diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8824.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc8824.txt | 1453 |
1 files changed, 1453 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8824.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8824.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..41d87c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8824.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1453 @@ + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Minaburo +Request for Comments: 8824 Acklio +Category: Standards Track L. Toutain +ISSN: 2070-1721 IMT Atlantique + R. Andreasen + Universidad de Buenos Aires + June 2021 + + + Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) for the + Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) + +Abstract + + This document defines how to compress Constrained Application + Protocol (CoAP) headers using the Static Context Header Compression + and fragmentation (SCHC) framework. SCHC defines a header + compression mechanism adapted for Constrained Devices. SCHC uses a + static description of the header to reduce the header's redundancy + and size. While RFC 8724 describes the SCHC compression and + fragmentation framework, and its application for IPv6/UDP headers, + this document applies SCHC to CoAP headers. The CoAP header + structure differs from IPv6 and UDP, since CoAP uses a flexible + header with a variable number of options, themselves of variable + length. The CoAP message format is asymmetric: the request messages + have a header format different from the format in the response + messages. This specification gives guidance on applying SCHC to + flexible headers and how to leverage the asymmetry for more efficient + compression Rules. + +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://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8824. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents + (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must + include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of + the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as + described in the Simplified BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction + 1.1. Terminology + 2. SCHC Applicability to CoAP + 3. CoAP Headers Compressed with SCHC + 3.1. Differences between CoAP and UDP/IP Compression + 4. Compression of CoAP Header Fields + 4.1. CoAP Version Field + 4.2. CoAP Type Field + 4.3. CoAP Code Field + 4.4. CoAP Message ID Field + 4.5. CoAP Token Fields + 5. CoAP Options + 5.1. CoAP Content and Accept Options + 5.2. CoAP Option Max-Age, Uri-Host, and Uri-Port Fields + 5.3. CoAP Option Uri-Path and Uri-Query Fields + 5.3.1. Variable Number of Path or Query Elements + 5.4. CoAP Option Size1, Size2, Proxy-URI, and Proxy-Scheme + Fields + 5.5. CoAP Option ETag, If-Match, If-None-Match, Location-Path, + and Location-Query Fields + 6. SCHC Compression of CoAP Extensions + 6.1. Block + 6.2. Observe + 6.3. No-Response + 6.4. OSCORE + 7. Examples of CoAP Header Compression + 7.1. Mandatory Header with CON Message + 7.2. OSCORE Compression + 7.3. Example OSCORE Compression + 8. IANA Considerations + 9. Security Considerations + 10. Normative References + Acknowledgements + Authors' Addresses + +1. Introduction + + The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] is a command/ + response protocol designed for microcontrollers with small RAM and + ROM and optimized for services based on REST (Representational State + Transfer). Although the Constrained Devices are a leading factor in + the design of CoAP, a CoAP header's size is still too large for + LPWANs (Low-Power Wide-Area Networks). Static Context Header + Compression and fragmentation (SCHC) over CoAP headers is required to + increase performance or to use CoAP over LPWAN technologies. + + [RFC8724] defines the SCHC framework, which includes a header + compression mechanism for LPWANs that is based on a static context. + Section 5 of [RFC8724] explains where compression and decompression + occur in the architecture. The SCHC compression scheme assumes as a + prerequisite that both endpoints know the static context before + transmission. The way the context is configured, provisioned, or + exchanged is out of this document's scope. + + CoAP is an application protocol, so CoAP compression requires + installing common Rules between the two SCHC instances. SCHC + compression may apply at two different levels: at IP and UDP in the + LPWAN and another at the application level for CoAP. These two + compression techniques may be independent. Both follow the same + principle as that described in [RFC8724]. As different entities + manage the CoAP compression process at different levels, the SCHC + Rules driving the compression/decompression are also different. + [RFC8724] describes how to use SCHC for IP and UDP headers. This + document specifies how to apply SCHC compression to CoAP headers. + + SCHC compresses and decompresses headers based on common contexts + between Devices. The SCHC context includes multiple Rules. Each + Rule can match the header fields to specific values or ranges of + values. If a Rule matches, the matched header fields are replaced by + the RuleID and the Compression Residue that contains the residual + bits of the compression. Thus, different Rules may correspond to + different protocol headers in the packet that a Device expects to + send or receive. + + A Rule describes the packets' entire header with an ordered list of + Field Descriptors; see Section 7 of [RFC8724]. Thereby, each + description contains the Field ID (FID), Field Length (FL), and Field + Position (FP), as well as a Direction Indicator (DI) (upstream, + downstream, and bidirectional) and some associated Target Values + (TVs). The DI is used for compression to give the best TV to the FID + when these values differ in their transmission direction. So, a + field may be described several times. + + A Matching Operator (MO) is associated with each header Field + Descriptor. The Rule is selected if all the MOs fit the TVs for all + fields of the incoming header. A Rule cannot be selected if the + message contains a field that is unknown to the SCHC compressor. + + In that case, a Compression/Decompression Action (CDA) associated + with each field gives the method to compress and decompress each + field. Compression mainly results in one of four actions: + + * send the field value (value-sent), + + * send nothing (not-sent), + + * send some Least Significant Bits (LSBs) of the field, or + + * send an index (mapping-sent). + + After applying the compression, there may be some bits to be sent. + These values are called "Compression Residue". + + SCHC is a general mechanism applied to different protocols, with the + exact Rules to be used depending on the protocol and the application. + Section 10 of [RFC8724] describes the compression scheme for IPv6 and + UDP headers. This document targets CoAP header compression using + SCHC. + +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. + +2. SCHC Applicability to CoAP + + SCHC compression for CoAP headers MAY be done in conjunction with the + lower layers (IPv6/UDP) or independently. The SCHC adaptation + layers, described in Section 5 of [RFC8724], may be used as shown in + Figures 1, 2, and 3. + + In the first example, Figure 1, a Rule compresses the complete header + stack from IPv6 to CoAP. In this case, the Device and the Network + Gateway (NGW) perform SCHC C/D (SCHC Compression/Decompression; see + [RFC8724]). The application communicating with the Device does not + implement SCHC C/D. + + (Device) (NGW) (App) + + +--------+ +--------+ + | CoAP | | CoAP | + +--------+ +--------+ + | UDP | | UDP | + +--------+ +----------------+ +--------+ + | IPv6 | | IPv6 | | IPv6 | + +--------+ +--------+-------+ +--------+ + | SCHC | | SCHC | | | | + +--------+ +--------+ + + + + | LPWAN | | LPWAN | | | | + +--------+ +--------+-------+ +--------+ + ((((LPWAN)))) ------ Internet ------ + + Figure 1: Compression/Decompression at the LPWAN Boundary + + Figure 1 shows the use of SCHC header compression above Layer 2 in + the Device and the NGW. The SCHC layer receives non-encrypted + packets and can apply compression Rules to all the headers in the + stack. On the other end, the NGW receives the SCHC packet and + reconstructs the headers using the Rule and the Compression Residue. + After the decompression, the NGW forwards the IPv6 packet toward the + destination. The same process applies in the other direction when a + non-encrypted packet arrives at the NGW. Thanks to the IP forwarding + based on the IPv6 prefix, the NGW identifies the Device and + compresses headers using the Device's Rules. + + In the second example, Figure 2, SCHC compression is applied in the + CoAP layer, compressing the CoAP header independently of the other + layers. The RuleID, Compression Residue, and CoAP payload are + encrypted using a mechanism such as DTLS. Only the other end (App) + can decipher the information. If needed, layers below use SCHC to + compress the header as defined in [RFC8724] (represented by dotted + lines in the figure). + + This use case needs an end-to-end context initialization between the + Device and the application. The context initialization is out of + scope for this document. + + (Device) (NGW) (App) + + +--------+ +--------+ + | CoAP | | CoAP | + +--------+ +--------+ + | SCHC | | SCHC | + +--------+ +--------+ + | DTLS | | DTLS | + +--------+ +--------+ + . udp . . udp . + .......... .................. .......... + . ipv6 . . ipv6 . . ipv6 . + .......... .................. .......... + . schc . . schc . . . . + .......... .......... . . . + . lpwan . . lpwan . . . . + .......... .................. .......... + ((((LPWAN)))) ------ Internet ------ + + Figure 2: Standalone CoAP End-to-End Compression/Decompression + + The third example, Figure 3, shows the use of Object Security for + Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) [RFC8613]. In this case, + SCHC needs two Rules to compress the CoAP header. A first Rule + focuses on the Inner header. The result of this first compression is + encrypted using the OSCORE mechanism. Then, a second Rule compresses + the Outer header, including the OSCORE options. + + (Device) (NGW) (App) + + +--------+ +--------+ + | CoAP | | CoAP | + | Inner | | Inner | + +--------+ +--------+ + | SCHC | | SCHC | + | Inner | | Inner | + +--------+ +--------+ + | CoAP | | CoAP | + | Outer | | Outer | + +--------+ +--------+ + | SCHC | | SCHC | + | Outer | | Outer | + +--------+ +--------+ + . udp . . udp . + .......... .................. .......... + . ipv6 . . ipv6 . . ipv6 . + .......... .................. .......... + . schc . . schc . . . . + .......... .......... . . . + . lpwan . . lpwan . . . . + .......... .................. .......... + ((((LPWAN)))) ------ Internet ------ + + Figure 3: OSCORE Compression/Decompression + + In the case of several SCHC instances, as shown in Figures 2 and 3, + the Rules may come from different provisioning domains. + + This document focuses on CoAP compression, as represented by the + dashed boxes in the previous figures. + +3. CoAP Headers Compressed with SCHC + + The use of SCHC over the CoAP header applies the same description and + compression/decompression techniques as the technique used for IP and + UDP, as explained in [RFC8724]. For CoAP, the SCHC Rules description + uses the direction information to optimize the compression by + reducing the number of Rules needed to compress headers. The Field + Descriptor MAY define both request/response headers and TVs in the + same Rule, using the DI to indicate the header type. + + As for other header compression protocols, when the compressor does + not find a correct Rule to compress the header, the packet MUST be + sent uncompressed using the RuleID dedicated to this purpose, and + where the Compression Residue is the complete header of the packet. + See Section 6 of [RFC8724]. + +3.1. Differences between CoAP and UDP/IP Compression + + CoAP compression differs from IPv6 and UDP compression in the + following aspects: + + * The CoAP message format is asymmetric; the headers are different + for a request or a response. For example, the Uri-Path option is + mandatory in the request, and it might not be present in the + response. A request might contain an Accept option, and the + response might include a Content-Format option. In comparison, + the IPv6 and UDP returning path swaps the value of some fields in + the header. However, all the directions have the same fields + (e.g., source and destination address fields). + + [RFC8724] defines the use of a DI in the Field Descriptor, which + allows a single Rule to process a message header differently, + depending on the direction. + + * Even when a field is "symmetric" (i.e., found in both directions), + the values carried in each direction are different. The + compression may use a "match-mapping" MO to limit the range of + expected values in a particular direction and reduce the + Compression Residue's size. Through the DI, a Field Descriptor in + the Rules splits the possible field value into two parts, one for + each direction. For instance, if a client sends only Confirmable + (CON) requests [RFC7252], the Type can be elided by compression, + and the answer may use one single bit to carry either the ACK or + Reset (RST) type. The field Code has the same behavior: the 0.0X + code format value in the request and the Y.ZZ code format in the + response. + + * In SCHC, the Rule defines the different header fields' length, so + SCHC does not need to send it. In IPv6 and UDP headers, the + fields have a fixed size, known by definition. On the