RFC 9594: Key Provisioning for Group Communication Using Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)
- F. Palombini,
- M. Tiloca
Abstract
This document defines how to use the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework to distribute keying material and configuration parameters for secure group communication. Candidate group members that act as Clients and are authorized to join a group can do so by interacting with a Key Distribution Center (KDC) acting as the Resource Server, from which they obtain the keying material to communicate with other group members. While defining general message formats as well as the interface and operations available at the KDC, this document supports different approaches and protocols for secure group communication. Therefore, details are delegated to separate application profiles of this document as specialized instances that target a particular group communication approach and define how communications in the group are protected. Compliance requirements for such application profiles are also specified.¶
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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://
1. Introduction
This document builds on the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework and defines how to request, distribute, and renew keying material and configuration parameters to protect message exchanges in a group communication environment.¶
Candidate group members that act as ACE Clients and are authorized to join a group can interact with the Key Distribution Center (KDC) acting as the ACE Resource Server that is responsible for that group in order to obtain the necessary keying material and parameters to communicate with other group members.¶
In particular, this document defines the operations and interface available at the KDC, as well as general message formats for the interactions between Clients and the KDC. At the same time, communications in the group can rely on different approaches, e.g., based on multicast [GROUP-CoAP] or publish
Therefore, this document delegates details on the communication and security approaches used in a group to separate application profiles. These are specialized instances of this document that target a particular group communication approach and define how communications in the group are protected, as well as the specific keying material and configuration parameters provided to group members.¶
In order to ensure consistency and aid the development of such application profiles, Appendix A of this document defines a number of related compliance requirements. In particular, Appendix A.1 compiles the requirements that application profiles are REQUIRED to fulfill; these are referred to by an identifier that starts with "REQ". Instead, Appendix A.2 compiles the requirements that application profiles MAY fulfill; these are referred to by an identifier that starts with "OPT".¶
New keying material is intended to be generated and distributed to the group upon membership changes (rekeying). If the application requires backward security (i.e., new group members must be prevented from accessing communications in the group prior to their joining), then a rekeying has to occur every time new members join the group. If the application requires forward security (i.e., former group members must be prevented from accessing communications in the group after their leaving), then a rekeying has to occur every time current members leave or are evicted from the group.¶
A group rekeying scheme performs the actual distribution of the new keying material by rekeying the current group members when a new Client joins the group and rekeying the remaining group members when a Client leaves the group. This can rely on different approaches, including efficient group rekeying schemes such as those described in [RFC2093], [RFC2094], and [RFC2627].¶
Consistently with what is recommended in the ACE framework, this document uses Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949] for data encoding. However, using JSON [RFC8259] instead of CBOR is possible by relying on the conversion method specified in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of [RFC8949].¶
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 following:¶
A node interested in participating in group communication, as well as one that is already participating as a group member, is interchangeably denoted as "Client".¶
This document also uses the following terms.¶
- Group:
-
A set of nodes that share common keying material and security parameters used to protect their communications with one another. That is, the term refers to a "security group".¶
This term is not to be confused with an "application group", which has relevance at the application level and whose members share a common pool of resources or content. Examples of application groups are the set of all nodes deployed in a same physical room or the set of nodes registered to a pub-sub topic.¶
This term is also not to be confused with a "multicast group", which has relevance at the network level and whose members all listen to a group network address for receiving messages sent to that group. An example of a multicast group is the set of nodes that are configured to receive messages that are sent to the group's associated IP multicast address.¶
The same security group might be associated with multiple application groups. Also, the same application group might be associated with multiple security groups. Further details and considerations on the mapping between the three types of groups are out of the scope of this document.¶
- Key Distribution Center (KDC):
- The entity responsible for managing one or multiple groups, with particular reference to the group membership and the keying material to use for protecting group communications.¶
Furthermore, this document uses "names" or "identifiers" for groups and nodes. Their different meanings are summarized below.¶
- Group name:
- The identifier of a group as a text string encoded as UTF-8 [RFC3629]. Once established, it is invariant. It is used in the interactions between the Client, AS, and RS to identify a group. A group name is always unique among the group names of the existing groups under the same KDC.¶
- GROUPNAME:
- The text string used in URIs to identify a group. Once established, it is invariant. GROUPNAME uniquely maps to the group name of a group, although they do not necessarily coincide.¶
- Group identifier:
- The identifier of the group keying material used in a group. Unlike group name and GROUPNAME, this identifier changes over time when the group keying material is updated.¶
- Node name:
- The identifier of a node as a text string encoded as UTF-8 [RFC3629] and consistent with the semantics of URI path segments (see Section 3.3 of [RFC3986]). Once established, it is invariant. It is used in the interactions between the Client and RS, as well as to identify a member of a group. A node name is always unique among the node names of the current nodes within a group.¶
- NODENAME:
- The text string used in URIs to identify a member of a group. Once established, it is invariant. Its value coincides with the node name of the associated group member.¶
This document additionally uses the following terminology:¶
- Transport profile:
- A profile of the ACE framework as per Section 5.8.4.3 of [RFC9200].
A transport profile specifies the communication protocol and communication security protocol between an ACE Client and Resource Server, as well as proof
-of -possession methods if it supports proof -of -possession access tokens. Transport profiles of ACE include, for instance, those described in [RFC9202], [RFC9203], and [RFC9431].¶ - Application profile:
- A profile that defines how applications enforce and use supporting security services they require. These services may include, for instance, provisioning, revocation, and distribution of keying material. An application profile may define specific procedures and message formats.¶
- Authentication credential:
- The set of information associated with an entity, including that entity's public key and parameters associated with the public key. Examples of authentication credentials are CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) and CWT Claims Sets (CCSs) [RFC8392], X.509 certificates [RFC5280], and C509 certificates [C509-CERT].¶
- Individual keying material:
- Information pertaining exclusively to a group member, as associated with its group membership and related to other keying material and parameters used in the group. For example, this can be an identifier that the secure communication protocol employs to uniquely identify a node as a group member (e.g., a cryptographic key identifier uniquely associated with the group member in question). The specific nature and format of individual keying material used in a group is defined in the application profiles of this specification. The individual keying material of a group member is not related to the secure association between that group member and the KDC.¶
Throughout this document, examples for CBOR data items are expressed in CBOR extended diagnostic notation as defined in Section 8 of [RFC8949] and Appendix G of [RFC8610] ("diagnostic notation"), unless noted otherwise. We often use diagnostic notation comments to provide a textual representation of the parameters' keys and values.¶
2. Overview
At a high level, the key provisioning process is separated in two phases: the first one follows the ACE framework between the Client, AS, and KDC, while the second one is the actual key distribution between the Client and KDC. After the two phases are completed, the Client is able to participate in the group communication via a Dispatcher entity.¶
The following participants (see Figure 1) take part in the authorization and key distribution.¶
This document specifies a mechanism for:¶
Figure 2 provides a high-level overview of the message flow for a node joining a group. The message flow can be expanded as follows.¶
3. Authorization to Join a Group
This section describes in detail the format of messages exchanged by the participants when a node requests access to a given group. This exchange is based on ACE [RFC9200].¶
As defined in [RFC9200], the Client asks the AS for the authorization to join the group through the KDC (see Section 3.1). If the request is approved and authorization is granted, the AS provides the Client with a proof
Communications between the Client and the AS MUST be secured according to what is defined by the used transport profile of ACE. The Content-Format used in the message also depends on the used transport profile of ACE.
For example, it can be "application
The transport profile of ACE also defines a number of details, such as the communication and security protocols used with the KDC (see Appendix C of [RFC9200]).¶
Figure 3 gives an overview of the exchange described above.¶
3.3. Token Transferring
The Client sends a Token Transfer Request to the KDC, i.e., a CoAP POST request including the access token and targeting the /authz-info endpoint (see Section 5.10.1 of [RFC9200]).¶
Note that this request deviates from the one defined in [RFC9200], since it allows asking the KDC for additional information concerning the authentication credentials used in the group to ensure source authentication, as well as for possible additional group parameters.¶
The joining node MAY ask for this information from the KDC through the same Token Transfer Request.
