path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9431.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         C. Sengul
Request for Comments: 9431                             Brunel University
Category: Standards Track                                       A. Kirby
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 Oxbotica
                                                               July 2023


Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) and Transport Layer Security
   (TLS) Profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained
                      Environments (ACE) Framework

Abstract

   This document specifies a profile for the Authentication and
   Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework to enable
   authorization in a publish-subscribe messaging system based on
   Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT).  Proof-of-Possession
   keys, bound to OAuth 2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and
   authorize MQTT Clients.  The protocol relies on TLS for
   confidentiality and MQTT server (Broker) authentication.

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/rfc9431.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Requirements Language
     1.2.  ACE-Related Terminology
     1.3.  MQTT-Related Terminology
   2.  Authorizing Connection Requests
     2.1.  Client Token Request to the Authorization Server (AS)
     2.2.  Client Connection Request to the Broker (C)
       2.2.1.  Overview of Client-RS Authentication Methods over TLS
               and MQTT
       2.2.2.  authz-info: The Authorization Information Topic
       2.2.3.  Client Authentication over TLS
         2.2.3.1.  Raw Public Key Mode
         2.2.3.2.  Pre-Shared Key Mode
       2.2.4.  Client Authentication over MQTT
         2.2.4.1.  Transporting the Access Token inside the MQTT
                 CONNECT
         2.2.4.2.  Authentication Using the AUTH Property
       2.2.5.  Broker Token Validation
     2.3.  Token Scope and Authorization
     2.4.  Broker Response to Client Connection Request
       2.4.1.  Unauthorized Request and the Optional Authorization
               Server Discovery
       2.4.2.  Authorization Success
   3.  Authorizing PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE Packets
     3.1.  PUBLISH Packets from the Publisher Client to the Broker
     3.2.  PUBLISH Packets from the Broker to the Subscriber Clients
     3.3.  Authorizing SUBSCRIBE Packets
   4.  Token Expiration, Update, and Reauthentication
   5.  Handling Disconnections and Retained Messages
   6.  Reduced Protocol Interactions for MQTT v3.1.1
     6.1.  Token Transport
     6.2.  Handling Authorization Errors
   7.  IANA Considerations
     7.1.  TLS Exporter Labels Registration
     7.2.  Media Type Registration
     7.3.  ACE OAuth Profile Registration
     7.4.  AIF
   8.  Security Considerations
   9.  Privacy Considerations
   10. References
     10.1.  Normative References
     10.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Checklist for Profile Requirements
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   This document specifies a profile for the ACE framework [RFC9200].
   In this profile, Clients and Servers (Brokers) use MQTT to exchange
   Application Messages.  The protocol relies on TLS for communication
   security between entities.  The MQTT protocol interactions are
   described based on the MQTT v5.0 OASIS Standard
   [MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5].  Since it is expected that MQTT deployments
   will continue to support MQTT v3.1.1 Clients, this document also
   describes a reduced set of protocol interactions for the MQTT v3.1.1
   OASIS Standard [MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v3.1.1].  However, MQTT v5.0 is
   the RECOMMENDED version, as it works more naturally with ACE-style
   authentication and authorization.

   MQTT is a publish-subscribe protocol, and after connecting to the
   MQTT Server (Broker), a Client can publish and subscribe to multiple
   topics.  The Broker, which acts as the Resource Server (RS), is
   responsible for distributing messages published by the publishers to
   their subscribers.  In the rest of the document, the terms "RS",
   "MQTT Server", and "Broker" are used interchangeably.

   Messages are published under a Topic Name, and subscribers subscribe
   to the Topic Names to receive the corresponding messages.  The Broker
   uses the Topic Name in a published message to determine which
   subscribers to relay the messages to.  In this document, topics (more
   specifically, Topic Names) are treated as resources.  The Clients are
   assumed to have identified the publish/subscribe topics of interest
   out of band (topic discovery is not a feature of the MQTT protocol).
   A Resource Owner can preconfigure policies at the Authorization
   Server (AS) that give Clients publish or subscribe permissions to
   different topics.

   Clients prove their permission to publish and subscribe to topics
   hosted on an MQTT Broker using an access token that is bound to a
   Proof-of-Possession (PoP) key.  This document describes how to
   authorize the following exchanges between the Clients and the Broker.

   *  connection requests from the Clients to the Broker

   *  publish requests from the Clients to the Broker and from the
      Broker to the Clients

   *  subscribe requests from the Clients to the Broker

   Clients use the MQTT PUBLISH packet to publish to a topic.  The
   mechanisms specified in this document do not protect the Payload of
   the PUBLISH packet from the Broker.  Hence, the Payload is not signed
   or encrypted specifically for the subscribers.  This functionality
   may be implemented using the proposal outlined in the ACE Pub-Sub
   Profile [ACE-PUBSUB-PROFILE].

   To provide communication confidentiality and Broker authentication to
   the MQTT Clients, TLS is used, and TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] is RECOMMENDED.
   This document makes the same assumptions as Section 4 of the ACE
   framework [RFC9200] regarding Client and RS registration with the AS
   for setting up the keying material.  While the Client-Broker
   exchanges are only over MQTT, the required Client-AS and RS-AS
   interactions are described for HTTPS-based communication [RFC9110],
   using the "application/ace+json" content type and, unless otherwise
   specified, JSON encoding.  The token MAY be an opaque reference to
   authorization information or a JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519].  For
   JWTs, this document follows [RFC7800] for PoP semantics for JWTs, and
   the mechanisms for providing and verifying PoP are detailed in
   Section 2.2.  The Client-AS and RS-AS exchanges MAY also use
   protocols other than HTTP, e.g., Constrained Application Protocol
   (CoAP) [RFC7252] or MQTT.  It is recommended that TLS is used to
   secure these communication channels between Client-AS and RS-AS.  To
   reduce the protocol memory and bandwidth requirements,
   implementations MAY also use the "application/ace+cbor" content type,
   Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) encoding [RFC8949], CBOR
   Web Tokens (CWTs) [RFC8392], and associated PoP semantics.  For more
   information, see "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web
   Tokens (CWTs)" [RFC8747].  A JWT uses JSON Object Signing and
   Encryption (JOSE), while a CWT uses CBOR Object Signing and
   Encryption (COSE) [RFC9052] for security protection.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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.

1.2.  ACE-Related Terminology

   Certain security-related terms, such as "authentication",
   "authorization", "data confidentiality", "(data) integrity", "message
   authentication code" (MAC), and "verify", are taken from [RFC4949].

   The terminology for entities in the architecture is defined in OAuth
   2.0 [RFC6749], such as "Client" (C), "Resource Server" (RS), and
   "Authorization Server" (AS).

   The term "resource" is used to refer to an MQTT Topic Name, which is
   defined in Section 1.3.  Hence, the "Resource Owner" is any entity
   that can authoritatively speak for the topic.  This document also
   defines a Client Authorization Server for Clients that are not able
   to support HTTP.

   Client Authorization Server (CAS)
           An entity that prepares and endorses authentication and
           authorization data for a Client and communicates to the AS
           using HTTPS.

1.3.  MQTT-Related Terminology

   The document describes message exchanges as MQTT protocol
   interactions.  The Clients are MQTT Clients, which connect to the
   Broker to publish and subscribe to Application Messages (which are
   labeled with their topics).  For additional information, please refer
   to the MQTT v5.0 OASIS Standard [MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5] or MQTT
   v3.1.1 OASIS Standard [MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v3.1.1].

   Broker 
           The Server in MQTT.  It acts as an intermediary between the
           Clients that publish Application Messages and the Clients
           that made Subscriptions.  The Broker acts as the Resource
           Server for the Clients.

   Client 
           A device or program that uses MQTT.

   Network Connection
           A construct provided by the underlying transport protocol
           that is being used by MQTT.  It connects the Client to the
           Server.  It provides the means to send an ordered, lossless
           stream of bytes in both directions.  This document uses TLS
           as the transport protocol.

   Session
           A stateful interaction between a Client and a Broker.  Some
           Sessions last only as long as the Network Connection; others
           can span multiple Network Connections.

   Application Message
           The data carried by the MQTT protocol.  The data has an
           associated Quality-of-Service (QoS) level and Topic Name.

   MQTT Control Packet
           The MQTT protocol operates by exchanging a series of MQTT
           Control Packets.  Each packet is composed of a Fixed Header,
           a Variable Header (depending on the Control Packet type), and
           a Payload.

   UTF-8-encoded string
           A string prefixed with a two-byte-length field that gives the
           number of bytes in a UTF-8-encoded string itself.  Unless
           stated otherwise, all UTF-8-encoded strings can have any
           length in the range 0 to 65535 bytes.

   Binary Data
           Binary Data is represented by a two-byte-length field, which
           indicates the number of data bytes, followed by that number
           of bytes.  Thus, the length of Binary Data is limited to the
           range of 0 to 65535 bytes.