other hand, + some CoAP header fields have variable lengths, and the Rule + description specifies it. For example, in a Uri-Path or Uri- + Query, the Token size may vary from 0 to 8 bytes, and the CoAP + options use the Type-Length-Value encoding format. + + When doing SCHC compression of a variable-length field, + Section 7.4.2 of [RFC8724] offers the option of defining a + function for the Field Length in the Field Descriptor to know the + length before compression. If the Field Length is unknown, the + Rule will set it as a variable, and SCHC will send the compressed + field's length in the Compression Residue. + + * A field can appear several times in the CoAP headers. It is found + typically for elements of a URI (path or queries). The SCHC + specification [RFC8724] allows a FID to appear several times in + the Rule and uses the Field Position (FP) to identify the correct + instance, thereby removing the MO's ambiguity. + + * Field Lengths defined in CoAP can be too large when it comes to + LPWAN traffic constraints. For instance, this is particularly + true for the Message ID field and the Token field. SCHC uses + different MOs to perform the compression. See Section 7.4 of + [RFC8724]. In this case, SCHC can apply the Most Significant Bits + (MSBs) MO to reduce the information carried on LPWANs. + +4. Compression of CoAP Header Fields + + This section discusses the compression of the different CoAP header + fields. CoAP compression with SCHC follows the information provided + in Section 7.1 of [RFC8724]. + +4.1. CoAP Version Field + + The CoAP version is bidirectional and MUST be elided during SCHC + compression, since it always contains the same value. In the future, + or if a new version of CoAP is defined, new Rules will be needed to + avoid ambiguities between versions. + +4.2. CoAP Type Field + + CoAP [RFC7252] has four types of messages: two requests (CON, NON), + one response (ACK), and one empty message (RST). + + The SCHC compression scheme SHOULD elide this field if, for instance, + a client is sending only Non-confirmable (NON) messages or only CON + messages. For the RST message, SCHC may use a dedicated Rule. For + other usages, SCHC can use a "match-mapping" MO. + +4.3. CoAP Code Field + + The Code field, defined in an IANA registry [RFC7252], indicates the + Request Method used in CoAP. The compression of the CoAP Code field + follows the same principle as that of the CoAP Type field. If the + Device plays a specific role, SCHC may split the code values into two + Field Descriptors: (1) the request codes with the 0 class and (2) the + response values. SCHC will use the DI to identify the correct value + in the packet. + + If the Device only implements a CoAP client, SCHC compression may + reduce the request code to the set of requests the client can + process. + + For known values, SCHC can use a "match-mapping" MO. If SCHC cannot + compress the Code field, it will send the values in the Compression + Residue. + +4.4. CoAP Message ID Field + + SCHC can compress the Message ID field with the "MSB" MO and the + "LSB" CDA. See Section 7.4 of [RFC8724]. + +4.5. CoAP Token Fields + + CoAP defines the Token using two CoAP fields: Token Length in the + mandatory header and Token Value directly following the mandatory + CoAP header. + + SCHC processes the Token Length as it would any header field. If the + value does not change, the size can be stored in the TV and elided + during the transmission. Otherwise, SCHC will send the Token Length + in the Compression Residue. + + For the Token Value, SCHC MUST NOT send it as variable-length data in + the Compression Residue, to avoid ambiguity with the Token Length. + Therefore, SCHC MUST use the Token Length value to define the size of + the Compression Residue. SCHC designates a specific function, "tkl", + that the Rule MUST use to complete the Field Descriptor. During the + decompression, this function returns the value contained in the Token + Length field. + +5. CoAP Options + + CoAP defines options placed after the basic header, ordered by option + number; see [RFC7252]. Each Option instance in a message uses the + format Delta-Type (D-T), Length (L), Value (V). The SCHC Rule builds + the description of the option by using the following: + + * in the FID: the option number built from the D-T; + + * in the TV: the option value; and + + * for the Option Length: the information provided in Sections 7.4.1 + and 7.4.2 of [RFC8724]. + + When the Option Length has a well-known size, the Rule may keep the + length value. Therefore, SCHC compression does not send it. + Otherwise, SCHC compression carries the length of the Compression + Residue, in addition to the Compression Residue value. + + CoAP requests and responses do not include the same options. So, + compression Rules may reflect this asymmetry by tagging the DI. + + Note that length coding differs between CoAP options and SCHC + variable size Compression Residue. + + The following sections present how SCHC compresses some specific CoAP + options. + + If CoAP introduces a new option, the SCHC Rules MAY be updated, and + the new FID description MUST be assigned to allow its compression. + Otherwise, if no Rule describes this new option, SCHC compression is + not achieved, and SCHC sends the CoAP header without compression. + +5.1. CoAP Content and Accept Options + + If the client expects a single value, it can be stored in the TV and + elided during the transmission. Otherwise, if the client expects + several possible values, a "match-mapping" MO SHOULD be used to limit + the Compression Residue's size. If not, SCHC has to send the option + value in the Compression Residue (fixed or variable length). + +5.2. CoAP Option Max-Age, Uri-Host, and Uri-Port Fields + + SCHC compresses these three fields in the same way. When the values + of these options are known, SCHC can elide these fields. If the + option uses well-known values, SCHC can use a "match-mapping" MO. + Otherwise, SCHC will use the "value-sent" MO, and the Compression + Residue will send these options' values. + +5.3. CoAP Option Uri-Path and Uri-Query Fields + + The Uri-Path and Uri-Query fields are repeatable options; this means + that in the CoAP header, they may appear several times with different + values. The SCHC Rule description uses the FP to distinguish the + different instances in the path. + + To compress repeatable field values, SCHC may use a "match-mapping" + MO to reduce the size of variable paths or queries. In these cases, + to optimize the compression, several elements can be regrouped into a + single entry. The numbering of elements does not change, and the + first matching element sets the MO comparison. + + In Table 1, SCHC can use a single bit in the Compression Residue to + code one of the two paths. If regrouping were not allowed, 2 bits in + the Compression Residue