In this case, the message MUST have Content-Format "application
Alternatively, such information may be pre-configured on the joining node or may be retrieved by alternative means. For example, the joining node may have performed an early group discovery process and obtained the link to the associated group
After successful verification, the Client is authorized to receive the group keying material from the KDC and join the group. Hence, the KDC replies to the Client with a Token Transfer Response, i.e., a CoAP 2.01 (Created) response.¶
The Token Transfer Response MUST have Content-Format "application
If a scope entry in the access token specifies a role that requires the Client to send its own authentication credential to the KDC when joining the related group, then the CBOR map MUST include the 'kdcchallenge' parameter defined in Section 3.3.2, specifying a dedicated challenge N_S generated by the KDC.¶
Later, when joining the group (see Section 4.3.1.1), the Client uses the 'kdcchallenge' value and additional information to build a proof
While storing the access token, the KDC MUST store the 'kdcchallenge' value associated with the Client at least until it receives a Join Request from the Client (see Section 4.3.1.1) to be able to verify the PoP evidence provided during the join process and thus that the Client possesses its own private key. The KDC deletes the 'kdcchallenge' value associated with the Client upon deleting the access token (e.g., upon its expiration, see Section 5.10.3 of [RFC9200]).¶
The same 'kdcchallenge' value MAY be reused several times by the Client to generate new PoP evidence, e.g., in case the Client provides the KDC with a new authentication credential while being a group member (see Section 4.9.1.1) or joins a different group where it intends to use a different authentication credential. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the KDC keeps storing the 'kdcchallenge' value after the first join is processed as well. If, upon receiving a Join Request from a Client, the KDC has already discarded the 'kdcchallenge' value, that will trigger an error response with a newly generated 'kdcchallenge' value that the Client can use to restart the join process, as specified in Section 4.3.1.1.¶
If 'sign_info' is included in the Token Transfer Request, the KDC SHOULD include the 'sign_info' parameter in the Token Transfer Response, as per the format defined in Section 3.3.1. Note that the field 'id' of each 'sign
Note that the CBOR map specified as payload of the 2.01 (Created) response may include further parameters, e.g., according to the used transport profile of ACE. Application profiles of this specification MAY define additional parameters to use within this exchange (OPT2).¶
Application profiles of this specification MAY define alternative specific negotiations of parameter values for the signature algorithm and signature keys if 'sign_info' is not used (OPT3).¶
If allowed by the used transport profile of ACE, the Client may provide the access token to the KDC by other means than the Token Transfer Request. An example is the DTLS transport profile of ACE, where the Client can provide the access token to the KDC during the secure session establishment (see Section 3.3.2 of [RFC9202]).¶
3.3.1. 'sign_info' Parameter
The 'sign_info' parameter is an OPTIONAL parameter of the request and response messages exchanged between the Client and the /authz-info endpoint at the RS (see Section 5.10.1 of [RFC9200]).¶
This parameter allows the Client and the RS to exchange information about a signature algorithm and about authentication credentials to accordingly use for signature verification. Its exact semantics and content are application specific.¶
In this specification and in application profiles building on it, this parameter is used to exchange information about the signature algorithm and about authentication credentials to be used with it in the groups indicated by the transferred access token as per its 'scope' claim (see Section 3.2).¶
When used in the Token Transfer Request sent to the KDC (see Section 3.3), the 'sign_info' parameter specifies the CBOR simple value null (0xf6). This is done to ask for information about the signature algorithm and about the authentication credentials used in the groups that, as per the granted roles, the Client has been authorized to join or interact with (e.g., as an external signature verifier).¶
When used in the following Token Transfer Response from the KDC (see Section 3.3), the 'sign_info' parameter is a CBOR array of one or more elements. The number of elements is at most the number of groups that the Client has been authorized to join or interact with. Each element contains information about signing parameters and about authentication credentials for one or more groups and is formatted as follows.¶
The CDDL notation [RFC8610] of the 'sign_info' parameter is given below.¶
This format is consistent with every signature algorithm currently defined in [RFC9053], i.e., with algorithms that have only the COSE key type as their COSE capability. Appendix B describes how the format of each 'sign
3.3.2. 'kdcchallenge' Parameter
The 'kdcchallenge' parameter is an OPTIONAL parameter of the response message returned from the /authz-info endpoint at the RS, as defined in Section 5.10.1 of [RFC9200]. This parameter contains a challenge generated by the RS and provided to the Client.¶
In this specification and in application profiles building on it, the Client can use this challenge to prove possession of its own private key in the Join Request (see the 'client
4. KDC Functionalities
This section describes the functionalities provided by the KDC, as related to the provisioning of the keying material as well as to the group membership management.¶
In particular, this section defines the interface available at the KDC, specifies the handlers of each resource provided by the KDC interface, and describes how Clients interact with those resources to join a group and to perform additional operations as group members.¶
A key operation that the Client can perform after transferring the access token to the KDC is a Join Request
Later on as a group member, the Client can also rely on the interface at the KDC to perform additional operations consistent with the roles it has in the group.¶
4.1. Interface at the KDC
The KDC provides its interface by hosting the following resources. Note that the root url-path "ace-group" used hereafter is a default name; implementations are not required to use this name and can define their own instead.¶
If request messages sent to the KDC as well as success response messages from the KDC include a payload and specify a Content-Format, those messages MUST have Content-Format "application
The KDC is expected to fully provide the interface defined above. It is otherwise REQUIRED for the application profiles of this specification to indicate which resources are not hosted, i.e., which parts of the interface defined in this section are not supported by the KDC (REQ9). Application profiles of this specification MAY extend the KDC interface by defining additional handlers, as well as defining additional resources and their handlers.¶
It is REQUIRED for application profiles of this specification to register a Resource Type for the group
It is REQUIRED for application profiles of this specification to define what specific actions (e.g., CoAP methods) are allowed on each resource provided by the KDC interface, depending on whether the Client is a current group member, the roles that a Client is authorized to take as per the obtained access token (see Section 3.1), and the roles that the Client has as current group member (REQ11).¶
4.1.1. Operations Supported by Clients
It is expected that a Client minimally supports the following set of primary operations and corresponding interactions with the KDC.¶
In addition, some Clients may rather not support the following set of secondary operations and corresponding interactions with the KDC. This can be specified, for instance, in compliance documents defining minimalistic Clients and their capabilities in specific deployments. In turn, these might also have to consider the used application profile of this specification.¶
It is REQUIRED for application profiles of this specification to categorize possible newly defined operations for Clients into primary and secondary operations and to provide accompanying considerations (REQ12).¶
4.1.2. Error Handling
Upon receiving a request from a Client, the KDC MUST check that it is storing a valid access token from that Client. If this is not the case, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.01 (Unauthorized) error response.¶
Unless the request targets the /ace-group resource, the KDC MUST check that it is storing a valid access token for that Client such that:¶
In case the KDC stores a valid access token but the verifications above fail, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.03 (Forbidden) error response. This response MAY be an AS Request Creation Hints, as defined in Section 5.3 of [RFC9200], in which case the Content-Format MUST be "application
If the request is not formatted correctly (e.g., required fields are not present or are not encoded as expected), the KDC MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response.¶
If the request includes unknown or unexpected fields, the KDC MUST silently ignore them and continue processing the request. Application profiles of this specification MAY define optional or mandatory payload formats for specific error cases (OPT4).¶
Some error responses from the KDC can convey error-specific information according to the problem-details format defined in [RFC9290]. Such error responses MUST have Content-Format "application
An example of an error response using the problem-details format is shown in Figure 6.¶
The problem-details format (in general) and the Custom Problem Detail entry 'ace
Section 9 of this specification defines an initial set of error identifiers as possible values for the 'error-id' field. Application profiles of this specification inherit this initial set of error identifiers and MAY define additional values (OPT5).¶
4.2. /ace-group
This resource implements the FETCH handler.¶
4.2.1. FETCH Handler
The FETCH handler receives group identifiers and returns the corresponding group names and GROUPNAME URIs.¶
The handler expects a request with the payload formatted as a CBOR map, which MUST contain the following fields:¶
The handler identifies the groups where communications are secured by using the keying material identified by those group identifiers.¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler replies with a 2.05 (Content) response, whose payload is formatted as a CBOR map that MUST contain the following fields:¶
If the KDC does not find any group associated with the specified group identifiers, the handler returns a response with the payload formatted as a CBOR byte string of zero length (0x40).¶
Note that the KDC only verifies that the node is authorized by the AS to access this resource. Nodes that are not members of the group but are authorized to do signature verification on the group messages may be allowed to access this resource if the application needs it.¶
4.2.1.1. Retrieve Group Names
In case the joining node only knows the group identifier of the group it wishes to join or about which it wishes to get updated information from the KDC, the node can contact the KDC to request the corresponding group name and group
Figure 7 gives an overview of the exchanges described above, and Figure 8 shows an example.¶
4.3. /ace-group/GROUPNAME
This resource implements the POST and GET handlers.¶
4.3.1. POST Handler
The POST handler processes the Join Request sent by a Client to join a group and returns a Join Response as a successful result of the joining process (see Section 4.3.1.1). At a high level, the POST handler adds the Client to the list of current group members, adds the authentication credential of the Client to the list of the group members' authentication credentials, and returns the symmetric group keying material for the group identified by GROUPNAME.¶
The handler expects a request with payload formatted as a CBOR map, which MAY contain the following fields, which, if included, MUST have the format and value as specified below.¶
If the request does not include the 'scope' parameter, the KDC is expected to understand what roles the Client is requesting to join the group with. For example, as per the access token, the Client might have been granted access to the group with only one role. If the KDC cannot determine which exact roles should be considered for the Client, it MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response.¶
The handler considers the scope specified in the access token associated with the Client and checks the scope entry related to the group identified by the GROUPNAME associated with the endpoint. In particular, the handler checks whether the set of roles specified in that scope entry includes all the roles that the Client wishes to have in the group as per the Join Request. If this is not the case, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.03 (Forbidden) error response.¶
