delivered on the transport channel.¶
This document specifies a mechanism for:¶
Figure 2 provides a high level overview of the message flow for a node joining a group. The message flow can be expanded as follows.¶
The joining node requests an access token from the AS, in order to access one or more group-membership resources at the KDC and hence join the associated groups.¶
This exchange between Client and AS MUST be secured, as specified by the transport profile of ACE used between Client and KDC. Based on the response from the AS, the joining node will establish or continue using a secure communication association with the KDC.¶
The joining node transfers authentication and authorization information to the KDC, by transferring the obtained access token. This is typically achieved by including the access token in a request sent to the /authz-info endpoint at the KDC.¶
Once this exchange is completed, the joining node MUST have a secure communication association established with the KDC, before joining a group under that KDC.¶
This exchange and the following secure communications between the Client and the KDC MUST occur in accordance with the transport profile of ACE used between Client and KDC, such as the DTLS transport profile [I-D.ietf-ace-dtls-authorize] and OSCORE transport profile [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile] of ACE.¶
The joining node starts the joining process to become a member of the group, by sending a request to the related group-membership resource at the KDC. Based on the application requirements and policies, the KDC may perform a group rekeying, by generating new group keying material and distributing it to the current group members through the rekeying scheme used in the group.¶
At the end of the joining process, the joining node has received from the KDC the parameters and group keying material to securely communicate with the other group members. Also, the KDC has stored the association between the authorization information from the access token and the secure session with the joining node.¶
This section describes in detail the format of messages exchanged by the participants when a node requests access to a given group. This exchange is based on ACE [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].¶
As defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], the Client requests the AS for the authorization to join the group through the KDC (see Section 3.1). If the request is approved and authorization is granted, the AS provides the Client with a proof-of-possession access token and parameters to securely communicate with the KDC (see Section 3.2).¶
Communications between the Client and the AS MUST be secured, according to what is defined by the used transport profile of ACE. The Content-Format used in the message also depends on the used transport profile of ACE. For example, it can be application/ace+cbor for the first two messages and application/cwt for the third message, which are defined in the ACE framework.¶
The transport profile of ACE also defines a number of details such as the communication and security protocols used with the KDC (see Appendix C of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]).¶
Figure 3 gives an overview of the exchange described above.¶
The Client sends a Token Transfer Request to the KDC, i.e., a CoAP POST request including the access token and targeting the authz-info endpoint (see Section 5.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]).¶
Note that this request deviates from the one defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], since it allows to ask the KDC for additional information concerning the public keys used in the group to ensure source authentication, as well as for possible additional group parameters.¶
The joining node MAY ask for this information from the KDC through the same Token Transfer Request. In this case, the message MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace+cbor defined in Section 8.16 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], and the message payload MUST be formatted as a CBOR map, which MUST include the access token. The CBOR map MAY additionally include the following parameter, which, if included, MUST have format and value as specified below.¶
Alternatively, such information may be pre-configured on the joining node, or may be retrieved by alternative means. For example, the joining node may have performed an early group discovery process and obtained the link to the associated group-membership resource at the KDC, together with attributes descriptive of the group configuration (see, e.g., [I-D.tiloca-core-oscore-discovery]).¶
After successful verification, the Client is authorized to receive the group keying material from the KDC and join the group. Hence, the KDC replies to the Client with a Token Transfer Response, i.e., a CoAP 2.01 (Created) response.¶
The Token Transfer Response MUST have Content-Format "application/ace+cbor", and its payload is a CBOR map. Note that this deviates from what is defined in the ACE framework, where the response from the authz-info endpoint is defined as conveying no payload (see Section 5.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]).¶
If the access token contains a role that requires the Client to send its own public key to the KDC when joining the group, the CBOR map MUST include the parameter 'kdcchallenge' defined in Section 3.3.2, specifying a dedicated challenge N_S generated by the KDC.¶
Later, when joining the group (see Section 4.3.1.1), the Client uses the 'kdcchallenge' value and additional information to build a proof-of-possession (PoP) input. This is in turn used to compute a PoP evidence, which the Client also provides to the Group Manager in order to prove possession of its own private key (see the 'client_cred_verify' parameter in Section 4.3.1).¶
The KDC MUST store the 'kdcchallenge' value associated to the Client at least until it receives a Joining Request from it (see Section 4.3.1.1), to be able to verify the PoP evidence provided during the join process, and thus that the Client possesses its own private key.¶
The same 'kdcchallenge' value MAY be reused several times by the Client, to generate a new PoP evidence, e.g., in case the Client provides the Group Manager with a new public key while being a group member (see Section 4.9.1.1), or joins a different group where it intends to use a different public key. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the KDC keeps storing the 'kdcchallenge' value after the first join is processed as well. If the KDC has already discarded the 'kdcchallenge' value, that will trigger an error response with a newly generated 'kdcchallenge' value that the Client can use to restart the join process, as specified in Section 4.3.1.1.¶
If 'sign_info' is included in the Token Transfer Request, the KDC SHOULD include the 'sign_info' parameter in the Token Transfer Response, as per the format defined in Section 3.3.1. Note that the field 'id' of each 'sign_info_entry' specifies the name, or array of group names, for which that 'sign_info_entry' applies to. As an exception, the KDC MAY NOT include the 'sign_info' parameter in the Token Transfer Response even if 'sign_info' is included in the Token Transfer Request, in case none of the groups that the Client is authorized to join uses signatures to achieve source authentication.¶
Note that the CBOR map specified as payload of the 2.01 (Created) response may include further parameters, e.g., according to the used transport profile of ACE. Application profiles of this specification MAY define additional parameters to use within this exchange (OPT2).¶
Application profiles of this specification MAY define alternative specific negotiations of parameter values for the signature algorithm and signature keys, if 'sign_info' is not used (OPT3).¶
If allowed by the used transport profile of ACE, the Client may provide the Access Token to the KDC by other means than the Token Transfer Request. An example is the DTLS transport profile of ACE, where the Client can provide the access token to the KDC during the secure session establishment (see Section 3.3.2 of [I-D.ietf-ace-dtls-authorize]).¶
The 'sign_info' parameter is an OPTIONAL parameter of the request and response messages exchanged between the Client and the authz-info endpoint at the RS (see Section 5.10.1. of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]).¶
This parameter allows the Client and the RS to exchange information about a signature algorithm and about public keys to accordingly use for signature verification. Its exact semantics and content are application specific.¶
In this specification and in application profiles building on it, this parameter is used to exchange information about the signature algorithm and about public keys to be used with it, in the groups indicated by the transferred acces token as per its 'scope' claim (see Section 3.2).¶
When used in the Token Transfer Request sent to the KDC (see Section 3.3), the 'sign_info' parameter specifies the CBOR simple value 'null' (0xf6). This is done to ask for information about the signature algorithm and about the public keys used in the groups that the Client has been authorized to join - or to have a more restricted interaction as per its granted roles (e.g., the Client is an external signature verifier).¶
When used in the following Token Transfer Response from the KDC (see Section 3.3), the 'sign_info' parameter is a CBOR array of one or more elements. The number of elements is at most the number of groups that the Client has been authorized to join - or to have a more restricted interaction (see above). Each element contains information about signing parameters and about public keys for one or more groups, and is formatted as follows.¶
The CDDL notation [RFC8610] of the 'sign_info' parameter is given below.¶
sign_info = sign_info_req / sign_info_resp sign_info_req = nil ; in the Token Transfer ; Request to the KDC sign_info_resp = [ + sign_info_entry ] ; in the Token Transfer ; Response from the KDC sign_info_entry = [ id : gname / [ + gname ], sign_alg : int / tstr, sign_parameters : [ any ], sign_key_parameters : [ any ], pub_key_enc = int / nil ] gname = tstr¶
This format is consistent with every signature algorithm currently defined in [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs], i.e., with algorithms that have only the COSE key type as their COSE capability. Appendix B describes how the format of each 'sign_info_entry' can be generalized for possible future registered algorithms having a different set of COSE capabilities.¶
The 'kdcchallenge' parameter is an OPTIONAL parameter of response message returned from the authz-info endpoint at the RS, as defined in Section 5.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. This parameter contains a challenge generated by the RS and provided to the Client.¶
In this specification and in application profiles building on it, the Client may use this challenge to prove possession of its own private key in the Joining Request (see the 'client_cred_verify' parameter in Section 4.3.1).¶
This section describes the functionalities provided by the KDC, as related to the provisioning of the keying material as well as to the group membership management.¶
In particular, this section defines the interface available at the KDC; specifies the handlers of each resource provided by the KDC interface; and describes how Clients interact with those resources to join a group and to perform additional operations as group members.¶
As most important operation after trasferring the access token to the KDC, the Client can perform a "Joining" exchange with the KDC, by specifying the group it requests to join (see Section 4.3.1.1). Then, the KDC verifies the access token and that the Client is authorized to join the specified group. If so, the KDC provides the Client with the keying material to securely communicate with the other members of the group.¶