   Variable Byte Integer
           A Variable Byte Integer is encoded using an encoding scheme
           that uses a single byte for values up to 127.  For larger
           values, the least significant seven bits of each byte encode
           the data, and the most significant bit is used to indicate
           whether there are bytes following in the representation.
           Thus, each byte encodes 128 values and a "continuation bit".
           The maximum number of bytes in the Variable Byte Integer
           field is four.

   QoS level
           The level of assurance for the delivery of an Application
           Message.  The QoS level can be 0-2, where 0 indicates "At
           most once delivery", 1 indicates "At least once delivery",
           and 2 indicates "Exactly once delivery".

   Property
           The last field of the Variable Header is a set of properties
           for several MQTT Control Packets (e.g., CONNECT and CONNACK).
           A property consists of an Identifier that defines its usage
           and data type, followed by a value.  The Identifier is
           encoded as a Variable Byte Integer.  For example, the
           "Authentication Data" property uses the identifier 22.

   Topic Name
           The label attached to an Application Message, which is
           matched to a Subscription.

   Subscription
           A Subscription comprises a Topic Filter and a maximum QoS.  A
           Subscription is associated with a single Session.

   Topic Filter
           An expression that indicates interest in one or more Topic
           Names.  Topic Filters may include wildcards.

   MQTT sends various Control Packets across a Network Connection.  The
   following is not an exhaustive list, and the Control Packets that are
   not relevant for authorization are not explained.  For instance,
   these include the PUBREL and PUBCOMP packets used in the 4-step
   handshake required for QoS level 2.

   CONNECT
           The Client requests to connect to the Broker.  This is the
           first packet sent by a Client.

   CONNACK
           The Broker connection acknowledgment.  CONNACK packets
           contain return codes that indicate either a success or an
           error state in response to a Client's CONNECT packet.

   AUTH   
           An AUTH Control Packet is sent from the Client to the Broker
           or from the Broker to the Client as part of an extended
           authentication exchange.  AUTH properties include the
           Authentication Method and Authentication Data.  The
           Authentication Method is set in the CONNECT packet, and
           consequent AUTH packets follow the same Authentication
           Method.  The contents of the Authentication Data are defined
           by the Authentication Method.

   PUBLISH
           Publish request sent from a publishing Client to the Broker
           or from the Broker to a subscribing Client.

   PUBACK 
           Response to a PUBLISH request with QoS level 1.  PUBACK can
           be sent from the Broker to a Client or from a Client to the
           Broker.

   PUBREC 
           Response to a PUBLISH request with QoS level 2.  PUBREC can
           be sent from the Broker to a Client or from a Client to the
           Broker.

   SUBSCRIBE
           Subscribe request sent from a Client.

   SUBACK 
           Subscribe acknowledgment from the Broker to the Client.

   PINGREQ
           A ping request sent from a Client to the Broker.  It signals
           to the Broker that the Client is alive and is used to confirm
           that the Broker is also alive.  The "Keep Alive" period is
           set in the CONNECT packet.

   PINGRESP
           Response sent by the Broker to the Client in response to
           PINGREQ.  It indicates the Broker is alive.

   DISCONNECT
           The DISCONNECT packet is the final MQTT Control Packet sent
           from the Client or the Broker.  It indicates the reason why
           the Network Connection is being closed.  If the Network
           Connection is closed without the Client first sending a
           DISCONNECT packet with reason code 0x00 (Normal
           disconnection) and the MQTT Connection has a Will Message,
           the Will Message is published.

   Will   
           If the Network Connection is not closed normally, the Broker
           sends a last Will Message for the Client if the Client
           provided one in its CONNECT packet.  Situations in which the
           Will Message is published include, but are not limited to,
           the following:

           *  an I/O error or network failure detected by the Broker,

           *  the Client fails to communicate within the Keep Alive
              period,

           *  the Client closes the Network Connection without first
              sending a DISCONNECT packet with reason code 0x00 (Normal
              disconnection), and

           *  the Broker closes the Network Connection without first
              receiving a DISCONNECT packet with reason code 0x00
              (Normal disconnection).

           If the Will Flag is set in the CONNECT flags, then the
           Payload of the CONNECT packet includes information about the
           Will.  The information consists of the Will Properties, Will
           Topic, and Will Payload fields.

2.  Authorizing Connection Requests

   This section specifies how Client connections are authorized by the
   AS and verified by the MQTT Broker.  Figure 1 shows the basic
   protocol flows during connection setup.  The token request and
   response use the token endpoint at the AS, specified for HTTP-based
   interactions in Section 5.8 of the ACE framework [RFC9200].  Steps
   (D) and (E) are optional and use the introspection endpoint specified
   in Section 5.9 of the ACE framework [RFC9200].  The discussion in
   this document assumes that the Client and the Broker use HTTPS to
   communicate with the AS via these endpoints.  The Client and the
   Broker use MQTT to communicate between them.  The C-AS and Broker-AS
   communications MAY be implemented using protocols other than HTTPS,
   e.g., CoAP or MQTT.  Whatever protocol is used for the C-AS and
   Broker-AS communications MUST provide mutual authentication,
   confidentiality protection, and integrity protection.

   If the Client is resource constrained or does not support HTTPS, a
   separate Client Authorization Server may carry out the token request
   on behalf of the Client (Figure 1, steps (A) and (B)) and, later,
   onboard the Client with the token.  The interactions between a Client
   and its Client Authorization Server for token onboarding and support
   for MQTT-based token requests at the AS are out of the scope of this
   document.

                                 +---------------------+
                                 | Client              |
                                 |                     |
      +---(A) Token request------| Client -            |
      |                          | Authorization       |
      |   +-(B) Access token-----> Server Interface    |
      |   |                      |       (HTTPS)       |
      |   |                      |_____________________|
      |   |                      |                     |
   +--v-------------+            |  Pub/Sub Interface  |
   |  Authorization |            |   (MQTT over TLS)   |
   |  Server        |            +----------------^----+
   |________________|                 |           |
      |    ^                 (C) Connection   (F) Connection
      |    |                     request +        response
      |    |                     access token     |
      |    |                          |           |
      |    |                      +---v--------------+
      |    |                      |     Broker       |
      |    |                      |  (MQTT over TLS) |
      |    |                      |__________________|
      |    +(D) Introspection-----|                  |
      |         request (optional)| RS-AS interface  |
      |                           |     (HTTPS)      |
      +-(E) Introspection-------->|__________________|
            response (optional)

                         Figure 1: Connection Setup

2.1.  Client Token Request to the Authorization Server (AS)

   The first step in the protocol flow (Figure 1, step (A)) is the token
   acquisition by the Client from the AS.  The Client and the AS MUST
   perform mutual authentication.  The Client requests an access token
   from the AS, as described in Section 5.8.1 of the ACE framework
   [RFC9200].  The document follows the procedures defined in
   Section 3.2.1 of the DTLS profile [RFC9202] for raw public keys
   (RPKs) [RFC7250]) and in Section 3.3.1 of [RFC7250] for pre-shared
   keys (PSKs).  However, the content type of the request is set to
   "application/ace+json", and the AS uses JSON in the Payload of its
   responses to the Client and the RS.  As explained earlier,
   implementations MAY also use the "application/ace+cbor" content type.

   On receipt of the token request, the AS verifies the request.  If the
   AS successfully verifies the access token request and authorizes the
   Client for the indicated audience (i.e., RS) and scopes (i.e.,
   publish/subscribe permissions over topics, as described in
   Section 2.3), the AS issues an access token (Figure 1, step (B)).

   The response includes the parameters described in Section 5.8.2 of
   the ACE framework [RFC9200].  For RPKs, the parameters are as
   described in Section 3.2.1 of the DTLS profile [RFC9202].  For PSKs,
   the document follows Section 3.3.1 of the DTLS profile [RFC9202].  In
   both cases, if the response contains an "ace_profile" parameter, this
   parameter is set to "mqtt_tls".  The returned token is a Proof-of-
   Possession (PoP) token by default.

   This document follows [RFC7800] for PoP semantics for JWTs (CWTs MAY
   also be used).  The AS includes a "cnf" (confirmation) parameter in
   the PoP token to declare that the Client possesses a particular key
   and the RS can cryptographically confirm that the Client has
   possession of that key, as described in [RFC9201].

   Note that the contents of the web tokens (including the "cnf"
   parameter) are to be consumed by the RS and not the Client (the
   Client obtains the key information in a different manner).  The RPK
   case is handled as described in Section 3.2.1 of the DTLS profile
   [RFC9202].  For the PSK case, the referenced procedures apply, with
   the following exceptions to accommodate JWT and JOSE use.  In this
   case, the AS adds a "cnf" parameter to the Access Information
   carrying a JSON Web Key (JWK) [RFC7517] object that contains either
   the symmetric key itself or a key identifier that can be used by the
   RS to determine the secret key it shares with the Client.  The JWT is
   created as explained in Section 7 of [RFC7519], and the JWT MUST
   include a JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [RFC7516].  If a CWT/COSE is
   used, this information MUST be inside the "COSE_Key" object and MUST
   be encrypted using a "COSE_Encrypt0" structure.