If the KDC manages the group members' authentication credentials, the handler checks if one is included in the 'client_cred' parameter. If so, the KDC retrieves the authentication credential and performs the following actions.¶
If no authentication credential is conveyed in the 'client_cred' parameter, the handler checks if the KDC currently stores an authentication credential that is associated with the access token and with the group identified by GROUPNAME (see also Section 4.3.1.1). Note that the same joining node may use different authentication credentials in different groups, and all those authentication credentials would be associated with the same access token.¶
If an eligible authentication credential for the Client is neither present in the 'client_cred' parameter nor retrieved from the stored ones at the KDC, it is RECOMMENDED that the handler stops the processing and replies with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response. Application profiles MAY define alternatives (OPT8).¶
If, regardless of the reason, the KDC replies with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response, the payload of the response MAY be a CBOR map. For instance, the CBOR map can include a 'sign_info' parameter formatted as 'signnull (0xf6) if the Client sent its own authentication credential and the KDC is not set to store authentication credentials of the group members. When the response payload is a CBOR map including such parameters, the error response has Content-Format "application
If all the verifications above succeed, the KDC proceeds as follows.¶
First, only in case the Client is not already a group member, the handler performs the following actions:¶
Then, the handler performs the following actions.¶
The Join Response MUST have response code 2.01 (Created) if the Client has been added to the list of group members in this join exchange (see above) or 2.04 (Changed) otherwise, i.e., if the Client is rejoining the group without having left it.¶
The Join Response message MUST include the Location-Path CoAP Options, specifying the path to the sub-resource associated with the Client, i.e.,
The Join Response message MUST have Content-Format "application
The format of the keying material conveyed in the 'key' parameter MUST be defined in application profiles of this specification (REQ17), together with corresponding key types to specify as value of the 'gkty' parameter and that are accepted by the application (REQ18). Additionally, documents specifying a type of keying material MUST register an entry in the "ACE Groupcomm Key Types" registry defined in Section 11.8, including its name, the corresponding key type to specify as value for the 'gkty' parameter, and the application profile to be used with.¶
The Join Response SHOULD contain the following fields with the values specified below:¶
If a Client has a reliable way to synchronize its internal clock with UTC, and both the 'exp' and 'exi' parameters are present, then the Client MUST use the 'exp' parameter value as expiration time for the group keying material. Otherwise, the Client uses the 'exi' parameter value to determine the expiration time as defined above.¶
When a Client relies on the 'exi' parameter, the expiration time that it computes is offset in the future with respect to the actual expiration time as intended by the KDC and specified in the 'exp' parameter (if present). Such an offset is the amount of time between when the KDC sends the response message including the 'exi' parameter and when the Client receives that message. That is, especially if the delivery of the response to the Client is delayed, the Client will believe the keying material to be valid for a longer time than the KDC actually means. However, before approaching the actual expiration time, the KDC is expected to rekey the group and distribute new keying material (see Section 6).¶
Optionally, the Join Response MAY contain the following parameters, which, if included, MUST have the format and value as specified below.¶
After sending the Join Response, if the KDC has an associated authentication credential as required for the correct group operation, then the KDC MUST store the N_C value specified in the 'cnonce' parameter of the Join Request as a 'clientchalleng
If the Join Response includes the 'kdc
Application profiles of this specification MUST specify the communication protocol that members of the group use to communicate with each other (REQ22) and the security protocol that they use to protect the group communication (REQ23).¶
4.3.1.1. Join the Group
Figure 12 gives an overview of the join exchange between the Client and the KDC when the Client first joins a group, while Figure 13 shows an example.¶
If not previously established, the Client and the KDC MUST first establish a pairwise secure communication association (REQ24). This can be achieved, for instance, by using a transport profile of ACE. The join exchange MUST occur over that secure communication association. The Client and the KDC MAY use that same secure communication association to protect further pairwise communications that must be protected.¶
It is REQUIRED that the secure communication association between the Client and the KDC is established by using the proof
To join the group, the Client sends a CoAP POST request to the
If the node is joining a group for the first time and the KDC maintains the authentication credentials of the group members, the Client is REQUIRED to send its own authentication credential and proof
If a node rejoins a group as authorized by the same access token and using the same authentication credential, it can omit the authentication credential and the PoP evidence, or just the PoP evidence, from the Join Request. Then, the KDC will be able to retrieve the node's authentication credential associated with the access token for that group. If the authentication credential has been discarded, the KDC replies with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response, as specified in Section 4.3.1. If a node rejoins a group but wants to update its own authentication credential, it needs to include both its authentication credential and the PoP evidence in the Join Request, like when it joined the group for the first time.¶
4.3.2. GET Handler
The GET handler returns the symmetric group keying material for the group identified by GROUPNAME.¶
The handler expects a GET request.¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2, the handler verifies that the Client is a current member of the group. If the verification fails, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.03 (Forbidden) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format "application
If all verifications succeed, the handler replies with a 2.05 (Content) response containing the symmetric group keying material. The payload of the response is formatted as a CBOR map that MUST contain the parameters 'gkty', 'key', and 'num', as specified in Section 4.3.1.¶
The payload MUST also include the parameters 'rekeying
The payload MAY also include the parameters 'ace
4.3.2.1. Retrieve Group Keying Material
A node in the group can contact the KDC to retrieve the current group keying material by sending a CoAP GET request to the
Figure 14 gives an overview of the key distribution exchange between the Client and the KDC, while Figure 15 shows an example.¶
4.4. /ace-group/GROUPNAME/creds
This resource implements the GET and FETCH handlers.¶
4.4.1. FETCH Handler
The FETCH handler receives identifiers of group members for the group identified by GROUPNAME and returns the authentication credentials of such group members.¶
The handler expects a request with the payload formatted as a CBOR map, which MUST contain the following field.¶
Note that, in case the 'role_filter' array and the 'id_filter' array are both non-empty:¶
The specific format of authentication credentials as well as the identifiers, roles, and combination of roles of group members MUST be specified by application profiles of this specification (REQ1, REQ6, REQ25).¶
The handler identifies the authentication credentials of the current group members for which either of the following holds:¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler returns a 2.05 (Content) message response with the payload formatted as a CBOR map, containing only the following parameters from Section 4.3.1.¶
The specific format of authentication credentials as well as of node identifiers of group members is specified by the application profile (REQ6, REQ25).¶
If the KDC does not store any authentication credential associated with the specified node identifiers, the handler returns a response with the payload formatted as a CBOR byte string of zero length (0x40).¶
The handler MAY enforce one of the following policies in order to handle possible node identifiers that are included in the 'id_filter' element of the 'get_creds' parameter of the request but are not associated with any current group member. Such a policy MUST be specified by application profiles of this specification (REQ26).¶
Note that this resource handler only verifies that the node is authorized by the AS to access this resource. Nodes that are not members of the group but are authorized to do signature verifications on the group messages may be allowed to access this resource if the application needs it.¶
4.4.1.1. Retrieve a Subset of Authentication Credentials in the Group
In case the KDC maintains the authentication credentials of group members, a node in the group can contact the KDC to request the authentication credentials, roles, and node identifiers of a specified subset of group members by sending a CoAP FETCH request to the
Figure 16 gives an overview of the exchange mentioned above, while Figure 17 shows an example of such an exchange.¶
4.4.2. GET Handler
The handler expects a GET request.¶
If all verifications succeed, the KDC replies with a 2.05 (Content) response as in the FETCH handler in Section 4.4.1, but its payload specifies the authentication credentials of all the group members, together with their roles and node identifiers.¶
The 'peer_roles' parameter SHOULD be present in the payload of the response, and it MAY be omitted according to the same criteria defined for the Join Response (see Section 4.3.1).¶
4.4.2.1. Retrieve All Authentication Credentials in the Group
In case the KDC maintains the authentication credentials of group members, a node in the group or an external signature verifier can contact the KDC to request the authentication credentials, roles, and node identifiers of all the current group members, by sending a CoAP GET request to the
Figure 18 gives an overview of the message exchange, while Figure 19 shows an example of such an exchange.¶
4.5. /ace-group/GROUPNAME/kdc-cred
This resource implements a GET handler.¶
4.5.1. GET Handler
The handler expects a GET request.¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler returns a 2.05 (Content) message containing the KDC's authentication credential together with the proof
4.5.1.1. Retrieve the KDC's Authentication Credential
In case the KDC has an associated authentication credential as required for the correct group operation, a group member or an external signature verifier can contact the KDC to request the KDC's authentication credential by sending a CoAP GET request to the
Upon receiving the 2.05 (Content) response, the Client retrieves the KDC's authentication credential from the 'kdc_cred' parameter and MUST verify the proof
The PoP evidence is verified by means of the same method used when processing the Join Response (see Section 4.3.1). Application profiles of this specification MUST specify the exact approaches used by the Client to verify the PoP evidence in 'kdc
Figure 21 gives an overview of the exchange described above, while Figure 22 shows an example.¶
4.6. /ace-group/GROUPNAME/policies
This resource implements the GET handler.¶
4.6.1. GET Handler
The handler expects a GET request.¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2, the handler verifies that the Client is a current member of the group. If the verification fails, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.03 (Forbidden) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format "application
If all verifications succeed, the handler replies with a 2.05 (Content) response containing the list of policies for the group identified by GROUPNAME. The payload of the response is formatted as a CBOR map including only the 'group
The specific format and meaning of group policies MUST be specified in application profiles of this specification (REQ20).¶
4.6.1.1. Retrieve the Group Policies
A node in the group can contact the KDC to retrieve the current group policies by sending a CoAP GET request to the
Figure 23 gives an overview of the exchange described above, while Figure 24 shows an example.¶
4.8. /ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME
This resource implements the GET, POST, and DELETE handlers.¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2, each of the handlers performs the following two verifications.¶
4.8.1. GET Handler
The handler expects a GET request.¶
If all verifications succeed, the handler replies with a 2.05 (Content) response containing both the group keying material and the individual keying material for the Client or information enabling the Client to derive it.¶
