draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-07.txt   draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08.txt 
Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET) U. Herberg Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET) U. Herberg
Internet-Draft Fujitsu Laboratories of America Internet-Draft Fujitsu Laboratories of America
Intended status: Standards Track T. Clausen Intended status: Standards Track T. Clausen
Expires: May 18, 2012 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique Expires: August 3, 2012 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
November 15, 2011 January 31, 2012
MANET Cryptographical Signature TLV Definition MANET Cryptographical Signature TLV Definition
draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-07 draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08
Abstract Abstract
This document describes general and flexible TLVs (type-length-value This document describes general and flexible TLVs (type-length-value
structure) for representing cryptographic signatures as well as structure) for representing cryptographic signatures as well as
timestamps, using the generalized MANET packet/message format timestamps, using the generalized MANET packet/message format defined
[RFC5444]. It defines two Packet TLVs, two Message TLVs, and two in RFC 5444. It defines two Packet TLVs, two Message TLVs, and two
Address Block TLVs, for affixing cryptographic signatures and Address Block TLVs, for affixing cryptographic signatures and
timestamps to a packet, message and address, respectively. timestamps to a packet, message and address, respectively.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 18, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 3, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 23 skipping to change at page 2, line 23
5. Overview and Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Overview and Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. General Signature TLV Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. General Signature TLV Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. General Timestamp TLV Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. General Timestamp TLV Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Packet TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Packet TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Packet SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Packet SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Packet TIMESTAMP TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Packet TIMESTAMP TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Message TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Message TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Message SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Message SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Message TIMESTAMP TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.2. Message TIMESTAMP TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Address Block TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Address Block TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Address Block SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.1. Address Block SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Address Block TIMESTAMP TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. Address Block TIMESTAMP TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Signature: Basic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Signature: Basic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Signature: Cryptographic Function over a Hash Value . . . . . 9 12. Signature: Cryptographic Function over a Hash Value . . . . . 10
12.1. General Signature TLV Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12.1. General Signature TLV Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12.1.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12.1.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.2. Considerations for Calculating the Signature . . . . . . . 11 12.2. Considerations for Calculating the Signature . . . . . . . 11
12.2.1. Packet SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.2.1. Packet SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.2.2. Message SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.2.2. Message SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.2.3. Address Block SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.2.3. Address Block SIGNATURE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.3. Example of a Signed Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.3. Example of a Signed Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13.2. Packet TLV Type Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13.2. Packet TLV Type Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13.3. Message TLV Type Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 13.3. Message TLV Type Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.4. Address Block TLV Type Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13.4. Address Block TLV Type Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.5. Hash Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13.5. Hash Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.6. Cryptographic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13.6. Cryptographic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
15. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 15. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies: This document specifies:
o two TLVs for carrying cryptographic signatures and timestamps in o Two TLVs for carrying cryptographic signatures and timestamps in
packets, messages, and address blocks as defined by [RFC5444], packets, messages, and address blocks as defined by [RFC5444],
o a generic framework for calculating cryptographic signatures, o A generic framework for calculating cryptographic signatures,
accounting (for Message TLVs) for mutable message header fields accounting (for Message TLVs) for mutable message header fields
(<msg-hop-limit> and <msg-hop-count>), where these fields are (<msg-hop-limit> and <msg-hop-count>), where these fields are
present in messages. present in messages.
This document requests from IANA: This document requests from IANA:
o allocations for these Packet, Message, and Address Block TLVs from o Allocations for these Packet, Message, and Address Block TLVs from
the 0-223 Packet TLV range, the 0-127 Message TLV range and the the 0-223 Packet TLV range, the 0-127 Message TLV range and the
0-127 Address Block TLV range from [RFC5444], 0-127 Address Block TLV range from [RFC5444],
o creation of two IANA registries for recording code points for hash o Creation of two IANA registries for recording code points for hash
function and signature calculation, respectively. function and signature calculation, respectively.