Later on as a group member, the Client can also rely on the interface at the KDC to perform additional operations, consistently with the roles it has in the group.¶
The KDC provides its interface by hosting the following resources. Note that the root url-path "ace-group" used hereafter is a default name; implementations are not required to use this name, and can define their own instead. The Interface Description (if=) Link Target Attribute value "ace.group" is registered in Section 11.5 and can be used to describe this interface.¶
If request messages sent to the KDC as well as success response messages from the KDC include a payload and specify a Content-Format, those messages MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor, defined in Section 11.2. CBOR labels for the message parameters are defined in Section 8.¶
/ace-group : this resource is invariant once established, and indicates that this specification is used. If other applications run on a KDC implementing this specification and use this same resource, those applications will collide, and a mechanism will be needed to differentiate the endpoints.¶
A Client can access this resource in order to retrieve a set of group names, each corresponding to one of the specified group identifiers. This operation is described in Section 4.2.1.1.¶
/ace-group/GROUPNAME : one such sub-resource to /ace-group is hosted for each group with name GROUPNAME that the KDC manages, and contains the symmetric group keying material for that group.¶
A Client can access this resource in order to join the group with name GROUPNAME, or later as a group member to retrieve the current group keying material. These operations are described in Section 4.3.1.1 and Section 4.3.2.1, respectively.¶
If the value of the GROUPNAME URI path and the group name in the access token scope ('gname' in Section 3.2) are not required to coincide, the KDC MUST implement a mechanism to map the GROUPNAME value in the URI to the group name, in order to refer to the correct group (REQ7).¶
/ace-group/GROUPNAME/pub-key : this resource is invariant once established, and contains the public keys of all the members of the group with name GROUPNAME.¶
This resource is created only in case the KDC acts as repository of public keys for group members.¶
A Client can access this resource in order to retrieve the public keys of other group members, in addition to when joining the group. That is, the Client can retrieve the public keys of all the current group members, or a subset of them by specifying filter criteria. These operations are described in Section 4.4.2.1 and Section 4.4.1.1, respectively.¶
Clients may be authorized to access this resource even without being group members, e.g., if authorized to be external signature verifiers for the group.¶
ace-group/GROUPNAME/kdc-pub-key : this resource is invariant once established, and contains the public key of the KDC for the group with name GROUPNAME.¶
This resource is created only in case the KDC has an associated public key and this is required for the correct group operation. It is REQUIRED of application profiles to define whether the KDC has such an associated public key (REQ8).¶
A Client can interact with this resource in order to retrieve the current public key of the KDC, in addition to when joining the group.¶
Clients may be authorized to access this resource even without being group members, e.g., if authorized to be external signature verifiers for the group.¶
/ace-group/GROUPNAME/policies : this resource is invariant once established, and contains the group policies of the group with name GROUPNAME.¶
A Client can access this resource as a group member in order to retrieve the group policies. This operation is described in Section 4.6.1.1.¶
/ace-group/GROUPNAME/num : this resource is invariant once established, and contains the current version number for the symmetric group keying material of the group with name GROUPNAME.¶
A Client can access this resource as a group member in order to retrieve the version number of the keying material currently used in the group. This operation is described in Section 4.7.1.1.¶
/ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME : one such sub-resource of /ace-group/GROUPNAME is hosted for each group member of the group with name GROUPNAME. Each of such resources is identified by the node name NODENAME of the associated group member, and contains the group keying material and the individual keying material for that group member.¶
A Client as a group member can access this resource in order to retrieve the current group keying material together with its the individual keying material; request new individual keying material to use in the group; and leave the group. These operations are described in Section 4.8.1.1, Section 4.8.2.1, and Section 4.8.3.1, respectively.¶
/ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME/pub-key : this resource is invariant once established, and contains the individual public keying material for the node with name NODENAME, as group member of the group with name GROUPNAME.¶
A Client can access this resource in order to upload at the KDC a new public key to use in the group. This operation is described in Section 4.9.1.1.¶
This resource is not created if the group member does not have individual public keying material to use in the group, or if the KDC does not store the public keys of group members.¶
The KDC is expected to fully provide the interface defined above. It is otherwise REQUIRED of the application profiles of this specification to indicate which resources are not hosted, i.e., which parts of the interface defined in this section are not supported by the KDC (REQ9). Application profiles of this specification MAY extend the KDC interface, by defining additional resources and their handlers.¶
It is REQUIRED of the application profiles of this specification to register a Resource Type for the root url-path (REQ10). This Resource Type can be used to discover the correct url to access at the KDC. This Resource Type can also be used at the GROUPNAME sub-resource, to indicate different application profiles for different groups.¶
It is REQUIRED of the application profiles of this specification to define what specific actions (e.g., CoAP methods) are allowed on each resource provided by the KDC interface, depending on whether the Client is a current group member; the roles that a Client is authorized to take as per the obtained access token (see Section 3.1); and the roles that the Client has as current group member (REQ11).¶
It is expected that a Client minimally supports the following set of primary operations and corresponding interactions with the KDC.¶
In addition, some Clients may rather not support the following set of secondary operations and corresponding interactions with the KDC. This can be specified, for instance, in compliance documents defining minimalistic Clients and their capabilities in specific deployments. In turn, these might also have to consider the used application profile of this specification.¶
It is REQUIRED of application profiles of this specification to categorize possible newly defined operations for Clients into primary operations and secondary operations, and to provide accompanying considerations (REQ12).¶
Upon receiving a request from a Client, the KDC MUST check that it is storing a valid access token from that Client. If this is not the case, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.01 (Unauthorized) error response.¶
Unless the request targets the /ace-group resource, the KDC MUST check that it is storing a valid access token from that Client such that:¶
In case the KDC stores a valid access token but the verifications above fail, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.03 (Forbidden) error response. This response MAY be an AS Request Creation Hints, as defined in Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], in which case the Content-Format MUST be set to application/ace+cbor.¶
If the request is not formatted correctly (e.g., required fields are not present or are not encoded as expected), the handler MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response.¶
If the request includes unknown or non-expected fields, the handler MUST silently ignore them and continue processing the request. Application profiles of this specification MAY define optional or mandatory payload formats for specific error cases (OPT4).¶
Some error responses from the KDC can have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor. In such a case, the paylod of the response MUST be a CBOR map, which includes the following fields.¶
The 'error' and 'error_description' fields are defined as OPTIONAL to support for Clients (see Section 8). A Client supporting the 'error' parameter and able to understand the specified error may use that information to determine what actions to take next.¶
Section 9 of this specification defines an initial set of error identifiers, as possible values for the 'error' field. Application profiles of this specification inherit this initial set or error identifiers and MAY define additional value (OPT5).¶
This resource implements the FETCH handler.¶
The FETCH handler receives group identifiers and returns the corresponding group names and GROUPNAME URIs.¶
The handler expects a request with payload formatted as a CBOR map, which MUST contain the following fields:¶
The handler identifies the groups that are secured by the keying material identified by those group identifiers.¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler replies with a 2.05 (Content) response, whose payload is formatted as a CBOR map that MUST contain the following fields:¶
If the KDC does not find any group associated to the specified group identifiers, the handler returns a response with payload formatted as a CBOR byte string of zero length.¶
Note that the KDC only verifies that the node is authorized by the AS to access this resource. Nodes that are not members of the group but are authorized to do signature verification on the group messages may be allowed to access this resource, if the application needs it.¶
In case the joining node only knows the group identifier of the group it wishes to join or about which it wishes to get update information from the KDC, the node can contact the KDC to request the corresponding group name and joining resource URI. The node can request several group identifiers at once. It does so by sending a CoAP FETCH request to the /ace-group endpoint at the KDC formatted as defined in Section 4.2.1.¶
Figure 6 gives an overview of the exchanges described above, and Figure 7 shows an example.¶
This resource implements the POST and GET and handlers.¶
The POST handler processes the Joining Request sent by a Client to join a group, and returns a Joining Response as successful result of the joining process (see Section 4.3.1.1). At a high level, the POST handler adds the Client to the list of current group members, adds the public key of the Client to the list of the group members' public keys, and returns the symmetric group keying material for the group identified by GROUPNAME.¶
The handler expects a request with payload formatted as a CBOR map, which MAY contain the following fields, which, if included, MUST have format and value as specified below.¶
'get_pub_keys', if the Client wishes to receive the public keys of the current group members from the KDC. This parameter may be included in the Joining Request if the KDC stores the public keys of the group members, while it is not useful to include it if the Client obtains those public keys through alternative means, e.g., from the AS. Note that including this parameter might result in a following Joining Response of large size, which can be inconvenient for resource-constrained devices.¶
If the Client wishes to retrieve the public keys of all the current group members, the 'get_pub_keys' parameter MUST encode the CBOR simple value 'null' (0xf6). Otherwise, the 'get_pub_keys' parameter MUST encode a non-empty CBOR array, containing the following three elements formatted as defined below.¶
