| PCE Working Group | D. Lopez |
| Internet-Draft | O. Gonzalez de Dios |
| Updates: 5440 (if approved) | Telefonica I+D |
| Intended status: Standards Track | Q. Wu |
| Expires: February 9, 2018 | D. Dhody |
| Huawei | |
| August 08, 2017 |
Secure Transport for PCEP
draft-ietf-pce-pceps-16
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defines the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or among PCEs. This document describes the usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to enhance PCEP security, hence the PCEPS acronym proposed for it. The additional security mechanisms are provided by the transport protocol supporting PCEP, and therefore they do not affect the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP.
This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization phase procedures.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 9, 2018.
Copyright (c) 2017 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] defines the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs. These interactions include requests and replies that can be critical for a sustainable network operation and adequate resource allocation, and therefore appropriate security becomes a key element in the PCE infrastructure. As the applications of the PCE framework evolves, and more complex service patterns emerge, the definition of a secure mode of operation becomes more relevant.
[RFC5440] analyzes in its section on security considerations the potential threats to PCEP and their consequences, and discusses several mechanisms for protecting PCEP against security attacks, without making a specific recommendation on a particular one or defining their application in depth. Moreover, [RFC6952] remarks the importance of ensuring PCEP communication confidentiality, especially when PCEP communication endpoints do not reside in the same Autonomous System (AS), as the interception of PCEP messages could leak sensitive information related to computed paths and resources.
Among the possible solutions mentioned in these documents, Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] provides support for peer authentication, message encryption and integrity. TLS provides well-known mechanisms to support key configuration and exchange, as well as means to perform security checks on the results of PCE discovery procedures via Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) ([RFC5088] and [RFC5089]).
This document describes a security container for the transport of PCEP messages, and therefore it does not affect the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP.
This document describes how to apply TLS to secure interactions with PCE, including initiation of the TLS procedures, the TLS handshake mechanism, the TLS methods for peer authentication, the applicable TLS ciphersuites for data exchange, and the handling of errors in the security checks. In the rest of the document we will refer to this usage of TLS to provide a secure transport for PCEP as "PCEPS".
Within this document, PCEP communications are described through PCC-PCE relationship. The PCE architecture also supports the PCE-PCE communication, this is achieved by requesting PCE fill the role of a PCC, as usual. Thus, in this document, the PCC refers to a PCC or a PCE initiating the PCEP session and acting as a client.
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.
The steps involved in establishing a PCEPS session are as follows:
This document uses the standard StartTLS procedure in PCEP, instead of using a different port for the secured session. This is done to avoid requesting allocation of another port number for the PCEPS. The StartTLS procedure makes more efficient use of scarce port numbers and allow simpler configuration of PCEP.
Implementations SHOULD follow the best practices and recommendations for using TLS, as per [RFC7525].
It should be noted that this procedure updates what is defined in section 4.2.1 and section 6.7 of [RFC5440] regarding the initialization phase and the processing of messages prior to the Open message. The details of processing, including backward compatibility, are discussed in the following sections.
Since PCEP can operate either with or without TLS, it is necessary for a PCEP speaker to indicate whether it wants to set up a TLS connection or not. For this purpose, this document specifies a new PCEP message called StartTLS. Thus, the PCEP session is secured via TLS from the start before exchange of any other PCEP message (that includes the Open message). This document thus updates [RFC5440], which required the Open message to be the first PCEP message that is exchanged. In the case of a PCEP session using TLS, the StartTLS message will be sent first. Also a PCEP speaker that supports PCEPS MUST NOT start the OpenWait timer after the TCP establishment, instead it starts a StartTLSWait timer as described in Section 3.3.
The PCEP speaker MAY discover that the PCEP peer supports PCEPS or can be preconfigured to use PCEPS for a given peer (see Section 4 for more details). An existing PCEP session cannot be secured via TLS, the session MUST be closed and re-established with TLS as per the procedure described in this document.
The StartTLS message is a PCEP message sent by a PCC to a PCE and by a PCE to a PCC in order to initiate the TLS procedure for PCEP. The PCC initiates the use of TLS by sending a StartTLS message. The PCE agrees to the use of TLS by responding with its own StartTLS message. If the PCE is configured to only support TLS, it may send the StartTLS message immediately upon TCP connection establishment; otherwise it MUST wait for the PCC's first message to see whether it is an Open or a StartTLS message. The TLS negotiation and establishment procedures are triggered once the PCEP speaker has sent and received the StartTLS message. The Message-Type field of the PCEP common header for the StartTLS message is set to [TBA1 by IANA].