   The AS returns error responses for JSON-based interactions following
   Section 5.2 of [RFC6749].  When CBOR is used, the interactions MUST
   implement the procedure described in Section 5.8.3 of the ACE
   framework [RFC9200].

2.2.  Client Connection Request to the Broker (C)

2.2.1.  Overview of Client-RS Authentication Methods over TLS and MQTT

   Unless the Client publishes and subscribes to only public topics, the
   Client and the Broker MUST perform mutual authentication.  The Client
   MUST authenticate to the Broker either over MQTT or TLS before
   performing any other action.  For MQTT, the options are "None" and
   "ace".  For TLS, the options are "Anon" for an anonymous client, and
   "Known(RPK/PSK)" for RPKs and PSKs, respectively.  The "None" and
   "Anon" options do not provide client authentication but can be used
   either during authentication or in combination with authentication at
   the other layer.  When the Client uses TLS:Anon,MQTT:None, the Client
   can only publish or subscribe to public topics.  Thus, the client
   authentication procedures involve the following possible
   combinations:

   TLS:Anon,MQTT:None:
           This option is used only for the topics that do not require
           authorization, including the "authz-info" topic.  Publishing
           to the "authz-info" topic is described in Section 2.2.2.

   TLS:Anon,MQTT:ace:
           The token is transported inside the CONNECT packet and MUST
           be validated using one of the methods described in
           Section 2.2.2.  This option also supports a tokenless
           connection request for AS discovery.  As per the ACE
           framework [RFC9200], a separate step is needed to determine
           whether the discovered AS URI is authorized to act as an AS.

   TLS:Known(RPK/PSK),MQTT:none:
           This specification supports client authentication with TLS
           with RPKs and PSKs, following the procedures described in the
           DTLS profile [RFC9202].  For the RPK, the Client MUST have
           published the token to the "authz-info" topic.  For the PSK,
           the token MAY be published to the "authz-info" topic or MAY
           be, alternatively, provided as a "PSK identity" (e.g., an
           "identity" in the "identities" field in the Client's
           "pre_shared_key" extension in TLS 1.3).

   TLS:Known(RPK/PSK),MQTT:ace:
           This option SHOULD NOT be chosen as the token transported in
           the CONNECT packet and overwrites any permissions passed
           during the TLS authentication.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the Client implements TLS:Anon,MQTT:ace as the
   first choice when working with protected topics.  However, MQTT
   v3.1.1 Clients that do not prefer to overload the User Name and
   Password fields for ACE (as described in Section 6) MAY implement
   TLS:Known(RPK/PSK),MQTT:none and, consequently, TLS:Anon,MQTT:None to
   submit their token to "authz-info".

   The Broker MUST support TLS:Anon,MQTT:ace.  To support Clients with
   different capabilities, the Broker MAY provide multiple client
   authentication options, e.g., support TLS:Known(RPK),MQTT:none and
   TLS:Anon,MQTT:None, to enable RPK-based client authentication.

   The Client MUST authenticate the Broker during the TLS handshake.  If
   the Client authentication uses TLS:Known(RPK/PSK), then the Broker is
   authenticated using the respective method.  Otherwise, to
   authenticate the Broker, the Client MUST validate a public key from
   an X.509 certificate or an RPK from the Broker against the "rs_cnf"
   parameter in the token response, which contains information about the
   public key used by the RS to authenticate if the token type is "pop"
   and asymmetric keys are used as defined in [RFC9201].  The AS MAY
   include the thumbprint of the RS's X.509 certificate in the "rs_cnf"
   (thumbprint, as defined in [RFC9360]).  In this case, the Client MUST
   validate the RS certificate against this thumbprint.

2.2.2.  authz-info: The Authorization Information Topic

   In the cases when the Client must transport the token to the Broker
   first, the Client connects to the Broker to publish its token to the
   "authz-info" topic.  The "authz-info" topic MUST only be published
   (i.e., the Clients are not allowed to subscribe to it).  "authz-info"
   is not protected, and hence, the Client uses the TLS:Anon,MQTT:None
   option over a TLS connection.  After publishing the token, the Client
   disconnects from the Broker and is expected to reconnect using client
   authentication over TLS (i.e., TLS:Known(RPK/PSK),MQTT:none).

   The Broker stores and indexes all tokens received to the "authz-info"
   topic in its key store (similar to the DTLS profile for ACE
   [RFC9202]).  This profile follows the recommendation of
   Section 5.10.1 of the ACE framework [RFC9200] and expects that the
   Broker stores only one token per PoP key, and any other token linked
   to the same key overwrites an existing token.

   The Broker MUST verify the validity of the token (i.e., through local
   validation or introspection if the token is a reference), as
   described in Section 2.2.5.  If the token is not valid, the Broker
   MUST discard the token.

   Depending on the QoS level of the PUBLISH packet, the Broker returns
   the error response as a PUBACK, PUBREC, or DISCONNECT packet.  If the
   QoS level is equal to 0, and the token is not valid, or if the claims
   cannot be obtained in the case of an introspected token, the Broker
   MUST send a DISCONNECT packet with reason code 0x87 (Not authorized).
   If the PUBLISH Payload does not parse to a token, the Broker MUST
   send a DISCONNECT with reason code 0x99 (Payload format invalid).

   If the QoS level of the PUBLISH packet is greater than or equal to 1,
   and the token is not valid, or the claims cannot be obtained in the
   case of an introspected token, the Broker MUST send reason code 0x87
   (Not authorized) in the PUBACK or PUBREC.  If the PUBLISH Payload
   does not parse to a token, the PUBACK/PUBREC reason code is 0x99
   (Payload format invalid).

   When the Broker sends the "Not authorized" response, it must be noted
   that this corresponds to the token being not valid and not that the
   actual PUBLISH packet was not authorized.  Given that the "authz-
   info" is a public topic, this response is not expected to cause
   confusion.

2.2.3.  Client Authentication over TLS

   This document supports TLS with raw public keys (RPKs) [RFC7250] and
   with pre-shared keys (PSKs).  The TLS session setup follows the DTLS
   profile for ACE [RFC9202], as the profile applies to TLS equally well
   [RFC9430].  When there are exceptions to the DTLS profile, these are
   explicitly stated in the document.  If TLS 1.2 is used, [RFC7925]
   describes how TLS can be used for constrained devices, alongside
   recommended cipher suites.  Additionally, TLS 1.2 implementations
   MUST use the "Extended Main Secret" extension (terminology adopted
   from [TLS-bis]) to incorporate the handshake transcript into the main
   secret [RFC7627].  TLS implementations SHOULD use the Server Name
   Indication (SNI) [RFC6066] and Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation
   (ALPN) [RFC7301] extensions so the TLS handshake authenticates as
   much of the protocol context as possible.

2.2.3.1.  Raw Public Key Mode

   This document follows the procedures defined in Section 3.2.2 of the
   DTLS profile for ACE [RFC9202] with the following exceptions.  The
   Client MUST upload the access token to the Broker using the method
   specified in Section 2.2.2 before initiating the handshake.

2.2.3.2.  Pre-Shared Key Mode

   This document follows the procedures defined in Section 3.3.2 of the
   DTLS profile for ACE [RFC9202] with the following exceptions.

   To use TLS 1.3 with pre-shared keys, the Client utilizes the PSK
   extension specified in [RFC8446] using the key conveyed in the "cnf"
   parameter of the AS response.  The same key is bound to the access
   token in the "cnf" claim.  The Client can upload the token, as
   specified in Section 2.2.2, before initiating the handshake.  When
   using a previously uploaded token, the Client MUST indicate during
   the handshake which previously uploaded access token it intends to
   use.  To do so, it MUST create a "COSE_Key" or "JWK" structure with
   the "kid" that was conveyed in the "rs_cnf" claim in the token
   response from the AS and the key type "symmetric".  This structure is
   then included as the only element in the "cnf" structure and the
   encoded value of that "cnf" structure used as a PSK identity in TLS.
   As an alternative to the access token upload, the Client can provide
   the most recent access token, JWT or CWT, as a PSK identity.

   In contrast to the DTLS profile for ACE [RFC9202], a Client MAY omit
   support for the cipher suites TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 and
   TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8.  For TLS 1.2, however, a client
   MUST support TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 for PSKs [RFC8442]
   and TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 for RPKs [RFC8422], as
   recommended in [RFC9325] (and adjusted to be a PSK cipher suite as
   appropriate).

