Internet DRAFT - draft-tiloca-lpwan-8824-update
draft-tiloca-lpwan-8824-update
LPWAN Working Group M. Tiloca
Internet-Draft RISE AB
Updates: 8824 (if approved) L. Toutain
Intended status: Standards Track I. Martinez
Expires: 14 September 2023 IMT Atlantique
13 March 2023
Clarifications and Updates on using Static Context Header Compression
(SCHC) for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
draft-tiloca-lpwan-8824-update-00
Abstract
This document clarifies, updates and extends the method specified in
RFC 8824 for compressing Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
headers using the Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation
(SCHC) framework. In particular, it considers recently defined CoAP
options and specifies how CoAP headers are compressed in the presence
of intermediaries. Therefore, this document updates RFC 8824.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the IPv6 over Low Power
Wide-Area Networks Working Group mailing list (lp-wan@ietf.org),
which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lp-
wan/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/git@gitlab.com:crimson84/draft-tiloca-lpwan-
8824-update.
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."
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. CoAP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. CoAP Option Size1, Size2, Proxy-URI, and Proxy-Scheme
Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. CoAP Option Hop-Limit Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. CoAP Option Echo Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. CoAP Option Request-Tag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. CoAP Option EDHOC Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. SCHC Compression of CoAP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. OSCORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Compression of the CoAP Payload Marker . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Without End-to-End Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. With End-to-End Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. CoAP Header Compression with Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Without End-to-End Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. With End-to-End Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Examples of CoAP Header Compression with Proxies . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. YANG data model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
1. Introduction
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] is a web-
transfer protocol intended for applications based on the REST
(Representational State Transfer) paradigm, and designed to be
affordable also for resource-constrained devices.
In order to enable the use of CoAP in LPWANs (Low-Power Wide-Area
Networks) as well as to improve performance, [RFC8824] defines how to
use the Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC)
framework [RFC8724] for compressing CoAP headers.
This document clarifies, updates and extends the SCHC compression of
CoAP headers defined in [RFC8824] at the application level, by:
providing specific clarifications; updating specific details of the
compression processing, based on recent developments related to the
security protocol OSCORE [RFC8613] for end-to-end protection of CoAP
messages; and extending the compression processing to take into
account additional CoAP options and the presence of CoAP proxies.
In particular, this document updates [RFC8824] as follows.
* It clarifies the SCHC compression for the CoAP options Size1,
Size2, Proxy-URI and Proxy-Scheme (see Section 2.1).
* It defines the SCHC compression for the CoAP option Hop-Limit (see
Section 2.2).
* It defines the SCHC compression for the recently defined CoAP
options Echo (see Section 2.3), Request-Tag (see Section 2.4),
EDHOC (see Section 2.5), as well as Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 (see
Section 3.1).
* It updates the SCHC compression processing for the CoAP option
OSCORE (see Section 3.2), in the light of recent developments
related to the security protocol OSCORE as defined in
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-key-update] and
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].
* It clarifies how the SCHC compression handles the CoAP payload
marker (see Section 4).
* It defines the SCHC compression of CoAP headers in the presence of
CoAP proxies (see Section 5).
This document does not alter the core approach, design choices and
features of the SCHC compression applied to CoAP headers.
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts
related to the SCHC framework [RFC8724], the web-transfer protocol
CoAP [RFC7252], the security protocol OSCORE [RFC8613] and the use of
SCHC for CoAP [RFC8824].
2. CoAP Options
This section updates and extends Section 5 of [RFC8824], as to how
SCHC compresses some specific CoAP options. In particular,
Section 2.1 updates Section 5.4 of [RFC8824].
2.1. CoAP Option Size1, Size2, Proxy-URI, and Proxy-Scheme Fields
The SCHC Rule description MAY define sending some field values by
describing an empty TV, with the MO set to "ignore" and the CDA set
to "value-sent". A Rule MAY also use a "match-mapping" MO when there
are different options for the same FID. Otherwise, the Rule sets the
TV to the value, the MO to "equal", and the CDA to "not-sent".
2.2. CoAP Option Hop-Limit Field
The Hop-Limit field is an option defined in [RFC8768] that can be
used to detect forwarding loops through a chain of CoAP proxies. The
first proxy in the chain that understands the option includes it in a
received request with a proper value set, before forwarding the
request. Any following proxy that understands the option decrements
the option value and forwards the request if the new value is
different than zero, or returns a 5.08 (Hop Limit Reached) error
response otherwise.
