idnits 2.17.1 draft-farrell-dtnrg-km-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 160. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 171. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 178. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 184. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (June 18, 2007) is 6150 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-spec-09 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-irtf-dtnrg-sec-overview-02 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DTN Research Group S. Farrell 3 Internet-Draft Trinity College Dublin 4 Intended status: Informational June 18, 2007 5 Expires: December 20, 2007 7 DTN Key Management Requirements 8 draft-farrell-dtnrg-km-00 10 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 13 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 14 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 15 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 20, 2007. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 39 Abstract 41 This short document outlines requirements for DTN key management. It 42 may or may not grow to specify some DTN key management schemes. 44 Table of Contents 46 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 2. Key Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 48 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 49 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 50 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 51 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 52 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 53 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 54 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 56 1. Introduction 58 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 59 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 60 document are to be interpreted as described in [1]. 62 This document lists a set of putative requirements for key managment 63 for DTN protocols, in particular the bundle protocol [2] with the aim 64 of assisting in the development of workable key mangement schemes for 65 the bundle security protocol [3]. 67 Readers should also consult the DTN Architecure RFC [4] and the DTN 68 Security Overview and Motivations document [5] which contains an 69 overview of the current work on DTN security. 71 Depending on what happens, this document might grow to include the 72 specification of some key management schemes. 74 2. Key Management Requirements 76 1. No single KM scheme will work for all DTNs therefore a set of 77 schemes, or a framework, is REQUIRED. 79 2. All schemes MUST support some well-defined BSP ciphersuite(s). 81 3. At least one scheme SHOULD be defined for each of: 83 1. Manual keying, i.e. pre-shared secrets or pre-installed 84 public keys; 86 2. Key transport & key agreement options. 88 4. Schemes SHOULD be able to use extension blocks to piggy-back KM 89 information with application-data handling bundles. 91 5. Schemes MAY involve use of specific bundle payloads. 93 6. Some schemes MUST be defined using standard, well-known 94 techniques (e.g. RSA key transport). 96 7. DTN node connectivity, computation and storage capabilities vary 97 enormously, so some scheme for highly challenged nodes SHOULD be 98 defined. 100 3. Security Considerations 102 This memo is entirely about security requirements. See above. 104 4. IANA Considerations 106 For now, there are none. If specific DTN key managmenet schemes are 107 defined that meet these requirements, then an IANA registry, or 108 entries in an IANA registry, MAY be required. 110 5. References 112 5.1. Normative References 114 [1] Bradner, S. and J. Reynolds, "Key words for use in RFCs to 115 Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, October 1997. 117 5.2. Informative References 119 [2] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol Specification", 120 draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-spec-09.txt , April 2007. 122 [3] Symington, S. and S. Farrell, "Bundle Security Protocol 123 Specification". 125 [4] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst, R., 126 Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant Networking 127 Architecture", RFC 4838 , April 2007. 129 [5] Farrell, S., Symington, S., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant 130 Network Security Overview", 131 draft-irtf-dtnrg-sec-overview-02.txt , October 2006. 133 Author's Address 135 Stephen Farrell 136 Trinity College Dublin 137 Distributed Systems Group 138 Department of Computer Science 139 Trinity College 140 Dublin 2 141 Ireland 143 Phone: +353-1-608-1539 144 Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie 146 Full Copyright Statement 148 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 150 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 151 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 152 retain all their rights. 154 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 155 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 156 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 157 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 158 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 159 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 160 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 162 Intellectual Property 164 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 165 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 166 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 167 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 168 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 169 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 170 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 171 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 173 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 174 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 175 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 176 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 177 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 178 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 180 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 181 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 182 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 183 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 184 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 186 Acknowledgment 188 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 189 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).