The second element, namely 'role_filter', is a non-empty CBOR array. Each element of the array contains one role or a combination of roles for the group identified by GROUPNAME. That is, when the Joining Request includes a non-Null 'get_pub_keys' parameter, the Client filters public keys based on node identifiers.¶
In particular, the Client indicates that it wishes to retrieve the public keys of all the group members having any of the single roles, or at least all of the roles indicated in any combination of roles. For example, the array ["role1", "role2+role3"] indicates that the Client wishes to receive the public keys of all group members that have at least "role1" or at least both "role2" and "role3".¶
The third element, namely 'id_filter', is an empty CBOR array. That is, when the Joining Request includes a non-Null 'get_pub_keys' parameter, the Client does not filter public keys based on node identifiers.¶
In fact, when first joining the group, the Client is not expected or capable to express a filter based on node identifiers of other group members. Instead, when already a group member and sending a Joining Request to re-join, the Client is not expected to include the 'get_pub_keys' parameter in the Joining Request altogether, since it can rather retrieve public keys associated to specific group identifiers as defined in Section 4.4.1.1.¶
The CDDL definition [RFC8610] of 'get_pub_keys' is given in Figure 8, using as example encoding: node identifier encoded as a CBOR byte string; role identifier encoded as a CBOR text string, and combination of roles encoded as a CBOR array of roles.¶
Note that, for this handler, 'inclusion_flag' is always set to true, the array of roles 'role_filter' is always non-empty, while the array of node identifiers 'id_filter' is always empty. However, this is not necessarily the case for other handlers using the 'get_pub_keys' parameter.¶
'client_cred_verify', encoded as a CBOR byte string. This parameter MUST be present if the 'client_cred' parameter is present and no public key associated to the Client's token can be retrieved for that group.¶
This parameter contains a proof-of-possession (PoP) evidence computed by the Client over the following PoP input: the scope (encoded as CBOR byte string), concatenated with N_S (encoded as CBOR byte string) concatenated with N_C (encoded as CBOR byte string), where:¶
An example of PoP input to compute 'client_cred_verify' using CBOR encoding is given in Figure 9.¶
A possible type of PoP evidence is a signature, that the Client computes by using its own private key, whose corresponding public key is specified in the 'client_cred' parameter. Application profiles of this specification MUST specify the exact approaches used to compute the PoP evidence to include in 'client_cred_verify', and MUST specify which of those approaches is used in which case (REQ14).¶
If the token was not provided to the KDC through a Token Transfer Request (e.g., it is used directly to validate TLS instead), it is REQUIRED of the specific application profile to define how the challenge N_S is generated (REQ15).¶
'control_uri', with value a full URI, encoded as a CBOR text string. A default url-path is /ace-group/GROUPNAME/node, although implementations can use different ones instead. The URI MUST NOT have url-path ace-group/GROUPNAME.¶
If 'control_uri' is specified in the Joining Request, the Client acts as a CoAP server and hosts a resource at this specific URI. The KDC MAY use this URI to send CoAP requests to the Client (acting as CoAP server in this exchange), for example for one-to-one provisioning of new group keying material when performing a group rekeying (see Section 4.8.1.1), or to inform the Client of its removal from the group Section 5.¶
In particular, this resource is intended for communications concerning exclusively the group whose group name GROUPNAME is specified in the 'scope' parameter. If the KDC does not implement mechanisms using this resource for that group, it can ignore this parameter. Other additional functionalities of this resource MAY be defined in application profiles of this specifications (OPT7).¶
If the request does not include a 'scope' field, the KDC is expected to understand with what roles the Client is requesting to join the group. For example, as per the access token, the Client might have been granted access to the group with only one role. If the KDC cannot determine which exact scope should be considered for the Client, it MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response.¶
The handler considers the scope specified in the access token associated to the Client, and checks the scope entry related to the group with name GROUPNAME associated to the endpoint. In particular, the handler checks whether the set of roles specified in that scope entry includes all the roles that the Client wishes to have in the group as per the Joining Request. If this is not the case, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.03 (Forbidden) error response.¶
If the KDC manages the group members' public keys, the handler checks if one is included in the 'client_cred' field. If so, the KDC retrieves the public key and performs the following actions.¶
The KDC checks the public key to be valid for the group identified by GROUPNAME. That is, it checks that the public key is encoded according to the format used in the group, is intended for the public key algorithm used in the group, and is aligned with the possible associated parameters used in the group.¶
If this verification fails, the handler MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 2 ("Public key incompatible with the group configuration").¶
The KDC verifies the PoP evidence contained in the 'client_cred_verify' field. Application profiles of this specification MUST specify the exact approaches used to verify the PoP evidence, and MUST specify which of those approaches is used in which case (REQ14).¶
If the PoP evidence does not pass verification, the handler MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 3 ("Invalid Proof-of-Possession evidence").¶
If no public key is included in the 'client_cred' field, the handler checks if a public key is already associated to the received access token and to the group identified by GROUPNAME (see also Section 4.3.1.1). Note that the same joining node may use different public keys in different groups, and all those public keys would be associate to the same access token.¶
If an eligible public key for the Client is neither present in the 'client_cred' field nor retrieved from the stored ones at the KDC, it is RECOMMENDED that the handler stops the processing and replies with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response. Applications profiles MAY define alternatives (OPT8).¶
If, regardless the reason, the KDC replies with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response, this response MAY have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and have a CBOR map as payload. For instance, the CBOR map can include a 'sign_info' parameter formatted as 'sign_info_res' defined in Section 3.3.1, with the 'pub_key_enc' element set to the CBOR simple value 'null' (0xf6) if the Client sent its own public key and the KDC is not set to store public keys of the group members.¶
If all the verifications above succeed, the KDC proceeds as follows.¶
First, only in case the Client is not already a group member, the handler performs the following actions:¶
Then, the handler performs the following actions.¶
If the KDC manages the group members' public keys:¶
The Joining Response MUST have response code 2.01 (Created) if the Client has been added to the list of group members in this joining exchange (see above), or 2.04 (Changed) otherwise, i.e., if the Client is re-joining the group without having left it.¶
The Joining Response message MUST include the Location-Path CoAP option, specifying the URI path to the sub-resource associated to the Client, i.e. "/ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME".¶
The Joining Response message MUST have Content-Format application/ace-groupcomm+cbor. The payload of the response is formatted as a CBOR map, which MUST contain the following fields and values.¶
The exact format of the 'key' value MUST be defined in applications of this specification (REQ17), as well as values of 'gkty' accepted by the application (REQ18). Additionally, documents specifying the key format MUST register it in the "ACE Groupcomm Key Types" registry defined in Section 11.8, including its name, type and application profile to be used with.¶
The response SHOULD contain the following parameter:¶
Optionally, the response MAY contain the following parameters, which, if included, MUST have format and value as specified below.¶
'kdc_cred', encoded as a CBOR byte string, with value the original binary representation of the KDC's public key. This parameter is used if the KDC has an associated public key and this is required for the correct group operation. It is REQUIRED of application profiles to define whether the KDC has a public key and if this has to be provided through the 'kdc_cred' parameter (REQ8).¶
In such a case, the KDC's public key MUST have the same format used for the public keys of the group members. It is REQUIRED of the application profiles to define the specific formats that are acceptable to use for encoding public keys in the group (REQ6).¶
'kdc_cred_verify' parameter, encoded as a CBOR byte string. This parameter MUST be present if the 'kdc_cred' parameter is present.¶
This parameter contains a proof-of-possession (PoP) evidence computed by the KDC over the nonce N_KDC, which is specified in the 'kdc_nonce' parameter and taken as PoP input.¶
A possible type of PoP evidence is a signature, that the KDC computes by using its own private key, whose corresponding public key is specified in the 'kdc_cred' parameter. Application profiles of this specification MUST specify the exact approaches used by the KDC to compute the PoP evidence to include in 'kdc_cred_verify', and MUST specify which of those approaches is used in which case (REQ21).¶
Application profiles of this specification MAY define a default group rekeying scheme, to refer to in case the 'rekeying_scheme' parameter is not included in the Joining Response (OPT9).¶
'mgt_key_material', encoded as a CBOR byte string and containing the specific administrative keying material that the joining node requires in order to participate in the group rekeying process performed by the KDC. This parameter MUST NOT be present if the 'rekeying_scheme' parameter is not present and the application profile does not specify a default group rekeying scheme to use in the group. Some simple rekeying scheme may not require specific administrative keying material to be provided, e.g., the basic "Point-to-Point" group rekeying scheme (see Section 6.1).¶
In more advanced group rekeying schemes, the administrative keying material can be composed of multiple keys organized, for instance, into a logical tree hierarchy, whose root key is the only administrative key shared by all the group members. In such a case, each group member is exclusively associated to one leaf key in the hierarchy, and owns only the administrative keys from the associated leaf key all the way up along the path to the root key. That is, different group members can be provided with a different subset of the overall administrative keying material.¶
It is expected from separate documents to define how the advanced group rekeying scheme possibly indicated in the 'rekeying_scheme' parameter is used by an application profile of this specification. This includes defining the format of the administrative keying material to specify in 'mgt_key_material', consistently with the group rekeying scheme and the application profile in question.¶