Once the TCP connection has been successfully established, the first message sent by the PCC to the PCE and by the PCE to the PCC MUST be a StartTLS message for the PCEPS. Note that, this is a significant change from [RFC5440], where the first PCEP message is the Open message.
A PCEP speaker receiving a StartTLS message, after any other PCEP exchange has taken place (by receiving or sending any other messages from either side) MUST treat it as an unexpected message and reply with a PCErr message with Error-Type set to [TBA2 by IANA] (PCEP StartTLS failure) and Error-value set to 1 (reception of StartTLS after any PCEP exchange), and MUST close the TCP connection.
Any message received prior to StartTLS or Open message MUST trigger a protocol error condition causing a PCErr message to be sent with Error-Type set to [TBA2 by IANA] (PCEP StartTLS failure) and Error-value set to 2 (reception of a message apart from StartTLS or Open) and MUST close the TCP connection.
If the PCEP speaker that does not support PCEPS, receives a StartTLS message, it will behave according to the existing error mechanism described in section 6.2 of [RFC5440] (in case message is received prior to an Open message) or section 6.9 of [RFC5440] (for the case of reception of unknown message). See Section 5 for more details.
If the PCEP speaker that only supports PCEPS connection (as a local policy), receives an Open message, it MUST treat it as an unexpected message and reply with a PCErr message with Error-Type set to 1 (PCEP session establishment failure) and Error-value set to 1 (reception of an invalid Open message or a non Open message), and MUST close the TCP connection.
If a PCC supports PCEPS connections as well as allow non-PCEPS connection (as a local policy), it MUST first try to establish PCEPS, by sending StartTLS message and in case it receives an PCErr message from the PCE, it MAY retry to establish connection without PCEPS by sending an Open message. If a PCE supports PCEPS connections as well as allow non-PCEPS connection (as a local policy), it MUST wait to respond after TCP establishment, based on the message received from the PCC. In case of StartTLS message, PCE MUST respond with sending a StartTLS message and moving to TLS establishment procedures as described in this document. In case of Open message, PCE MUST respond with Open message and move to PCEP session establishment procedure as per [RFC5440]. If a PCE supports PCEPS connections only (as a local policy), it MAY send StartTLS message to PCC without waiting to receive a StartTLS message from PCC.
If a PCEP speaker that is unwilling or unable to negotiate TLS receives a StartTLS messages, it MUST return a PCErr message (in clear) with Error-Type set to [TBA2 by IANA] (PCEP StartTLS failure) and Error-value set to:
If the PCEP speaker supports PCEPS and can establish a TLS connection it MUST start the TLS connection negotiation and establishment steps described in Section 3.4 before the PCEP initialization procedure (section 4.2.1 of [RFC5440]).
After the exchange of StartTLS messages, if the TLS negotiation fails for some reason (e.g. the required mechanisms for certificate revocation checking are not available), both peers SHOULD immediately close the connection. Since the initiator has no way to know if the peer is willing to accept PCEP connection without TLS, based on the local policy, it MAY attempt to re-establish the PCEP session without TLS. The attempt to re-establish the PCEP session without TLS SHOULD be limited to only once.
A PCEP speaker that does not support PCEPS sends the Open message directly, as per [RFC5440]. A PCEP speaker that supports PCEPS, but has learned in the last exchange the peer's willingness to reestablish session without TLS, MAY send the Open message directly, as per [RFC5440]. The attempt to re-establish the PCEP session without TLS SHOULD be limited to only once.
Given the asymmetric nature of TLS for connection establishment, it is relevant to identify the roles of each of the PCEP peers in it. The PCC SHALL act as TLS client, and the PCE SHALL act as TLS server as per [RFC5246].
As per the recommendation from [RFC7525] to avoid downgrade attacks, PCEP peers that support PCEPS, SHOULD default to strict TLS configuration i.e. do not allow non-TLS PCEP sessions to be established. PCEPS implementations MAY provide an option to allow the operator to manually override strict TLS configuration and allow unsecured connections. Execution of this override SHOULD trigger a warning about the security implications of permitting unsecured connections.
The StartTLS message is used to initiate the TLS procedure for a PCEPS session between the PCEP peers. A PCEP speaker sends the StartTLS message to request negotiation and establishment of TLS connection for PCEP. On receiving a StartTLS message from the PCEP peer (i.e. when the PCEP speaker has sent and received StartTLS message) it is ready to start the negotiation and establishment of TLS and move to steps described in Section 3.4.