Finally, this document defines, in Section 12: Finally, this document defines, in Section 12:
o one common method for generating signatures as a cryptographic o One common method for generating signatures as a cryptographic
function, calculated over the hash value of the content to be function, calculated over the hash value of the content to be
signed. signed.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
skipping to change at page 5, line 29 skipping to change at page 5, line 29
Block TLV registries of [RFC5444], to be used (and shared) among Block TLV registries of [RFC5444], to be used (and shared) among
MANET routing protocol security extensions. MANET routing protocol security extensions.
For the specific decomposition of a signature into a cryptographic For the specific decomposition of a signature into a cryptographic
function over a hash value, specified in Section 12, this document function over a hash value, specified in Section 12, this document
establishes two IANA registries for code-points for hash functions establishes two IANA registries for code-points for hash functions
and cryptographic functions adhering to [RFC5444]. and cryptographic functions adhering to [RFC5444].
With respect to [RFC5444], this document: With respect to [RFC5444], this document:
o is intended to be used in the non-normative, but intended, mode of o Is intended to be used in the non-normative, but intended, mode of
use described in Appendix B of [RFC5444]. use described in Appendix B of [RFC5444].
o is a specific example of the Security Considerations section of o Is a specific example of the Security Considerations section of
[RFC5444] (the authentication part). [RFC5444] (the authentication part).
5. Overview and Functioning 5. Overview and Functioning
This document specifies a syntactical representation of security This document specifies a syntactical representation of security
related information for use with [RFC5444] addresses, messages, and related information for use with [RFC5444] addresses, messages, and
packets, as well as establishes IANA registrations and registries. packets, as well as establishes IANA registrations and registries.
Moreover, this document provides guidelines how MANET routing Moreover, this document provides guidelines for how MANET routing
protocols and MANET routing protocol extensions, using this protocols, and MANET routing protocol extensions, using this
specification, should treat Signature and Timestamp TLVs, and mutable specification, should treat Signature and Timestamp TLVs, and mutable
fields in messages. This specification does not represent a stand- fields in messages. This specification does not represent a stand-
alone protocol; MANET routing protocols and MANET routing protocol alone protocol; MANET routing protocols and MANET routing protocol
extensions, using this specification, MUST provide instructions as to extensions, using this specification, MUST provide instructions as to
how to handle packets, messages and addresses with security how to handle packets, messages and addresses with security
information, associated as specified in this document. information, associated as specified in this document.
This document requests assignment of TLV types from the registries This document requests assignment of TLV types from the registries
defined for Packet, Message and Address Block TLVs in [RFC5444]. defined for Packet, Message and Address Block TLVs in [RFC5444].
skipping to change at page 6, line 21 skipping to change at page 6, line 21
For example, and as defined in this document, a SIGNATURE TLV with For example, and as defined in this document, a SIGNATURE TLV with
Type Extension = 0 specifies that the <value> field has no pre- Type Extension = 0 specifies that the <value> field has no pre-
defined internal structure, but is simply a sequence of octets. A defined internal structure, but is simply a sequence of octets. A
SIGNATURE TLV with Type Extension = 1 specifies that the <value> SIGNATURE TLV with Type Extension = 1 specifies that the <value>
field has a pre-defined internal structure, and defines its field has a pre-defined internal structure, and defines its
interpretation (specifically, the <value> field consists of a interpretation (specifically, the <value> field consists of a
cryptographic operation over a hash value, with fields indicating cryptographic operation over a hash value, with fields indicating
which hash function and cryptographic operation has been used, which hash function and cryptographic operation has been used,
specified in Section 12). specified in Section 12).
Other documents may request assignments for other Type Extensions, Other documents can request assignments for other Type Extensions,
and must if so specify their internal structure (if any) and and MUST, if so, specify their internal structure (if any) and
interpretation. interpretation.