2.2.4.  Client Authentication over MQTT

2.2.4.1.  Transporting the Access Token inside the MQTT CONNECT

   This section describes how the Client transports the token to the
   Broker inside the CONNECT packet.  If this method is used, the Client
   TLS connection is expected to be anonymous, and the Broker is
   authenticated during the TLS connection setup.  The approach
   described in this section is similar to an earlier proposal by
   Fremantle, et al.  [Fremantle14].

   After sending the CONNECT packet, the Client MUST wait to receive the
   CONNACK packet from the Broker.  The only packets it is allowed to
   send are DISCONNECT or AUTH that are in response to the Broker AUTH.
   Similarly, except for a DISCONNECT and AUTH response from the Client,
   the Broker MUST NOT process any packets before sending a CONNACK
   packet.

   Figure 2 shows the structure of the MQTT CONNECT packet used in MQTT
   v5.0.  A CONNECT packet is composed of a Fixed Header, a Variable
   Header, and a Payload The Fixed Header contains the Control Packet
   Type (CPT), Reserved, and Remaining Length fields.  The Remaining
   Length is a Variable Byte Integer that represents the number of bytes
   remaining within the current Control Packet, including data in the
   Variable Header and the Payload.  The Variable Header contains the
   Protocol Name, Protocol Level, Connect flags, Keep Alive, and
   Properties fields.  The Connect flags in the Variable Header specify
   the properties of the MQTT Session.  It also indicates the presence
   or absence of some fields in the Payload.  The Payload contains one
   or more encoded fields, namely a unique Client Identifier for the
   Client, a Will Topic, Will Payload, User Name, and Password.  All but
   the Client Identifier can be omitted depending on the flags in the
   Variable Header.  The Client Identifier identifies the Client to the
   Broker and, therefore, is unique for each Client.  It must be noted
   that the Client Identifier is an unauthenticated identifier used
   within the MQTT protocol and so is not bound to the access token.


                      0             8             16
                      +---------------------------+
                      |Protocol name length = 4   |
                      +---------------------------+
                      |     'M'            'Q'    |
                      +---------------------------+
                      |     'T'            'T'    |
                      +---------------------------+
                      |Proto.level=5|Connect flags|
                      +---------------------------+
                      |        Keep alive         |
                      +---------------------------+
                      | CONNECT Properties Length |
                      |      (up to 4 bytes)      |
                      +---------------------------+
                      | ( ..Other properties..)   |
                      +---------------------------+
                      |  Authentication Method    |
                      |      (0x15)  |   Len      |
                      |      Len     |   'a'      |
                      |      'c'     |   'e'      |
                      +---------------------------+
                      |  Authentication Data      |
                      |     (0x16)   |    Len     |
                      |      Len     |   token    |
                      |  or token + PoP data      |
                      +---------------------------+

       Figure 2: MQTT v5 CONNECT Variable Header with Authentication
                          Method Property for ACE

   The CONNECT flags are User Name, Password, Will Retain, Will QoS,
   Will Flag, Clean Start, and Reserved.  Table 1 shows how the flags
   MUST be set to use AUTH packets for authentication and authorization,
   i.e., the User Name Flag and Password Flag MUST be set to 0.  An MQTT
   v5.0 Broker MAY also support token transport using the User Name and
   Password to provide a security option for MQTT v3.1.1 Clients, as
   described in Section 6.

    +===========+==========+========+======+======+=======+==========+
    | User Name | Password | Will   | Will | Will | Clean | Reserved |
    | Flag      | Flag     | Retain | QoS  | Flag | Start |          |
    +===========+==========+========+======+======+=======+==========+
    |     0     |    0     |   X    | X X  |  X   |   X   |    0     |
    +-----------+----------+--------+------+------+-------+----------+

                     Table 1: CONNECT Flags for AUTH

   The Will Flag indicates that a Will Message needs to be sent.  The
   Client MAY set the Will Flag as desired (marked as "X" in Table 1).
   If the Will Flag is set to 1, the Broker MUST check that the token
   allows the publication of the Will Message (i.e., the Will Topic
   Filter is in the scope array).  The check is performed against the
   token scope described in Section 2.3.  If the Will authorization
   fails, the connection is refused, as described in Section 2.4.1.  If
   the Broker accepts the connection request, the Broker stores the Will
   Message and publishes it when the Network Connection is closed
   according to Will QoS, Will Retain parameters, and MQTT Will
   management rules.  To avoid publishing the Will Messages in the case
   of temporary network disconnections, the Client specifies a Will
   Delay Interval in the Will Properties.  Section 5 explains how the
   Broker deals with the retained messages in further detail.

   In MQTT v5.0, the Client signals a new Session (i.e., that the
   Session does not continue an existing Session) by setting the Clean
   Start flag to 1 in the CONNECT packet.  In this profile, the Client
   SHOULD always start with a new Session.  The Broker MAY also signal
   that it does not support the continuation of an existing Session by
   setting the Session Expiry Interval to 0 in the CONNACK.  If the
   Broker starts a new Session, the Broker MUST set the Session Present
   flag to 0 in the CONNACK packet to signal this to the Client.

   The Broker MAY support continuing an existing Session, e.g., if the
   Broker requires it for QoS reasons.  In this case, if a CONNECT
   packet is received with Clean Start set to 0, and there is a Session
   associated with the Client Identifier, the Broker MUST resume
   communications with the Client based on the state from the existing
   Session.  In its response, the Broker MUST set the Session Present
   flag to 1 in the CONNACK packet to signal the continuation of an
   existing Session to the Client.  The Session State stored by the
   Client and the Broker is described in Section 5.

   When reconnecting to a Broker that supports continuing existing
   Sessions, the Client MUST still provide a token in addition to using
   the same Client Identifier and setting the Clean Start to 0.  The
   Broker MUST still perform PoP validation on the provided token.  If
   the token matches the stored state, the Broker MAY skip introspecting
   a token-by-reference and use the stored introspection result.  The
   Broker MUST also verify the Client is authorized to receive or send
   MQTT packets that are pending transmission.  When a Client connects
   with a long Session Expiry Interval, the Broker may need to maintain
   the Client's MQTT Session State after it disconnects for an extended
   period.  Brokers SHOULD implement administrative policies to limit
   misuse.

   Note that, according to the MQTT standard, the Broker uses the Client
   Identifier to identify the Session State.  In the case of a Client
   Identifier collision, a Client may take over another Client's
   Session.  Given that the Broker MUST associate the Client with a
   valid token, a Client will only send or receive messages to its
   authorized topics.  Therefore, while this issue is not expected to
   affect security, it may affect QoS (i.e., PUBLISH or QoS messages
   saved for Client A may be delivered to a Client B).  In addition, if
   this Client Identifier represents a Client already connected to the
   Broker, the Broker sends a DISCONNECT packet to the existing Client
   with reason code 0x8E (Session taken over) and closes the connection
   to the Client.

2.2.4.2.  Authentication Using the AUTH Property

   Figure 2 shows the Authentication Method and Authentication Data
   fields when the client authenticates using the AUTH property.  The
   Client MUST set the Authentication Method as a property of a CONNECT
   packet by using the property identifier 21 (0x15).  This is followed
   by a UTF-8-encoded string containing the name of the Authentication
   Method, which MUST be set to "ace".  If the Broker does not support
   this profile, it sends a CONNACK packet with reason code 0x8C (Bad
   authentication method).

   The Authentication Method is followed by the Authentication Data,
   which has a property identifier 22 (0x16) and is Binary Data.  Based
   on the Authentication Data, the Broker MUST support both options
   below:

   *  proof of possession using a challenge from the TLS session

   *  proof of possession via a Broker-generated challenge/response

2.2.4.2.1.  Proof of Possession Using a Challenge from the TLS Session

   +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Authentication|Token Length|Token   |MAC or Signature            |
   |Data Length   |            |        |(over TLS exporter content) |
   +-----------------------------------------------------------------+

    Figure 3: Authentication Data for PoP Based on TLS Exporter Content

   For this option, the Authentication Data inside the Client's CONNECT
   packet MUST contain the two-byte integer token length, the token, and
   the keyed message digest (MAC) or the Client signature (as shown in
   Figure 3).  The Proof-of-Possession key in the token is used to
   calculate the keyed message digest (MAC) or the Client signature
   based on the content obtained from the TLS exporter ([RFC5705] for
   TLS 1.2 and Section 7.5 of [RFC8446] for TLS 1.3).  This content is
   exported from the TLS session using the exporter label "EXPORTER-ACE-
   MQTT-Sign-Challenge", an empty context, and a length of 32 bytes.
   The token is also validated, as described in Section 2.2.5, and the
   Broker responds with a CONNACK packet with the appropriate response
   code.  The Client cannot reauthenticate using this method during the
   same TLS session (see Section 4).

