Internet DRAFT - draft-mattsson-core-security-overhead
draft-mattsson-core-security-overhead
Network Working Group J. Mattsson
Internet-Draft Ericsson AB
Intended status: Informational November 11, 2017
Expires: May 15, 2018
Message Size Overhead of CoAP Security Protocols
draft-mattsson-core-security-overhead-02
Abstract
This document analyzes and compares per-packet message size overheads
when using different security protocols to secure CoAP. The analyzed
security protocols are DTLS 1.2, DTLS 1.3, TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3, and
OSCORE. DTLS and TLS are analyzed with and without compression.
DTLS are analyzed with two different alternatives for header
compression as well as with and without Connection ID.
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 May 15, 2018.
Copyright Notice
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
(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
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Overhead of Security Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. DTLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. DTLS 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.2. DTLS 1.2 with 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.3. DTLS 1.2 with raza-6lo-compressed-dtls . . . . . . . 4
2.1.4. DTLS 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.5. DTLS 1.3 with 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.6. DTLS 1.3 with raza-6lo-compressed-dtls . . . . . . . 6
2.2. DTLS with Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID and 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . . 7
2.2.3. DTLS 1.3 with Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.4. DTLS 1.3 with Connection ID and 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . . 9
2.3. TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1. TLS 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2. TLS 1.2 with 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.3. TLS 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.4. TLS 1.3 with 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. OSCORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Overhead with Different Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
This document analyzes and compares per-packet message size overheads
when using different security protocols to secure CoAP over UPD
[RFC7252] and TCP [I-D.ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls]. The analyzed
security protocols are DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347], DTLS 1.3
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls13], TLS 1.2 [RFC5246], TLS 1.3
[I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], and OSCORE [I-D.ietf-core-object-security].
The DTLS and TLS record layers are analyzed with and without
compression. DTLS are analyzed with two different alternatives
([RFC7400] and [raza-6lo-compressed-dtls]) for header compression as
well as with and without Connection ID
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls-connection-id].
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
2. Overhead of Security Protocols
To enable comparison, all the overhead calculations in this section
use AES-CCM with a tag length of 8 bytes, a plaintext of 6 bytes, and
the sequence number '05'. This follows the example in [RFC7400],
Figure 16.
2.1. DTLS
2.1.1. DTLS 1.2
This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347]. The nonce
follow the strict profiling given in [RFC7925]. This example is
taken directly from [RFC7400], Figure 16. .
DTLS 1.2 Record Layer (35 bytes, 29 bytes overhead):
17 fe fd 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 05 00 16 00 01 00
00 00 00 00 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4
cb 35 b9
Content type:
17
Version:
fe fd
Epoch:
00 01
Sequence number:
00 00 00 00 00 05
Length:
00 16
Nonce:
00 01 00 00 00 00 00 05
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
DTLS 1.2 gives 29 bytes overhead.
2.1.2. DTLS 1.2 with 6LoWPAN-GHC
This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] when
compressed with [RFC7400]. The compression was done with
[OlegHahm-ghc].
Note that the compressed overhead is dependent on the parameters
epoch, sequence number, and length. The following is only an
example.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
Note that the sequence number '01' used in [RFC7400], Figure 15 gives
an exceptionally small overhead that is not representative.
Note that this header compression is not available when DTLS is
exchanged over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with
6LoWPAN-GHC.
Compressed DTLS 1.2 Record Layer (22 bytes, 16 bytes overhead):
b0 c3 03 05 00 16 f2 0e ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff
8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
Compressed DTLS 1.2 Record Layer Header and Nonce:
b0 c3 03 05 00 16 f2 0e
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, DTLS 1.2 with the above parameters
(epoch, sequence number, length) gives 16 bytes overhead.
2.1.3. DTLS 1.2 with raza-6lo-compressed-dtls
This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] when
compressed with [raza-6lo-compressed-dtls].
Note that the compressed overhead is dependent on the parameters
epoch and sequence number. The following is only an example.
Note that this header compression is not available when DTLS is
exchanged over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with raza-
6lo-compressed-dtls.
Compressed DTLS 1.2 Record Layer (19 bytes, 13 bytes overhead):
90 17 01 00 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4
cb 35 b9
NHC
90
Compressed DTLS 1.2 Record Layer Header and Nonce:
17 01 00 05
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
When compressed with raza-6lo-compressed-dtls, DTLS 1.2 with the
above parameters (epoch, sequence number) gives 13 bytes overhead.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
2.1.4. DTLS 1.3
This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.3
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls13]. The only change compared to DTLS 1.2 is
that the DTLS 1.3 record layer does not have an explicit nonce.