The payload of the response is formatted as a CBOR map, which includes the same fields of the response defined in Section 4.3.2. In particular, the format for the group keying material is the same as defined in the response of Section 4.3.2. If the 'exp' parameter is included, the 'exi' parameter MUST also be included. If the parameter 'exi' is included, its value specifies the residual lifetime of the group keying material from the current time at the KDC.¶
The CBOR map can include additional parameters that specify the individual keying material for the Client. The specific format of individual keying material for group members or of the information to derive such keying material MUST be defined in application profiles of this specification (REQ27), together with the corresponding CBOR map key that has to be registered in the "ACE Groupcomm Parameters" registry defined in Section 11.7.¶
Optionally, the KDC can make the sub-resource at
Note that the node could have also been observing the resource at
In order to mitigate this, a node that supports the CoAP No-Response Option [RFC7967] can use it when starting the observation of the sub-resource at
4.8.1.1. Retrieve Group and Individual Keying Material
When any of the following happens, a node MUST stop using the stored group keying material to protect outgoing messages and SHOULD stop using it to decrypt and verify incoming messages.¶
In either case, if it wants to continue participating in the group communication, the Client has to request the latest keying material from the KDC. To this end, the Client sends a CoAP GET request to the
Note that policies can be set up so that the Client sends a Key Distribution Request to the KDC only after a given number of received messages could not be decrypted (because of failed decryption processing or the inability to retrieve the necessary keying material).¶
It is application dependent and pertaining to the used secure message exchange (e.g., [GROUP-OSCORE]) to set up these policies for instructing Clients to retain incoming messages and for how long (OPT11). This allows Clients to possibly decrypt such messages after getting updated keying material, rather than just consider them invalid messages to discard right away.¶
After having failed to decrypt messages from another group member and having sent a Key Distribution Request to the KDC, the Client might end up retrieving the same, latest group keying material that it already stores. In such a case, multiple failed decryptions might be due to the message sender and/or the KDC that have changed their authentication credential. Hence, the Client can retrieve such latest authentication credentials by sending to the KDC an Authentication Credential Request (see Sections 4.4.1.1 and 4.4.2.1) and a KDC Authentication Credential Request (see Section 4.5.1.1), respectively.¶
The Client can also send to the KDC a Key Distribution Request without having been triggered by a failed decryption of a message from another group member, if the Client wants to be sure that it currently stores the latest group keying material. If that is the case, the Client will receive from the KDC the same group keying material it already stores.¶
Figure 27 gives an overview of the exchange described above, while Figure 28 shows an example.¶
4.8.2. POST Handler
The POST handler processes requests from a Client that asks for new individual keying material, as required to process messages exchanged in the group.¶
The handler expects a POST request with an empty payload.¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2 and at the beginning of Section 4.8, the handler verifies that this operation is consistent with the set of roles that the Client has in the group (REQ11). If the verification fails, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format "application
If the KDC is currently not able to serve this request, i.e., to generate new individual keying material for the requesting Client, the KDC MUST reply with a 5.03 (Service unavailable) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format "application
If all verifications succeed, the handler replies with a 2.04 (Changed) response containing newly generated individual keying material for the Client. The payload of the response is formatted as a CBOR map. The specific format of newly generated individual keying material for group members or of the information to derive such keying material MUST be defined in application profiles of this specification (REQ27), together with the corresponding CBOR map key that has to be registered in the "ACE Groupcomm Parameters" registry defined in Section 11.7.¶
The typical successful outcome consists in replying with newly generated individual keying material for the Client, as defined above. However, application profiles of this specification MAY also extend this handler in order to achieve different akin outcomes (OPT12), for instance:¶
In either case, the handler may specify the new group keying material as part of the 2.04 (Changed) response.¶
Note that this handler is not intended to accommodate requests from a group member to trigger a group rekeying, whose scheduling and execution is an exclusive prerogative of the KDC (also see related security considerations in Section 10.2).¶
4.8.2.1. Request to Change Individual Keying Material
A Client may ask the KDC for new individual keying material. For instance, this can be due to the expiration of such individual keying material or to the exhaustion of Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) nonces if an AEAD encryption algorithm is used for protecting communications in the group. An example of individual keying material can simply be an individual encryption key associated with the Client. Hence, the Client may ask for a new individual encryption key or for new input material to derive it.¶
To this end, the Client performs a Key Renewal Request
Figure 29 gives an overview of the exchange described above, while Figure 30 shows an example.¶
Note that there is a difference between the Key Renewal Request in this section and the Key Distribution Request in Section 4.8.1.1. The former asks the KDC for new individual keying material, while the latter asks the KDC for the current group keying material together with the current individual keying material.¶
As discussed in Section 4.8.2, application profiles of this specification may define alternative outcomes for the Key Renewal Request
4.8.3. DELETE Handler
The DELETE handler removes the node identified by NODENAME from the group identified by GROUPNAME.¶
The handler expects a DELETE request with an empty payload.¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2, the handler verifies that the Client is a current member of the group. If the verification fails, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.03 (Forbidden) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format "application
If all verification succeeds, the handler performs the actions defined in Section 5 and replies with a 2.02 (Deleted) response with an empty payload.¶
4.8.3.1. Leave the Group
A Client can actively request to leave the group. In this case, the Client sends a CoAP DELETE request to the endpoint
Note that, after having left the group, the Client may wish to join it again. Then, as long as the Client is still authorized to join the group, i.e., the associated access token is still valid, the Client can request to rejoin the group directly to the KDC (see Section 4.3.1.1) without having to retrieve a new access token from the AS.¶
4.9. /ace-group/GROUPNAME/nodes/NODENAME/cred
This resource implements the POST handler.¶
4.9.1. POST Handler
The POST handler is used to replace the stored authentication credential of this Client (identified by NODENAME) with the one specified in the request at the KDC for the group identified by GROUPNAME.¶
The handler expects a POST request with the payload as specified in Section 4.3.1, with the difference that the payload includes only the parameters 'client_cred', 'cnonce', and 'client
The PoP evidence included in the 'client
An example of PoP input to compute 'client
It is REQUIRED for application profiles to define the specific formats of authentication credentials that are acceptable to use in the group (REQ6).¶
In addition to what is defined in Section 4.1.2 and at the beginning of Section 4.8, the handler verifies that this operation is consistent with the set of roles that the node has in the group. If the verification fails, the KDC MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format "application
If the KDC cannot retrieve the 'kdcchallenge' associated with this Client (see Section 3.3), the KDC MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response, which MUST also have Content-Format "application
Otherwise, the handler checks that the authentication credential specified in the 'client_cred' field is valid for the group identified by GROUPNAME. That is, the handler checks that the authentication credential is encoded according to the format used in the group, is intended for the public key algorithm used in the group, and is aligned with the possible associated parameters used in the group. If that cannot be successfully verified, the handler MUST reply with a 4.00 (Bad Request) error response. The response MUST have Content-Format "application
Otherwise, the handler verifies the PoP evidence conveyed in the 'client
If all verifications succeed, the handler performs the following actions.¶
Then, the handler replies with a 2.04 (Changed) response, which does not include a payload.¶
4.9.1.1. Uploading an Authentication Credential
In case the KDC maintains the authentication credentials of group members, a node in the group can contact the KDC to upload a new authentication credential to use in the group and to replace the currently stored one.¶
To this end, the Client performs an Authentication Credential Update Request
The request is formatted as specified in Section 4.9.1.¶
Figure 32 gives an overview of the exchange described above, while Figure 33 shows an example.¶
Additionally, after updating its own authentication credential, a group member MAY send to the group a number of requests, including an identifier of the updated authentication credential, to notify other group members that they have to retrieve it. How this is done depends on the group communication protocol used and therefore is application profile specific (OPT13).¶
5. Removal of a Group Member
A Client identified by NODENAME may be removed from a group identified by GROUPNAME where it is a member, for example, due to the following reasons.¶
In all cases, the KDC performs the following actions.¶
6. Group Rekeying Process
A group rekeying is started and driven by the KDC. The KDC is not intended to accommodate explicit requests from group members to trigger a group rekeying. That is, the scheduling and execution of a group rekeying is an exclusive prerogative of the KDC. Some reasons that can trigger a group rekeying include a change in the group membership, the current group keying material approaching its expiration time, or a regularly scheduled update of the group keying material.¶
The KDC can perform a group rekeying before the current group keying material expires, unless it is acceptable or there are reasons to temporarily pause secure communications in the group, following the expiration of the current keying material. For example, a pause in the group communication might have been scheduled to start anyway when the group keying material expires, e.g., to allow maintenance operations on the group members. As another example, the KDC might be carrying out a verification that some group members are seemingly compromised and to be evicted, and this needs to be completed in order to appropriately define and schedule the exact rekeying process to perform. As a result, the KDC could delay the execution of the group rekeying.¶
The KDC MUST increment the version number NUM of the current keying material before distributing the newly generated keying material with version number NUM+1 to the group. Once the group rekeying is completed, the KDC MUST delete the old keying material and SHOULD store the newly distributed keying material in persistent storage.¶
Distributing the new group keying material requires the KDC to send multiple rekeying messages to the group members. Depending on the rekeying scheme used in the group and the reason that has triggered the rekeying process, each rekeying message can be intended for one or multiple group members, hereafter referred to as target group members. The KDC MUST support at least the "Point
Each rekeying message MUST have Content-Format "application
A rekeying message may include additional information, depending on the rekeying scheme used in the group, the reason that has triggered the rekeying process, and the specific target group members. In particular, if the group rekeying is performed due to one or multiple Clients that have joined the group and the KDC acts as a repository of authentication credentials of the group members, then a rekeying message MAY also include the authentication credentials that those Clients use in the group, together with the roles and node identifier that each of such Clients has in the group. It is RECOMMENDED to specify this information by means of the parameters 'creds', 'peer_roles', and 'peer