When a packet uses the Hop-Limit option, SCHC compression MUST send
its content in the Compression Residue. The SCHC Rule describes an
empty TV with the MO set to "ignore" and the CDA set to "value-sent".
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
2.3. CoAP Option Echo Field
The Echo field is an option defined in [RFC9175] that a server can
include in a response as a challenge to the client, and that the
client echoes back to the server in one or more requests. This
enables the server to verify the freshness of a request and to
cryptographically verify the aliveness of the client. Also, it
forces the client to demonstrate reachability at its claimed network
address.
When a packet uses the Echo option, SCHC compression MUST send its
content in the Compression Residue. The SCHC Rule describes an empty
TV with the MO set to "ignore" and the CDA set to "value-sent".
2.4. CoAP Option Request-Tag Field
The Request-Tag field is an option defined in [RFC9175] that the
client can set in request messages of block-wise operations, with
value an ephemeral short-lived identifier of the specific block-wise
operation in question. This allows the server to match message
fragments belonging to the same request operation and, if the server
supports it, to reliably process simultaneous block-wise request
operations on a single resource. If requests are integrity
protected, this also protects against interchange of fragments
between different block-wise request operations.
When a packet uses the Request-Tag option, SCHC compression MUST send
its content in the Compression Residue. The SCHC Rule describes an
empty TV with the MO set to "ignore" and the CDA set to "value-sent".
2.5. CoAP Option EDHOC Field
The EDHOC field is an option defined in [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-edhoc]
that a client can include in a request, in order to perform an
optimized, shortened execution of the authenticated key establishment
protocol EDHOC [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc]. Such a request conveys both
the final EDHOC message and actual application data, where the latter
is protected with OSCORE [RFC8613] using a Security Context derived
from the result of the current EDHOC execution.
The option occurs at most once and is always empty. The SCHC Rule
MUST describe an empty TV, with the MO set to "equal" and the CDA set
to "not-sent".
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
3. SCHC Compression of CoAP Extensions
This section updates and extends Section 6 of [RFC8824], as to how
SCHC compresses some specific CoAP options providing protocol
extensions. In particular, Section 3.1 updates Section 6.1 of
[RFC8824], while Section 3.2 updates Section 6.4 of [RFC8824].
3.1. Block
When a packet uses a Block1 or Block2 option [RFC7959] or a Q-Block1
or Q-Block2 option [RFC9177], SCHC compression MUST send its content
in the Compression Residue. The SCHC Rule describes an empty TV with
the MO set to "ignore" and the CDA set to "value-sent". The Block1,
Block2, Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options allow fragmentation at the CoAP
level that is compatible with SCHC fragmentation. Both fragmentation
mechanisms are complementary, and the node may use them for the same
packet as needed.
3.2. OSCORE
The security protocol OSCORE [RFC8613] provides end-to-end protection
for CoAP messages. Group OSCORE [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]
builds on OSCORE and defines end-to-end protection of CoAP messages
in group communication [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis]. This section
describes how SCHC Rules can be applied to compress messages
protected with OSCORE or Group OSCORE.
Figure 1 shows the OSCORE option value encoding, which was originally
defined in Section 6.1 of [RFC8613] and has been extended in
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-key-update][I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].
The first byte of the OSCORE option value specifies the content of
the OSCORE option using flags, as follows.
* As defined in Section 4.1 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-key-update],
the eight least significant bit, when set, indicates that the
OSCORE option includes a second byte of flags. The seventh least
significant bit is currently unassigned.
* As defined in Section 5 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm], the
sixth least significant bit, when set, indicates that the message
including the OSCORE option is protected with the group mode of
Group OSCORE (see Section 8 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]).
When not set, the bit indicates that the message is protected
either with OSCORE, or with the pairwise mode of Group OSCORE (see
Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]), while the specific
OSCORE Security Context used to protect the message determines
which of the two cases applies.
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
* As defined in Section 6.1 of [RFC8613], bit h, when set, indicates
the presence of the kid context field in the option. Also, bit k,
when set, indicates the presence of a kid field. Finally, the
three least significant bits form the field n, which indicates the
length of the piv (Partial Initialization Vector) field in bytes.
When n = 0, no piv is present.
Assuming the presence of a single flag byte, this is followed by the
piv field, the kid context field, and the kid field, in that order.