DTLS 1.3 Record Layer (27 bytes, 21 bytes overhead):
17 fe fd 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 05 00 0e ae a0 15
56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
Content type:
17
Version:
fe fd
Epoch:
00 01
Sequence number:
00 00 00 00 00 05
Length:
00 0e
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
DTLS 1.3 gives 21 bytes overhead.
2.1.5. DTLS 1.3 with 6LoWPAN-GHC
This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.3
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls13] when compressed with [RFC7400]
[OlegHahm-ghc].
Note that the overhead is dependent on the parameters epoch, sequence
number, and length. The following is only an example.
Note that this header compression is not available when DTLS is
exchanged over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with
6LoWPAN-GHC.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
Compressed DTLS 1.3 Record Layer (20 bytes, 14 bytes overhead):
b0 c3 11 05 00 0e ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24
e4 cb 35 b9
Compressed DTLS 1.3 Record Layer Header and Nonce:
b0 c3 11 05 00 0e
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, DTLS 1.3 with the above parameters
(epoch, sequence number, length) gives 14 bytes overhead.
2.1.6. DTLS 1.3 with raza-6lo-compressed-dtls
This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.3
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls13] when compressed with
[raza-6lo-compressed-dtls].
Note that the compressed overhead is dependent on the parameters
epoch and sequence number. The following is only an example.
Note that this header compression is not available when DTLS is
exchanged over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with raza-
6lo-compressed-dtls.
Compressed DTLS 1.3 Record Layer (19 bytes, 13 bytes overhead):
90 17 01 00 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4
cb 35 b9
NHC
90
Compressed DTLS 1.3 Record Layer Header and Nonce:
17 01 00 05
c3 03 05 00 16 f2 0e
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
When compressed with raza-6lo-compressed-dtls, DTLS 1.3 with the
above parameters (epoch, sequence number) gives 13 bytes overhead.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
2.2. DTLS with Connection ID
This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS with Connection ID
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls-connection-id]. The overhead calculations in
this section uses Connection ID = '42'. DTLS with a Connection ID =
'' (the empty string) is equal to DTLS without Connection ID.
2.2.1. DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID
This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] with
Connection ID [I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls-connection-id].
Note that the overhead is dependent on the parameter Connection ID.
The following is only an example.
DTLS 1.2 Record Layer (35 bytes, 29 bytes overhead):
17 fe fd 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 05 42 00 16 00 01
00 00 00 00 00 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24
e4 cb 35 b9
Content type:
17
Version:
fe fd
Epoch:
00 01
Sequence number:
00 00 00 00 00 05
Connection ID:
42
Length:
00 16
Nonce:
00 01 00 00 00 00 00 05
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID gives 30 bytes overhead.
2.2.2. DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID and 6LoWPAN-GHC
This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] with
Connection ID [I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls-connection-id] when compressed
with [RFC7400] [OlegHahm-ghc].
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
Note that the compressed overhead is dependent on the parameters
epoch, sequence number, Connection ID, and length. The following is
only an example.
Note that the sequence number '01' used in [RFC7400], Figure 15 gives
an exceptionally small overhead that is not representative.
Note that this header compression is not available when DTLS is
exchanged over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with
6LoWPAN-GHC.
Compressed DTLS 1.2 Record Layer (23 bytes, 17 bytes overhead):
b0 c3 04 05 42 00 16 f2 0e ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d
ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
Compressed DTLS 1.2 Record Layer Header and Nonce:
b0 c3 04 05 42 00 16 f2 0e
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, DTLS 1.2 with the above parameters
(epoch, sequence number, Connection ID, length) gives 17 bytes
overhead.
2.2.3. DTLS 1.3 with Connection ID
This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.3
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls13] with Connection ID
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls-connection-id].
Note that the overhead is dependent on the parameter Connection ID.
The following is only an example.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
DTLS 1.3 Record Layer (28 bytes, 22 bytes overhead):
17 fe fd 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 05 42 00 0e ae a0
15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
Content type:
17
Version:
fe fd
Epoch:
00 01
Sequence number:
00 00 00 00 00 05
Connection ID:
42
Length:
00 0e
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
DTLS 1.3 gives 22 bytes overhead.
2.2.4. DTLS 1.3 with Connection ID and 6LoWPAN-GHC
This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.3
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls13] with Connection ID
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls-connection-id] when compressed with [RFC7400]
[OlegHahm-ghc].
Note that the overhead is dependent on the parameters epoch, sequence
number, Connection ID, and length. The following is only an example.
Note that this header compression is not available when DTLS is
exchanged over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with
6LoWPAN-GHC.
Compressed DTLS 1.3 Record Layer (21 bytes, 15 bytes overhead):
b0 c3 12 05 42 00 0e ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a
24 e4 cb 35 b9
Compressed DTLS 1.3 Record Layer Header and Nonce:
b0 c3 12 05 42 00 0e
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, DTLS 1.3 with the above parameters
(epoch, sequence number, Connection ID, length) gives 15 bytes
overhead.