'control_group_uri', with value a full URI, encoded as a CBOR text string. The URI MUST specify addressing information intended to reach all the members in the group. For example, this can be a multicast IP address, optionally together with a port number (which defaults to 5683 if omitted). The URI MUST include GROUPNAME in the url-path. A default url-path is /ace-group/GROUPNAME, although implementations can use different ones instead. The URI MUST NOT have url-path ace-group/GROUPNAME/node.¶
If 'control_group_uri' is included in the Joining Response, the Clients supporting this parameter act as CoAP servers, host a resource at this specific URI, and listen to the specified addressing information.¶
The KDC MAY use this URI to send one-to-many CoAP requests to the Client group members (acting as CoAP servers in this exchange), for example for one-to-many provisioning of new group keying material when performing a group rekeying (see Section 4.8.1.1), or to inform the Clients of their removal from the group Section 5.¶
In particular, this resource is intended for communications concerning exclusively the group whose group name GROUPNAME is specified in the 'scope' parameter. If the KDC does not implement mechanisms using this resource for that group, it can ignore this parameter. Other additional functionalities of this resource MAY be defined in application profiles of this specifications (OPT10).¶
If the Joining Response includes the 'kdc_cred_verify' parameter, the Client verifies the conveyed PoP evidence and considers the group joining unsuccessful in case of failed verification. Application profiles of this specification MUST specify the exact approaches used by the Client to verify the PoP evidence in 'kdc_cred_verify', and MUST specify which of those approaches is used in which case (REQ21).¶
Specific application profiles that build on this document MUST specify the communication protocol that members of the group use to communicate with each other (REQ22) and how exactly the keying material is used to protect the group communication (REQ23).¶
Figure 13 gives an overview of the Joining exchange between Client and KDC, when the Client first joins a group, while Figure 14 shows an example.¶
If not previously established, the Client and the KDC MUST first establish a pairwise secure communication channel (REQ24). This can be achieved, for instance, by using a transport profile of ACE. The Joining exchange MUST occur over that secure channel. The Client and the KDC MAY use that same secure channel to protect further pairwise communications that must be secured.¶
The secure communication protocol is REQUIRED to establish the secure channel between Client and KDC by using the proof-of-possession key bound to the access token. As a result, the proof-of-possession to bind the access token to the Client is performed by using the proof-of-possession key bound to the access token for establishing secure communication between the Client and the KDC.¶
To join the group, the Client sends a CoAP POST request to the /ace-group/GROUPNAME endpoint at the KDC, where GROUPNAME is the group name of the group to join, formatted as specified in Section 4.3.1. This group name is the same as in the scope entry corresponding to that group, specified in the 'scope' parameter of the Authorization Request/Response, or it can be retrieved from it. Note that, in case of successful joining, the Client will receive the URI to retrieve individual keying material and to leave the group in the Location-Path option of the response.¶
If the node is joining a group for the first time, and the KDC maintains the public keys of the group members, the Client is REQUIRED to send its own public key and proof-of-possession (PoP) evidence in the Joining Request (see the 'client_cred' and 'client_cred_verify' parameters in Section 4.3.1). The request is accepted only if both public key is provided and the PoP evidence is successfully verified.¶
If a node re-joins a group as authorized by the same access token and using the same public key, it can omit the public key and the PoP evidence, or just the PoP evidence, from the Joining Request. Then, the KDC will be able to retrieve the node's public key associated to the access token for that group. If the public key has been discarded, the KDC replies with 4.00 (Bad Request) error response, as specified in Section 4.3.1. If a node re-joins a group but wants to update its own public key, it needs to include both its public key and the PoP evidence in the Joining Request like when it joined the group for the first time.¶
The GET handler returns the symmetric group keying material for the group identified by GROUPNAME.¶
The handler expects a GET request.¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2, the handler verifies that the Client is a current member of the group. If the verification fails, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.03 (Forbidden) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 0 ("Operation permitted only to group members").¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler replies with a 2.05 (Content) response containing the symmetric group keying material. The payload of the response is formatted as a CBOR map which MUST contain the parameters 'gkty', 'key' and 'num' specified in Section 4.3.1.¶
Each of the following parameters specified in Section 4.3.1 MUST also be included in the payload of the response, if they are included in the payload of the Joining Responses sent for the group: 'rekeying_scheme', 'mgt_key_material'.¶
The payload MAY also include the parameters 'ace-groupcomm-profile' and 'exp' parameters specified in Section 4.3.1.¶
A node in the group can contact the KDC to retrieve the current group keying material, by sending a CoAP GET request to the /ace-group/GROUPNAME endpoint at the KDC, where GROUPNAME is the group name.¶
Figure 15 gives an overview of the Joining exchange between Client and KDC, when the Client first joins a group, while Figure 16 shows an example.¶
This resource implements the GET and FETCH handlers.¶
The FETCH handler receives identifiers of group members for the group identified by GROUPNAME and returns the public keys of such group members.¶
The handler expects a request with payload formatted as a CBOR map, that MUST contain the following field.¶
'get_pub_keys', whose value is encoded as in Section 4.3.1 with the following modifications.¶
The arrays 'role_filter' and 'id_filter' MUST NOT both be empty, i.e., in CBOR diagnostic notation: [ bool, [ ], [ ] ]. If the 'get_pub_keys' parameter has such a format, the request MUST be considered malformed, and the KDC MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response.¶
Note that a group member can retrieve the public keys of all the current group members by sending a GET request to the same KDC resource instead (see Section 4.4.2.1).¶
Note that, in case the 'role_filter' array and the 'id_filter' array are both non-empty:¶
The specific format of public keys as well as identifiers, roles and combination of roles of group members MUST be specified by It is REQUIRED of application profiles of this specification (REQ1, REQ6, REQ25).¶
The handler identifies the public keys of the current group members for which either:¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler returns a 2.05 (Content) message response with payload formatted as a CBOR map, containing only the following parameters from Section 4.3.1.¶
The specific format of public keys as well as of node identifiers of group members is specified by the application profile (REQ6, REQ25).¶
If the KDC does not store any public key associated to the specified node identifiers, the handler returns a response with payload formatted as a CBOR byte string of zero length.¶
The handler MAY enforce one of the following policies, in order to handle possible node identifiers that are included in the 'id_filter' element of the 'get_pub_keys' parameter of the request but are not associated to any current group member. Such a policy MUST be specified by the application profile (REQ26).¶
The KDC retains public keys of group members for a given amount of time after their leaving, before discarding them. As long as such public keys are retained, the KDC provides them to a requesting Client.¶
If the KDC adopts this policy, the application profile MUST also specify the amount of time during which the KDC retains the public key of a former group member after its leaving, possibly on a per-member basis.¶
Note that this resource handler only verifies that the node is authorized by the AS to access this resource. Nodes that are not members of the group but are authorized to do signature verifications on the group messages may be allowed to access this resource, if the application needs it.¶
In case the KDC maintains the public keys of group members, a node in the group can contact the KDC to request the public keys, roles and node identifiers of a specified subset of group members, by sending a CoAP FETCH request to the /ace-group/GROUPNAME/pub-key endpoint at the KDC, where GROUPNAME is the group name, and formatted as defined in Section 4.4.1.¶
Figure 17 gives an overview of the exchange mentioned above, while Figure 18 shows an example of such an exchange.¶
The handler expects a GET request.¶
If all verifications succeed, the KDC replies with a 2.05 (Content) response as in the FETCH handler in Section 4.4.1, but specifying in the payload the public keys of all the group members, together with their roles and node identifiers.¶
In case the KDC maintains the public keys of group members, a group or an external signature verifier can contact the KDC to request the public keys, roles and node identifiers of all the current group members, by sending a CoAP GET request to the /ace-group/GROUPNAME/pub-key endpoint at the KDC, where GROUPNAME is the group name.¶
Figure 19 gives an overview of the message exchange, while Figure 20 shows an example of such an exchange.¶
This resource implements a GET handler.¶
The handler expects a GET request.¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler returns a 2.05 (Content) message containing the KDC's public key together with a proof-of-possession (PoP) evidence. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor. The payload of the response is a CBOR map, which includes the following fields.¶
The 'kdc_cred_verify' parameter, specifying a PoP evidence computed by the KDC. This parameter is encoded like the 'kdc_cred_verify' parameter in the Joining Response (see Section 4.3.1).¶
The PoP evidence is computed over the nonce specified in the 'kdc_nonce' parameter and taken as PoP input, by means of the same method used when preparing the Joining Response (see Section 4.3.1). Application profiles of this specification MUST specify the exact approaches used by the KDC to compute the PoP evidence to include in 'kdc_cred_verify', and MUST specify which of those approaches is used in which case (REQ21).¶
In case the KDC has an associated public key as required for the correct group operation, a group member or an external signature verifier can contact the KDC to request the KDC's public key, by sending a CoAP GET request to the /ace-group/GROUPNAME/kdc-pub-key endpoint at the KDC, where GROUPNAME is the group name.¶
Upon receiving the 2.05 (Content) response, the Client retrieves the KDC's public key from the 'kdc_cred' parameter, and MUST verify the proof-of-possession (PoP) evidence specified in the 'kdc_cred_verify' parameter. In case of successful verification of the PoP evidence, the Client MUST store the obtained KDC's public key and replace the currently stored one.¶
The PoP evidence is verified by means of the same method used when processing the Joining Response (see Section 4.3.1). Application profiles of this specification MUST specify the exact approaches used by the Client to verify the PoP evidence in 'kdc_cred_verify', and MUST specify which of those approaches is used in which case (REQ21).¶
Figure 21 gives an overview of the exchange described above, while Figure 22 shows an example.¶
This resource implements the GET handler.¶