The complete format of a rekeying message, including the encoding and content of the 'mgt
Consistently with the used group rekeying scheme, the actual delivery of rekeying messages can occur through different approaches, as discussed in Sections 6.1 and 6.2.¶
The possible, temporary misalignment of the keying material stored by the different group members due to a group rekeying is discussed in Section 6.3. Further security considerations related to the group rekeying process are compiled in Section 10.2.¶
6.1. Point-to-Point Group Rekeying
A point-to-point group rekeying consists in the KDC sending one individual rekeying message to each target group member. In particular, the rekeying message is protected by means of the secure communication association between the KDC and the target group member in question, as per the used application profile of this specification and the used transport profile of ACE.¶
This is the approach taken by the basic "Point
When taking this approach in the group identified by GROUPNAME, the KDC can practically deliver the rekeying messages to the target group members in different, coexisting ways.¶
If the KDC has to send a rekeying message to a target group member, but this did not include the 'control_uri' parameter in the Join Request and is not a registered observer for the
Figure 34 provides an example of point-to-point group rekeying. In particular, the example makes the following assumptions:¶
In the example, the KDC individually rekeys the group members intended to remain in the group (i.e., C1, C2, and C4) by means of one rekeying message each.¶
6.2. One-to-Many Group Rekeying
This section provides high-level recommendations on how the KDC can rekey a group by means of a more efficient and scalable group rekeying scheme, e.g., [RFC2093], [RFC2094], and [RFC2627]. That is, each rekeying message might be, and likely is, intended for multiple target group members, and thus can be delivered to the whole group, although possible to decrypt only for the actual target group members.¶
This yields an overall lower number of rekeying messages, thus potentially reducing the overall time required to rekey the group. On the other hand, it requires the KDC to provide and use additional administrative keying material to protect the rekeying messages and to additionally sign them to ensure source authentication (see Section 6.2.1).¶
Compared to a group rekeying performed in a point-to-point fashion (see Section 6.1), a one-to-many group rekeying typically pays off in large-scale groups due to the reduced time for completing the rekeying, a more efficient utilization of network resources, and a reduced performance overhead at the KDC. To different extents, it also requires individual group members to locally perform additional operations in order to handle the administrative keying material and verify source authentication of rekeying messages. Therefore, one-to-many group rekeying schemes and their employment ought to ensure that the experienced performance overhead on the group members also remains bearable for resource
The exact set of rekeying messages to send, their content and format, the administrative keying material to use to protect them, as well as the set of target group members depend on the specific group rekeying scheme and are typically affected by the reason that has triggered the group rekeying. Details about the data content and format of rekeying messages have to be defined by separate documents profiling the use of the group rekeying scheme in the context of the used application profile of this specification.¶
When one of these group rekeying schemes is used, the KDC provides related information to a Client joining the group in the Join Response message (see Section 4.3.1). In particular, the 'rekeying
Rekeying messages can be protected at the application layer by using COSE [RFC9052] and the administrative keying material as prescribed by the specific group rekeying scheme (see Section 6.2.1). After that, the delivery of protected rekeying messages to the intended target group members can occur in different ways, such as the following ones.¶
- Over multicast -
-
In this case, the KDC simply sends a rekeying message as a CoAP request addressed to the URI specified in the 'control
_group _uri' parameter of the Join Response (see Section 4.3.1).¶ If a particular rekeying message is intended for a single target group member, the KDC may alternatively protect the message using the secure communication association with that group member and deliver the message like when using the "Point
-to -Point" group rekeying scheme (see Section 6.1).¶ - Through a pub-sub communication model -
-
In this case, the KDC acts as a publisher and publishes each rekeying message to a specific "rekeying topic", which is associated with the group and is hosted at a Broker server. Following their group joining, the group members subscribe to the rekeying topic at the Broker, thus receiving the group rekeying messages as they are published by the KDC.¶
In order to make such message delivery more efficient, the rekeying topic associated with a group can be further organized into subtopics. For instance, the KDC can use a particular subtopic to address a particular set of target group members during the rekeying process as possibly aligned to a similar organization of the administrative keying material (e.g., a key hierarchy).¶
The setup of rekeying topics at the Broker as well as the discovery of the topics at the Broker for group members are application specific. A possible way is for the KDC to provide such information in the Join Response message (see Section 4.3.1) by means of a new parameter analogous to 'control
_group _uri' and specifying the URI(s) of the rekeying topic(s) that a group member has to subscribe to at the Broker.¶
Regardless of the specifically used delivery method, the group rekeying scheme can perform a possible rollover of the administrative keying material through the same sent rekeying messages. Actually, such a rollover occurs every time a group rekeying is performed upon the leaving of group members, which have to be excluded from future communications in the group.¶
From a high-level point of view, each group member stores only a subset of the overall administrative keying material, which is obtained upon joining the group. Then, when a group rekeying occurs:¶
Further details depend on the specific rekeying scheme used in the group.¶
Figure 35 provides an example of a one-to-many group rekeying over multicast. In particular, the example makes the following assumptions:¶
In the example, the KDC determines that the most convenient way to perform a group rekeying that evicts C3 is as follows.¶
First, the KDC sends one rekeying message over multicast to the multicast address MULT_ADDR and the url-path "grp-mrek". In the figure, the message is denoted with solid arrows. The message is protected with a non-compromised key from the administrative keying material that only C1 and C2 store. Therefore, even though all the group members receive this message, only C1 and C2 are able to decrypt it. The message includes: the new group keying material with version number num=6 and new keys from the administrative keying material to replace those stored by the group members C1, C2, and C3.¶
After that, the KDC sends one rekeying message addressed individually to C4 and with url-path "grp-rek". In the figure, the message is denoted with a dotted arrow. The message is protected with the secure association shared between C4 and the KDC. The message includes: the new group keying material with version number num=6 and new keys from the administrative keying material to replace those stored by both C4 and C3.¶
6.2.1. Protection of Rekeying Messages
When using a group rekeying scheme relying on one-to-many rekeying messages, the actual data content of each rekeying message is prepared according to what the rekeying scheme prescribes.¶
The following describes one possible method for the KDC to protect the rekeying messages when using the administrative keying material.¶
The method assumes that the following holds for the administrative keying material specified in the 'mgt
First, the KDC computes a COSE_Encrypt0 object as follows.¶
In order to ensure source authentication, each rekeying message protected with the administrative keying material MUST be signed by the KDC. To this end, the KDC computes a countersignatur
If the source authentication of messages exchanged in the group is also ensured by means of signatures, then rekeying messages MUST be signed using the same signature algorithm and related parameters. Also, the KDC's authentication credential including the public key to use for signature verification MUST be provided in the Join Response through the 'kdc_cred' parameter, together with the corresponding proof
If source authentication of messages exchanged in the group is not ensured by means of signatures, then the administrative keying material conveyed in the 'mgt
After that, the KDC specifies the computed countersignatur
Finally, the KDC specifies the COSE_Encrypt0 object as payload of a CoAP request, which is sent to the target group members as per the used message delivery method.¶
6.3. Misalignment of Group Keying Material
A group member can receive a message shortly after the group has been rekeyed and new keying material has been distributed by the KDC. In the following two cases, this may result in misaligned keying material between the group members.¶
In the first case, the sender protects a message using the old group keying material. However, the recipient receives the message after having received the new group keying material, hence it is not able to correctly process the message. A possible way to limit the impact of this issue is to preserve the old, retained group keying material for a maximum amount of time defined by the application, during which such group keying material is used solely for processing incoming messages. By doing so, the recipient can still temporarily process received messages also by using the old, retained group keying material. Note that a former (compromised) group member can take advantage of this by sending messages protected with the old, retained group keying material. Therefore, a conservative application policy should not admit the storage of old group keying material. Eventually, the sender will have obtained the new group keying material too and can possibly resend the message protected with such keying material.¶
In the second case, the sender protects a message using the new group keying material, but the recipient receives that message before having received the new group keying material. Therefore, the recipient will not be able to correctly process the message and hence will discard it. If the recipient receives the new group keying material shortly after that and the application at the sender endpoint performs retransmissions
7. Extended Scope Format
This section defines an extended format of binary-encoded scope, which additionally specifies the semantics used to express the same access control information from the corresponding original scope.¶
As also discussed in Section 3.2, this enables a Resource Server to unambiguously process a received access token, also in case the Resource Server runs multiple applications or application profiles that involve different scope semantics.¶
The extended format is intended only for the 'scope' claim of access tokens for the cases where the claim takes a CBOR byte string as the value. That is, the extended format does not apply to the 'scope' parameter included in ACE messages, i.e., the Authorization Request and Authorization Response exchanged between the Client and the Authorization Server (see Sections 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 of [RFC9200]), the AS Request Creation Hints message from the Resource Server (see Section 5.3 of [RFC9200]), and the Introspection Response from the Authorization Server (see Section 5.9.2 of [RFC9200]).¶
The value of the 'scope' claim following the extended format is composed as follows. Given the original scope using semantics SEM and encoded as a CBOR byte string, the corresponding extended scope consists of the same CBOR byte string enclosed by a CBOR tag [RFC8949], whose tag number identifies the semantics SEM.¶
The resulting tagged CBOR byte string is used as the value of the 'scope' claim of the access token.¶
Figures 36 and 37 build on the examples in Section 3.1 and show the corresponding extended scopes.¶
The usage of the extended scope format is not limited to application profiles of this specification or to applications based on group communication. Rather, it is generally applicable to any application and application profile where access control information in the access token is expressed as a binary-encoded scope.¶