would be needed. SCHC sends the third path + element as a variable size in the Compression Residue. + + +==========+=====+====+====+==========+=========+==============+ + | Field | FL | FP | DI | TV | MO | CDA | + +==========+=====+====+====+==========+=========+==============+ + | Uri-Path | | 1 | Up | ["/a/b", | match- | mapping-sent | + | | | | | "/c/d"] | mapping | | + +----------+-----+----+----+----------+---------+--------------+ + | Uri-Path | var | 3 | Up | | ignore | value-sent | + +----------+-----+----+----+----------+---------+--------------+ + + Table 1: Complex Path Example + + The length of Uri-Path and Uri-Query may be known when the Rule is + defined. In any case, SCHC MUST set the Field Length to a variable + value. The Compression Residue size is expressed in bytes. + + SCHC compression can use the MSB MO to a Uri-Path or Uri-Query + element. However, attention to the length is important because the + MSB value is in bits, and the size MUST always be a multiple of 8 + bits. + + The length sent at the beginning of a variable-length Compression + Residue indicates the LSB's size in bytes. + + For instance, for a CORECONF path /c/X6?k=eth0, the Rule description + can be as follows (Table 2): + + +===========+=====+====+====+======+=========+============+ + | Field | FL | FP | DI | TV | MO | CDA | + +===========+=====+====+====+======+=========+============+ + | Uri-Path | | 1 | Up | "c" | equal | not-sent | + +-----------+-----+----+----+------+---------+------------+ + | Uri-Path | var | 2 | Up | | ignore | value-sent | + +-----------+-----+----+----+------+---------+------------+ + | Uri-Query | var | 1 | Up | "k=" | MSB(16) | LSB | + +-----------+-----+----+----+------+---------+------------+ + + Table 2: CORECONF URI Compression + + Table 2 shows the Rule description for a Uri-Path and a Uri-Query. + SCHC compresses the first part of the Uri-Path with a "not-sent" CDA. + SCHC will send the second element of the Uri-Path with the length + (i.e., 0x2 "X6") followed by the query option (i.e., 0x4 "eth0"). + +5.3.1. Variable Number of Path or Query Elements + + SCHC fixed the number of Uri-Path or Uri-Query elements in a Rule at + the Rule creation time. If the number varies, SCHC SHOULD either + + * create several Rules to cover all possibilities or + + * create a Rule that defines several entries for Uri-Path to cover + the longest path and send a Compression Residue with a length of 0 + to indicate that a Uri-Path entry is empty. + + However, this adds 4 bits to the variable Compression Residue size. + See Section 7.4.2 of [RFC8724]. + +5.4. CoAP Option Size1, Size2, Proxy-URI, and Proxy-Scheme Fields + + The SCHC Rule description MAY define sending some field values by + setting the TV to "not-sent", the MO to "ignore", and the CDA to + "value-sent". A Rule MAY also use a "match-mapping" MO when there + are different options for the same FID. Otherwise, the Rule sets the + TV to the value, the MO to "equal", and the CDA to "not-sent". + +5.5. CoAP Option ETag, If-Match, If-None-Match, Location-Path, and + Location-Query Fields + + A Rule entry cannot store these fields' values. The Rule description + MUST always send these values in the Compression Residue. + +6. SCHC Compression of CoAP Extensions + +6.1. Block + + When a packet uses a Block option [RFC7959], SCHC compression MUST + send its content in the Compression Residue. The SCHC Rule describes + an empty TV with the MO set to "ignore" and the CDA set to "value- + sent". The Block option allows fragmentation at the CoAP level that + is compatible with SCHC fragmentation. Both fragmentation mechanisms + are complementary, and the node may use them for the same packet as + needed. + +6.2. Observe + + [RFC7641] defines the Observe Option. The SCHC Rule description will + not define the TV but will set the MO to "ignore" and the CDA to + "value-sent". SCHC does not limit the maximum size for this option + (3 bytes). To reduce the transmission size, either the Device + implementation MAY limit the delta between two consecutive values or + a proxy can modify the increment. + + Since the Observe Option MAY use a RST message to inform a server + that the client does not require the Observe response, a specific + SCHC Rule SHOULD exist to allow the message's compression with the + RST type. + +6.3. No-Response + + [RFC7967] defines a No-Response option limiting the responses made by + a server to a request. Different behaviors exist while using this + option to limit the responses made by a server to a request. If both + ends know the value, then the SCHC Rule will describe a TV to this + value, with the MO set to "equal" and the CDA set to "not-sent". + + Otherwise, if the value is changing over time, the SCHC Rule will set + the MO to "ignore" and the CDA to "value-sent". The Rule may also + use a "match-mapping" MO to compress this option. + +6.4. OSCORE + + OSCORE [RFC8613] defines end-to-end protection for CoAP messages. + This section describes how SCHC Rules can be applied to compress + OSCORE-protected messages. + + Figure 4 shows the OSCORE option value encoding defined in + Section 6.1 of [RFC8613], where the first byte specifies the content + of the OSCORE options using flags. The three most significant bits + of this byte are reserved and always set to 0. Bit h, when set, + indicates the presence of the kid context field in the option. Bit + k, when set, indicates the presence of a kid field. The three least + significant bits, n, indicate the length of the piv (Partial + Initialization Vector) field in bytes. When n = 0, no piv is + present. + + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <--------- n bytes -------------> + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--------------------------------- + |0 0 0|h|k| n | Partial IV (if any) ... + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--------------------------------- + | | | + |<-- CoAP -->|<------ CoAP OSCORE_piv ------> | + OSCORE_flags + + <- 1 byte -> <------ s bytes -----> + +------------+----------------------+-----------------------+ + | s (if any) | kid context (if any) | kid (if any) ... | + +------------+----------------------+-----------------------+ + | | | + | <------ CoAP OSCORE_kidctx ------>|<-- CoAP OSCORE_kid -->| + + Figure 4: OSCORE Option + + The flag byte is followed by the piv field, the kid context field, + and the kid field, in that order, and, if present, the kid context + field's length (in bytes) is encoded in the first byte, denoted by + "s". + + To better perform OSCORE SCHC compression, the Rule description needs + to identify the OSCORE option and the fields it contains. + Conceptually, it discerns up to four distinct pieces of information + within the OSCORE option: the flag bits, the piv, the kid context, + and the kid. The SCHC Rule splits the OSCORE option into four Field + Descriptors in order to compress them: + + * CoAP OSCORE_flags + + * CoAP OSCORE_piv + + * CoAP OSCORE_kidctx + + * CoAP OSCORE_kid + + Figure 4 shows the OSCORE option format with those four fields + superimposed on it. Note that the CoAP OSCORE_kidctx field directly + includes the size octet, s. + +7. Examples of CoAP Header Compression + +7.1. Mandatory Header with CON Message + + In this first scenario, the SCHC compressor on the NGW side receives + a POST message from an Internet client, which is immediately + acknowledged by the Device. Table 3 describes the SCHC Rule + descriptions for this scenario. + + +===================================================================+ + |RuleID 1 | + +==========+===+==+==+======+===============+===============+=======+ + | Field | FL|FP|DI| TV | MO | CDA | Sent | + | | | | | | | | [bits]| + +==========+===+==+==+======+===============+===============+=======+ + |CoAP |2 |1 |Bi|01 | equal | not-sent | | + |version | | | | | | | | + +----------+---+--+--+------+---------------+---------------+=======+ + |CoAP Type |2 |1 |Dw|CON | equal | not-sent | | + +----------+---+--+--+------+---------------+---------------+=======+ + |CoAP Type |2 |1 |Up|[ACK, | match-mapping | matching-sent |T | + | | | | |RST] | | | | + +----------+---+--+--+------+---------------+---------------+=======+ + |CoAP TKL |4 |1 |Bi|0 | equal | not-sent | | + +----------+---+--+--+------+---------------+---------------+=======+ + |CoAP Code |8 |1 |Bi|[0.00,| match-mapping | matching-sent |CC CCC | + | | | | |... | | | | + | | | | |5.05] | | | | + +----------+---+--+--+------+---------------+---------------+=======+ + |CoAP MID |16 |1 |Bi|0000 | MSB(7) | LSB |MID | + +----------+---+--+--+------+---------------+---------------+=======+ + |CoAP Uri- |var|1 |Dw|path | equal 1 | not-sent | | + |Path | | | | | | | | + +----------+---+--+--+------+---------------+---------------+=======+ + + Table 3: CoAP Context to Compress Header without Token + + In this example, SCHC compression elides the version and Token Length + fields. The 25 Method and Response Codes defined in [RFC7252] have + been shrunk to 5 bits using a "match-mapping" MO. The Uri-Path + contains a single element indicated in the TV and elided with the CDA + "not-sent". + + SCHC compression reduces the header, sending only the Type, a mapped + code, and the least significant bits of the Message ID (9 bits in the + example above). + + Note that a client located in an Application Server sending a request + to a server located in the Device may not be compressed through this + Rule, since the MID might not start with 7 bits equal to 0. A CoAP + proxy placed before SCHC C/D can rewrite the Message ID to fit the + value and match the Rule. + +7.2. OSCORE Compression + + OSCORE aims to solve the problem of end-to-end encryption for CoAP + messages. Therefore, the goal is to hide the message as much as + possible while still enabling proxy operation. + + Conceptually, this is achieved by splitting the CoAP message into an + Inner Plaintext and Outer OSCORE message. The Inner Plaintext + contains sensitive information that is not necessary for proxy + operation. However, it is part of the message that can be encrypted + until it reaches its end destination. The Outer Message acts as a + shell matching the regular CoAP message format and includes all + options and information needed for proxy operation and caching. + Figure 5 below illustrates this analysis. + + CoAP arranges the options into one of three classes, each granted a + specific type of protection by the protocol: + + Class E: Encrypted options moved to the Inner Plaintext. + + Class I: Integrity-protected options included in the Additional + Authenticated Data (AAD) for the encryption of the Plaintext but + otherwise left untouched in the Outer Message. + + Class U: Unprotected options left untouched in the Outer Message. + + These classes point out that the Outer option contains the OSCORE + option and that the message is OSCORE protected; this option carries + the information necessary to retrieve the Security Context. The + endpoint will use this Security Context to decrypt the message + correctly. + + Original CoAP Packet + +-+-+---+-------+---------------+ + |v|t|TKL| code | Message ID | + +-+-+---+-------+---------------+....+ + | Token | + +-------------------------------.....+ + | Options (IEU) | + . . + . . + +------+-------------------+ + | 0xFF | + +------+------------------------+ + | | + | Payload | + | | + +-------------------------------+ + / \ + / \ + / \ + / \ + Outer Header v v Plaintext + +-+-+---+--------+---------------+ +-------+ + |v|t|TKL|new code| Message ID | | code | + +-+-+---+--------+---------------+....+ +-------+-----......+ + | Token | | Options (E) | + +--------------------------------.....+ +-------+------.....+ + | Options (IU) | | 0xFF | + . . +-------+-----------+ + . OSCORE Option . | | + +------+-------------------+ | Payload | + | 0xFF | | | + +------+ +-------------------+ + + Figure 5: CoAP Packet Split into OSCORE Outer Header and Plaintext + + Figure 5 shows the packet format for the OSCORE Outer header and + Plaintext. + + In the Outer header, the original header code is hidden and replaced + by a default dummy value. As seen in Sections 4.1.3.5 and 4.2 of + [RFC8613], the message code is replaced by POST for requests and + Changed for responses when CoAP is not using the Observe Option. If + CoAP uses Observe, the OSCORE message code is replaced by FETCH for + requests and Content for responses. + + The first byte of the Plaintext contains the original packet code, + followed by the message code, the class E options, and, if present, + the original message payload preceded by its payload marker. + + An Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) algorithm now + encrypts the Plaintext. This integrity-protects the Security Context + parameters and, eventually, any class I options from the Outer + header. The resulting ciphertext becomes the new payload of the + OSCORE message, as illustrated in Figure 6. + + As defined in [RFC5116], this ciphertext is the encrypted Plaintext's + concatenation of the Authentication Tag. Note that Inner Compression + only affects the Plaintext before encryption. The Authentication + Tag, fixed in length and uncompressed, is considered part of the cost + of protection. + + Outer Header + +-+-+---+--------+---------------+ + |v|t|TKL|new code| Message ID | + +-+-+---+--------+---------------+....+ + | Token | + +--------------------------------.....