Also, if present, the kid context field's length (in bytes) is
encoded in the first byte, denoted by "s".
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <--------- n bytes ------------->
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---------------------------------+
|0 0 0|h|k| n | Partial IV (if any) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---------------------------------+
| | |
|<-- CoAP -->|<------- CoAP OSCORE_piv ------> |
OSCORE_flags
<-- 1 byte --> <------ s bytes ----->
+--------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| s (if any) | kid context (if any) | kid (if any) ... |
+--------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| | |
|<-------- CoAP OSCORE_kidctx ------->|<-- CoAP OSCORE_kid -->|
Figure 1: OSCORE Option
Figure 2 shows the OSCORE option value encoding, with the second byte
of flags also present. As defined in Section 4.1 of
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-key-update], the least significant bit d of
this byte, when set, indicates that two additional fields are
included in the option, following the kid context field (if any).
These two fields, namely x and nonce, are used when running the key
update protocol KUDOS defined in [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-key-update],
with x specifying the length of the nonce field in bytes as well as
the specific behavior to adopt during the KUDOS execution. In
particular, the figure provides the breakdown of the x field, where
its three least significant bits form the sub-field m, which
specifies the size of nonce in bytes, minus 1.
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 <----- n bytes ----->
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---------------------+
|1|0|0|h|k| n | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | d | Partial IV (if any) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---------------------+
| | |
|<------------------- CoAP -------------------->|<- CoAP OSCORE_piv ->|
OSCORE_flags
<- 1 byte -> <----------- s bytes ------------> <------ 1 byte ----->
+------------+----------------------------------+---------------------+
| s (if any) | kid context (if any) | x (if any) |
+------------+----------------------------------+---------------------+
| | |
|<------------- CoAP OSCORE_kidctx ------------>|<-- CoAP OSCORE_x -->|
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |0|0|b|p| m | |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
<----- m + 1 bytes ----->
+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| nonce (if any) | kid (if any) ... |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| | |
|<-- CoAP OSCORE_nonce -->|<-- CoAP OSCORE_kid -->|
Figure 2: OSCORE Option during a KUDOS execution
To better perform OSCORE SCHC compression, the Rule description needs
to identify the OSCORE option and the fields it contains.
Conceptually, it discerns up to six distinct pieces of information
within the OSCORE option: the flag bits, the piv, the kid context,
the x byte, the nonce, and the kid. The SCHC Rule splits the OSCORE
option into six Field Descriptors in order to compress them:
* CoAP OSCORE_flags
* CoAP OSCORE_piv
* CoAP OSCORE_kidctx
* CoAP OSCORE_x
* CoAP OSCORE_nonce
* CoAP OSCORE_kid
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
Figure 1 shows the OSCORE option format with the four fields
OSCORE_flags, OSCORE_piv, OSCORE_kidctx and OSCORE_kid superimposed
on it. Also, Figure 2 shows the OSCORE option format with all the
six fields superimposed on it, with reference to a message exchanged
during an execution of the KUDOS key update protocol.
In both cases, the CoAP OSCORE_kidctx field directly includes the
size octet, s. In the latter case, the following applies.
* For the x field, if both endpoints know the value, then the SCHC
Rule will describe a TV to this value, with the MO set to "equal"
and the CDA set to "not-sent". This models the case where the two
endpoints run KUDOS with a pre-agreed size of the nonce field, as
well as with a pre-agreed combination of its modes of operations,
as per the bits b and p of the m sub-field.
Otherwise, if the value is changing over time, the SCHC Rule will
set the MO to "ignore" and the CDA to "value-sent". The Rule may
also use a "match-mapping" MO to compress this field, in case the
two endpoints pre-agree on a set of alternative ways to run KUDOS,
with respect to the size of the nonce field and the combination of
the KUDOS modes of operation to use.
* For the nonce field, the SCHC Rule describes an empty TV with the
MO set to "ignore" and the CDA set to "value-sent".
In addition, for the value of the nonce field, SCHC MUST NOT send
it as variable-length data in the Compression Residue, to avoid
ambiguity with the length of the nonce field encoded in the x
field. Therefore, SCHC MUST use the m sub-field of the x field to
define the size of the Compression Residue. SCHC designates a
specific function, "osc.x.m", that the Rule MUST use to complete
the Field Descriptor. During the decompression, this function
returns the length of the nonce field in bytes, as the value of
the three least significant bits of the m sub-field of the x
field, plus 1.
