Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE
draft-palombini-ace-key-groupcomm-00

Abstract

This document defines a message format for distributing keying material in group communication scenarios (such as based on multicast or publisher-subscriber model) using the ACE framework.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2018.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 1.1. Terminology
• 2. Overview
• 3. Addition to the Group
• 3.1. Authorization Request
• 3.2. Authorization Response
• 3.3. Token Post
• 4. Key Distribution
• 4.1. Key Distribution Request
• 4.2. Key Distribution Response
• 5. Remove a Node from the Group
• 5.1. Not authorized anymore
• 5.2. Request to Leave the Group
• 6. Security Considerations
• 7. IANA Considerations
• 8. References
• 8.1. Normative References
• 8.2. Informative References
• Acknowledgments
• Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

This document expands the ACE framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] to define the format of messages used to distribute the keying material in a group communication scenario. Profiles that use group communication can build on this document to specify exactly which of the message parameters defined in this documents are used, and what are their values. Known applications that can benefit from this document would be, for example, profiles addressing group communication based on multicast [RFC7390] or publishing/subscribing [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub] in ACE.

1.1. Terminology

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. These words may also appear in this document in lowercase, absent their normative meanings.

Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts described in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and [RFC8152].

2. Overview

+-----------+                  +-----------+
|     AS    |                  |    KDC    |
|           |        .-------->|           |
+-----------+       /          +-----------+
      ^            / 
      |           /                  
      v          /                           +-----------+
+-----------+   /      +------------+        |+-----------+
|   Client  |<-'       | Dispatcher |        ||+-----------+
|           |<-------->|    (RS)    |<------->||   group   |
+-----------+          +------------+         +|  members  |
                                               +-----------+

Figure 1: Key Distribution Participants

Participants:

• Client: Node that wants to join the group communication. It can either want write rights or read rights.
• AS: Same as AS in the ACE Framework; it contains policies, and knows if a node is allowed to join the group with write or read rights.
• Key Distribution Center: Maintains the keying material to protect group communications, and provides it to clients authorized to join the group. During the first part of the exchange, it corresponds to the RS in the ACE Framework.
• Dispatcher: this is the entity the Client wants to securely communicate with and is responsible for distribution of group messages. It can be an existing node, such as the Broker in a pub-sub setting (in which case the Dispatcher is also a RS), or it can be implicit, as in the multicast communication setting, where the message distribution is done by transmitting to a multicast IP address, and entrusting message delivery to the transport channel.

This document specifies the message flows and formats for adding a node to a group, as well as for the distribution of keying material to joining nodes. Also, it briefly mentions the node’s removal from a group and the consequent rekeying process.

The high level overview of the message flow for a node joining a group communication setting is shown in Figure 2.

C                 AS               KDC           Dispatcher
|                 |                 |                 | \
|  authorization  |                 |                 | |
|-----request---->|                 |                 | | defined in 
|                 |                 |                 | | the ACE
|  authorization  |                 |                 | | framework
|<----response----|                 |                 | |
|                 |                 |                 | |
|--------token post---------------->|                 | /
|                 |                 |                 |
|----key distribution request------>|                 |
|                 |                 |                 |
|<---key distribution response------|                 |
|                 |                 |                 |
|<=============protected communication===============>| 
|                 |                 |                 |

Figure 2: Key Distribution Message Flow

3. Addition to the Group

This section describes in detail the message formats exchanged by the participants when a node requests access to the group. The first part of the exchange is based on ACE [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], where the KDC takes the role of RS.

3.1. Authorization Request

The Authorization Request sent from the Client to the AS (as defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], Section 5.6.1, MUST contain the following parameters:

• grant_type, with value “client_credentials”.

Additionally, the Authorization Request MAY contain the following parameters, which, if included, MUST have the corresponding values:

• scope, with value the identifier of the specific group or topic the Client wishes to access, as well as the role the Client wishes to take, if necessary. This value is encoded as a CBOR array, which contains:
  • as first element, the identifier of the specific group or topic
  • optionally, as second element, the role (or CBOR array of roles) the Client wishes to take in the group

How exactly the group or topic identifier and the roles are encoded is application specific.

• aud, with value an identifier of the KDC.
• cnf, containing the public key (or certificate) of the joining node, if the Client wishes to communicate that to the AS.
• get_pub_keys, with value the byte 0x01 if the Client wishes to receive the public keys of all the other nodes in the group from the KDC. This value is included in the Access Token, intended for the KDC.
• Other additional parameters as defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], if necessary.

The parameter ‘get_pub_keys’ is defined in this specification.

TODO: insert table to specify new parameters

3.2. Authorization Response

The Authorization Response sent from the AS to the Client (as defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], Section 5.6.2, MUST contain the following parameters:

• access_token, containing all the parameters defined below (including the same ‘scope’ as in this message, if present, or the ‘scope’ of the Authorization Request otherwise), plus the parameter ‘get_pub_keys’ from the Authorization Request if it was present, and additionally other optional parameters the profile requires.
• cnf if symmetric keys are used, not present if asymmetric keys are used, contains the symmetric pop key that the Client is supposed to use with the KDC.
• rs_cnf if asymmetric keys are used, contains information about the public key of the KDC. Not present if symmetric keys are used.
• exp, contains the lifetime in seconds of the access token. This parameter MAY be omitted if the application defines how the expiration time is communicated to the Client via other means, or if it establishes a default value.