The handler expects a GET request.¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2, the handler verifies that the Client is a current member of the group. If the verification fails, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.03 (Forbidden) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 0 ("Operation permitted only to group members").¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler replies with a 2.05 (Content) response containing the list of policies for the group identified by GROUPNAME. The payload of the response is formatted as a CBOR map including only the parameter 'group_policies' defined in Section 4.3.1 and specifying the current policies in the group. If the KDC does not store any policy, the payload is formatted as a zero-length CBOR byte string.¶
The specific format and meaning of group policies MUST be specified in the application profile (REQ20).¶
A node in the group can contact the KDC to retrieve the current group policies, by sending a CoAP GET request to the /ace-group/GROUPNAME/policies endpoint at the KDC, where GROUPNAME is the group name, and formatted as defined in Section 4.6.1¶
Figure 23 gives an overview of the exchange described above, while Figure 24 shows an example.¶
This resource implements the GET, PUT and DELETE handlers.¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2, each of the handlers performs the following two verifications.¶
The handler expects a GET request.¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler replies with a 2.05 (Content) response containing both the group keying material and the individual keying material for the Client, or information enabling the Client to derive it. The payload of the response is formatted as a CBOR map. The format for the group keying material is the same as defined in the response of Section 4.3.2. The specific format of individual keying material for group members, or of the information to derive it, and corresponding CBOR label, MUST be specified in the application profile (REQ27) and registered in Section 11.7.¶
Optionally, the KDC can make the sub-resource at ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME also Observable [RFC7641] for the associated node. In case the KDC removes that node from the group without having been explicitly asked for it, this allows the KDC to send an unsolicited 4.04 (Not Found) response to the node as a notification of eviction from the group (see Section 5).¶
Note that the node could have been observing also the resource at ace-group/GROUPNAME, in order to be informed of changes in the keying material. In such a case, this method would result in largely overlapping notifications received for the resource at ace-group/GROUPNAME and the sub-resource at ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME.¶
In order to mitigate this, a node that supports the No-Response option [RFC7967] can use it when starting the observation of the sub-resource at ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME. In particular, the GET observation request can also include the No-Response option, with value set to 2 (Not interested in 2.xx responses).¶
When any of the following happens, a node MUST stop using the owned group keying material to protect outgoing messages, and SHOULD stop using it to decrypt and verify incoming messages.¶
In either case, if it wants to continue participating in the group communication, the node has to request the latest keying material from the KDC. To this end, the Client sends a CoAP GET request to the /ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME endpoint at the KDC, formatted as specified in Section 4.8.1.¶
Note that policies can be set up, so that the Client sends a Key Re-Distribution request to the KDC only after a given number of received messages could not be decrypted (because of failed decryption processing or inability to retrieve the necessary keying material).¶
It is application dependent and pertaining to the particular message exchange (e.g., [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]) to set up these policies for instructing Clients to retain incoming messages and for how long (OPT11). This allows Clients to possibly decrypt such messages after getting updated keying material, rather than just consider them non valid messages to discard right away.¶
The same Key Distribution Request could also be sent by the Client without being triggered by a failed decryption of a message, if the Client wants to be sure that it has the latest group keying material. If that is the case, the Client will receive from the KDC the same group keying material it already has in memory.¶
Figure 27 gives an overview of the exchange described above, while Figure 28 shows an example.¶
The PUT handler processes requests from a Client that asks for new individual keying material, as required to process messages exchanged in the group.¶
The handler expects a PUT request with empty payload.¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2 and at the beginning of Section 4.8, the handler verifies that this operation is consistent with the set of roles that the Client has in the group (REQ11). If the verification fails, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 1 ("Request inconsistent with the current roles").¶
If the KDC is currently not able to serve this request, i.e., to generate new individual keying material for the requesting Client, the KDC MUST reply with a 5.03 (Service Unavailable) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 4 ("No available node identifiers").¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler reply with a 2.05 (Content) response containing newly generated, individual keying material for the Client. The payload of the response is formatted as a CBOR map. The specific format of newly-generated individual keying material for group members, or of the information to derive it, and corresponding CBOR label, MUST be specified in the application profile (REQ27) and registered in Section 11.7.¶
The typical successful outcome consists in replying with newly generated, individual keying material for the Client, as defined above. However, application profiles of this specification MAY also extend this handler in order to achieve different akin outcomes (OPT12), for instance:¶
In either case, the handler may specify the new group keying material as part of the 2.05 (Content) response.¶
Note that this handler is not intended to accommodate requests from a group member to trigger a group rekeying, whose scheduling and execution is an exclusive prerogative of the KDC.¶
A Client may ask the KDC for new, individual keying material. For instance, this can be due to the expiration of such individual keying material, or to the exhaustion of AEAD nonces, if an AEAD encryption algorithm is used for protecting communications in the group. An example of individual keying material can simply be an individual encryption key associated to the Client. Hence, the Client may ask for a new individual encryption key, or for new input material to derive it.¶
To this end, the Client performs a Key Renewal Request/Response exchange with the KDC, i.e., it sends a CoAP PUT request to the /ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME endpoint at the KDC, where GROUPNAME is the group name and NODENAME is its node name, and formatted as defined in Section 4.8.1.¶
Figure 29 gives an overview of the exchange described above, while Figure 30 shows an example.¶
Note the difference between the Key Renewal Request in this section and the Key Distribution Request in Section 4.8.1.1. The former asks the KDC for new individual keying material, while the latters asks the KDC for the current group keying material together with the current individual keying material.¶
As discussed in Section 4.8.2, application profiles of this specification may define alternative outcomes for the Key Renewal Request-Response exchange (OPT12), where the provisioning of new individual keying material is replaced by or combined with the execution of a whole group rekeying.¶
The DELETE handler removes the node identified by NODENAME from the group identified by GROUPNAME.¶
The handler expects a DELETE request with empty payload.¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2, the handler verifies that the Client is a current member of the group. If the verification fails, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.03 (Forbidden) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 0 ("Operation permitted only to group members").¶
If all verification succeeds, the handler performs the actions defined in Section 5 and replies with a 2.02 (Deleted) response with empty payload.¶
A Client can actively request to leave the group. In this case, the Client sends a CoAP DELETE request to the endpoint /ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME at the KDC, where GROUPNAME is the group name and NODENAME is its node name, formatted as defined in Section 4.8.3¶
Note that, after having left the group, the Client may wish to join it again. Then, as long as the Client is still authorized to join the group, i.e., the associated access token is still valid, the Client can request to re-join the group directly to the KDC (see Section 4.3.1.1), without having to retrieve a new access token from the AS.¶
This resource implements the POST handler.¶
The POST handler is used to replace the stored public key of this Client (identified by NODENAME) with the one specified in the request at the KDC, for the group identified by GROUPNAME.¶
The handler expects a POST request with payload as specified in Section 4.3.1, with the difference that it includes only the parameters 'client_cred', 'cnonce' and 'client_cred_verify'. In particular, the PoP evidence included in 'client_cred_verify' is computed in the same way considered in Section 4.3.1 and defined by the specific application profile (REQ14), with a newly generated N_C nonce and the previously received N_S. It is REQUIRED of the application profiles to define the specific formats of public keys that are acceptable to use in the group (REQ6).¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2 and at the beginning of Section 4.8, the handler verifies that this operation is consistent with the set of roles that the node has in the group. If the verification fails, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 1 ("Request inconsistent with the current roles").¶
If the KDC cannot retrieve the 'kdcchallenge' associated to this Client (see Section 3.3), the KDC MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response, which MUST also have Content-Format application/ace-groupcomm+cbor. The payload of the error response is a CBOR map including a newly generated 'kdcchallenge' value. This is specified in the 'kdcchallenge' parameter. In such a case the KDC MUST store the newly generated value as the 'kdcchallenge' value associated to this Client, possibly replacing the currently stored value.¶
Otherwise, the handler checks that the public key specified in the 'client_cred' field is valid for the group identified by GROUPNAME. That is, the handler checks that the public key is encoded according to the format used in the group, is intended for the public key algorithm used in the group, and is aligned with the possible associated parameters used in the group. If that cannot be successfully verified, the handler MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 2 ("Public key incompatible with the group configuration").¶
Otherwise, the handler verifies the PoP evidence contained in the 'client_cred_verify' field of the request, by using the public key specified in the 'client_cred' field, as well as the same way considered in Section 4.3.1 and defined by the specific application profile (REQ14). If the PoP evidence does not pass verification, the handler MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 3 ("Invalid Proof-of-Possession evidence").¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler performs the following actions.¶
Then, the handler replies with a 2.04 (Changed) response, which does not include a payload.¶