+ + | Options (IU) | + . . + . OSCORE Option . + +------+-------------------+ + | 0xFF | + +------+---------------------------+ + | | + | Ciphertext: Encrypted Inner | + | Header and Payload | + | + Authentication Tag | + | | + +----------------------------------+ + + Figure 6: OSCORE Message + + The SCHC compression scheme consists of compressing both the + Plaintext before encryption and the resulting OSCORE message after + encryption; see Figure 7. + + The OSCORE message translates into a segmented process where SCHC + compression is applied independently in two stages, each with its + corresponding set of Rules, with the Inner SCHC Rules and the Outer + SCHC Rules. This way, compression is applied to all fields of the + original CoAP message. + + Outer Message OSCORE Plaintext + +-+-+---+--------+---------------+ +-------+ + |v|t|TKL|new code| Message ID | | code | + +-+-+---+--------+---------------+....+ +-------+-----......+ + | Token | | Options (E) | + +--------------------------------.....+ +-------+------.....+ + | Options (IU) | | 0xFF | + . . +-------+-----------+ + . OSCORE Option . | | + +------+-------------------+ | Payload | + | 0xFF | | | + +------+------------+ +-------------------+ + | Ciphertext |<---------\ | + | | | v + +-------------------+ | +-----------------+ + | | | Inner SCHC | + v | | Compression | + +-----------------+ | +-----------------+ + | Outer SCHC | | | + | Compression | | v + +-----------------+ | +-------+ + | | |RuleID | + v | +-------+-----------+ + +--------+ +------------+ |Compression Residue| + |RuleID' | | Encryption | <-- +----------+--------+ + +--------+-----------+ +------------+ | | + |Compression Residue'| | Payload | + +-----------+--------+ | | + | Ciphertext | +-------------------+ + | | + +--------------------+ + + Figure 7: OSCORE Compression Diagram + + Note that since the corresponding endpoint can only decrypt the Inner + part of the message, this endpoint will also have to implement Inner + SCHC Compression/Decompression. + +7.3. Example OSCORE Compression + + This section gives an example with a GET request and its consequent + Content response from a Device-based CoAP client to a cloud-based + CoAP server. The example also describes a possible set of Rules for + Inner SCHC Compression and Outer SCHC Compression. A dump of the + results and a contrast between SCHC + OSCORE performance with SCHC + + CoAP performance are also listed. This example gives an + approximation of the cost of security with SCHC-OSCORE. + + Our first CoAP message is the GET request in Figure 8. + + Original message: + ================= + 0x4101000182bb74656d7065726174757265 + + Header: + 0x4101 + 01 Ver + 00 CON + 0001 TKL + 00000001 Request Code 1 "GET" + + 0x0001 = mid + 0x82 = token + + Options: + 0xbb74656d7065726174757265 + Option 11: URI_PATH + Value = temperature + + Original message length: 17 bytes + + Figure 8: CoAP GET Request + + Its corresponding response is the Content response in Figure 9. + + Original message: + ================= + 0x6145000182ff32332043 + + Header: + 0x6145 + 01 Ver + 10 ACK + 0001 TKL + 01000101 Successful Response Code 69 "2.05 Content" + + 0x0001 = mid + 0x82 = token + + 0xFF Payload marker + Payload: + 0x32332043 + + Original message length: 10 bytes + + Figure 9: CoAP Content Response + + The SCHC Rules for the Inner Compression include all fields already + present in a regular CoAP message. The methods described in + Section 4 apply to these fields. Table 4 provides an example. + + +===================================================================+ + |RuleID 0 | + +========+==+==+==+===========+===============+==============+======+ + | Field |FL|FP|DI| TV | MO | CDA | Sent | + | | | | | | | |[bits]| + +========+==+==+==+===========+===============+==============+======+ + |CoAP |8 |1 |Up|1 | equal | not-sent | | + |Code | | | | | | | | + +--------+--+--+--+-----------+---------------+--------------+======+ + |CoAP |8 |1 |Dw|[69,132] | match-mapping | mapping-sent |c | + |Code | | | | | | | | + +--------+--+--+--+-----------+---------------+--------------+======+ + |CoAP | |1 |Up|temperature| equal | not-sent | | + |Uri-Path| | | | | | | | + +--------+--+--+--+-----------+---------------+--------------+======+ + + Table 4: Inner SCHC Rule + + Figure 10 shows the Plaintext obtained for the example GET request. + The packet follows the process of Inner Compression and encryption + until the payload. The Outer OSCORE message adds the result of the + Inner process. + + ________________________________________________________ + | | + | OSCORE Plaintext | + | | + | 0x01bb74656d7065726174757265 (13 bytes) | + | | + | 0x01 Request Code GET | + | | + | bb74656d7065726174757265 Option 11: URI_PATH | + | Value = temperature | + |________________________________________________________| + + | + | + | Inner SCHC Compression + | + v + _________________________________ + | | + | Compressed Plaintext | + | | + | 0x00 | + | | + | RuleID = 0x00 (1 byte) | + | (No Compression Residue) | + |_________________________________| + + | + | AEAD Encryption + | (piv = 0x04) + v + _________________________________________________ + | | + | encrypted_plaintext = 0xa2 (1 byte) | + | tag = 0xc54fe1b434297b62 (8 bytes) | + | | + | ciphertext = 0xa2c54fe1b434297b62 (9 bytes) | + |_________________________________________________| + + Figure 10: Plaintext Compression and Encryption for GET Request + + In this case, the original message has no payload, and its resulting + Plaintext is compressed up to only 1 byte (the size of the RuleID). + The AEAD algorithm preserves this length in its first output and + yields a fixed-size tag. SCHC cannot compress the tag, and the + OSCORE message must include it without compression. The use of + integrity protection translates into an overhead in total message + length, limiting the amount of compression that can be achieved and + playing into the cost of adding security to the exchange. + + Figure 11 shows the process for the example Content response. The + Compression Residue is 1 bit long. Note that since SCHC adds padding + after the payload, this misalignment causes the hexadecimal code from + the payload to differ from the original, even if SCHC cannot compress + the tag. The overhead for the tag bytes limits SCHC's performance + but brings security to the transmission. + + ________________________________________________________ + | | + | OSCORE Plaintext | + | | + | 0x45ff32332043 (6 bytes) | + | | + | 0x45 Successful Response Code 69 "2.05 Content" | + | | + | ff Payload marker | + | | + | 32332043 Payload | + |________________________________________________________| + + | + | + | Inner SCHC Compression + | + v + _________________________________________________ + | | + | Compressed Plaintext | + | | + | 0x001919902180 (6 bytes) | + | | + | 00 RuleID | + | | + | 0b0 (1 bit match-mapping Compression Residue) | + | 0x32332043 >> 1 (shifted payload) | + | 0b0000000 Padding | + |_________________________________________________| + + | + | AEAD Encryption + | (piv = 0x04) + v + _________________________________________________________ + | | + | encrypted_plaintext = 0x10c6d7c26cc1 (6 