Additionally, the Authorization Response MAY contain the following parameters, which, if included, MUST have the corresponding values:

• scope, which mirrors the ‘scope’ parameter in the Authorization Request. Its value is encoded as a CBOR array, containing:
  • as first element, the identifier of the specific group or topic the Client is authorized to access.
  • optionally, as second element, the role (or CBOR array of roles) the Client is authorized to take in the group.

How exactly the group or topic identifier and the roles are encoded is application specific.

• Other additional parameters as defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], if necessary.

3.3. Token Post

The Client sends a CoAP POST request including the Access Token to the KDC, as specified in section 5.8.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. If the specific profile defines it, the Client MAY use a different endpoint at the KDC to post the Access Token to. After successful verification, the Client is authorized to receive the group keying material from the KDC and join the group.

Note that this step could be merged with the following message from the Client to the KDC, namely Key Distribution Request.

4. Key Distribution

This section defines how the keying material used for group communication is distributed from the KDC to the Client.

4.1. Key Distribution Request

The Client sends a Key Distribution request to the KDC. This corresponds to a CoAP POST request to the endpoint in the KDC associated to the group (which is associated in the KDC to the ‘scope’ value of the Authorization Request/Response). The payload of this request is a CBOR Map which MAY contain the following fields, which, if included, MUST have the corresponding values:

• scope, with value the specific resource or topic identifier and role(s) that the Client is authorized to access, encoded as in Section 3.1.
• get_pub_keys, may be present if the KDC stores the public keys of the nodes in the group and distributes them to the Client; useless to have here if the set of public keys of the members of the group is known in another way, e.g. was supplied by the AS.
• client_cred, with value the public key or certificate of the Client. If the KDC is managing (collecting from/distributing to the joining node) the public keys of the group members, this field contains the public key of the Client.
• pub_keys_repos, can be present if a certificate is present in the client_cred field, with value a list of public key repositories storing the certificate of the joining node.

4.2. Key Distribution Response

The KDC verifies the Access Token and, if verification succeeds, sends a Key Distribution success Response to the Client. This corresponds to a 2.01 Created message. The payload of this response is a CBOR Map which MUST contain the following fields:

• key, used to send the keying material to the joining node, as a COSE_Key ([RFC8152]) containing the following parameters:
  • kty, as defined in [RFC8152].
  • k, as defined in [RFC8152].
  • alg (optionally), as defined in [RFC8152].
  • kid (optionally), as defined in [RFC8152].
  • base iv (optionally), as defined in [RFC8152].
  • clientID (optionally), as defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile].
  • serverID (optionally), as defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile].
  • kdf (optionally), as defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile].
  • slt (optionally), as defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile].
  • cs_alg (optionally), containing the algorithm value to counter sign the message, taken from Table 5 and 6 of [RFC8152].

Additionally, the Key Distribution Response MAY contain the following parameters, which, if included, MUST have the corresponding values:

• pub_keys, may only be present if get_pub_keys was present in the Key Distribution Request; this parameter is a COSE_KeySet (see [RFC8152]), which contains the public keys of all the members of the group
• group_policies, with value a list of parameters indicating how the group handles specific managament aspects. This includes, for instance, approaches to achieve synchronization of sequence numbers among group members. The exact format of this parameter is specific to the profile.
• mgt_key_material, with value the administrative keying material to participate in the revocation and renewal of group keying (rekeying) performed by the KDC. The exact format and content depend on the specific rekeying algorithm used in the group, which is specified in the profile.

Specific profiles need to specify how exactly the keying material is used to protect the group communication.

TBD: define for verification failure

5. Remove a Node from the Group

This section describes at a high level how a node can be removed from the group.

5.1. Not authorized anymore

If the node is not authorized, the AS can directly communicate that to the KDC. Alternatively, the authorization token might expire. In both cases, the KDC needs to renew and distribute the new keying material to all authorized members of the group, as well as to remove the leaving node from the list of members (if the KDC keeps track of that). The KDC relies on the specific rekeying algorithm used in the group, such as e.g. [RFC2093], [RFC2094] or [RFC2627], and the related management key material.

5.2. Request to Leave the Group

A node can actively request to leave the group. In this case, the Client can send a request to the KDC to exit the group. The KDC can then renew and distribute the new keying material to all authorized members of the group, as well as remove the leaving node from the list of members (if the KDC keeps track of that). Note that as long as the node is authorized to join the group (valid authorization token), it can re-request to join the group directly to the KDC without needing to retrieve a new authorization token. This means that the KDC needs to keep track of this information, before deleting all information about the leaving node.

6. Security Considerations

TODO

7. IANA Considerations

TODO

8. References

8.1. Normative References

8.2. Informative References

Acknowledgments

The following individuals were helpful in shaping this document: Ben Kaduk, John Mattsson, Jim Schaad, Ludwig Seitz, Göran Selander.

The work on this document has been partly supported by the EIT-Digital High Impact Initiative ACTIVE.

Authors' Addresses