Applications and application profiles using the extended format of scope have to specify which CBOR tag from [CBOR.Tags] is used for identifying the scope semantics or to register a new CBOR tag if a suitable one does not exist already (REQ28). In case there is an already existing, suitable CBOR tag, a new CBOR tag should not be registered in order to avoid code point squatting.¶
If the binary-encoded scope uses semantics associated with a registered CoAP Content-Format [RFC7252] [Co
This is especially relevant when the binary encoded scope uses AIF. That is, it is expected that the definition of an AIF-specific data model comes together with the registration of CoAP Content-Formats for the relevant combinations of its Toid and Tperm values. As discussed above, this yields the automatic registration of the CBOR tags associated with those CoAP Content
8. ACE Groupcomm Parameters
This specification defines a number of parameters used during the second phase of the key provisioning process, i.e., after the exchange after the exchange of Token Transfer Request and Response. The table below summarizes them and specifies the CBOR map keys to use instead of the full descriptive names.¶
Note that the media type "application
The KDC is expected to support all the parameters above. Instead, a Client can support only a subset of such parameters, depending on the roles it expects to take in the joined groups or on other conditions defined in application profiles of this specification.¶
In the following, the parameters are categorized according to the support expected by Clients. That is, a Client that supports a parameter is able to: i) use and specify it in a request message to the KDC; and ii) understand and process it if specified in a response message from the KDC. It is REQUIRED of application profiles of this specification to sort their newly defined parameters according to the same categorization (REQ29).¶
Note that the actual use of a parameter and its inclusion in a message depends on the specific exchange, the specific Client and group involved, as well as what is defined in the used application profile of this specification.¶
A Client MUST support the following parameters.¶
A Client SHOULD support the following parameter.¶
The following conditional parameters are relevant only if specific conditions hold. It is REQUIRED of application profiles of this specification to define whether Clients must, should, or may support these parameters and under which circumstances (REQ30).¶
9. ACE Groupcomm Error Identifiers
This specification defines a number of values that the KDC can use as error identifiers. These are used in error responses with Content-Format "application
If a Client supports the problem-details format [RFC9290] and the Custom Problem Detail entry 'ace
In particular, the following guidelines apply, and application profiles of this specification can define more detailed actions for the Client to take when learning that a specific error has occurred.¶
10. Security Considerations
Security considerations are inherited from the ACE framework [RFC9200] and from the specific transport profile of ACE used between the Clients and the KDC, e.g., [RFC9202] and [RFC9203].¶
When using the problem-details format defined in [RFC9290] for error responses, then the privacy and security considerations from Sections 4 and 5 of [RFC9290] also apply.¶
Furthermore, the following security considerations apply.¶
10.1. Secure Communication in the Group
When a group member receives a message from a certain sender for the first time since joining the group, it needs to have a mechanism in place to avoid replayed messages and to assert their freshness, e.g., as described in Appendix B.1.2 of [RFC8613] or Section 10 of [GROUP-OSCORE]. Such a mechanism also aids the recipient group member in case it has rebooted and lost the security state used to protect previous group communications with that sender.¶
By its nature, the KDC is invested with a large amount of trust, since it acts as a generator and provider of the symmetric keying material used to protect communications in each of its groups. While details depend on the specific communication and security protocols used in the group, the KDC is in the position to decrypt messages exchanged in the group as if it was also a group member, as long as those are protected through commonly shared group keying material.¶
A compromised KDC would thus put the attacker in the same position, which also means that:¶
On the other hand, as long as the security protocol used in the group ensures source authentication of messages (e.g., by means of signatures), the KDC is not able to impersonate group members since it does not have their private keys.¶
Further security considerations are specific to the communication and security protocols used in the group, and thus have to be provided by those protocols and complemented by the application profiles of this specification using them.¶
10.2. Update of Group Keying Material
The KDC can generate new group keying material and provide it to the group members (rekeying) through the rekeying scheme used in the group, as discussed in Section 6.¶
In particular, the KDC must renew the latest group keying material upon its expiration. Before then, the KDC MAY also renew the group keying material on a regular or periodical fashion.¶
Unless otherwise defined by an application profile of this specification, the KDC SHOULD renew the group keying material upon a group membership change. As a possible exception, the KDC may not rekey the group upon the joining of a new group member if the application does not require backward security. As another possible exception discussed more in detail later in this section, the KDC may rely on a rekeying policy that reasonably takes into account the expected rate of group membership changes and the duration of a group rekeying.¶
Since the minimum number of group members is one, the KDC SHOULD provide even a Client joining an empty group with new keying material never used before in that group. Similarly, the KDC SHOULD also provide new group keying material to a Client that remains the only member in the group after the leaving of other group members.¶
Note that the considerations in Section 10.1 about dealing with replayed messages still hold, even in case the KDC rekeys the group upon every single joining of a new group member. However, if the KDC has renewed the group keying material upon a group member's joining and the time interval between the end of the rekeying process and that member's joining is sufficiently small, then that group member is also on the safe side, since it would not accept replayed messages protected with the old group keying material previous to its joining.¶
Once a joining node has obtained the new, latest keying material through a Join Response from the KDC (see Section 4.3.1.1), the joining node becomes able to read any message that was exchanged in the group and protected with that keying material. This is the case if the KDC provides the current group members with the new, latest keying material before completing the joining procedure. However, the joining node is not able to read messages exchanged in the group and protected with keying material older than the one provided in the Join Response, i.e., having a strictly lower version number NUM.¶
A node that has left the group should not expect any of its outgoing messages to be successfully processed if received by other nodes in the group after its leaving due to a possible group rekeying occurring before the message reception.¶
The KDC may enforce a rekeying policy that takes into account the overall time required to rekey the group, as well as the expected rate of changes in the group membership. That is, the KDC may not rekey the group at each and every group membership change, for instance, if members' joining and leaving occur frequently and performing a group rekeying takes too long. Instead, the KDC might rekey the group after a minimum number of group members have joined or left within a given time interval, after a maximum amount of time since the last group rekeying was completed, or yet during predictable network inactivity periods.¶
However, this would result in the KDC not constantly preserving backward and forward security in the group. That is:¶
The KDC should renew the group keying material in case it has rebooted, even if it stores the whole group keying material in persistent storage. This assumes that the secure communication associations with the current group members as well as any administrative keying material required to rekey the group are also stored in persistent storage.¶
However, if the KDC relies on Observe notifications to distribute the new group keying material, the KDC would have lost all the current ongoing Observations with the group members after rebooting, and the group members would continue using the old group keying material. Therefore, the KDC will rely on each group member asking for the new group keying material (see Sections 4.3.2.1 and 4.8.1.1) or perform a group rekeying by actively sending rekeying messages to group members as discussed in Section 6.¶
The KDC needs to have a mechanism in place to detect DoS attacks from nodes repeatedly performing actions that might trigger a group rekeying. Such actions can include leaving and/or rejoining the group at high rates or often asking the KDC for new individual keying material. Ultimately, the KDC can resort to removing these nodes from the group and (temporarily) preventing them from joining the group again.¶
The KDC also needs to have a congestion control mechanism in place in order to avoid network congestion upon distributing new group keying material. For example, CoAP and Observe give guidance on such mechanisms, see Section 4.7 of [RFC7252] and Section 4.5.1 of [RFC7641].¶
10.3. Block-Wise Considerations
If the Block-Wise CoAP options [RFC7959] are used and the keying material is updated in the middle of a Block-Wise transfer, the sender of the blocks just changes the group keying material to the updated one and continues the transfer. As long as both sides get the new group keying material, updating the group keying material in the middle of a transfer will not cause any issue. Otherwise, the sender will have to transmit the message again when receiving an error message from the recipient.¶
Compared to a scenario where the transfer does not use Block-Wise, and depending on how fast the group keying material is changed, the group members might consume a larger amount of the network bandwidth by repeatedly resending the same blocks, which might be problematic.¶
11. IANA Considerations
Per this document, IANA has completed the following actions.¶
11.1. Media Type Registrations
This specification has registered the "application
- Type name:
- application¶
- Subtype name:
- ace
-groupcomm+cbor ¶ - Required parameters:
- N/A¶
- Optional parameters:
- N/A¶
- Encoding considerations:
- Must be encoded as a CBOR map containing the parameters defined in RFC 9594.¶
- Security considerations:
- See Section 10 of RFC 9594.¶
- Interoperability considerations:
- N/A¶
- Published specification:
- RFC 9594¶
- Applications that use this media type:
- The type is used by Authorization Servers, Clients, and Resource Servers that support the ACE groupcomm framework as specified in RFC 9594.¶
- Fragment identifier considerations:
- N/A¶
- Additional information:
- N/A¶
- Person & email address to contact for further information:
- ACE WG mailing list (ace@ietf.org) or IETF Applications and Real-Time Area (art@ietf.org)¶
- Intended usage:
- COMMON¶
- Restrictions on usage:
- None¶
- Author/Change controller:
- IETF¶
- Provisional registration:
- No¶
11.2. CoAP Content-Formats
IANA has registered the following entry in the "CoAP Content
11.3. OAuth Parameters
IANA has registered the following entries in the "OAuth Parameters" registry, following the procedure specified in Section 11.2 of [RFC6749].¶
11.4. OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings
IANA has registered the following entries in the "OAuth Parameters CBOR Mappings" registry, following the procedure specified in Section 8.10 of [RFC9200].¶
11.5. Interface Description (if=) Link Target Attribute Values
IANA has registered the following entry in the "Interface Description (if=) Link Target Attribute Values" registry within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry group.¶
- Value:
- ace.groups¶
- Description:
- The KDC interface at the parent resource of group
-membership resources is used to retrieve names of security groups using the ACE framework.¶ - Reference:
- Section 4.1 of RFC 9594¶
- Value:
- ace.group¶
- Description:
- The KDC interface at a group
-membership resource is used to provision keying material and related information and policies to members of the corresponding security group using the ACE framework.¶ - Reference:
- Section 4.1 of RFC 9594¶
11.6. Custom Problem Detail Keys Registry
IANA has registered the following entry in the "Custom Problem Detail Keys" registry within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry group.¶
11.7. ACE Groupcomm Parameters
This specification has established the "ACE Groupcomm Parameters" IANA registry within the "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" registry group.¶