6. General Signature TLV Structure 6. General Signature TLV Structure
The value of the Signature TLV is: The value of the Signature TLV is:
<value> := <signature-value> <value> := <signature-value>
where: where:
skipping to change at page 7, line 16 skipping to change at page 7, line 16
contains the timestamp. contains the timestamp.
Note that this does not stipulate how to calculate the <time- Note that this does not stipulate how to calculate the <time-
value>, nor the internal structure hereof, if any; such MUST be value>, nor the internal structure hereof, if any; such MUST be
specified by way of the Type Extension for the TIMESTAMP TLV type, specified by way of the Type Extension for the TIMESTAMP TLV type,
see Section 13. see Section 13.
A timestamp is essentially "freshness information". As such, its A timestamp is essentially "freshness information". As such, its
setting and interpretation is to be determined by the MANET routing setting and interpretation is to be determined by the MANET routing
protocol, or MANET routing protocol extension, that uses the protocol, or MANET routing protocol extension, that uses the
timestamp, and may, e.g., correspond to a UNIX-timestamp, GPS timestamp, and can, e.g., correspond to a UNIX-timestamp, GPS
timestamp or a simple sequence number. timestamp or a simple sequence number.
8. Packet TLVs 8. Packet TLVs
Two Packet TLVs are defined, for including the cryptographic Two Packet TLVs are defined, for including the cryptographic
signature of a packet, and for including the timestamp indicating the signature of a packet, and for including the timestamp indicating the
time at which the cryptographic signature was calculated. time at which the cryptographic signature was calculated.
8.1. Packet SIGNATURE TLV 8.1. Packet SIGNATURE TLV
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 39
The following considerations apply: The following considerations apply:
o As packets defined in [RFC5444] are never forwarded by routers, no o As packets defined in [RFC5444] are never forwarded by routers, no
special considerations are required regarding mutable fields (e.g. special considerations are required regarding mutable fields (e.g.
<msg-hop-count> and <msg-hop-limit>), if present, when calculating <msg-hop-count> and <msg-hop-limit>), if present, when calculating
the signature. the signature.
o Any Packet SIGNATURE TLVs already present in the Packet TLV block o Any Packet SIGNATURE TLVs already present in the Packet TLV block
MUST be removed before calculating the signature, and the Packet MUST be removed before calculating the signature, and the Packet
TLV block size MUST be recalculated accordingly. The TLVs can be TLV block size MUST be recalculated accordingly. Removed
restored after having calculated the signature value. SIGNATURE TLVs SHOULD be restored after having calculated the
signature value.
The rationale for removing any Packet SIGNATURE TLV already present The rationale for removing any Packet SIGNATURE TLV already present
prior to calculating the signature is that several signatures may be prior to calculating the signature is that several signatures may be
added to the same packet, e.g., using different signature functions. added to the same packet, e.g., using different signature functions.
8.2. Packet TIMESTAMP TLV 8.2. Packet TIMESTAMP TLV
A Packet TIMESTAMP TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as described A Packet TIMESTAMP TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as described
in Section 7. If a packet contains a TIMESTAMP TLV and a SIGNATURE in Section 7. If a packet contains a TIMESTAMP TLV and a SIGNATURE
TLV, the TIMESTAMP TLV SHOULD be added to the packet before any TLV, the TIMESTAMP TLV SHOULD be added to the packet before any
skipping to change at page 8, line 16 skipping to change at page 8, line 17
9. Message TLVs 9. Message TLVs
Two Message TLVs are defined, for including the cryptographic Two Message TLVs are defined, for including the cryptographic
signature of a message, and for including the timestamp indicating signature of a message, and for including the timestamp indicating
the time at which the cryptographic signature was calculated. the time at which the cryptographic signature was calculated.