2.2.4.2.2.  Proof of Possession via Broker-generated Challenge/Response

   +------------------------------------+
   |Authentication|Token Length|Token   |
   |Data Length   |            |        |
   +------------------------------------+

     Figure 4: Authentication Data to Initiate PoP Based on Challenge/
                                  Response

   +--------------------------+
   |Authentication|RS Nonce   |
   |Data Length   |(8 bytes)  |
   +--------------------------+

             Figure 5: Authentication Data for Broker Challenge

   For this option, the Broker follows a Broker-generated challenge/
   response protocol.  If the Authentication Data inside the Client's
   CONNECT contains only the two-byte integer token length and the token
   (as shown in Figure 4), the Broker MUST respond with an AUTH packet
   with the authenticated reason code set to 0x18 (Continue
   Authentication).  The Broker also uses this method if the
   Authentication Data does not contain a token, but the Broker has a
   token stored for the connecting Client.

   The Broker continues authentication using an AUTH packet that
   contains the Authentication Method and the Authentication Data.  The
   Authentication Method MUST be set to "ace", and the Authentication
   Data MUST NOT be empty and MUST contain an 8-byte RS nonce as a
   challenge for the Client (Figure 5).

   +---------------------------------------------------------+
   |Authentication|Client Nonce |MAC or Signature            |
   |Data Length   |(8 bytes)    |(over RS nonce+Client nonce)|
   +---------------------------------------------------------+

      Figure 6: Authentication Data for the Client Challenge Response

   The Client responds to this with an AUTH packet with reason code 0x18
   (Continue Authentication).  Similarly, the Client packet sets the
   Authentication Method to "ace".  The Authentication Data in the
   Client's response is formatted as shown in Figure 6 and includes the
   8-byte Client nonce and the signature or MAC computed over the RS
   nonce concatenated with the Client nonce using PoP key in the token.

   Next, the token is validated as described in Section 2.2.5.  The
   success case is illustrated in Figure 7.  The Client MAY also
   reauthenticate using this challenge-response flow, as described in
   Section 4.

           Client      Broker
            |             |
            |<===========>| TLS connection setup
            |             |
            |             |
            +------------>| CONNECT with Authentication Data
            |             | contains only token
            |             |
            <-------------+ AUTH 0x18 (Cont. Authentication)
            |             | 8-byte RS nonce as challenge
            |             |
            |------------>| AUTH 0x18 (Cont. Authentication)
            |             | 8-byte Client nonce + signature/MAC
            |             |
            |             |---+ Token validation
            |             |   | (may involve introspection)
            |             |<--+
            |             |
            |<------------+ CONNACK 0x00 (Success)

              Figure 7: PoP Challenge/Response Flow - Success

2.2.5.  Broker Token Validation

   The Broker MUST verify the validity of the token either locally
   (e.g., in the case of a self-contained token) or MAY send a request
   to the introspection endpoint of the AS (as described for HTTP-based
   interactions in Section 5.9 of the ACE framework [RFC9200]).  The
   Broker MUST verify the claims in the access token according to the
   rules set in Section 5.10.1.1 of the ACE framework [RFC9200].

   To authenticate the Client, the Broker validates the signature or the
   MAC, depending on how the PoP protocol is implemented.  For self-
   contained tokens, the Broker MUST process the security protection of
   the token first, as specified by the respective token format, i.e., a
   CWT uses COSE, while a JWT uses JOSE.  For a token-by-reference, the
   Broker uses the "cnf" structure returned as a result of token
   introspection, as specified in [RFC7519].  HMAC-SHA-256 (HS256)
   [RFC6234] and Ed25519 [RFC8032] are mandatory to implement for the
   Broker.  The Client MUST implement at least one of them depending on
   the choice of symmetric or asymmetric validation.  Validation of the
   signature or MAC MUST fail if the signature algorithm is set to
   "none" when the key used for the signature algorithm cannot be
   determined or the computed and received signature/MAC do not match.

   The Broker MUST check if the access token is still valid, if it is
   the intended destination (i.e., the audience) of the token, and if
   the token was issued by an authorized Authorization Server.  If the
   Client is using TLS RPK mode to authenticate to the Broker, the AS
   constructs the access token so that the Broker can associate the
   access token with the Client's public key.  The "cnf" claim MUST
   contain either the Client's RPK or, if the key is already known by
   the Broker (e.g., from previous communication), a reference to it.

2.3.  Token Scope and Authorization

   The scope field contains the publish and subscribe permissions for
   the Client.  Therefore, the token or its introspection result MUST be
   cached to allow a Client's future PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE messages.
   During the CONNECT, if the Will Flag is set to 1, the Broker MUST
   also authorize the publication of the Will Topic and Will Message
   using the token's scope field.  The Broker uses the scope to match
   against the Topic Name in a PUBLISH packet (including Will Topic in
   the CONNECT) or a Topic Filter in a SUBSCRIBE packet.

   The scope in the token is a single value.  For a JWT, the single
   scope is a base64url-encoded string with any padding characters
   removed, which has an internal structure of a JSON array.  For a CWT,
   this information is represented in CBOR.  The internal structure
   follows the Authorization Information Format (AIF) for ACE [RFC9237].
   Using the Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610], the
   specific data model for MQTT is:

    AIF-MQTT = AIF-Generic<mqtt-topic-filter, mqtt-permissions>
    AIF-Generic<Toid, Tperm> = [* [Toid, Tperm]]
    mqtt-topic-filter = tstr ; as per Section 4.7 of MQTT v5.0
    mqtt-permissions = [+permission]
    permission = "pub"/"sub"

                       Figure 8: AIF-MQTT Data Model

   Topic Filters are implemented according to Section 4.7 of the MQTT
   v5.0 OASIS Standard [MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5].  By default, Wildcard
   Subscriptions are supported, and so, the Topic Filter may include
   special wildcard characters.  The multi-level wildcard, "#", matches
   any number of levels within a topic, and the single-level wildcard,
   "+", matches one topic level.  The Broker MAY signal in the CONNACK
   explicitly whether Wildcard Subscriptions are supported by returning
   a CONNACK property "Wildcard Subscription Available".  A value of 0
   means that Wildcard Subscriptions are not supported.  A value of 1
   means Wildcard Subscriptions are supported.

   Following this model, an example scope may contain:

    [["topic1",["pub","sub"]],["topic2/#",["pub"]],["+/topic3",["sub"]]]

                          Figure 9: Example Scope

   This access token gives publish ("pub") and subscribe ("sub")
   permissions to the "topic1", publish permission to all the subtopics
   of "topic2", and subscribe permission to all "topic3", skipping one
   level.

   If the scope is empty, the Broker records no permissions for the
   Client for any topic.  In this case, the Client is not able to
   publish or subscribe to any protected topics.  The non-empty scope is
   used to authorize the Will Topic, if provided, in the CONNECT packet,
   during connection setup and, if the connection request succeeds, the
   Topic Names or Topic Filters requested in the future PUBLISH and
   SUBSCRIBE packets.  For the authorization to succeed, the Broker MUST
   verify that the Topic Name or Topic Filter in question is either an
   exact match to or a subset of at least one "topic_filter" in the
   scope.

2.4.  Broker Response to Client Connection Request

   Based on the validation result (obtained either via local inspection
   or using the introspection interface of the AS), the Broker MUST send
   a CONNACK packet to the Client.

2.4.1.  Unauthorized Request and the Optional Authorization Server
        Discovery

   Authentication can fail for the following reasons:

   *  if the Client does not provide a valid token,

   *  the Client omits the Authentication Data field and the Broker has
      no token stored for the Client,

   *  the token or Authentication data are malformed, or

   *  if the Will Flag is set, the authorization checks for the Will
      Topic fails.

   The Broker responds with the CONNACK reason code 0x87 (Not
   Authorized) or any other applicable reason code.

   The Broker MAY also trigger AS discovery and include a User Property
   (identified as property type 38 (0x26)) in the CONNACK for the AS
   Request Creation Hints.  The User Property is a UTF-8 string pair,
   composed of a name and a value.  The name of the User Property MUST
   be set to "ace_as_hint".  The value of the User Property is a UTF-
   8-encoded JSON object containing the mandatory "AS" parameter and the
   optional parameters "audience", "kid", "cnonce", and "scope", as
   defined in Section 5.3 of the ACE framework [RFC9200].

2.4.2.  Authorization Success

   On success, the reason code of the CONNACK is 0x00 (Success).  If the
   Broker starts a new Session, it MUST also set Session Present to 0 in
   the CONNACK packet to signal a new Session to the Client.  Otherwise,
   it MUST set Session Present to 1.

   Having accepted the connection, the Broker MUST be prepared to store
   the token during the connection and after disconnection for future
   use.  If the token is not self-contained and the Broker uses token
   introspection, it MAY cache the validation result to authorize the
   subsequent PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE packets.  PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE
   packets, which are sent after a connection setup, do not contain
   access tokens.  If the introspection result is not cached, the Broker
   needs to introspect the saved token for each request.  The Broker
   SHOULD also use a cache timeout to introspect tokens regularly.  The
   timeout value is specific to the application and should be chosen to
   reduce the risk of using stale introspection responses.