2.3. TLS
2.3.1. TLS 1.2
This section analyzes the overhead of TLS 1.2 [RFC5246]. The changes
compared to DTLS 1.2 is that the TLS 1.2 record layer does not have
epoch and sequence number, and that the version is different.
TLS 1.2 Record Layer (27 bytes, 21 bytes overhead):
17 03 03 00 16 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 05 ae a0 15
56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
Content type:
17
Version:
03 03
Length:
00 16
Nonce:
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 05
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
TLS 1.2 gives 21 bytes overhead.
2.3.2. TLS 1.2 with 6LoWPAN-GHC
This section analyzes the overhead of TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] when
compressed with [RFC7400] [OlegHahm-ghc].
Note that the overhead is dependent on the parameters epoch, sequence
number, and length. The following is only an example.
Note that this header compression is not available when TLS is
exchanged over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with
6LoWPAN-GHC.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
Compressed TLS 1.2 Record Layer (23 bytes, 17 bytes overhead):
05 17 03 03 00 16 85 0f 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d
ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
Compressed TLS 1.2 Record Layer Header and Nonce:
05 17 03 03 00 16 85 0f 05
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, TLS 1.2 with the above parameters
(epoch, sequence number, length) gives 17 bytes overhead.
2.3.3. TLS 1.3
This section analyzes the overhead of TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13].
The change compared to TLS 1.2 is that the TLS 1.3 record layer uses
a different version.
TLS 1.3 Record Layer (27 bytes, 21 bytes overhead):
17 03 01 00 16 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 05 ae a0 15
56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
Content type:
17
Version:
03 01
Length:
00 16
Nonce:
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 05
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
TLS 1.3 gives 21 bytes overhead.
2.3.4. TLS 1.3 with 6LoWPAN-GHC
This section analyzes the overhead of TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]
when compressed with [RFC7400] [OlegHahm-ghc].
Note that the overhead is dependent on the parameters epoch, sequence
number, and length. The following is only an example.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
Note that this header compression is not available when TLS is
exchanged over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with
6LoWPAN-GHC.
Compressed TLS 1.3 Record Layer (23 bytes, 17 bytes overhead):
02 17 03 c3 01 16 85 0f 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d
ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
Compressed TLS 1.3 Record Layer Header and Nonce:
02 17 03 c3 01 16 85 0f 05
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, TLS 1.3 with the above parameters
(epoch, sequence number, length) gives 17 bytes overhead.
2.4. OSCORE
This section analyzes the overhead of OSCORE
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security].
Note that the overhead is dependent on the included CoAP Option
numbers as well as the length of the OSCORE parameters Sender ID and
sequence number.
Note that Sender ID = '' (empty string) can only be used by one
client per server.
The examples below assume that the original messages does not have
payload (note that this does not affect the overhead).
The below calculation Option Delta = '9', Sender ID = '' (empty
string), and Sequence Number = '05', and is only an example.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
OSCORE Request (19 bytes, 13 bytes overhead):
92 09 05
ff ec ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
CoAP Option Delta and Length
92
Option Value (flag byte and sequence number):
09 05
Payload Marker
ff
Ciphertext (including encrypted code):
ec ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
The below calculation Option Delta = '9', Sender ID = '42', and
Sequence Number = '05', and is only an example.
OSCORE Request (20 bytes, 14 bytes overhead):
93 09 05 42
ff ec ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
CoAP Option Delta and Length
93
Option Value (flag byte, sequence number, and Sender ID):
09 05 42
Payload Marker
ff
Ciphertext (including encrypted code):
ec ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
The below calculation uses Option Delta = '9' and is only an example.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
OSCORE Response (17 bytes, 11 bytes overhead):
90
ff ec ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
CoAP Delta and Option Length:
90
Option Value
-
Payload Marker
ff
Ciphertext (including encrypted code):
ec ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9
OSCORE with the above parameters gives 13-14 bytes overhead for
requests and 11 bytes overhead for responses.
Unlike DTLS and TLS, OSCORE has much smaller overhead for responses
than requests.
3. Overhead with Different Parameters
The DTLS overhead is dependent on the parameter Connection ID. The
following overheads apply for all Connection IDs with the same
length.
The compression overhead (GHC) is dependent on the parameters epoch,
sequence number, Connection ID, and length. The following overheads
should be representative for sequence numbers and Connection IDs with
the same length.
The compression overhead (raza-6lo-compressed-dtls) is dependent on
the length of the parameters epoch and sequence number. The
following overheads apply for all sequence numbers with the same
length.