4. Compression of the CoAP Payload Marker
As originally intended in [RFC8824], the following applies with
respect to the 0xFF payload marker. A SCHC compression rule for CoAP
includes all the expected CoAP options, therefore the payload marker
does not have to be specified.
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
4.1. Without End-to-End Security
If the CoAP message to compress with SCHC is not going to be
protected with OSCORE and includes a payload, then the 0xFF payload
marker MUST NOT be included in the compressed message, which is
composed of the Compression RuleID, the Compression Residue (if any),
and the CoAP payload.
After having decompressed an incoming message, the recipient endpoint
MUST prepend the 0xFF payload marker to the CoAP payload, if any was
present after the consumed Compression Residue.
4.2. With End-to-End Security
If the CoAP message has to be protected with OSCORE, the same
rationale described in Section 4.1 applies to both the Inner SCHC
Compression and the Outer SCHC Compression defined in Section 7.2 of
[RFC8824]. That is:
* After the Inner SCHC Compression of a CoAP message including a
payload, the payload marker MUST NOT be included in the input to
the AEAD Encryption, which is composed of the Inner Compression
RuleID, the Inner Compression Residue (if any), and the CoAP
payload.
* The Outer SCHC Compression takes as input the OSCORE-protected
message, which always includes a payload (i.e., the OSCORE
Ciphertext) preceded by the payload marker.
* After the Outer SCHC Compression, the payload marker MUST NOT be
included in the final compressed message, which is composed of the
Outer Compression RuleID, the Outer Compression Residue (if any),
and the OSCORE Ciphertext.
After having completed the Outer SCHC Decompression of an incoming
message, the recipient endpoint MUST prepend the 0xFF payload marker
to the OSCORE Ciphertext.
After having completed the Inner SCHC Decompression of an incoming
message, the recipient endpoint MUST prepend the 0xFF payload marker
to the CoAP payload, if any was present after the consumed
Compression Residue.
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
5. CoAP Header Compression with Proxies
Building on [RFC8824], this section clarifies how SCHC Compression/
Decompression is performed when CoAP proxies are deployed. The
following refers to the origin client and origin server as
application endpoints.
5.1. Without End-to-End Security
In case OSCORE is not used end-to-end between client and server, the
SCHC processing occurs hop-by-hop, by relying on SCHC Rules that are
consistently shared between two adjacent hops.
In particular, SCHC is used as defined below.
* The sender application endpoint compresses the CoAP message, by
using the SCHC Rules that it shares with the next hop towards the
recipient application endpoint. The resulting, compressed message
is sent to the next hop towards the recipient application
endpoint.
* Each proxy decompresses the incoming compressed message, by using
the SCHC Rules that it shares with the (previous hop towards the)
sender application endpoint.
Then, the proxy compresses the CoAP message to be forwarded, by
using the SCHC Rules that it shares with the (next hop towards
the) recipient application endpoint.
The resulting, compressed message is sent to the (next hop towards
the) recipient application endpoint.
* The recipient application endpoint decompresses the incoming
compressed message, by using the SCHC Rules that it shares with
the previous hop towards the sender application endpoint.
5.2. With End-to-End Security
In case OSCORE is used end-to-end between client and server (see
Section 7.2 of [RFC8824]), the following applies.
The SCHC processing occurs end-to-end as to the Inner SCHC
Compression/Decompression, by relying on Inner SCHC Rules that are
consistently shared between the two application endpoints acting as
OSCORE endpoints and sharing the used OSCORE Security Context.
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
Instead, the SCHC processing occurs hop-by-hop as to the Outer SCHC
Compression/Decompression, by relying on Outer SCHC Rules that are
consistently shared between two adjacent hops.
In particular, SCHC is used as defined below.
* The sender application endpoint performs the Inner SCHC
Compression on the original CoAP message, by using the Inner SCHC
Rules that it shares with the recipient application endpoint.
Following the AEAD Encryption of the compressed input obtained
from the previous step, the sender application endpoint performs
the Outer SCHC Compression on the resulting OSCORE-protected
message, by using the Outer SCHC Rules that it shares with the
next hop towards the recipient application endpoint.
The resulting, compressed message is sent to the next hop towards
the recipient application endpoint.
* Each proxy performs the Outer SCHC Decompression on the incoming
compressed message, by using the SCHC Rules that it shares with
the (previous hop towards the) sender application endpoint.