9.1. Message SIGNATURE TLV 9.1. Message SIGNATURE TLV
A Message SIGNATURE TLV is an example of a Signature TLV as described A Message SIGNATURE TLV is an example of a Signature TLV as described
in Section 6. When determining the <signature-value> for a message, in Section 6. When determining the <signature-value> for a message,
the following considerations must be applied: the following considerations MUST be applied:
o The fields <msg-hop-limit> and <msg-hop-count>, if present, MUST o The fields <msg-hop-limit> and <msg-hop-count>, if present, MUST
both be assumed to have the value 0 (zero) when calculating the both be assumed to have the value 0 (zero) when calculating the
signature. signature.
o Any Message SIGNATURE TLVs already present in the Message TLV o Any Message SIGNATURE TLVs already present in the Message TLV
block MUST be removed before calculating the signature, and the block MUST be removed before calculating the signature, and the
message size as well as the Message TLV block size MUST be message size as well as the Message TLV block size MUST be
recalculated accordingly. Removed SIGNATURE TLVs SHOULD be recalculated accordingly. Removed SIGNATURE TLVs SHOULD be
restored after having calculated the signature value. restored after having calculated the signature value.
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 10
Two Address Block TLVs are defined, for associating a cryptographic Two Address Block TLVs are defined, for associating a cryptographic
signature to an address, and for including the timestamp indicating signature to an address, and for including the timestamp indicating
the time at which the cryptographic signature was calculated. the time at which the cryptographic signature was calculated.
10.1. Address Block SIGNATURE TLV 10.1. Address Block SIGNATURE TLV
An Address Block SIGNATURE TLV is an example of a Signature TLV as An Address Block SIGNATURE TLV is an example of a Signature TLV as
described in Section 6. The signature is calculated over the described in Section 6. The signature is calculated over the
address, concatenated with any other values, for example, any other address, concatenated with any other values, for example, any other
TLV value that is associated with that address. A MANET routing address block TLV <value> fields, that is associated with that
protocol or MANET routing protocol extension using Address Block address. A MANET routing protocol or MANET routing protocol
SIGNATURE TLVs MUST specify how to include any such concatenated extension using Address Block SIGNATURE TLVs MUST specify how to
attribute of the address in the verification process of the include any such concatenated attribute of the address in the
signature. verification process of the signature. When determining the
<signature-value> for an address, the following consideration MUST be
applied:
o If other TLV values are concatenated with the address for
calculating the signature, these TLVs MUST NOT be Address Block
SIGNATURE TLVs already associated with the address.
The rationale for not concatenating the address with any SIGNATURE
TLV values already associated with the address when calculating the
signature is that several signatures may be added to the same
address, e.g., using different signature functions.
10.2. Address Block TIMESTAMP TLV 10.2. Address Block TIMESTAMP TLV
An Address Block TIMESTAMP TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as An Address Block TIMESTAMP TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as
described in Section 7. If both a TIMESTAMP TLV and a SIGNATURE TLV described in Section 7. If both a TIMESTAMP TLV and a SIGNATURE TLV
are associated with an address, the timestamp value should be are associated with an address, the TIMESTAMP TLV <value> SHOULD be
considered when calculating the value of the signature. considered when calculating the value of the signature.
11. Signature: Basic 11. Signature: Basic
The basic signature proposed, represented by way of a SIGNATURE TLV The basic signature, represented by way of a SIGNATURE TLV with Type
with Type Extension = 0, is a simple bit-field containing the Extension = 0, is a simple bit-field containing the cryptographic
cryptographic signature. This assumes that the mechanism stipulating signature. This assumes that the mechanism stipulating how
how signatures are calculated and verified is established outside of signatures are calculated and verified is established outside of this
this specification, e.g., by way of administrative configuration or specification, e.g., by way of administrative configuration or
external out-of-band signaling. Thus, the <signature-value> for when external out-of-band signaling. Thus, the <signature-value> for when
using Type Extension = 0 is: using Type Extension = 0 is:
<signature-value> := <signature-data> <signature-value> := <signature-data>
where: where:
<signature-data> is an unsigned integer field, of length <length>, <signature-data> is an unsigned integer field, of length <length>,
which contains the cryptographic signature. which contains the cryptographic signature.