The OSCORE overhead is dependent on the included CoAP Option numbers
as well as the length of the OSCORE parameters Sender ID and sequence
number. The following overheads apply for all sequence numbers and
Sender IDs with the same length.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
Sequence Number '05' '1005' '100005'
-------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.2 29 29 29
DTLS 1.3 21 21 21
TLS 1.2 21 21 21
TLS 1.3 21 21 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.2 (Raza) 13 13 14
DTLS 1.3 (Raza) 13 13 14
-------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.2 (GHC) 16 16 17
DTLS 1.3 (GHC) 14 14 15
TLS 1.2 (GHC) 17 18 19
TLS 1.3 (GHC) 17 18 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSCORE Request 13 14 15
OSCORE Response 11 11 11
Figure 1: Overhead as a function of sequence number
(Connection/Sender ID = '')
Connection/Sender ID '' '42' '4002'
-------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.2 29 30 31
DTLS 1.3 21 22 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.2 (GHC) 16 17 18
DTLS 1.3 (GHC) 14 15 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSCORE Request 13 14 15
OSCORE Response 11 11 11
Figure 2: Overhead as a function of Connection/Sender ID
(Sequence Number = '05')
4. Summary
DTLS 1.2 has quite a large overhead as it uses an explicit sequence
number and an explicit nonce. DTLS 1.3, TLS 1.2, and TLS 1.3 have
significantly less (but not small) overhead.
Both DTLS compression methods provides very good compression. raza-
6lo-compressed-dtls achieves slightly better compression but requires
state. GHC is stateless but provides slightly worse compression. As
DTLS 1.3 uses the same version number as DTLS 1.2, both GHC and raza-
6lo-compressed-dtls works well also for DTLS 1.3.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
The Generic Header Compression (6LoWPAN-GHC) can in addition to DTLS
1.2 handle DTLS 1.3, DTLS with Connection ID, TLS 1.2, and TLS 1.3.
The Generic Header Compression (6LoWPAN-GHC) works very well for
Connection ID and the overhead seems to increase exactly with the
length of the Connection ID (which is optimal). The compression of
TLS is not as good as the compression of DTLS (as the static
dictionary is more or less a DTLS record layer). Similar compression
levels as for DTLS could be achieved also for TLS, but this would
require different static dictionaries for each version of TLS (as TLS
1.2 and TLS 1.3 uses different version numbers). GHC works as good
for DTLS 1.3 as for DTLS 1.2 as the version number is the same.
raza-6lo-compressed-dtls is not able to handle DTLS with Connection
ID or TLS, all extensions requires an updated mechanism.
The header compression is not available when (D)TLS is exchanged over
transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with 6LoWPAN-GHC or raza-
6lo-compressed-dtls.
OSCORE has much lower overhead than DTLS and TLS. The overhead of
OSCORE is smaller than DTLS over 6LoWPAN with compression, and this
small overhead is achieved even on deployments without 6LoWPAN or
6LoWPAN without DTLS compression. OSCORE is lightweight because it
makes use of some excellent features in CoAP, CBOR, and COSE.
5. Security Considerations
This document is purely informational.
6. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls]
Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K.,
Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, "CoAP (Constrained
Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets",
draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-10 (work in progress),
October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-core-object-security]
Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
"Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE)", draft-ietf-core-object-security-06 (work in
progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-21 (work in progress),
July 2017.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls-connection-id]
Rescorla, E. and H. Tschofenig, "The Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS) Connection Identifier", draft-
rescorla-tls-dtls-connection-id-01 (work in progress),
October 2017.
[I-D.rescorla-tls-dtls13]
Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
1.3", draft-rescorla-tls-dtls13-01 (work in progress),
March 2017.
[OlegHahm-ghc]
Hahm, O., "Generic Header Compression", July 2016,
<https://github.com/OlegHahm/ghc>.
[raza-6lo-compressed-dtls]
Raza, S., Shafagh, H., and O. Dupont, "Compression of
Record and Handshake Headers for Constrained
Environments", March 2017,
<http://shahidraza.info/draft-raza-6lo-compressed.txt>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7400] Bormann, C., "6LoWPAN-GHC: Generic Header Compression for
IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks
(6LoWPANs)", RFC 7400, DOI 10.17487/RFC7400, November
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7400>.
[RFC7925] Tschofenig, H., Ed. and T. Fossati, "Transport Layer
Security (TLS) / Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
Profiles for the Internet of Things", RFC 7925,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7925, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7925>.
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CoAP Security Overhead November 2017
Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank Ari Keraenen, Francesca Palombini, and
Goeran Selander for reviewing previous versions of the draft.
All 6LoWPAN-GHC compression was done with [OlegHahm-ghc].
Author's Address
John Mattsson
Ericsson AB
Faeroegatan 6
Kista SE-164 80 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: john.mattsson@ericsson.com
Mattsson Expires May 15, 2018 [Page 18]