Then, the proxy performs the Outer SCHC Compression of the OSCORE-
protected message to be forwarded, by using the SCHC Rules that it
shares with the (next hop towards the) recipient application
endpoint.
The resulting, compressed message is sent to the (next hop towards
the) recipient application endpoint.
* The recipient application endpoint performs the Outer SCHC
Decompression on the incoming compressed message, by using the
Outer SCHC Rules that it shares with the previous hop towards the
sender application endpoint.
Then, the recipient application endpoint performs the AEAD
Decryption of the OSCORE-protected message obtained from the
previous step.
Finally, the recipient application endpoint performs the Inner
SCHC Decompression on the compressed input obtained from the
previous step, by using the Inner SCHC rules that it shares with
the sender application endpoint. The result is the original CoAP
message produced by the sender application endpoint.
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
6. Examples of CoAP Header Compression with Proxies
TBD
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations discussed in [RFC8724] and [RFC8824]
continue to apply. When SCHC is used in the presence of CoAP
proxies, the security considerations discussed in Section 11.2 of
[RFC7252] continue to apply. When SCHC is used with OSCORE, the
security considerations discussed in [RFC8613] continue to apply.
The security considerations in [RFC8824] specifically discuss how the
use of SCHC for CoAP when OSCORE is also used may result in (more
frequently) triggering key-renewal operations for the two endpoints.
This can be due to an earlier exhaustion of the OSCORE Sender
Sequence Number space, or to the installation of new compression
Rules on one of the endpoints.
In either case, the two endpoints can run the key update protocol
KUDOS defined in [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-key-update], as the
recommended method to update their shared OSCORE Security Context.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-edhoc]
Palombini, F., Tiloca, M., Höglund, R., Hristozov, S., and
G. Selander, "Profiling EDHOC for CoAP and OSCORE", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-oscore-edhoc-
06, 23 November 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
oscore-edhoc-06>.
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]
Tiloca, M., Selander, G., Palombini, F., Mattsson, J. P.,
and J. Park, "Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication
for CoAP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
core-oscore-groupcomm-17, 20 December 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
oscore-groupcomm-17>.
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-key-update]
Höglund, R. and M. Tiloca, "Key Update for OSCORE
(KUDOS)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
core-oscore-key-update-03, 24 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
oscore-key-update-03>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[RFC7959] Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8613] Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
"Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>.
[RFC8724] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and JC.
Zuniga, "SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header
Compression and Fragmentation", RFC 8724,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8724, April 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8724>.
[RFC8768] Boucadair, M., Reddy.K, T., and J. Shallow, "Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP) Hop-Limit Option", RFC 8768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8768, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8768>.
[RFC8824] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., and R. Andreasen, "Static
Context Header Compression (SCHC) for the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8824,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8824, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8824>.
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
[RFC9175] Amsüss, C., Preuß Mattsson, J., and G. Selander,
"Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP): Echo, Request-
Tag, and Token Processing", RFC 9175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9175, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9175>.
[RFC9177] Boucadair, M. and J. Shallow, "Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting
Robust Transmission", RFC 9177, DOI 10.17487/RFC9177,
March 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9177>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis]
Dijk, E., Wang, C., and M. Tiloca, "Group Communication
for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis-
08, 11 January 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
groupcomm-bis-08>.
[I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc]
Selander, G., Mattsson, J. P., and F. Palombini,
"Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-19, 3
February 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-19>.
Appendix A. YANG data model
TBD
Acknowledgments
The authors sincerely thank Göran Selander for his comments and
feedback.
The work on this document has been partly supported by the H2020
projects SIFIS-Home (Grant agreement 952652) and ARCADIAN-IoT (Grant
agreement 101020259).
Authors' Addresses
Marco Tiloca
RISE AB
Isafjordsgatan 22
SE-16440 Kista
Sweden
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Updates on using SCHC for CoAP March 2023
Email: marco.tiloca@ri.se
Laurent Toutain
IMT Atlantique
CS 17607, 2 rue de la Chataigneraie
35576 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex
France
Email: Laurent.Toutain@imt-atlantique.fr
Ivan Martinez
IMT Atlantique
CS 17607, 2 rue de la Chataigneraie
35576 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex
France
Email: ivanmarinomartinez@gmail.com
Tiloca, et al. Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 16]