In case the KDC maintains the public keys of group members, a node in the group can contact the KDC to upload a new public key to use in the group, and replace the currently stored one.¶
To this end, the Client performs a Public Key Update Request/Response exchange with the KDC, i.e., it sends a CoAP POST request to the /ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME/pub-key endpoint at the KDC, where GROUPNAME is the group name and NODENAME is its node name.¶
The request is formatted as specified in Section 4.9.1.¶
Figure Figure 31 gives an overview of the exchange described above, while Figure 32 shows an example.¶
Additionally, after updating its own public key, a group member MAY send a number of requests including an identifier of the updated public key, to notify other group members that they have to retrieve it. How this is done depends on the group communication protocol used, and therefore is application profile specific (OPT13).¶
A Client identified by NODENAME may be removed from a group identified by GROUPNAME where it is a member, due to the following reasons.¶
In either case, the KDC performs the following actions.¶
If the sub-resource nodes/NODENAME was created for the removed Client, the KDC deletes that sub-resource.¶
In case of forced eviction, i.e., for cases 2 and 3 above, the KDC MAY explicitly inform the removed Client, by means of the following methods.¶
If the evicted Client is observing its associated sub-resource at ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME (see Section 4.8.1), the KDC sends an unsolicited 4.04 (Not Found) error response, which does not include the Observe option and indicates that the observed resource has been deleted (see Section 3.2 of [RFC7641]).¶
The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 5 ("Group membership terminated").¶
A group rekeying is started and driven by the KDC. The KDC is not intended to accommodate explicit requests from group members to trigger a group rekeying. That is, the scheduling and execution of a group rekeying is an exclusive prerogative of the KDC. Reasons that can trigger a group rekeying are a change in the group membership, the current group keying material approaching its expiration time, or a regularly scheduled update of the group keying material.¶
The KDC MUST increment the version number NUM of the current keying material, before distributing the newly generated keying material with version number NUM+1 to the group. Once completed the group rekeying, the KDC MUST delete the old keying material and SHOULD store the newly distributed keying material in persistent storage.¶
Distributing the new group keying material requires the KDC to send multiple rekeying messages to the group members. Depending on the rekeying scheme used in the group and the reason that has triggered the rekeying process, each rekeying message can be intended to one or multiple group members, hereafter referred to as target group members. The KDC MUST support at least the "Point-to-Point" group rekeying scheme in Section 6.1 and MAY support additional ones.¶
Each rekeying message MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and its payload formatted as a CBOR map, which MUST include at least the information specified in the Key Distribution Response message (see Section 4.3.2), i.e., the parameters 'gkty', 'key' and 'num' defined in Section 4.3.1. The CBOR map MAY include the parameter 'exp', as well as the parameter 'mgt_key_material' specifying new administrative keying material for the target group members, if relevant for the used rekeying scheme.¶
A rekeying message may include additional information, depending on the rekeying scheme used in the group, the reason that has triggered the rekeying process and the specific target group members. In particular, if the group rekeying is performed due to one or multiple Clients that have joined the group and the KDC acts as repository of public keys of the group members, then a rekeying message MAY also include the public keys that those Clients use in the group, together with the roles and node identifier that the corresponding Client has in the group. It is RECOMMENDED to specify this information by means of the parameters 'pub_keys', 'peer_roles' and 'peer_identifiers', like done in the Joining Response message (see Section 4.3.1).¶
The complete format of a rekeying message, including the encoding and content of the 'mgt_key_material' parameter, has to be defined in separate specifications aimed at profiling the used rekeying scheme in the context of the used application profile of this specification. As a particular case, an application profile of this specification MAY define additional information to include in rekeying messages for the "Point-to-Point" group rekeying scheme in Section 6.1 (OPT14).¶
Consistently with the used group rekeying scheme, the actual delivery of rekeying messages can occur through different approaches, as discussed in the following.¶
This approach consists in the KDC sending one individual rekeying message to each target group member. In particular, the rekeying message is protected by means of the security association between the KDC and the target group member in question, as per the used application profile of this specification and the used transport profile of ACE.¶
This is the approach taken by the basic "Point-to-Point" group rekeying scheme, that the KDC can explicitly signal in the Joining Response (see Section 4.3.1), through the 'rekeying_scheme' parameter specifying the value 0.¶
When taking this approach in the group identified by GROUPNAME, the KDC can practically deliver the rekeying messages to the target group members in different, co-existing ways.¶
The KDC SHOULD make the ace-group/GROUPNAME resource Observable [RFC7641]. Thus, upon performing a group rekeying, the KDC can distribute the new group keying material through individual notification responses sent to the target group members that are also observing that resource.¶
In case the KDC deletes the group, this also allows the KDC to send an unsolicited 4.04 (Not Found) response to each observer group member, as a notification of group termination. The response MUST have Content-Format set to application/ace-groupcomm+cbor and is formatted as defined in Section 4. The value of the 'error' field MUST be set to 6 ("Group deleted").¶
If a target group member specified a URI in the 'control_uri' parameter of the Joining Request upon joining the group (see Section 4.3.1), the KDC can provide that group member with the new group keying material by sending a unicast POST request to that URI.¶
A Client that does not plan to observe the ace-group/GROUPNAME resource at the KDC SHOULD provide a URI in the 'control_uri' parameter of the Joining Request upon joining the group.¶
If the KDC has to send a rekeying message to a target group member, but this did not include the 'control_uri' parameter in the Joining Request and is not a registered observer for the ace-group/GROUPNAME resource, then that target group member would not be able to participate to the group rekeying. Later on, after having repeatedly failed to successfully exchange secure messages in the group, that group member can retrieve the current group keying material from the KDC, by sending a GET request to ace-group/GROUPNAME or ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME (see Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.8.1, respectively).¶
This section provides high-level recommendations on how the KDC can rekey a group by means of a more efficient and scalable group rekeying scheme, e.g., [RFC2093][RFC2094][RFC2627]. That is, each rekeying message might be, and likely is, intended to multiple target group members, and thus can be delivered to the whole group, although possible to decrypt only for the actual target group members.¶
This yields an overall lower number of rekeying messages, thus potentially reducing the overall time required to rekey the group. On the other hand, it requires the KDC to provide and use additional administrative keying material to protect the rekeying messages, and to additionally sign them to ensure source authentication (see Section 6.2.1). Typically, this pays off in large-scale groups, where the introduced performance overhead is less than what experienced by rekeying the group in a point-to-point fashion (see Section 6.1).¶
The exact set of rekeying messages to send, their content and format, the administrative keying material to use to protect them, as well as the set of target group members depend on the specific group rekeying scheme, and are typically affected by the reason that has triggered the group rekeying. Details about the data content and format of rekeying messages have to be defined by separate documents profiling the use of the group rekeying scheme, in the context of the used application profile of this specification.¶
When one of these group rekeying schemes is used, the KDC provides a number of related information to a Client joining the group in the Joining Response message (see Section 4.3.1). In particular, 'rekeying_scheme' identifies the rekeying scheme used in the group (if no default can be assumed); 'control_group_uri', if present, specifies a URI with a multicast address where the KDC will send the rekeying messages for that group; 'mgt_key_material' specifies a subset of the administrative keying material intended for that particular joining Client to have, as used to protect the rekeying messages sent to the group when intended also to that joining Client.¶
Rekeying messages can be protected at the application layer, by using COSE and the administrative keying material as prescribed by the specific group rekeying scheme (see Section 6.2.1). After that, the delivery of protected rekeying messages to the intended target group members can occur in different ways, such as the following ones.¶
Over multicast - In this case, the KDC simply sends a rekeying message as a CoAP request addressed to the multicast URI specified in the 'control_group_uri' parameter of the Joining Response (see Section 4.3.1).¶
If a particular rekeying message is intended to a single target group member, the KDC may alternatively protect the message using the security association with that group member, and deliver the message like when using the "Point-to-Point" group rekeying scheme (see Section 6.1).¶
Through a pub-sub communication model - In this case, the KDC acts as publisher and publishes each rekeying message to a specific "rekeying topic", which is associated to the group and is hosted at a broker server. Following their group joining, the group members subscribe to the rekeying topic at the broker, thus receiving the group rekeying messages as they are published by the KDC.¶
In order to make such message delivery more efficient, the rekeying topic associated to a group can be further organized into subtopics. For instance, the KDC can use a particular subtopic to address a particular set of target group members during the rekeying process, as possibly aligned to a similar organization of the administrative keying material (e.g., a key hierarchy).¶
The setup of rekeying topics at the broker as well as the discovery of the topics at the broker for group members are application specific. A possible way is for the KDC to provide such information in the Joining Response message (see Section 4.3.1), by means of a new parameter analogous to 'control_group_uri' and specifying the URI(s) of the rekeying topic(s) that a group member has to subscribe to at the broker.¶
Regardless the specifically used delivery method, the group rekeying scheme can perform a possible roll-over of the administrative keying material through the same sent rekeying messages. Actually, such a roll-over occurs every time a group rekeying is performed upon the leaving of group members, which have to be excluded from future communications in the group.¶
From a high level point of view, each group member owns only a subset of the overall administrative keying material, obtained upon joining the group. Then, when a group rekeying occurs:¶