skipping to change at page 10, line 42 skipping to change at page 11, line 9
signature-value = cryptographic-function(hash-function(content)) signature-value = cryptographic-function(hash-function(content))
The hash function and the cryptographic function correspond to the The hash function and the cryptographic function correspond to the
entries in two IANA registries, set up by this specification in entries in two IANA registries, set up by this specification in
Section 13. Section 13.
12.1.1. Rationale 12.1.1. Rationale
The rationale for separating the hash function and the cryptographic The rationale for separating the hash function and the cryptographic
function into two octets instead of having all combinations in a function into two octets instead of having all combinations in a
single octet - possibly as TLV type extension - is twofold: First, if single octet - possibly as TLV type extension - is that adding
further hash functions or cryptographic functions are added in the further hash functions or cryptographic functions in the future may
future, the number space might not remain continuous. More lead to a non-contiguous number space.
importantly, the number space of possible combinations would be
rapidly exhausted. As new or improved cryptographic mechanism are
continuously being developed and introduced, this format should be
able to accommodate such for the foreseeable future.
The rationale for not including a field that lists parameters of the The rationale for not including a field that lists parameters of the
cryptographic signature in the TLV is, that before being able to cryptographic signature in the TLV is that, before being able to
validate a cryptographic signature, routers have to exchange or validate a cryptographic signature, routers have to exchange or
acquire keys (e.g. public keys). Any additional parameters can be acquire keys (e.g. public keys). Any additional parameters can be
provided together with the keys in that bootstrap process. It is provided together with the keys in that bootstrap process. It is
therefore not necessary, and would even entail an extra overhead, to therefore not necessary, and would even entail an extra overhead, to
transmit the parameters within every message. One implicitly transmit the parameters within every message. One implicitly
available parameter is the length of the signature, which is <length> available parameter is the length of the signature, which is <length>
- 3, and which depends on the choice of the cryptographic function. - 3, and which depends on the choice of the cryptographic function.
12.2. Considerations for Calculating the Signature 12.2. Considerations for Calculating the Signature
skipping to change at page 11, line 39 skipping to change at page 11, line 51
is calculated over the three fields <hash-function>, <cryptographic- is calculated over the three fields <hash-function>, <cryptographic-
function>, and <key-index> (in that order), concatenated with the function>, and <key-index> (in that order), concatenated with the
entire message. The considerations in Section 9.1 MUST be applied. entire message. The considerations in Section 9.1 MUST be applied.
12.2.3. Address Block SIGNATURE TLV 12.2.3. Address Block SIGNATURE TLV
When determining the <signature-value> for an address, the signature When determining the <signature-value> for an address, the signature
is calculated over the three fields <hash-function>, <cryptographic- is calculated over the three fields <hash-function>, <cryptographic-
function>, and <key-index> (in that order), concatenated with the function>, and <key-index> (in that order), concatenated with the
address, concatenated with any other values, for example, any other address, concatenated with any other values, for example, any other
TLV value that is associated with that address. A MANET routing address block TLV <value> that is associated with that address. A
protocol or MANET routing protocol extension using Address Block MANET routing protocol or MANET routing protocol extension using
SIGNATURE TLVs MUST specify how to include any such concatenated Address Block SIGNATURE TLVs MUST specify how to include any such
attribute of the address in the verification process of the concatenated attribute of the address in the verification process of
signature. The considerations in Section 10.2 MUST be applied. the signature. The considerations in Section 10.2 MUST be applied.