bytes) | + | tag = 0xe9aef3f2461e0c29 (8 bytes) | + | | + | ciphertext = 0x10c6d7c26cc1e9aef3f2461e0c29 (14 bytes) | + |_________________________________________________________| + + Figure 11: Plaintext Compression and Encryption for Content Response + + The Outer SCHC Rule (Table 5) must process the OSCORE options fields. + Figures 12 and 13 show a dump of the OSCORE messages generated from + the example messages. They include the Inner Compressed ciphertext + in the payload. These are the messages that have to be compressed + via the Outer SCHC Compression scheme. + + Table 5 shows a possible set of Outer Rule items to compress the + Outer header. + + +===================================================================+ + |RuleID 0 | + +===============+===+==+==+================+=======+=========+======+ + | Field | FL|FP|DI| TV | MO | CDA | Sent | + | | | | | | | |[bits]| + +===============+===+==+==+================+=======+=========+======+ + |CoAP version |2 |1 |Bi| 01 |equal |not-sent | | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP Type |2 |1 |Up| 0 |equal |not-sent | | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP Type |2 |1 |Dw| 2 |equal |not-sent | | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP TKL |4 |1 |Bi| 1 |equal |not-sent | | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP Code |8 |1 |Up| 2 |equal |not-sent | | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP Code |8 |1 |Dw| 68 |equal |not-sent | | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP MID |16 |1 |Bi| 0000 |MSB(12)|LSB |MMMM | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP Token |tkl|1 |Bi| 0x80 |MSB(5) |LSB |TTT | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP |8 |1 |Up| 0x09 |equal |not-sent | | + |OSCORE_flags | | | | | | | | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP OSCORE_piv|var|1 |Up| 0x00 |MSB(4) |LSB |PPPP | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP OSCORE_kid|var|1 |Up| 0x636c69656e70 |MSB(52)|LSB |KKKK | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP |var|1 |Bi| b'' |equal |not-sent | | + |OSCORE_kidctx | | | | | | | | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP |8 |1 |Dw| b'' |equal |not-sent | | + |OSCORE_flags | | | | | | | | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP OSCORE_piv|var|1 |Dw| b'' |equal |not-sent | | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + |CoAP OSCORE_kid|var|1 |Dw| b'' |equal |not-sent | | + +---------------+---+--+--+----------------+-------+---------+======+ + + Table 5: Outer SCHC Rule + + Protected message: + ================== + 0x4102000182d8080904636c69656e74ffa2c54fe1b434297b62 + (25 bytes) + + Header: + 0x4102 + 01 Ver + 00 CON + 0001 TKL + 00000010 Request Code 2 "POST" + + 0x0001 = mid + 0x82 = token + + Options: + 0xd8080904636c69656e74 (10 bytes) + Option 21: OBJECT_SECURITY + Value = 0x0904636c69656e74 + 09 = 000 0 1 001 flag byte + h k n + 04 piv + 636c69656e74 kid + + 0xFF Payload marker + Payload: + 0xa2c54fe1b434297b62 (9 bytes) + + Figure 12: Protected and Inner SCHC Compressed GET Request + + Protected message: + ================== + 0x6144000182d008ff10c6d7c26cc1e9aef3f2461e0c29 + (22 bytes) + + Header: + 0x6144 + 01 Ver + 10 ACK + 0001 TKL + 01000100 Successful Response Code 68 "2.04 Changed" + + 0x0001 = mid + 0x82 = token + + Options: + 0xd008 (2 bytes) + Option 21: OBJECT_SECURITY + Value = b'' + + 0xFF Payload marker + Payload: + 0x10c6d7c26cc1e9aef3f2461e0c29 (14 bytes) + + Figure 13: Protected and Inner SCHC Compressed Content Response + + For the flag bits, some SCHC compression methods are useful, + depending on the application. The most straightforward alternative + is to provide a fixed value for the flags, combining a MO of "equal" + and a CDA of "not-sent". This SCHC definition saves most bits but + could prevent flexibility. Otherwise, SCHC could use a "match- + mapping" MO to choose from several configurations for the exchange. + If not, the SCHC description may use an "MSB" MO to mask off the + three hard-coded most significant bits. + + Note that fixing a flag bit will limit the choices of CoAP options + that can be used in the exchange, since the values of these choices + are dependent on specific options. + + The piv field lends itself to having some bits masked off with an + "MSB" MO and an "LSB" CDA. This SCHC description could be useful in + applications where the message frequency is low, such as LPWAN + technologies. Note that compressing the sequence numbers may reduce + the maximum number of sequence numbers that can be used in an + exchange. Once the sequence number exceeds the maximum value, the + OSCORE keys need to be re-established. + + The size, s, that is included in the kid context field MAY be masked + off with an "LSB" CDA. The rest of the field could have additional + bits masked off or have the whole field fixed with a MO of "equal" + and a CDA of "not-sent". The same holds for the kid field. + + The Outer Rule of Table 5 is applied to the example GET request and + Content response. Figures 14 and 15 show the resulting messages. + + Compressed message: + ================== + 0x001489458a9fc3686852f6c4 (12 bytes) + 0x00 RuleID + 1489 Compression Residue + 458a9fc3686852f6c4 Padded payload + + Compression Residue: + 0b 0001 010 0100 0100 (15 bits -> 2 bytes with padding) + mid tkn piv kid + + Payload + 0xa2c54fe1b434297b62 (9 bytes) + + Compressed message length: 12 bytes + + Figure 14: SCHC-OSCORE Compressed GET Request + + Compressed message: + ================== + 0x0014218daf84d983d35de7e48c3c1852 (16 bytes) + 0x00 RuleID + 14 Compression Residue + 218daf84d983d35de7e48c3c1852 Padded payload + Compression Residue: + 0b0001 010 (7 bits -> 1 byte with padding) + mid tkn + + Payload + 0x10c6d7c26cc1e9aef3f2461e0c29 (14 bytes) + + Compressed message length: 16 bytes + + Figure 15: SCHC-OSCORE Compressed Content Response + + In contrast, comparing these results with what would be obtained by + SCHC compressing the original CoAP messages without protecting them + with OSCORE is done by compressing the CoAP messages according to the + SCHC Rule in Table 6. + + +===================================================================+ + |RuleID 1 | + +========+===+==+==+===========+===============+=============+======+ + | Field | FL|FP|DI| TV | MO | CDA | Sent | + | | | | | | | |[bits]| + +========+===+==+==+===========+===============+=============+======+ + |CoAP |2 |1 |Bi|01 | equal |not-sent | | + |version | | | | | | | | + +--------+---+--+--+-----------+---------------+-------------+======+ + |CoAP |2 |1 |Up|0 | equal |not-sent | | + |Type | | | | | | | | + +--------+---+--+--+-----------+---------------+-------------+======+ + |CoAP |2 |1 |Dw|2 | equal |not-sent | | + |Type | | | | | | | | + +--------+---+--+--+-----------+---------------+-------------+======+ + |CoAP TKL|4 |1 |Bi|1 | equal |not-sent | | + +--------+---+--+--+-----------+---------------+-------------+======+ + |CoAP |8 |1 |Up|2 | equal |not-sent | | + |Code | | | | | | | | + +--------+---+--+--+-----------+---------------+-------------+======+ + |CoAP |8 |1 |Dw|[69,132] | match-mapping |mapping-sent |C | + |Code | | | | | | | | + +--------+---+--+--+-----------+---------------+-------------+======+ + |CoAP MID|16 |1 |Bi|0000 | MSB(12) |LSB |MMMM | + +--------+---+--+--+-----------+---------------+-------------+======+ + |CoAP |tkl|1 |Bi|0x80 | MSB(5) |LSB |TTT | + |Token | | | | | | | | + +--------+---+--+--+-----------+---------------+-------------+======+ + |CoAP | |1 |Up|temperature| equal |not-sent | | + |Uri-Path| | | | | | | | + +--------+---+--+--+-----------+---------------+-------------+======+ + + Table 6: SCHC-CoAP Rule (No OSCORE) + + The Rule in Table 6 yields the SCHC compression results as shown in + Figure 16 for the request and Figure 17 for the response. + + Compressed message: + ================== + 0x0114 + 0x01 = RuleID + + Compression Residue: + 0b00010100 (1 byte) + + Compressed message length: 2 bytes + + Figure 16: CoAP GET Compressed without OSCORE + + Compressed message: + ================== + 0x010a32332043 + 0x01 = RuleID + + Compression Residue: + 0b00001010 (1 byte) + + Payload + 0x32332043 + + Compressed message length: 6 bytes + + Figure 17: CoAP Content Compressed without OSCORE + + As can be seen, the difference between applying SCHC + OSCORE as + compared to regular SCHC + CoAP is about 10 bytes. + +8. IANA Considerations + + This document has no IANA actions. + +9. Security Considerations + + The use of SCHC header compression for CoAP header fields only + affects the representation of the header information. SCHC header + compression itself does not increase or decrease the overall level of + security of the communication. When the connection does not use a + security protocol (OSCORE, DTLS, etc.), it is necessary to use a + Layer 2 security mechanism to protect the SCHC messages. + + If an LPWAN is the Layer 2 technology being used, the SCHC security + considerations discussed in [RFC8724] continue to apply. When using + another Layer 2 protocol, the use of a cryptographic integrity- + protection mechanism to protect the SCHC headers is REQUIRED. Such + cryptographic integrity protection is necessary in order to continue + to provide the properties that [RFC8724] relies upon. + + When SCHC is used with OSCORE, the security considerations discussed + in [RFC8613] continue to apply. + + When SCHC is used with the OSCORE Outer headers, the Initialization + Vector (IV) size in the Compression Residue must be carefully + selected. There is a trade-off between compression efficiency (with + a longer "MSB" MO prefix) and the frequency at which the Device must + renew its key material (in order to prevent the IV from expanding to + an uncompressible value). The key-renewal operation itself requires + several message exchanges and requires energy-intensive computation, + but the optimal trade-off will depend on the specifics of the Device + and expected usage patterns. + + If an attacker can introduce a corrupted SCHC-compressed packet onto + a link, DoS attacks can be mounted by causing excessive resource + consumption at the decompressor. However, an attacker able to inject + packets at the link layer is also capable of other, potentially more + damaging, attacks. + + SCHC compression emits variable-length Compression Residues for some + CoAP fields. In the representation of the compressed header, the + length field that is sent is not the length of the original header + field but rather the length of the Compression Residue that is being + transmitted. If a corrupted packet arrives at the decompressor with + a longer or shorter length than the original compressed + representation possessed, the SCHC decompression procedures will + detect an error and drop the packet. + + SCHC header compression Rules MUST remain tightly coupled between the + compressor and the decompressor. If the compression Rules get out of + sync, a Compression Residue might be decompressed differently at the + receiver than the initial message submitted to compression + procedures. Accordingly, any time the context Rules are updated on + an OSCORE endpoint, that endpoint MUST trigger OSCORE key re- + establishment. Similar procedures may be appropriate to signal Rule + updates when other message-protection mechanisms are in use. + +10. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. + + [RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated + Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>. + + [RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained + Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>. + + [RFC7641] Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained + Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015, + <https://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/RFC7959, August 2016, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959>. + + [RFC7967] Bhattacharyya, A., Bandyopadhyay, S., Pal, A., and T. + Bose, "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Option for + No Server Response", RFC 7967, DOI 10.17487/RFC7967, + August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7967>. + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC + 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, + May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. + + [RFC8613] Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz, + "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments + (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>. + + [RFC8724] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and JC. + Zúñiga, "SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header + Compression and Fragmentation", RFC 8724, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8724, April 2020, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8724>. + +Acknowledgements + + The authors would like to thank (in alphabetic order): Christian + Amsuss, Dominique Barthel, Carsten Bormann, Theresa Enghardt, Thomas + Fossati, Klaus Hartke, Benjamin Kaduk, Francesca Palombini, Alexander + Pelov, Göran Selander, and Éric Vyncke. + +Authors' Addresses + + Ana Minaburo + Acklio + 1137A avenue des Champs Blancs + 35510 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex + France + + Email: ana@ackl.io + + + Laurent Toutain + Institut MINES TELECOM; IMT Atlantique + CS 17607 + 2 rue de la Chataigneraie + 35576 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex + France + + Email: Laurent.Toutain@imt-atlantique.fr + + + Ricardo Andreasen + Universidad de Buenos Aires + Av. Paseo Colon 850 + C1063ACV Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires + Argentina + + Email: randreasen@fi.uba.ar |