Further details depend on the specific rekeying scheme used in the group.¶
When using a group rekeying scheme relying on one-to-many rekeying messages, the actual data content of each rekeying message is prepared according to what the rekeying scheme prescribes.¶
Then, the KDC can protect the rekeying message as defined below. The used encryption algorithm which SHOULD be the same one used to protect communications in the group. The method defined below assumes that the following holds for the management keying material specified in the 'mgt_key_material' parameter of the Joining Response (see Section 4.3.1).¶
First, the KDC computes a COSE_Encrypt0 object as follows.¶
Since the KDC is the only sender of rekeying messages, the AEAD nonce can be computed as follows, where NONCE_SIZE is the size in bytes of the AEAD nonce. Separate documents profiling the use of the group rekeying scheme may define alternative ways to compute the AEAD nonce.¶
The KDC considers the following values.¶
Then, the KDC computes a Partial IV as the byte string concatenation of COUNT and NEW_NUM, in this order. Finally, the AEAD nonce is computed as the XOR between the Base IV and the Partial IV.¶
The protected header of the COSE_Encrypt0 object MUST include the following parameters.¶
In order to ensure source authentication, each rekeying message protected with the administrative keying material MUST be signed by the KDC. To this end, the KDC computes a countersignature of the COSE_Encrypt0 object, as described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of [I-D.ietf-cose-countersign]. In particular, the following applies when computing the countersignature.¶
If source authentication of messages exchanged in the group is also ensured by means of signatures, then rekeying messages MUST be signed using the same signature algorithm and related parameters. Also, the KDC's public key used for signature verification MUST me provided in the Joining Response through the 'kdc_cred' parameter, together with the corresponding proof-of-possession (PoP) evidence in the 'kdc_cred_verify' parameter.¶
If source authentication of messages exchanged in the group is not ensured by means of signatures, then the KDC MUST provide its public key together with a corresponding PoP evidence as part of the management keying material specified in the 'mgt_key_material' parameter of the Joining Response (see Section 4.3.1). It is RECOMMENDED to specify this information by using the same format and encoding used for the parameters 'kdc_cred', 'kdc_nonce' and 'kdc_cred_verify' in the Joining Response. It is up to separate documents profiling the use of the group rekeying scheme to specify such details.¶
After that, the KDC specifies the computed countersignature in the 'COSE_Countersignature0' header parameter of the COSE_Encrypt0 object.¶
Finally, the KDC specifies the COSE_Encrypt0 object as payload of a CoAP request, which is sent to the target group members as per the used message delivery method.¶
This section defines an extended format of binary encoded scope, which additionally specifies the semantics used to express the same access control information from the corresponding original scope.¶
As also discussed in Section 3.2, this enables a Resource Server to unambiguously process a received access token, also in case the Resource Server runs multiple applications or application profiles that involve different scope semantics.¶
The extended format is intended only for the 'scope' claim of access tokens, for the cases where the claim takes as value a CBOR byte string. That is, the extended format does not apply to the 'scope' parameter included in ACE messages, i.e., the Authorization Request and Authorization Response exchanged between the Client and the Authorization Server (see Sections 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]), the AS Request Creation Hints message from the Resource Server (see Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]), and the Introspection Response from the Authorization Server (see Section 5.9.2 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]).¶
The value of the 'scope' claim following the extended format is composed as follows. Given the original scope using a semantics SEM and encoded as a CBOR byte string, the corresponding extended scope is encoded as a tagged CBOR byte string, wrapping a CBOR sequence [RFC8742] of two elements. In particular:¶
The first element of the sequence is a CBOR integer, and identifies the semantics SEM used for this scope. The value of this element has to be taken from the "Value" column of the "ACE Scope Semantics" registry defined in Section 11.12 of this specification.¶
When defining a new semantics for a binary scope, it is up to the applications and application profiles to define and register the corresponding integer identifier (REQ28).¶
Finally, the CBOR byte string wrapping the CBOR sequence is tagged, and identified by the CBOR tag TBD_TAG "ACE Extended Scope Format", defined in Section 11.6 of this specification.¶
The resulting tagged CBOR byte string is used as value of the 'scope' claim of the access token.¶
The usage of the extended scope format is not limited to application profiles of this specification or to applications based on group communication. Rather, it is generally applicable to any application and application profile where access control information in the access token is expressed as a binary encoded scope.¶
Figure 33 and Figure 34 build on the examples in Section 3.2, and show the corresponding extended scopes.¶
This specification defines a number of parameters used during the second part of the message exchange, after the exchange of Token Transfer Request and Response. The table below summarizes them, and specifies the CBOR key to use instead of the full descriptive name.¶
Note that the media type application/ace-groupcomm+cbor MUST be used when these parameters are transported in the respective message fields.¶
The KDC is expected to support and understand all the parameters above. Instead, a Client can support and understand only a subset of such parameters, depending on the roles it expects to take in the joined groups or on other conditions defined in application profiles of this specification.¶
In the following, the parameters are categorized according to the support expected by Clients. That is, a Client that supports a parameter is able to: i) use and specify it in a request message to the KDC; and ii) understand and process it if specified in a response message from the KDC. It is REQUIRED of application profiles of this specification to sort their newly defined parameters according to the same categorization (REQ29).¶
Note that the actual use of a parameter and its inclusion in a message depends on the specific exchange, the specific Client and group involved, as well as what is defined in the used application profile of this specification.¶
A Client MUST support the following parameters.¶
A Client SHOULD support the following parameter.¶
A Client MAY support the following optional parameters. Application profiles of this specification MAY define that Clients must or should support these parameters instead (OPT15).¶
The following conditional parameters are relevant only if specific conditions hold. It is REQUIRED of application profiles of this specification to define whether Clients must, should or may support these parameters, and under which circumstances (REQ30).¶
This specification defines a number of values that the KDC can include as error identifiers, in the 'error' field of an error response with Content-Format application/ace-groupcomm+cbor.¶
A Client supporting the 'error' parameter (see Section 4.1.2 and Section 8) and able to understand the specified error may use that information to determine what actions to take next. If it is included in the error response and supported by the Client, the 'error_description' parameter may provide additional context.¶
In particular, the following guidelines apply, and application profiles of this specification can define more detailed actions for the Client to take when learning that a specific error has occurred.¶
Security considerations are inherited from the ACE framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], and from the specific transport profile of ACE used between the Clients and the KDC, e.g., [I-D.ietf-ace-dtls-authorize] and [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile].¶
Furthermore, the following security considerations apply.¶
When a group member receives a message from a certain sender for the first time since joining the group, it needs to have a mechanism in place to avoid replayed messages, e.g., Appendix B.2 of [RFC8613] or Appendix E of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]. Such a mechanism aids the recipient group member also in case it has rebooted and lost the security state used to protect previous group communications with that sender.¶
By its nature, the KDC is invested with a large amount of trust, since it acts as generator and provider of the symmetric keying material used to protect communications in each of its groups. While details depend on the specific communication and security protocols used in the group, the KDC is in the position to decrypt messages exchanged in the group as if it was also a group member, as long as those are protected through commonly shared group keying material.¶
A compromised KDC would thus put the attacker in the same position, which also means that:¶
On the other hand, as long as the security protocol used in the group ensures source authentication of messages (e.g., by means of signatures), the KDC is not able to impersonate group members since it does now own their private keys.¶
Further security considerations are specific of the communication and security protocols used in the group, and thus have to be provided by those protocols and complemented by the application profiles of this specification using them.¶
Due to different reasons, the KDC can generate new group keying material and provide it to the group members (rekeying) through the rekeying scheme used in the group, as discussed in Section 6.¶
In particular, the KDC must renew the group keying material latest upon its expiration. Before then, the KDC may also renew the group keying material on a regular or periodical fashion.¶
The KDC should renew the group keying material upon a group membership change. Since the minimum number of group members is one, the KDC should provide also a Client joining an empty group with new keying material never used before in that group. Similarly, the KDC should provide new group keying material also to a Client that remains the only member in the group after the leaving of other group members.¶
Note that the considerations in Section 10.1 about dealing with replayed messages still hold, even in case the KDC rekeys the group upon every single joining of a new group member. However, if the KDC has renewed the group keying material upon a group member's joining, and the time interval between the end of the rekeying process and that member's joining is sufficiently small, then that group member is also on the safe side, since it would not accept replayed messages protected with the old group keying material previous to its joining.¶
The KDC may enforce a rekeying policy that takes into account the overall time required to rekey the group, as well as the expected rate of changes in the group membership. That is, the KDC may not rekey the group at each and every group membership change, for instance if members' joining and leaving occur frequently and performing a group rekeying takes too long. Instead, the KDC might rekey the group after a minimum number of group members have joined or left within a given time interval, or after a maximum amount of time since the last group rekeying was completed, or yet during predictable network inactivity periods.¶
However, this would result in the KDC not constantly preserving backward and forward security in the group. That is:¶