12.3. Example of a Signed Message 12.3. Example of a Signed Message
The sample message depicted in Figure 1 is derived from appendix D of The sample message depicted in Figure 1 is derived from appendix D of
[RFC5444]. The message contains a SIGNATURE Message TLV, with the [RFC5444]. The message contains a SIGNATURE Message TLV, with the
value representing a 16 octet long signature of the whole message. value representing a 16 octet long signature of the whole message.
The type extension of the Message TLV is 1, for the specific The type extension of the Message TLV is 1, for the specific
decomposition of a signature into a cryptographic function over a decomposition of a signature into a cryptographic function over a
hash value, as specified in Section 12. hash value, as specified in Section 12.
skipping to change at page 12, line 36 skipping to change at page 12, line 47
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Signature Value (cont) | | Signature Value (cont) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Example message with signature Figure 1: Example message with signature
13. IANA Considerations 13. IANA Considerations
This specification defines: This specification defines:
o two Packet TLV types, which MUST be allocated from the 0-223 range o Two Packet TLV types, which must be allocated from the 0-223 range
of the "Assigned Packet TLV Types" repository of [RFC5444] as of the "Assigned Packet TLV Types" repository of [RFC5444] as
specified in Table 1, specified in Table 1,
o two Message TLV types, which MUST be allocated from the 0-127 o Two Message TLV types, which must be allocated from the 0-127
range of the "Assigned Message TLV Types" repository of [RFC5444] range of the "Assigned Message TLV Types" repository of [RFC5444]
as specified in Table 2, as specified in Table 2,
o two Address Block TLV types, which MUST be allocated from the o Two Address Block TLV types, which must be allocated from the
0-127 range of the "Assigned Address Block TLV Types" repository 0-127 range of the "Assigned Address Block TLV Types" repository
of [RFC5444] as specified in Table 3. of [RFC5444] as specified in Table 3.
This specification requests: This specification requests:
o creation of type extension registries for these TLV types with o Creation of type extension registries for these TLV types with
initial values as in Table 1 to Table 3. initial values as in Table 1 to Table 3.
IANA is requested to assign the same numerical value to the Packet IANA is requested to assign the same numerical value to the Packet
TLV, Message TLV and Address Block TLV types with the same name. TLV, Message TLV and Address Block TLV types with the same name.
The following terms are used with the meanings defined in [BCP26]: The following terms are used with the meanings defined in [BCP26]:
"Namespace", "Assigned Value", "Registration", "Unassigned", "Namespace", "Assigned Value", "Registration", "Unassigned",
"Reserved", "Hierarchical Allocation", and "Designated Expert". "Reserved", "Hierarchical Allocation", and "Designated Expert".
The following policies are used with the meanings defined in [BCP26]: The following policies are used with the meanings defined in [BCP26]:
"Private Use", "Expert Review", and "Standards Action". "Private Use", "Expert Review", and "Standards Action".
13.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines 13.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines
For the registries for TLV type extensions where an Expert Review is For the registries for TLV type extensions where an Expert Review is
required, the designated expert SHOULD take the same general required, the designated expert SHOULD take the same general
recommendations into consideration as are specified by [RFC5444]. recommendations into consideration as are specified by [RFC5444].
For the Timestamp TLV, the same type extensions for all Packet, For the Timestamp TLV, the same type extensions for all Packet,
Message and Address TLVs SHOULD be numbered identically. Message and Address Block TLVs SHOULD be numbered identically.
13.2. Packet TLV Type Registrations 13.2. Packet TLV Type Registrations
IANA is requested to make allocations from the "Packet TLV Types" IANA is requested to make allocations from the "Packet TLV Types"
namespace of [RFC5444] for the Packet TLVs specified in Table 1. namespace of [RFC5444] for the Packet TLVs specified in Table 1.