The collision resolution procedures described in [RFC5440] for the exchange of Open messages MUST be applied by the PCEP peers during the exchange of StartTLS messages.
The format of a StartTLS message is as follows:
<StartTLS Message>::= <Common Header>
The StartTLS message MUST contain only the PCEP common header with Message-Type field set to [TBA1 by IANA].
Once the TCP connection has been successfully established, the PCEP speaker MUST start a timer called StartTLSWait timer, after the expiration of which, if neither StartTLS message has been received, nor a PCErr/Open message (in case of failure and PCEPS not supported by the peer, respectively), it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type set to [TBA2 by IANA] and Error-value set to 5 (no StartTLS (nor PCErr/Open) message received before the expiration of the StartTLSWait timer) and it MUST release the TCP connection . A RECOMMENDED value for StartTLSWait timer is 60 seconds. The value of StartTLSWait timer MUST NOT be less than OpenWait timer.
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
| StartTLS |
| msg |
|------- |
| \ StartTLS |
| \ msg |
| \ ---------|
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / -------->|
| / |
|<------ |
|:::::::::TLS:::::::::|
|:::::Establishment:::|
| |
| |
|:::::::PCEP::::::::::|
| |
Figure 1: Both PCEP Speaker supports PCEPS (strict)
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
| StartTLS |
| msg |
|------- |
| \ StartTLS |
| \ msg |
| \ ---------|
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / -------->|
| / |
|<------ |
|:::::::::TLS:::::::::| TLS Establishment
|:::::Establishment:::| Failure, Both
| | peers close
session
Figure 2: Both PCEP Speaker supports PCEPS (strict), but cannot establish TLS
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| | Does not support
| StartTLS | PCEPS and thus
| msg | sends Open
|------- |
| \ Open |
| \ msg |
| \ ---------|
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / -------->|
| / |
|<------ |
| |
|<--------------------| Send Error
| PCErr | Type=1,Value=1
| | (non-Open message
|<--------------------| received)
| Close |
///////// TCP /////////
//////re-establish/////
Send Open | Open |
this time | msg |
|------- |
| \ Open |
| \ msg |
| \ ---------|
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / -------->|
| / |
|<------ |
Figure 3: One PCEP Speaker (PCE) does not support PCEPS, while PCC supports both with or without PCEPS
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
| StartTLS |
| msg | PCE waits
|-------------------->| for PCC and
| StartTLS | respond with
|<--------------------| Start TLS
| |
|:::::::::TLS:::::::::|
|:::::Establishment:::|
| |
| |
|:::::::PCEP::::::::::|
| |
Figure 4: Both PCEP Speaker supports PCEPS as well as without PCEPS
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
| StartTLS |
| msg | PCE waits
|-------------------->| for PCC
| PCErr |
|<--------------------| Send Error
| | Type=TBA2,Value=3
| | (Failure, connection
|<--------------------| without TLS is not
| Close | possible)
Figure 5: Both PCEP Speaker supports PCEPS as well as without PCEPS, but PCE cannot start TLS negotiation
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
| Open |
| msg | PCE waits
|-------------------->| for PCC and
| Open | respond with
|<--------------------| Open
| |
|:::::::PCEP::::::::::|
| |
Figure 6: PCE supports PCEPS as well as without PCEPS, while PCC does not support PCEPS
Once the establishment of TLS has been agreed by the PCEP peers, the connection establishment SHALL follow the following steps:
Depending on the peer authentication method in use, PCEPS supports different operation modes to establish peer's identity and whether it is entitled to perform requests or can be considered authoritative in its replies. PCEPS implementations SHOULD provide mechanisms for associating peer identities with different levels of access and/or authoritativeness, and they MUST provide a mechanism for establishing a default level for properly identified peers. Any connection established with a peer that cannot be properly identified SHALL be terminated before any PCEP exchange takes place.
In TLS-X.509 mode using fingerprints, a peer is uniquely identified by the fingerprint of the presented certificate.