The KDC should renew the group keying material in case it has rebooted, even in case it stores the whole group keying material in persistent storage. This assumes that the secure associations with the current group members as well as any administrative keying material required to rekey the group are also stored in persistent storage.¶
However, if the KDC relies on Observe notifications to distribute the new group keying material, the KDC would have lost all the current ongoing Observations with the group members after rebooting, and the group members would continue using the old group keying material. Therefore, the KDC will rather rely on each group member asking for the new group keying material (see Section 4.3.2.1 and Section 4.8.1.1), or rather perform a group rekeying by actively sending rekeying messages to group members as discussed in Section 6.¶
The KDC needs to have a mechanism in place to detect DoS attacks from nodes repeatedly performing actions that might trigger a group rekeying. Such actions can include leaving and/or re-joining the group at high rates, or often asking the KDC for new indidivual keying material. Ultimately, the KDC can resort to removing these nodes from the group and (temperorarily) preventing them from joining the group again.¶
The KDC also needs to have a congestion control mechanism in place, in order to avoid network congestion upon distributing new group keying material. For example, CoAP and Observe give guidance on such mechanisms, see Section 4.7 of [RFC7252] and Section 4.5.1 of [RFC7641].¶
A node that has left the group should not expect any of its outgoing messages to be successfully processed, if received by other nodes after its leaving, due to a possible group rekeying occurred before the message reception.¶
A group member can receive a message shortly after the group has been rekeyed, and new keying material has been distributed by the KDC (see Section 6). In the following two cases, this may result in misaligned keying material between the group members.¶
In the first case, the sender protects a message using the old group keying material. However, the recipient receives the message after having received the new group keying material, hence not being able to correctly process it. A possible way to ameliorate this issue is to preserve the old, recent group keying material for a maximum amount of time defined by the application, during which it is used solely for processing incoming messages. By doing so, the recipient can still temporarily process received messages also by using the old, retained group keying material. Note that a former (compromised) group member can take advantage of this by sending messages protected with the old, retained group keying material. Therefore, a conservative application policy should not admit the storage of old group keying material. Eventually, the sender will have obtained the new group keying material too, and can possibly re-send the message protected with such keying material.¶
In the second case, the sender protects a message using the new group keying material, but the recipient receives that message before having received the new group keying material. Therefore, the recipient would not be able to correctly process the message and hence discards it. If the recipient receives the new group keying material shortly after that and the application at the sender endpoint performs retransmissions, the former will still be able to receive and correctly process the message. In any case, the recipient should actively ask the KDC for the latest group keying material according to an application-defined policy, for instance after a given number of unsuccessfully decrypted incoming messages.¶
If the Block-Wise CoAP options [RFC7959] are used, and the keying material is updated in the middle of a Block-Wise transfer, the sender of the blocks just changes the group keying material to the updated one and continues the transfer. As long as both sides get the new group keying material, updating group the keying material in the middle of a transfer will not cause any issue. Otherwise, the sender will have to transmit the message again, when receiving an error message from the recipient.¶
Compared to a scenario where the transfer does not use Block-Wise, depending on how fast the group keying material is changed, the group members might consume a larger amount of the network bandwidth by repeatedly resending the same blocks, which might be problematic.¶
This document has the following actions for IANA.¶
This specification registers the 'application/ace-groupcomm+cbor' media type for messages of the protocols defined in this document following the ACE exchange and carrying parameters encoded in CBOR. This registration follows the procedures specified in [RFC6838].¶
Type name: application¶
Subtype name: ace-groupcomm+cbor¶
Required parameters: N/A¶
Optional parameters: N/A¶
Encoding considerations: Must be encoded as CBOR map containing the protocol parameters defined in [this document].¶
Security considerations: See Section 10 of this document.¶
Interoperability considerations: n/a¶
Published specification: [this document]¶
Applications that use this media type: The type is used by Authorization Servers, Clients and Resource Servers that support the ACE groupcomm framework as specified in [this document].¶
Fragment identifier considerations: N/A¶
Additional information: N/A¶
Person & email address to contact for further information: iesg@ietf.org¶
Intended usage: COMMON¶
Restrictions on usage: None¶
Author: Francesca Palombini francesca.palombini@ericsson.com¶
Change controller: IESG¶
IANA is asked to register the following entry to the "CoAP Content-Formats" registry within the "CoRE Parameters" registry group.¶
Media Type: application/ace-groupcomm+cbor¶
Encoding: -¶
ID: TBD¶
Reference: [this document]¶
IANA is asked to register the following entries in the "OAuth Parameters" registry following the procedure specified in Section 11.2 of [RFC6749].¶
IANA is asked to register the following entries in the "OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings" registry following the procedure specified in Section 8.10 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].¶
IANA is asked to register the following entry in the "Interface Description (if=) Link Target Attribute Values" registry within the "CoRE Parameters" registry group.¶
This specification establishes the "ACE Groupcomm Parameters" IANA registry. The registry has been created to use the "Expert Review" registration procedure [RFC8126]. Expert review guidelines are provided in Section 11.15.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
This registry has been initially populated by the values in Section 8. The Reference column for all of these entries refers to sections of this document.¶
This specification establishes the "ACE Groupcomm Key Types" IANA registry. The registry has been created to use the "Expert Review" registration procedure [RFC8126]. Expert review guidelines are provided in Section 11.15.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
This registry has been initially populated by the values in Figure 10. The specification column for all of these entries will be this document.¶
This specification establishes the "ACE Groupcomm Profiles" IANA registry. The registry has been created to use the "Expert Review" registration procedure [RFC8126]. Expert review guidelines are provided in Section 11.15. It should be noted that, in addition to the expert review, some portions of the registry require a specification, potentially a Standards Track RFC, to be supplied as well.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
This specification establishes the "ACE Groupcomm Policies" IANA registry. The registry has been created to use the "Expert Review" registration procedure [RFC8126]. Expert review guidelines are provided in Section 11.15. It should be noted that, in addition to the expert review, some portions of the registry require a specification, potentially a Standards Track RFC, to be supplied as well.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
This registry will be initially populated by the values in Figure 11.¶
This specification establishes the "Sequence Number Synchronization Methods" IANA registry. The registry has been created to use the "Expert Review" registration procedure [RFC8126]. Expert review guidelines are provided in Section 11.15. It should be noted that, in addition to the expert review, some portions of the registry require a specification, potentially a Standards Track RFC, to be supplied as well.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
This specification establishes the "ACE Scope Semantics" IANA registry. The registry has been created to use the "Expert Review" registration procedure [RFC8126]. Expert review guidelines are provided in Section 11.15. It should be noted that, in addition to the expert review, some portions of the registry require a specification, potentially a Standards Track RFC, to be supplied as well.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
This specification establishes the "ACE Groupcomm Errors" IANA registry. The registry has been created to use the "Expert Review" registration procedure [RFC8126]. Expert review guidelines are provided in Section 11.15. It should be noted that, in addition to the expert review, some portions of the registry require a specification, potentially a Standards Track RFC, to be supplied as well.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
This registry has been initially populated by the values in Section 9. The Reference column for all of these entries refers to this document.¶
This specification establishes the "ACE Groupcomm Rekeying Schemes" IANA registry. The registry has been created to use the "Expert Review" registration procedure [RFC8126]. Expert review guidelines are provided in Section 11.15. It should be noted that, in addition to the expert review, some portions of the registry require a specification, potentially a Standards Track RFC, to be supplied as well.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
This registry has been initially populated by the value in Figure 12.¶
The IANA Registries established in this document are defined as expert review. This section gives some general guidelines for what the experts should be looking for, but they are being designated as experts for a reason so they should be given substantial latitude.¶
Expert reviewers should take into consideration the following points:¶
This section lists the requirements on application profiles of this specification, for the convenience of application profile designers.¶
As defined in Section 8.1 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs], future algorithms can be registered in the "COSE Algorithms" registry [COSE.Algorithms] as specifying none or multiple COSE capabilities.¶
To enable the seamless use of such future registered algorithms, this section defines a general, agile format for each 'sign_info_entry' of the 'sign_info' parameter in the Token Transfer Response, see Section 3.3.1.¶
If any of the currently registered COSE algorithms is considered, using this general format yields the same structure of 'sign_info_entry' defined in this document, thus ensuring retro-compatibility.¶
The format of each 'sign_info_entry' (see Section 3.3.1) is generalized as follows. Given N the number of elements of the 'sign_parameters' array, i.e., the number of COSE capabilities of the signature algorithm, then:¶
RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION.¶
The following individuals were helpful in shaping this document: Christian Amsuess, Carsten Bormann, Rikard Hoeglund, Ben Kaduk, Watson Ladd, John Mattsson, Daniel Migault, Jim Schaad, Ludwig Seitz, Goeran Selander, Cigdem Sengul and Peter van der Stok.¶
The work on this document has been partly supported by VINNOVA and the Celtic-Next project CRITISEC; by the H2020 project SIFIS-Home (Grant agreement 952652); and by the EIT-Digital High Impact Initiative ACTIVE.¶