+-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+ +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
| Name | Type | Type | Description | | Name | Type | Type | Description |
| | | Extension | | | | | Extension | |
+-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+ +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
| SIGNATURE | TBD1 | 0 | Signature of a packet | | SIGNATURE | TBD1 | 0 | Signature of a packet |
| | | 1 | Signature, decomposed into | | | | 1 | Signature, decomposed into |
| | | | cryptographic function over a hash | | | | | cryptographic function over a hash |
| | | | value, as specified in Section 12 | | | | | value, as specified in Section 12 |
| | | | in this document. | | | | | in this document. |
| | | 2-223 | Expert Review | | | | 2-251 | Expert Review |
| | | 224-255 | Experimental Use | | | | 252-255 | Experimental Use |
| TIMESTAMP | TBD2 | 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary | | TIMESTAMP | TBD2 | 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary |
| | | | length, given by the TLV length | | | | | length, given by the TLV length |
| | | | field. The MANET routing protocol | | | | | field. The MANET routing protocol |
| | | | has to define how to interpret | | | | | has to define how to interpret |
| | | | this timestamp | | | | | this timestamp |
| | | 1-223 | Expert Review | | | | 1-251 | Expert Review |
| | | 224-255 | Experimental Use | | | | 252-255 | Experimental Use |
+-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+ +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
Table 1: Packet TLV types Table 1: Packet TLV types
13.3. Message TLV Type Registrations 13.3. Message TLV Type Registrations
IANA is requested to make allocations from the "Message TLV Types" IANA is requested to make allocations from the "Message TLV Types"
namespace of [RFC5444] for the Message TLVs specified in Table 2. namespace of [RFC5444] for the Message TLVs specified in Table 2.
+-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+ +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
| Name | Type | Type | Description | | Name | Type | Type | Description |
| | | Extension | | | | | Extension | |
+-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+ +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
| SIGNATURE | TBD3 | 0 | Signature of a message | | SIGNATURE | TBD3 | 0 | Signature of a message |
| | | 1 | Signature, decomposed into | | | | 1 | Signature, decomposed into |
| | | | cryptographic function over a hash | | | | | cryptographic function over a hash |
| | | | value, as specified in Section 12 | | | | | value, as specified in Section 12 |
| | | | in this document. | | | | | in this document. |
| | | 2-223 | Expert Review | | | | 2-251 | Expert Review |
| | | 224-255 | Experimental Use | | | | 252-255 | Experimental Use |
| TIMESTAMP | TBD4 | 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary | | TIMESTAMP | TBD4 | 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary |
| | | | length, given by the TLV length | | | | | length, given by the TLV length |
| | | | field. | | | | | field. |
| | | 1-223 | Expert Review | | | | 1-251 | Expert Review |
| | | 224-255 | Experimental Use | | | | 252-255 | Experimental Use |
+-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+ +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
Table 2: Message TLV types Table 2: Message TLV types
13.4. Address Block TLV Type Registrations 13.4. Address Block TLV Type Registrations
IANA is requested to make allocations from the "Address Block TLV IANA is requested to make allocations from the "Address Block TLV
Types" namespace of [RFC5444] for the Packet TLVs specified in Types" namespace of [RFC5444] for the Packet TLVs specified in
Table 3. Table 3.
+-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+ +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
| Name | Type | Type | Description | | Name | Type | Type | Description |
| | | Extension | | | | | Extension | |
+-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+ +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
| SIGNATURE | TBD5 | 0 | Signature of an object (e.g. an | | SIGNATURE | TBD5 | 0 | Signature of an object (e.g. an |
| | | | address) | | | | | address) |
| | | 1 | Signature, decomposed into | | | | 1 | Signature, decomposed into |
| | | | cryptographic function over a hash | | | | | cryptographic function over a hash |
| | | | value, as specified in Section 12 | | | | | value, as specified in Section 12 |
| | | | in this document. | | | | | in this document. |
| | | 2-223 | Expert Review | | | | 2-251 | Expert Review |
| | | 224-255 | Experimental Use | | | | 252-255 | Experimental Use |
| TIMESTAMP | TBD6 | 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary | | TIMESTAMP | TBD6 | 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary |
| | | | length, given by the TLV length | | | | | length, given by the TLV length |
| | | | field. | | | | | field. |
| | | 1-223 | Expert Review | | | | 1-251 | Expert Review |
| | | 224-255 | Experimental Use | | | | 252-255 | Experimental Use |
+-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+ +-----------+------+-----------+------------------------------------+
Table 3: Address Block TLV types Table 3: Address Block TLV types
13.5. Hash Function 13.5. Hash Function
IANA is requested to create a new registry for hash functions that IANA is requested to create a new registry for hash functions that
can be used when creating a signature, as specified in Section 12 of can be used when creating a signature, as specified in Section 12 of
this document. The initial assignments and allocation policies are this document. The initial assignments and allocation policies are
specified in Table 4. specified in Table 4.