3.  Authorizing PUBLISH and SUBSCRIBE Packets

   Using the cached token or its introspection result, the Broker uses
   the scope field to match against the Topic Name in a PUBLISH packet
   or a Topic Filter in a SUBSCRIBE packet.

3.1.  PUBLISH Packets from the Publisher Client to the Broker

   On receiving the PUBLISH packet, the Broker MUST use the type of
   packet (i.e., PUBLISH) and the Topic Name in the packet header to
   match against the scope array items in the cached token or its
   introspection result.  Following the example in Section 2.3, the
   Client sending a PUBLISH packet for "topic2/a" would be allowed, as
   the scope array includes the ["topic2/#",["pub"]].

   If the Client is allowed to publish to the topic, the Broker
   publishes the message to all valid subscribers of the topic.  In the
   case of an authorization failure, the Broker MUST return an error if
   the Client has set the QoS level of the PUBLISH packet to greater
   than or equal to 1.  Depending on the QoS level, the Broker responds
   with either a PUBACK or PUBREC packet with reason code 0x87 (Not
   authorized).  On receiving an acknowledgment with 0x87 (Not
   authorized), the Client MAY reauthenticate by providing a new token,
   as described in Section 4.

   For QoS level 0, the Broker sends a DISCONNECT packet with reason
   code 0x87 (Not authorized) and closes the Network Connection.  Note
   that the server-side DISCONNECT is a new feature of MQTT v5.0 (in
   MQTT v3.1.1, the server needs to drop the connection).

   For all QoS levels, the Broker MAY return 0x80 (Unspecified error) if
   they do not want to leak the Topic Names to unauthorized clients.

3.2.  PUBLISH Packets from the Broker to the Subscriber Clients

   To forward PUBLISH packets to the subscribing Clients, the Broker
   identifies all the subscribers that have valid matching Topic
   Subscriptions to the Topic Name of the PUBLISH packet (i.e., the
   tokens are valid, and token scopes allow a Subscription to this
   particular Topic Name).  The Broker forwards the PUBLISH packet to
   all the valid subscribers.

   The Broker MUST NOT forward messages to unauthorized subscribers.  To
   avoid silently dropping messages, the Broker MUST close the Network
   Connection and SHOULD inform the affected subscribers.  In this case,
   the only way to inform a client would be sending a DISCONNECT packet.
   Therefore, the Broker SHOULD send a DISCONNECT packet with reason
   code 0x87 (Not authorized) before closing the Network Connection to
   these clients.

3.3.  Authorizing SUBSCRIBE Packets

   In MQTT, a SUBSCRIBE packet is sent from a Client to the Broker to
   create one or more Subscriptions to one or more topics.  The
   SUBSCRIBE packet may contain multiple Topic Filters.  The Topic
   Filters may include wildcard characters.

   On receiving the SUBSCRIBE packet, the Broker MUST use the type of
   packet (i.e., SUBSCRIBE) and the Topic Filter in the packet header to
   match against the scope field of the stored token or introspection
   result.  The Topic Filters MUST be an exact match to or be a subset
   of at least one of the "topic_filter" fields in the scope array found
   in the Client's token.  For example, if the Client sends a SUBSCRIBE
   request for topic "a/b/*" and has a token that permits "a/*", this is
   a valid SUBSCRIBE request, as "a/b/*" is a subset of "a/*".  (The
   process is similar to a Broker matching the Topic Name in a PUBLISH
   packet against the Subscriptions known to the Server.)

   As a response to the SUBSCRIBE packet, the Broker issues a SUBACK
   packet.  For each Topic Filter, the SUBACK packet includes a return
   code matching the QoS level for the corresponding Topic Filter.  In
   the case of failure, the return code is 0x87, indicating that the
   Client is not authorized.  The Broker MAY return 0x80 (Unspecified
   error) if they do not want to leak the Topic Names to unauthorized
   clients.  A reason code is returned for each Topic Filter.
   Therefore, the Client may receive success codes for a subset of its
   Topic Filters while being unauthorized for the rest.

4.  Token Expiration, Update, and Reauthentication

   The Broker MUST check for token expiration whenever a CONNECT,
   PUBLISH, or SUBSCRIBE packet is received or sent.  The Broker SHOULD
   check for token expiration on receiving a PINGREQ packet.  The Broker
   MAY also check for token expiration periodically, e.g., every hour.
   This may allow for early detection of a token expiry.

   The token expiration is checked by checking the "exp" claim of a JWT
   or introspection response or via performing an introspection request
   with the AS, as described in Section 5.9 of the ACE framework
   [RFC9200].  Token expirations may trigger the Broker to send PUBACK,
   SUBACK, and DISCONNECT packets with the return code set to "Not
   authorized".  After sending a DISCONNECT packet, the Network
   Connection is closed, and no more messages can be sent.

   The Client MAY reauthenticate a response to PUBACK and SUBACK, which
   signal loss of authorization.  The Clients MAY also proactively
   update their tokens, i.e., before they receive a packet with a "Not
   authorized" return code.  To start reauthentication, the Client MUST
   send an AUTH packet with reason code 0x19 (Reauthentication).  The
   Client MUST set the Authentication Method as "ace" and transport the
   new token in the Authentication Data.  If reauthenticating during the
   current TLS session, the Client MUST NOT use the method described in
   Section 2.2.4.2.1, i.e., proof of possession using a challenge from
   the TLS session, to avoid reusing the same challenge value from the
   TLS-Exporter.  Note that this means that servers will either need to
   record in the session ticket or database entry whether the TLS-
   Exporter-derived challenge was used or always deny use of the TLS-
   Exporter-derived challenge for resumed sessions.  In TLS 1.3, the
   resumed connection would have a new exporter value, but the
   requirement is phrased this way for simplicity.  For
   reauthentications in the same TLS-session, the Client MUST use the
   challenge-response PoP, as defined in Section 2.2.4.2.2.  The Broker
   accepts reauthentication requests if the Client has already submitted
   a token (may be expired), for which it performed proof of possession.
   Otherwise, the Broker MUST deny the request.  If the reauthentication
   fails, the Broker MUST send a DISCONNECT packet with reason code 0x87
   (Not Authorized).

5.  Handling Disconnections and Retained Messages

   In the case of a Client DISCONNECT, if the Session Expiry Interval is
   set to 0, the Broker doesn't store the Session State but MUST keep
   the retained messages.  If the Broker stores the Session State, the
   state MAY include the token and its introspection result (for
   reference tokens) in addition to the MQTT Session State.  The MQTT
   Session State is identified by the Client Identifier and includes the
   following:

   *  the Client Subscriptions,

   *  messages with QoS levels 1 and 2, which have not been completely
      acknowledged or are pending transmission to the Client, and

   *  if the Session is currently not connected, the time at which the
      Session will end and the Session State will be discarded.

   The token/introspection state is not part of the MQTT Session State,
   and PoP validation is required for each new connection, regardless of
   whether existing MQTT Sessions are continued.

   The messages to be retained are indicated to the Broker by setting a
   RETAIN flag in a PUBLISH packet.  This way, the publisher signals to
   the Broker to store the most recent message for the associated topic.
   Hence, the new subscribers can receive the last sent message from the
   publisher for that particular topic without waiting for the next
   PUBLISH packet.  The Broker MUST continue publishing the retained
   messages as long as the associated tokens are valid.  In the MQTT
   standard, if QoS is 0 for the PUBLISH packet, the Broker may discard
   the retained message any time.  For QoS > 1, the message expiry
   interval dictates how long the retained message is kept.  However, it
   is important that the Broker avoids sending messages indefinitely for
   the Clients that never update their tokens (i.e., the Client connects
   briefly with a valid token, sends a PUBLISH packet with the RETAIN
   flag set to 1 and QoS > 1, disconnects, and never connects again).
   Therefore, the Broker MUST use the minimum of the token expiry and
   message expiry interval to discard a retained message.

   In case of disconnections due to network errors or server
   disconnection due to a protocol error (which includes authorization
   errors), the Will Message is sent if the Client supplied a Will in
   the CONNECT packet.  The Client's token scope array MUST include the
   Will Topic.  The Will Message MUST be published to the Will Topic,
   regardless of whether the corresponding token has expired (as it has
   been validated and accepted during CONNECT).

6.  Reduced Protocol Interactions for MQTT v3.1.1

   This section describes a reduced set of protocol interactions for the
   MQTT v3.1.1 Clients.  An MQTT v5.0 Broker MAY implement these
   interactions for the MQTT v3.1.1 Clients; the flows described in this
   section are NOT RECOMMENDED for use by MQTT v5.0 Clients.  Brokers
   that do not support MQTT v3.1.1 Clients return a CONNACK packet with
   reason code 0x84 (Unsupported Protocol Version) in response to the
   connection requests.