There are numerous trust models in PKIX environments, and it is beyond the scope of this document to define how a particular deployment determines whether a peer is trustworthy. Implementations that want to support a wide variety of trust models should expose as many details of the presented certificate to the administrator as possible so that the trust model can be implemented by the administrator. At least the following parameters of the X.509 certificate SHOULD be exposed:
Note that the remote IP address used for the TCP session establishment is also exposed.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] specify a Speaker Entity Identifier TLV (SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID), as an optional TLV that is included in the OPEN Object. It contains a unique identifier for the node that does not change during the lifetime of the PCEP speaker. An implementation would thus expose the speaker entity identifier as part of the X509v3 certificate's subjectAltName:otherName, so that an implementation could use this identifier for the peer identification trust model.
In addition, a PCC MAY apply the procedures described in [RFC6698] DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) to verify its peer identity when using DNS discovery. See section Section 4.1 for further details.
In case the initial TLS negotiation or the peer identity check fails, according to the procedures listed in this document, both peers SHOULD immediately close the connection.
The initiator SHOULD follow the procedure listed in [RFC5440] to retry session setup as per the exponential back-off session establishment retry procedure.
This document does not specify any discovery mechanism for support of PCEPS. Other documents, [I-D.wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support] and [I-D.wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery] have made proposals:
DANE [RFC6698] defines a secure method to associate the certificate that is obtained from a TLS server with a domain name using DNS, i.e., using the TLSA DNS resource record (RR) to associate a TLS server certificate or public key with the domain name where the record is found, thus forming a "TLSA certificate association". The DNS information needs to be protected by DNS Security (DNSSEC). A PCC willing to apply DANE to verify server identity MUST conform to the rules defined in section 4 of [RFC6698]. The implementation MUST support Service certificate constraint (TLSA Certificate Usages type 1) with Matching type 2 (SHA2-256) as described in [RFC6698][RFC7671]. The server's domain name must be authorized separately, as TLSA does not provide any useful authorization guarantees.
The procedures described in this document define a security container for the transport of PCEP requests and replies carried by a TLS connection initiated by means of a specific extended message (StartTLS) that does not interfere with PCEP speaker implementations not supporting it.
A PCC that does not support PCEPS will send Open message as the first message on TCP establishment. A PCE that supports PCEPS only, will send StartTLS message on TCP establishment. On receiving StartTLS message, PCC would consider it as an error and behave according to the existing error mechanism of [RFC5440] and send PCErr message with Error-Type 1 (PCEP session establishment failure) and Error-Value 1 (reception of an invalid Open message or a non Open message) and close the session.
A PCC that support PCEPS will send StartTLS message as the first message on TCP establishment. A PCE that does not supports PCEPS, would consider receiving StartTLS message as an error and respond with PCErr message (with Error-Type 1 and Error-Value 1) and close the session.
If a StartTLS message is received at any other time by a PCEP speaker that does not implement PCEPS, it would consider it as an unknown message and would behave according to the existing error mechanism of [RFC5440] and send PCErr message with Error-Type 2 (Capability not supported) and close the session.
An existing PCEP session cannot be upgraded to PCEPS, the session needs to be terminated and reestablished as per the procedure described in this document. During the incremental upgrade, the PCEP speaker SHOULD allow session establishment with and without TLS. Once both PCEP speakers are upgraded to support PCEPS, the PCEP session is re-established with TLS, otherwise PCEP session without TLS is setup. A redundant PCE MAY also be used during the incremental deployment to take over the PCE undergoing upgrade. Once the upgrade is completed, support for unsecured version SHOULD be removed.
A PCE that accepts connections with or without PCEPS, it would respond based on the message received from PCC. A PCC that supports connection with or without PCEPS, it would first attempt to connect with PCEPS and in case of error, it MAY retry to establish connection without PCEPS. For successful TLS operations with PCEP, both PCEP peers in the network would need to be upgraded to support this document.
Note that, a PCEP implementation that support PCEPS would respond with PCErr message with Error-Type set to [TBA2 by IANA] (PCEP StartTLS failure) and Error-value set to 2 if any other message is sent before StartTLS or Open. If the sender of the invalid message is a PCEP implementation that does not support PCEPS, it will not be able to understand this error. A PCEPS implementation could also send the PCErr message as per [RFC5440] with Error-Type "PCEP session establishment failure" and Error-value "reception of an invalid Open message or a non Open message" before closing the session.