+-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+ +-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+
| Hash | Algorithm | Description | | Hash | Algorithm | Description |
| function | | | | function | | |
| value | | | | value | | |
+-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+ +-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+
| 0 | none | The "identity function": the hash value | | 0 | none | The "identity function": the hash value |
| | | of an object is the object itself | | | | of an object is the object itself |
| 1-223 | | Expert Review | | 1-251 | | Expert Review |
| 224-255 | | Experimental Use | | 252-255 | | Experimental Use |
+-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+ +-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------+
Table 4: Hash-Function registry Table 4: Hash-Function registry
13.6. Cryptographic Algorithm 13.6. Cryptographic Algorithm
IANA is requested to create a new registry for the cryptographic IANA is requested to create a new registry for the cryptographic
function, as specified in Section 12 of this document. Initial function, as specified in Section 12 of this document. Initial
assignments and allocation policies are specified in Table 5. assignments and allocation policies are specified in Table 5.
+----------------+-----------+--------------------------------------+ +----------------+-----------+--------------------------------------+
| Cryptographic | Algorithm | Description | | Cryptographic | Algorithm | Description |
| function value | | | | function value | | |
+----------------+-----------+--------------------------------------+ +----------------+-----------+--------------------------------------+
| 0 | none | The "identity function": the value | | 0 | none | The "identity function": the value |
| | | of an encrypted hash is the hash | | | | of an encrypted hash is the hash |
| | | itself | | | | itself |
| 1-223 | | Expert Review | | 1-251 | | Expert Review |
| 224-255 | | Experimental Use | | 252-255 | | Experimental Use |
+----------------+-----------+--------------------------------------+ +----------------+-----------+--------------------------------------+
Table 5: Cryptographic function registry Table 5: Cryptographic function registry
14. Security Considerations 14. Security Considerations
This document does not specify a protocol. It provides a syntactical This document does not specify a protocol. It provides a syntactical
component for cryptographic signatures of messages and packets as component for cryptographic signatures of messages and packets as
defined in [RFC5444]. It can be used to address security issues of a defined in [RFC5444]. It can be used to address security issues of a
MANET routing protocol or MANET routing protocol extension. As such, MANET routing protocol or MANET routing protocol extension. As such,
skipping to change at page 17, line 34 skipping to change at page 17, line 34
progress draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt, October 2011. progress draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt, October 2011.
[RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "MANET [RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "MANET
Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 6130, Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 6130,
March 2011. March 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ulrich Herberg Ulrich Herberg
Fujitsu Laboratories of America Fujitsu Laboratories of America
1240 E. Arques Ave. M/S 345 1240 E. Arques Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA, 94085 Sunnyvale, CA, 94085
USA USA
Email: ulrich@herberg.name Email: ulrich@herberg.name
URI: http://www.herberg.name/ URI: http://www.herberg.name/
Thomas Heide Clausen Thomas Heide Clausen
LIX, Ecole Polytechnique LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
91128 Palaiseau Cedex, 91128 Palaiseau Cedex,
France France
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
73 lines changed or deleted 81 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/