6.1.  Token Transport

   As in MQTT v5.0, the token MAY either be transported before, by
   publishing to the "authz-info" topic, or inside the CONNECT packet.
   If the Client provided the token via the "authz-info" topic and will
   not update the token in the CONNECT packet, it MUST authenticate over
   TLS.  The Broker SHOULD still be prepared to store the Client access
   token for future use (regardless of the method of transport).

   In MQTT v3.1.1, after the Client has published to the "authz-info"
   topic, the Broker cannot communicate the result of the token
   validation because PUBACK reason codes or server-side DISCONNECT
   packets are not supported.  In any case, the subsequent TLS handshake
   would fail without a valid token, which can prompt the Client to
   obtain a valid token.

   To transport the token to the Broker inside the CONNECT packet, the
   Client uses the User Name and Password fields.  Figure 10 shows the
   structure of the MQTT CONNECT packet.

                      0             8             16
                      +---------------------------+
                      |Protocol name length = 4   |
                      +---------------------------+
                      |     'M'            'Q'    |
                      +---------------------------+
                      |     'T'            'T'    |
                      +---------------------------+
                      |Proto.level=5|Connect flags|
                      +---------------------------+
                      |        Keep alive         |
                      +---------------------------+
                      |        Payload            |
                      |  Client Identifier        |
                      |  (UTF-8-encoded string)   |
                      | User Name as access token |
                      |   (UTF-8-encoded string)  |
                      | Password for signature/MAC|
                      |     (Binary Data)         |
                      +---------------------------+

       Figure 10: MQTT CONNECT Variable Header Using a User Name and
                              Password for ACE

   Table 2 shows how the MQTT connect flags MUST be set to initiate a
   connection with the Broker.

   +================+==========+========+======+======+=======+=======+
   | User Name Flag | Password | Will   | Will | Will | Clean | Rsvd. |
   |                | Flag     | Retain | QoS  | Flag |       |       |
   +================+==========+========+======+======+=======+=======+
   |       1        |    1     |   X    | X X  |  X   |   X   |   0   |
   +----------------+----------+--------+------+------+-------+-------+

              Table 2: MQTT CONNECT Flags (Rsvd. = Reserved)

   The Client SHOULD set the Clean flag to 1 to always start a new
   Session.  If the Clean flag is set to 0, the Broker MUST resume
   communications with the Client based on the state from the current
   Session (as identified by the Client Identifier).  If there is no
   Session associated with the Client Identifier, the Broker MUST create
   a new Session.  The Broker MUST set the Session Present flag in the
   CONNACK packet accordingly, i.e., 0 to indicate a new Session to the
   Client and 1 to indicate that the existing Session is continued.  The
   Broker MUST still perform PoP validation on the provided Client
   token.  MQTT v3.1.1 does not use a Session Expiry Interval, and the
   Client expects that the Broker maintains the Session State after it
   disconnects.  However, the stored Session State can be discarded as a
   result of administrator action or policies (e.g., defining an
   automated response based on storage capabilities), and Brokers SHOULD
   implement administrative policies to limit misuse.

   The Client MAY set the Will Flag as desired (marked as "X" in
   Table 2).  User Name and Password flags MUST be set to 1 to ensure
   that the Payload of the CONNECT packet includes both the User Name
   and Password fields.  The MQTT User Name is a UTF-8-encoded string,
   and the MQTT Password is Binary Data.

   The CONNECT in MQTT v3.1.1 does not have a field to indicate the
   Authentication Method.  To signal that the User Name field contains
   an ACE token, this field MUST be prefixed with the keyword "ace",
   i.e., the User Name field is a concatenation of 'a', 'c', 'e', and
   the access token represented as:

             'U+0061'||'U+0063'||'U+0065'||UTF-8(access token)

                      Figure 11: User Name in CONNECT

   To this end, the access token MUST be encoded with base64url,
   omitting the "=" padding characters [RFC4648].

   The Password field MUST be set to the keyed message digest (MAC) or
   signature associated with the access token for PoP.  The Client MUST
   apply the PoP key on the challenge derived from the TLS session, as
   described in Section 2.2.4.2.1.

6.2.  Handling Authorization Errors

   Error handling is more primitive in MQTT v3.1.1 due to not having
   appropriate error fields, error codes, and server-side DISCONNECTs.
   Therefore, the Broker will disconnect on almost any error and may not
   keep the Session State, necessitating that clients make a greater
   effort to ensure that tokens remain valid and do not attempt to
   publish to topics that they do not have permissions for.  The
   following lists how the Broker responds to specific errors.

   CONNECT without a token:
           The tokenless CONNECT attempt MUST fail.  This is because the
           challenge-response-based PoP is not possible for MQTT v3.1.1.
           It is also not possible to support AS discovery since a
           CONNACK packet in MQTT v3.1.1 does not include a means to
           provide additional information to the Client.  Therefore, AS
           discovery needs to take place out of band.

   Client-Broker PUBLISH authorization failure:
           In the case of a failure, it is not possible to return an
           error in MQTT v3.1.1.  Acknowledgment messages only indicate
           success.  In the case of an authorization error, the Broker
           MUST ignore the PUBLISH packet and disconnect the Client.
           Also, as DISCONNECT packets are only sent from a Client to
           the Broker, the server disconnection needs to take place
           below the application layer.

   SUBSCRIBE authorization failure:
           In the SUBACK packet, the return code is 0x80, indicating
           failure for the unauthorized topic(s).  Note that, in both
           MQTT versions, a reason code is returned for each Topic
           Filter.

   Broker-Client PUBLISH authorization failure:
           When the Broker is forwarding PUBLISH packets to the
           subscribed Clients, it may discover that some of the
           subscribers are no longer authorized due to expired tokens.
           These token expirations MUST lead to disconnecting the Client
           rather than silently dropping messages.

7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  TLS Exporter Labels Registration

   This document registers "EXPORTER-ACE-MQTT-Sign-Challenge"
   (introduced in Section 2.2.4.2.1 in this document) in the "TLS
   Exporter Labels" registry [RFC8447].

   Recommended:  N

   DTLS-OK:  N

   Reference:  RFC 9431

7.2.  Media Type Registration

   This document registers the "application/ace+json" media type for
   messages of the protocols defined in this document carrying
   parameters encoded in JSON.

   Type name:  application

   Subtype name:  ace+json

   Required parameters:  N/A

   Optional parameters:  N/A

   Encoding considerations:  Encoding considerations are identical to
      those specified for the "application/json" media type.

   Security considerations:  Section 8 of RFC 9431

   Interoperability considerations:  none

   Published specification:  RFC 9431

   Applications that use this media type:  This media type is intended
      for Authorization-Server-Client and Authorization-Server-Resource-
      Server communication as part of the ACE framework using JSON
      encoding, as specified in RFC 9431.

   Fragment identifier considerations:  none

   Additional information:

      Deprecated alias names for this type:  none

      Magic number(s):  none

      File extension(s):  none

      Macintosh file type code(s):  none

   Person & email address to contact for further information:
      Cigdem Sengul <csengul@acm.org>

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Restrictions on usage:  none

   Author:  Cigdem Sengul <csengul@acm.org>

   Change controller:  IETF

7.3.  ACE OAuth Profile Registration

   The following registrations have been made in the "ACE Profiles"
   registry, following the procedure specified in [RFC9200].

   Name:  mqtt_tls

   Description:  Profile for delegating Client authentication and
      authorization using MQTT for the Client and Broker (RS)
      interactions and HTTP for the AS interactions.  TLS is used for
      confidentiality and integrity protection and server
      authentication.  Client authentication can be provided either via
      TLS or using in-band PoP validation at the MQTT application layer.

   CBOR Value:  3

   Reference:  RFC 9431

7.4.  AIF

   For the media types "application/aif+cbor" and "application/
   aif+json", defined in Section 5.1 of [RFC9237], IANA has registered
   the following entries for the two media type parameters Toid and
   Tperm in the respective subregistry defined in Section 5.2 of
   [RFC9237] within the "Media Type Sub-Parameter Registries".

   For Toid:
      Name:  mqtt-topic-filter

      Description/Specification:  Topic Filter, as defined in
         Section 2.3 of RFC 9431.

      Reference:  RFC 9431, Section 2.3

   For Tperm:
      Name:  mqtt-permissions

      Description/Specification:  Permissions for the MQTT Client, as
         defined in Section 2.3 of RFC 9431.  Tperm is an array of one
         or more text strings that each have a value of either "pub" or
         "sub".

      Reference:  RFC 9431, Section 2.3

8.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies a profile for the Authentication and
   Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework [RFC9200].
   Therefore, the security considerations outlined in [RFC9200] apply to
   this work.