Values in this registry are covered by different registration policies as indicated below. Some policies require Expert Review; guidelines are provided in Section 11.14¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
- Name:
- This is a descriptive name that enables easier reference to the item. The name MUST be unique. It is not used in the encoding.¶
- CBOR Key:
- This is the value used as the CBOR map key of the item. These values MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer, a negative integer, or a text string. Different ranges of values use different registration policies [RFC8126]. Integer values from -256 to 255 as well as text strings of length 1 are designated as "Standards Action With Expert Review". Integer values from -65536 to -257 and from 256 to 65535 as well as text strings of length 2 are designated as "Specification Required". Integer values greater than 65535 as well as text strings of length greater than 2 are designated as "Expert Review". Integer values less than -65536 are marked as "Private Use".¶
- CBOR Type:
- This field contains the CBOR type of the item or a pointer to the registry that defines its type when that depends on another item.¶
- Reference:
- This field contains a pointer to the public specification for the item.¶
This registry has been initially populated with the values in Table 5.¶
11.8. ACE Groupcomm Key Types
This specification establishes the "ACE Groupcomm Key Types" IANA registry within the "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" registry group.¶
Values in this registry are covered by different registration policies as indicated below. Some policies require Expert Review; guidelines are provided in Section 11.14.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
- Name:
- This is a descriptive name that enables easier reference to the item. The name MUST be unique. It is not used in the encoding.¶
- Key Type Value:
- This is the value used to identify the keying material. These values MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer, a negative integer, or a text string. Different ranges of values use different registration policies [RFC8126]. Integer values from -256 to 255 as well as text strings of length 1 are designated as "Standards Action With Expert Review". Integer values from -65536 to -257 and from 256 to 65535 as well as text strings of length 2 are designated as "Specification Required". Integer values greater than 65535 as well as text strings of length greater than 2 are designated as "Expert Review". Integer values less than -65536 are marked as "Private Use".¶
- Profile:
- This field may contain one or more descriptive strings of application profiles to be used with this item. The values should be taken from the "Name" column of the "ACE Groupcomm Profiles" registry.¶
- Description:
- This field contains a brief description of the keying material.¶
- Reference:
- This field contains a pointer to the public specification for the format of the keying material, if one exists.¶
This registry has been initially populated with the value in Table 1.¶
11.9. ACE Groupcomm Profiles
This specification establishes the "ACE Groupcomm Profiles" IANA registry within the "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" registry group.¶
Values in this registry are covered by different registration policies as indicated below. Some policies require Expert Review; guidelines are provided in Section 11.14.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
- Name:
- The name of the application profile.¶
- Description:
- Text giving an overview of the application profile and the context it is developed for.¶
- CBOR Value:
- CBOR abbreviation for the name of this application profile. These values MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer or a negative integer. Different ranges of values use different registration policies [RFC8126]. Integer values from -256 to 255 are designated as "Standards Action With Expert Review". Integer values from -65536 to -257 and from 256 to 65535 are designated as "Specification Required". Integer values greater than 65535 are designated as "Expert Review". Integer values less than -65536 are marked as "Private Use".¶
- Reference:
- This field contains a pointer to the public specification for this application profile, if one exists.¶
This registry has been initially populated with the value in Table 2.¶
11.10. ACE Groupcomm Policies
This specification establishes the "ACE Groupcomm Policies" IANA registry within the "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" registry group.¶
Values in this registry are covered by different registration policies as indicated below. Some policies require Expert Review; guidelines are provided in Section 11.14.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
- Name:
- The name of the group communication policy.¶
- CBOR Label:
- The value to be used to identify this group communication policy. These values MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer, a negative integer, or a text string. Different ranges of values use different registration policies [RFC8126]. Integer values from -256 to 255 as well as text strings of length 1 are designated as "Standards Action With Expert Review". Integer values from -65536 to -257 and from 256 to 65535 as well as text strings of length 2 are designated as "Specification Required". Integer values greater than 65535 as well as text strings of length greater than 2 are designated as "Expert Review". Integer values less than -65536 are marked as "Private Use".¶
- CBOR Type:
- The CBOR type used to encode the value of this group communication policy.¶
- Description:
- This field contains a brief description for this group communication policy.¶
- Reference:
- This field contains a pointer to the public specification for this group communication policy and its format, if one exists.¶
This registry has been initially populated with the values in Table 3.¶
11.11. Sequence Number Synchronization Methods
This specification establishes the "Sequence Number Synchronization Methods" IANA registry within the "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" registry group.¶
Values in this registry are covered by different registration policies as indicated below. Some policies require Expert Review; guidelines are provided in Section 11.14.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
- Name:
- The name of the sequence number synchronization method.¶
- Value:
- The value to be used to identify this sequence number synchronization method. These values MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer, a negative integer, or a text string. Different ranges of values use different registration policies [RFC8126]. Integer values from -256 to 255 as well as text strings of length 1 are designated as "Standards Action With Expert Review". Integer values from -65536 to -257 and from 256 to 65535 as well as text strings of length 2 are designated as "Specification Required". Integer values greater than 65535 as well as text strings of length greater than 2 are designated as "Expert Review". Integer values less than -65536 are marked as "Private Use".¶
- Description:
- This field contains a brief description for this sequence number synchronization method.¶
- Reference:
- This field contains a pointer to the public specification describing the sequence number synchronization method.¶
11.12. ACE Groupcomm Errors
This specification establishes the "ACE Groupcomm Errors" IANA registry within the "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" registry group.¶
Values in this registry are covered by different registration policies as indicated below. Some policies require Expert Review; guidelines are provided in Section 11.14.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
- Value:
- The value to be used to identify the error. These values MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer or a negative integer. Different ranges of values use different registration policies [RFC8126]. Integer values from -256 to 255 are designated as "Standards Action With Expert Review". Integer values from -65536 to -257 and from 256 to 65535 are designated as "Specification Required". Integer values greater than 65535 are designated as "Expert Review". Integer values less than -65536 are marked as "Private Use".¶
- Description:
- This field contains a brief description of the error.¶
- Reference:
- This field contains a pointer to the public specification defining the error, if one exists.¶
This registry has been initially populated with the values in Table 6. The "Reference" column for all of these entries refers to this document.¶
11.13. ACE Groupcomm Rekeying Schemes
This specification establishes the "ACE Groupcomm Rekeying Schemes" IANA registry within the "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" registry group.¶
Values in this registry are covered by different registration policies as indicated below. Some policies require Expert Review; guidelines are provided in Section 11.14.¶
The columns of this registry are:¶
- Value:
- The value to be used to identify the group rekeying scheme. These values MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer or a negative integer. Different ranges of values use different registration policies [RFC8126]. Integer values from -256 to 255 are designated as "Standards Action With Expert Review". Integer values from -65536 to -257 and from 256 to 65535 are designated as "Specification Required". Integer values greater than 65535 are designated as "Expert Review". Integer values less than -65536 are marked as "Private Use".¶
- Name:
- The name of the group rekeying scheme.¶
- Description:
- This field contains a brief description of the group rekeying scheme.¶
- Reference:
- This field contains a pointer to the public specification defining the group rekeying scheme, if one exists.¶
This registry has been initially populated with the value in Table 4.¶
11.14. Expert Review Instructions
The IANA registries established in this document are defined as Expert Review. This section gives some general guidelines for what the experts should be looking for, but they are being designated as experts for a reason so they should be given substantial latitude.¶
Expert Reviewers should take into consideration the following points:¶
12. References
12.1. Normative References
- [CBOR.Tags]
-
IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /cbor -tags / - [Co
AP .Content .Formats] -
IANA, "CoAP Content
-Formats" , <https://www >..iana .org /assignments /core -parameters / - [COSE
.Algorithms] -
IANA, "COSE Algorithms", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /cose / - [COSE
.Header .Parameters] -
IANA, "COSE Header Parameters", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /cose / - [COSE.Key.Types]
-
IANA, "COSE Key Types", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /cose / - [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC3629]
-
Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3629 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3629 - [RFC6690]
-
Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6690 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6690 - [RFC6749]
-
Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC 6749, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6749 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6749 - [RFC6838]
-
Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6838 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6838 - [RFC7252]
-
Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7252 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7252 - [RFC7967]
-
Bhattacharyya, A., Bandyopadhyay, S., Pal, A., and T. Bose, "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Option for No Server Response", RFC 7967, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7967 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7967 - [RFC8126]
-
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8126 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8126 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC8610]
-
Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8610 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8610 - [RFC8747]
-
Jones, M., Seitz, L., Selander, G., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig, "Proof
-of , RFC 8747, DOI 10-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs)" .17487 , , <https:///RFC8747 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8747 - [RFC8949]
-
Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8949 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8949 - [RFC9052]
-
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9052 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9052 - [RFC9053]
-
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms", RFC 9053, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9053 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9053 - [RFC9200]
-
Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments Using the OAuth 2.0 Framework (ACE-OAuth)", RFC 9200, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9200 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9200 - [RFC9237]
-