IANA is requested to allocate new message types within the "PCEP Messages" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Value Description Reference
TBA1 The Start TLS Message (StartTLS) This document
IANA is requested to allocate new Error Types and Error Values within the " PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Error-
Type Meaning Error-value Reference
TBA2 PCEP StartTLS 0:Unassigned This document
failure 1:Reception of This document
StartTLS after
any PCEP exchange
2:Reception of This document
any other message
apart from StartTLS,
Open or PCErr
3:Failure, connection This document
without TLS is not
possible
4:Failure, connection This document
without TLS is
possible
5:No StartTLS message This document
(nor PCErr/Open)
before StartTLSWait
timer expiry
While the application of TLS satisfies the requirement on confidentiality as well as fine-grained, policy-based peer authentication, there are security threats that it cannot address. It may be advisable to apply additional protection measures, in particular in what relates to attacks specifically addressed to forging the TCP connection underpinning TLS, especially in the case of long-lived connections. One of these measures is the application of TCP-AO (TCP Authentication Option [RFC5925]), which is fully compatible with and deemed as complementary to TLS. The mechanisms to configure the requirements to use TCP-AO and other lower-layer protection measures with a particular peer are outside the scope of this document.
Since computational resources required by TLS handshake and ciphersuite are higher than unencrypted TCP, clients connecting to a PCEPS server can more easily create high load conditions and a malicious client might create a Denial-of-Service attack more easily.
Some TLS ciphersuites only provide integrity validation of their payload, and provide no encryption, such ciphersuites SHOULD NOT be used by default. Administrators MAY allow the usage of these ciphersuites after careful weighting of the risk of relevant internal data leakage, that can occur in such a case, as explicitly stated by [RFC6952].
When using certificate fingerprints to identify PCEPS peers, any two certificates that produce the same hash value will be considered the same peer. Therefore, it is important to make sure that the hash function used is cryptographically uncompromised, so that attackers are very unlikely to be able to produce a hash collision with a certificate of their choice. This document mandates support for SHA-256 as defined by [SHS], but a later revision may demand support for stronger functions if suitable attacks on it are known.
PCEPS implementations that continue to accept connections without TLS are susceptible to downgrade attacks as described in [RFC7457]. An attacker could attempt to remove the use of StartTLS message that request the use of TLS as it pass on the wire in clear, and further inject a PCErr message that suggest to attempt PCEP connection without TLS.
The guidance given in [RFC7525] SHOULD be followed to avoid attacks on TLS.
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in [RFC5440] apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.
A PCE or PCC implementation SHOULD allow configuring the PCEP security via TLS capabilities as described in this document.
A PCE or PCC implementation supporting PCEP security via TLS MUST support general TLS configuration as per [RFC5246]. At least the configuration of one of the trust models and its corresponding parameters, as described in Section 3.4 and Section 3.5, MUST be supported by the implementation.
A PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the StartTLSWait timer value.
PCEPS implementations MAY provide an option to allow the operator to manually override strict TLS configuration and allow unsecure connections. Execution of this override SHOULD trigger a warning about the security implications of permitting unsecure connections.
Further, the operator needs to develop suitable security policies around PCEP within his network. The PCEP peers SHOULD provide ways for the operator to complete the following tasks in regards to a PCEP session:
The PCEP MIB module is defined in [RFC7420]. The MIB module could be extended to include the ability to view the PCEPS capability, TLS related information as well as TLS status for each PCEP peer.
Further, to allow the operator to configure the PCEPS capability and various TLS related parameters as well as to view the current TLS status for a PCEP session, the PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] is extended to include TLS related information.
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440] and [RFC5246].
A PCEPS implementation SHOULD log error events and provide PCEPS failure statistics with reasons.
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements on other protocols. Note that, Section 4 list possible discovery mechanism for support of PCEPS.
Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any significant impact on network operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440], and the policy and management implications discussed above.
This specification relies on the analysis and profiling of TLS included in [RFC6614] and the procedures described for the STARTTLS command in [RFC4513].
We would like to thank Joe Touch for his suggestions and support regarding the StartTLS mechanisms.
Thanks to Daniel King for reminding the authors about manageability considerations.
Thanks to Cyril Margaria for shepherding this document.
Thanks to David Mandelberg for early SECDIR review comments as well as re-reviewing during IETF last call.
Thanks to Dan Frost for the RTGDIR review and comments.
Thanks to Dale Worley for the Gen-ART review and comments.
Also thanks to Tianran Zhou for OPSDIR review.
Thanks to Deborah Brungard for being the responsible AD and guiding the authors as needed.
Thanks to Mirja Kuhlewind, Eric Rescorla, Warren Kumari, Kathleen Moriarty, Suresh Krishnan, Ben Campbell and Alexey Melnikov for the IESG review and comments.