   In addition, the security considerations outlined in the MQTT v5.0
   OASIS Standard [MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5] and MQTT v3.1.1 OASIS
   Standard [MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v3.1.1] apply.  Mainly, this document
   provides an authorization solution for MQTT, the responsibility of
   which is left to the specific implementation in the MQTT standards.
   In the following, we comment on a few relevant issues based on the
   current MQTT specifications.

   After the Broker validates an access token and accepts a connection
   from a client, it caches the token to authorize a Client's publish
   and subscribe requests in an ongoing Session.  The Broker does not
   cache any tokens that cannot be validated.  If a Client's permissions
   get revoked, but the access token has not expired, the Broker may
   still grant publish/subscribe to revoked topics.  If the Broker
   caches the token introspection responses, then the Broker SHOULD use
   a reasonable cache timeout to introspect tokens regularly.  The
   timeout value is application specific and should be chosen to reduce
   the risk of using stale introspection responses.  When permissions
   change dynamically, it is expected that the AS also follows a
   reasonable expiration strategy for the access tokens.

   The Broker may monitor Client behavior to detect potential security
   problems, especially those affecting availability.  These include
   repeated token transfer attempts to the public "authz-info" topic,
   repeated connection attempts, abnormal terminations, and Clients that
   connect but do not send any data.  If the Broker supports the public
   "authz-info" topic, described in Section 2.2.2, then this may be
   vulnerable to a DDoS attack, where many Clients use the "authz-info"
   public topic to transport tokens that are not meant to be used and
   that the Broker may need to store until they expire.

   For MQTT v5.0, when a Client connects with a long Session Expiry
   Interval, the Broker may need to maintain the Client's MQTT Session
   State after it disconnects for an extended period.  For MQTT v3.1.1,
   the Session State may need to be stored indefinitely, as it does not
   have a Session Expiry Interval feature.  The Broker SHOULD implement
   administrative policies to limit misuse by the Client resulting from
   continuing existing Sessions.

9.  Privacy Considerations

   The privacy considerations outlined in [RFC9200] apply to this work.

   In MQTT, the Broker is a central trusted party and may forward
   potentially sensitive information between Clients.  The mechanisms
   defined in this document do not protect the contents of the PUBLISH
   packet from the Broker, and hence, the content of the PUBLISH packet
   is not signed or encrypted separately for the subscribers.  This
   functionality may be implemented using the proposal outlined in the
   ACE Pub-Sub Profile [ACE-PUBSUB-PROFILE].  However, this solution
   would still not provide privacy for other fields of the packet, such
   as Topic Name.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v3.1.1]
              Banks, A., Ed. and R. Gupta, Ed., "MQTT Version 3.1.1 Plus
              Errata 01", OASIS Standard, December 2015,
              <https://docs.oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v3.1.1/mqtt-
              v3.1.1.html>.

   [MQTT-OASIS-Standard-v5]
              Banks, A., Ed., Briggs, E., Ed., Borgendale, K., Ed., and
              R. Gupta, Ed., "MQTT Version 5.0", OASIS Standard, March
              2019, <https://docs.oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v5.0/mqtt-
              v5.0.html>.

   [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>.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.

   [RFC5705]  Rescorla, E., "Keying Material Exporters for Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 5705, DOI 10.17487/RFC5705,
              March 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5705>.

   [RFC6066]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>.

   [RFC6234]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
              (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.

   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
              RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.

   [RFC7250]  Wouters, P., Ed., Tschofenig, H., Ed., Gilmore, J.,
              Weiler, S., and T. Kivinen, "Using Raw Public Keys in
              Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport
              Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 7250, DOI 10.17487/RFC7250,
              June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7250>.

   [RFC7301]  Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
              Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
              July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.

   [RFC7516]  Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
              RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.

   [RFC7517]  Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>.

   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.

   [RFC7627]  Bhargavan, K., Ed., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Pironti, A.,
              Langley, A., and M. Ray, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Session Hash and Extended Master Secret Extension",
              RFC 7627, DOI 10.17487/RFC7627, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7627>.

   [RFC7800]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Proof-of-
              Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)",
              RFC 7800, DOI 10.17487/RFC7800, April 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7800>.

   [RFC8032]  Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
              Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8422]  Nir, Y., Josefsson, S., and M. Pegourie-Gonnard, "Elliptic
              Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier", RFC 8422,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8422, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8422>.

   [RFC8442]  Mattsson, J. and D. Migault, "ECDHE_PSK with AES-GCM and
              AES-CCM Cipher Suites for TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2", RFC 8442,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8442, September 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8442>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [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/RFC8610,
              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.

   [RFC8747]  Jones, M., Seitz, L., Selander, G., Erdtman, S., and H.
              Tschofenig, "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR
              Web Tokens (CWTs)", RFC 8747, DOI 10.17487/RFC8747, March
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8747>.

   [RFC9052]  Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
              Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9052>.

   [RFC9110]  Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110>.

   [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/RFC9200, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9200>.

   [RFC9201]  Seitz, L., "Additional OAuth Parameters for Authentication
              and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)",
              RFC 9201, DOI 10.17487/RFC9201, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9201>.

   [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/RFC9202, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9202>.

   [RFC9237]  Bormann, C., "An Authorization Information Format (AIF)
              for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained
              Environments (ACE)", RFC 9237, DOI 10.17487/RFC9237,
              August 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9237>.

   [RFC9360]  Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
              Header Parameters for Carrying and Referencing X.509
              Certificates", RFC 9360, DOI 10.17487/RFC9360, February
              2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9360>.

   [RFC9430]  Bergmann, O., Preuß Mattsson, J., and G. Selander,
              "Extension of the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
              Profile for Authentication and Authorization for
              Constrained Environments (ACE) to Transport Layer Security
              (TLS)", RFC 9430, DOI 10.17487/RFC9430, July 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9430>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [ACE-PUBSUB-PROFILE]
              Palombini, F., Sengul, C., and M. Tiloca, "Publish-
              Subscribe Profile for Authentication and Authorization for
              Constrained Environments (ACE)", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile-06, 13 March
              2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              ace-pubsub-profile-06>.

   [Fremantle14]
              Fremantle, P., Aziz, B., Kopecky, J., and P. Scott,
              "Federated Identity and Access Management for the Internet
              of Things", International Workshop on Secure Internet of
              Things, DOI 10.1109/SIoT.2014.8, September 2014,
              <https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SIoT.2014.8>.

   [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
              FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7925]  Tschofenig, H., Ed. and T. Fossati, "Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) / Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
              Profiles for the Internet of Things", RFC 7925,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7925, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7925>.

   [RFC8392]  Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
              "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
              May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>.

   [RFC8447]  Salowey, J. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for TLS
              and DTLS", RFC 8447, DOI 10.17487/RFC8447, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8447>.

   [RFC8949]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.

   [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/info/rfc9325>.

   [TLS-bis]  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>.

Appendix A.  Checklist for Profile Requirements

   Based on the requirements on profiles for the ACE framework
   [RFC9200], this document fulfills the following:

   *  Optional AS discovery: AS discovery is supported with the MQTT
      v5.0 described in Section 2.2.

   *  The communication protocol between the Client and Broker (RS):
      MQTT

   *  The security protocol between the Client and RS: TLS

   *  Client and RS mutual authentication: Several options are possible
      and described in Section 2.2.1.

   *  Proof-of-possession protocols: Both symmetric and asymmetric keys
      are supported, as specified in Section 2.2.4.2.

   *  Content-Format: For the HTTPS interactions with AS, "application/
      ace+json".

   *  Unique profile identifier: mqtt_tls

   *  Token introspection: The RS uses the HTTPS introspection interface
      of the AS.

   *  Token request: The Client or its Client AS uses the HTTPS token
      endpoint of the AS.

   *  authz-info endpoint: It MAY be supported using the method
      described in Section 2.2.2 but is not protected other than by the
      TLS channel between the Client and RS.

   *  Token transport: Via the "authz-info" topic, TLS with PSKs
      (provided as a PSK identity), or in the MQTT CONNECT packet for
      both versions of MQTT.  The AUTH extensions can also be used for
      authentication and reauthentication for MQTT v5.0, as described in
      Sections 2.2 and 4.

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Ludwig Seitz for his review and his
   input on the authorization information endpoint; Benjamin Kaduk for
   his review, insightful comments, and contributions to resolving
   issues; and Carsten Bormann for his review and revisions to the AIF-
   MQTT data model.  The authors would like to thank Paul Fremantle for
   the initial discussions on MQTT v5.0 support.

Authors' Addresses

   Cigdem Sengul
   Brunel University
   Dept. of Computer Science
   Uxbridge
   UB8 3PH
   United Kingdom
   Email: csengul@acm.org


   Anthony Kirby
   Oxbotica
   1a Milford House
   Mayfield Road, Summertown
   Oxford
   OX2 7EL
   United Kingdom
   Email: anthony@anthony.org