Path Computation Element
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Dhody
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9916 Huawei
Updates: 8253 (if approved) S. Turner
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track sn3rd
Expires: 12 July 2024
ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Housley
Vigil Security
9
January 2024 2026
Updates for PCEPS: to the Usage of TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions
draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-04 to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Abstract
Section 3.4 of RFC 8253 specifies TLS connection establishment
restrictions for PCEPS; PCEPS refers to usage of TLS to provide a
secure transport for PCEP (Path the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol).
Protocol (PCEP). This document adds restrictions to specify what
PCEPS implementations do if they support more than one version of the
TLS protocol and to restrict the use of TLS 1.3's early data.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Path Computation
Element Working Group mailing list (mailto:pce@ietf.org), which is
archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/. Subscribe
at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 July 2024.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9916.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1.
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2.
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
Section 3.4 of [RFC8253] specifies TLS connection establishment
restrictions for PCEPS; PCEPS refers to usage of TLS to provide a
secure transport for PCEP (Path the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol)
Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]. This document adds restrictions to
specify what PCEPS implementations do if they support more than one
version of the TLS protocol, e.g., TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and TLS 1.3
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis],
[RFC9846], and to restrict the use of TLS 1.3's early data, which is
also known as 0-RTT data. All other provisions set forth in
[RFC8253] are unchanged, including connection initiation, message
framing, connection closure, certificate validation, peer identity,
and failure handling.
2. Conventions and Definitions
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.
3. TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions
Step 1 in Section 3.4 of [RFC8253] Step 1 includes restrictions on PCEPS TLS
connection establishment. This document adds the following
restrictions:
* Implementations that support multiple versions of the TLS protocol
MUST prefer to negotiate the latest version of the TLS protocol;
see Section 4.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]. [RFC9846].
* PCEPS implementations that support TLS 1.3 or later MUST NOT use
early data.
| NOTE: Early data (aka 0-RTT data) is a mechanism defined in TLS
| 1.3
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] [RFC9846] that allows a client to send data ("early data")
| as part of the first flight of messages to a server. Note that
| TLS 1.3 can be used without early data as per Appendix F.5 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis].
| [RFC9846]. In fact, early data is permitted by TLS 1.3 only
| when the client and server share a Pre-
Shared Pre-Shared Key (PSK), either
| obtained externally or via a previous handshake. The client
| uses the PSK to authenticate the server and to encrypt the
| early data.
| NOTE: As noted in Section 2.3 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], [RFC9846], the security
| properties for early data are weaker than those for subsequent TLS- protected
| TLS-protected data. In particular, early data is not forward
| secret, and there is no protection against the replay of early
| data between connections. Appendix E.5 of
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] [RFC9846] requires
| applications not use early data without a profile that defines
| its use.
4. Security Considerations
The Security Considerations security considerations of PCEP [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8253],
[RFC8281], and [RFC8283]; [RFC5440] [RFC8231] [RFC8253]
[RFC8281] [RFC8283], TLS 1.2 [RFC5246]; [RFC5246], TLS 1.3
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], and; [RFC9846], and TLS/
DTLS recommendations [RFC9325] apply here as well.
5. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations.
6. Implementation Status
| Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before
| publication, as well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort document has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalogue of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
At the time of posting the -04 version of this document, there are no
known implementations of this mechanism. It is believed that one
vendor has implementation, but these plans are too vague to make any
further assertions.
7. IANA actions.
6. References
7.1.
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-09, 7 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
rfc8446bis-09>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5246>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8253>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC9325] Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9325>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.
[RFC9846] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 7942, 9846, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942>. 10.17487/RFC9846, January
2026, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9846>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8231>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8281>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8283>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Stephane Litkowski, Cheng Li,
and Andrew Stone for their review.
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Sean Turner
sn3rd
Email: sean@sn3rd.com
Russ Housley
Vigil Security, LLC
516 Dranesville Road
Herndon, VA, VA 20170
United States of America
Email: housley@vigilsec.com