Bormann, C., "An Authorization Information Format (AIF) for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)", RFC 9237, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9237 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9237 - [RFC9290]
-
Fossati, T. and C. Bormann, "Concise Problem Details for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) APIs", RFC 9290, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9290 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9290 - [RFC9338]
-
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Countersignatur
es" , STD 96, RFC 9338, DOI 10.17487 , , <https:///RFC9338 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9338
12.2. Informative References
- [C509-CERT]
-
Preuß Mattsson, J., Selander, G., Raza, S., Höglund, J., and M. Furuhed, "CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509 Certificates)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-cose -cbor -encoded -cert -11 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -cose -cbor -encoded -cert -11 - [CoAP-PUBSUB]
-
Jimenez, J., Koster, M., and A. Keränen, "A publish
-subscribe , Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draftarchitecture for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)" -ietf , , <https://-core -coap -pubsub -14 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -core -coap -pubsub -14 - [GROUP-CoAP]
-
Dijk, E., Wang, C., and M. Tiloca, "Group Communication for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-core -groupcomm -bis -11 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -core -groupcomm -bis -11 - [GROUP-OSCORE]
-
Tiloca, M., Selander, G., Palombini, F., Preuß Mattsson, J., and R. Höglund, "Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-core -oscore -groupcomm -22 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -core -oscore -groupcomm -22 - [OSCORE
-DISCOVERY] -
Tiloca, M., Amsüss, C., and P. Van der Stok, "Discovery of OSCORE Groups with the CoRE Resource Directory", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-tiloca , , <https://-core -oscore -discovery -16 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -tiloca -core -oscore -discovery -16 - [RFC2093]
-
Harney, H. and C. Muckenhirn, "Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Specification", RFC 2093, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2093 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2093 - [RFC2094]
-
Harney, H. and C. Muckenhirn, "Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Architecture", RFC 2094, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2094 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2094 - [RFC2627]
-
Wallner, D., Harder, E., and R. Agee, "Key Management for Multicast: Issues and Architectures", RFC 2627, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2627 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2627 - [RFC3986]
-
Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3986 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3986 - [RFC5280]
-
Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5280 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5280 - [RFC7519]
-
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7519 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7519 - [RFC7641]
-
Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7641 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7641 - [RFC7959]
-
Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7959 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7959 - [RFC8259]
-
Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8259 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8259 - [RFC8392]
-
Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig, "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8392 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8392 - [RFC8613]
-
Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz, "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8613 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8613 - [RFC9202]
-
Gerdes, S., Bergmann, O., Bormann, C., Selander, G., and L. Seitz, "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)", RFC 9202, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9202 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9202 - [RFC9203]
-
Palombini, F., Seitz, L., Selander, G., and M. Gunnarsson, "The Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) Profile of the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework", RFC 9203, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9203 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9203 - [RFC9277]
-
Richardson, M. and C. Bormann, "On Stable Storage for Items in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", RFC 9277, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9277 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9277 - [RFC9431]
-
Sengul, C. and A. Kirby, "Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) Profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework", RFC 9431, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9431 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9431
Appendix A. Requirements for Application Profiles
This section lists the requirements for application profiles of this specification for the convenience of application profile designers.¶
A.1. Mandatory-to-Address Requirements
- REQ1:
-
Specify the format and encoding of scope. This includes defining the set of possible roles and their identifiers, as well as the corresponding encoding to use in the scope entries according to the used scope format (see Section 3.1).¶
- REQ2:
- REQ3:
-
If used, specify the acceptable values for the 'sign_alg' parameter (see Section 3.3.1).¶
- REQ4:
-
If used, specify the acceptable values and structure for the 'sign
_parameters' parameter (see Section 3.3.1).¶ - REQ5:
-
If used, specify the acceptable values and structure for the 'sign
_key _parameters' parameter (see Section 3.3.1).¶ - REQ6:
-
Specify the acceptable formats for authentication credentials and, if applicable, the acceptable values for the 'cred_fmt' parameter (see Section 3.3.1).¶
- REQ7:
-
If the value of the GROUPNAME URI path and the group name in the access token scope ('gname' in Section 3.1) are not required to coincide, specify the mechanism to map the GROUPNAME value in the URI to the group name (see Section 4.1).¶
- REQ8:
- REQ9:
-
Specify if any part of the KDC interface as defined in this document is not supported by the KDC (see Section 4.1).¶
- REQ10:
-
Register a Resource Type for the group
-membership resources, which is used to discover the correct URL for sending a Join Request to the KDC (see Section 4.1).¶ - REQ11:
-
Define what specific actions (e.g., CoAP methods) are allowed on each resource that are accessible through the KDC interface, depending on: whether the Client is a current group member; the roles that a Client is authorized to take as per the obtained access token (see Section 3.1); and the roles that the Client has as a current group member.¶
- REQ12:
-
Categorize possible newly defined operations for Clients into primary operations expected to be minimally supported and secondary operations, and provide accompanying considerations (see Section 4.1.1).¶
- REQ13:
-
Specify the encoding of group identifiers (see Section 4.2.1).¶
- REQ14:
-
Specify the approaches used to compute and verify the PoP evidence to include in the 'client
_cred _verify' parameter and which of those approaches is used in which case (see Section 4.3.1).¶ - REQ15:
-
Specify how the nonce N_S is generated, if the access token is not provided to the KDC through the Token Transfer Request sent to the /authz-info endpoint (e.g., the access token is instead transferred during the establishment of a secure communication association).¶
- REQ16:
-
Define the initial value of the version number for the group keying material (see Section 4.3.1).¶
- REQ17:
-
Specify the format of the group keying material that is conveyed in the 'key' parameter (see Section 4.3.1).¶
- REQ18:
-
Specify the acceptable values of the 'gkty' parameter (see Section 4.3.1). For each of them, register a corresponding entry in the "ACE Groupcomm Key Types" IANA registry if such an entry does not exist already.¶
- REQ19:
-
Specify and register the application profile identifier (see Section 4.3.1).¶
- REQ20:
-
If used, specify the format and default values of the entries of the CBOR map to include in the 'group
_policies' parameter (see Section 4.3.1).¶ - REQ21:
-
Specify the approaches used to compute and verify the PoP evidence to include in the 'kdc
_cred _verify' parameter and which of those approaches is used in which case (see Sections 4.3.1 and 4.5.1). If external signature verifiers are supported, specify how those provide a nonce to the KDC to be used for computing the PoP evidence (see Section 4.5.1).¶ - REQ22:
-
Specify the communication protocol that members of the group use to communicate with each other (e.g., CoAP for group communication).¶
- REQ23:
-
Specify the security protocol that members of the group use to protect the group communication (e.g., Group OSCORE). This must provide encryption, integrity, and replay protection.¶
- REQ24:
-
Specify how the communication is secured between the Client and the KDC. Optionally, specify a transport profile of ACE [RFC9200] to use between the Client and the KDC (see Section 4.3.1.1).¶
- REQ25:
- REQ26:
-
Specify policies at the KDC to handle node identifiers that are included in the 'get_creds' parameter but are not associated with any current group member (see Section 4.4.1).¶
- REQ27:
- REQ28:
- REQ29:
- REQ30:
A.2. Optional-to-Address Requirements
- OPT1:
-
Optionally, if the textual format of scope is used, specify CBOR values to use for abbreviating the role identifiers in the group (see Section 3.1).¶
- OPT2:
-
Optionally, specify the additional parameters used in the exchange of Token Transfer Request and Response (see Section 3.3).¶
- OPT3:
-
Optionally, specify the negotiation of parameter values for signature algorithm and signature keys, if the 'sign_info' parameter is not used (see Section 3.3).¶
- OPT4:
-
Optionally, specify possible or required payload formats for specific error cases (see Section 4.1.2).¶
- OPT5:
-
Optionally, specify additional identifiers of error types as values of the 'error-id' field within the Custom Problem Detail entry 'ace
-groupcomm -error' (see Section 4.1.2).¶ - OPT6:
-
Optionally, specify the encoding of the 'creds_repo' parameter if the default one is not used (see Section 4.3.1).¶
- OPT7:
-
Optionally, specify the functionalities implemented at the resource hosted by the Client at the URI indicated in the 'control_uri' parameter, including the encoding of exchanged messages and other details (see Section 4.3.1).¶
- OPT8:
-
Optionally, specify the behavior of the POST handler of group
-membership resources, for the case when it fails to retrieve an authentication credential for the specific Client (see Section 4.3.1).¶ - OPT9:
-
Optionally, define a default group rekeying scheme to refer to in case the 'rekeying
_scheme' parameter is not included in the Join Response (see Section 4.3.1).¶ - OPT10:
-
Optionally, specify the functionalities implemented at the resource hosted by the Client at the URI indicated in the 'control
_group _uri' parameter, including the encoding of exchanged messages and other details (see Section 4.3.1).¶ - OPT11:
-
Optionally, specify policies that instruct Clients to retain messages and for how long, if those are unsuccessfully decrypted (see Section 4.8.1.1). This makes it possible for Clients to decrypt such messages after obtaining updated keying material.¶
- OPT12:
-
Optionally, specify for the KDC to perform a group rekeying when receiving a Key Renewal Request, together with or instead of renewing individual keying material (see Section 4.8.2.1).¶
- OPT13:
-
Optionally, specify how the identifier of a group member's authentication credential is included in requests sent to other group members (see Section 4.9.1.1).¶
- OPT14:
Appendix B. Extensibility for Future COSE Algorithms
As defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC9053], future algorithms can be registered in the "COSE Algorithms" registry [COSE.Algorithms] as specifying none or multiple COSE capabilities.¶
To enable the seamless use of such future registered algorithms, this section defines a general, agile format for each 'sign
If any of the currently registered COSE algorithms are considered, using this general format yields the same structure of 'sign
B.1. Format of 'sign_info_entry'
The format of each 'sign
Acknowledgments
The following individuals were helpful in shaping this document: Christian Amsüss, Carsten Bormann, Roman Danyliw, Martin Duke, Thomas Fossati, Vidhi Goel, Rikard Höglund, Ben Kaduk, Erik Kline, Warren Kumari, Watson Ladd, Daniel Migault, John Preuß Mattsson, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Jim Schaad, Ludwig Seitz, Göran Selander, Cigdem Sengul, Dave Thaler, Henry Thompson, Peter van der Stok, and Paul Wouters.¶
The work on this document has been partly supported by the Sweden's Innovation Agency VINNOVA and the Celtic-Next project CRITISEC, by the H2020 project SIFIS-Home (Grant agreement 952652), and by the EIT-Digital High Impact Initiative ACTIVE.¶