💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc4680.txt captured on 2024-02-05 at 11:31:03.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group S. Santesson
Request for Comments: 4680 Microsoft
Updates: 4346 September 2006
Category: Standards Track
TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This specification defines a TLS handshake message for exchange of
supplemental application data. TLS hello message extensions are used
to determine which supplemental data types are supported by both the
TLS client and the TLS server. Then, the supplemental data handshake
message is used to exchange the data. Other documents will define
the syntax of these extensions and the syntax of the associated
supplemental data types.
Santesson Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4680 TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data September 2006
1. Introduction
Recent standards activities have proposed different mechanisms for
transmitting supplemental application data in the TLS handshake
message. For example, recent proposals transfer data that is not
processed by the TLS protocol itself, but assist the TLS-protected
application in the authentication and authorization decisions. One
proposal transfers user name hints for locating credentials, and
another proposal transfers attribute certificates and Security
Assertions Markup Language (SAML) assertions for authorization
checks.
In order to avoid definition of multiple handshake messages, one for
each new type of application-specific supplemental data, this
specification defines a new handshake message type that bundles
together all data objects that are to be delivered to the TLS-
protected application and sends them in a single handshake message.
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [N1].
The syntax for the supplemental_data handshake message is defined
using the TLS Presentation Language, which is specified in Section 4
of [N2].
2. Supplemental Data Handshake Message
The new supplemental_data handshake message type is defined to
accommodate communication of supplemental data objects as agreed
during the exchange of extensions in the client and server hello
messages. See RFC 2246 (TLS 1.0) [N2] and RFC 4346 (TLS 1.1) [N3]
for other handshake message types.
Information provided in a supplemental data object MUST be intended
to be used exclusively by applications and protocols above the TLS
protocol layer. Any such data MUST NOT need to be processed by the
TLS protocol.
Santesson Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4680 TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data September 2006
enum {
supplemental_data(23), (255)
} HandshakeType;
struct {
HandshakeType msg_type; /* handshake type */
uint24 length; /* octets in message */
select (HandshakeType) {
case supplemental_data: SupplementalData;
} body;
} Handshake;
struct {
SupplementalDataEntry supp_data<1..2^24-1>;
} SupplementalData;
struct {
SupplementalDataType supp_data_type;
uint16 supp_data_length;
select(SupplementalDataType) { }
} SupplementalDataEntry;
enum {
(65535)
} SupplementalDataType;
supp_data_length
This field is the length (in bytes) of the data selected by
SupplementalDataType.
The client MUST NOT send more than one SupplementalData handshake
message, and the server MUST NOT send more than one SupplementalData
handshake message. Receiving more than one SupplementalData
handshake message results in a fatal error, and the receiver MUST
close the connection with a fatal unexpected_message alert.
If present, the SupplementalData handshake message MUST contain a
non-empty SupplementalDataEntry structure carrying data associated
with at least one defined SupplementalDataType. An explicit
agreement that governs presence of any supplemental data MUST be
concluded between client and server for each SupplementalDataType
using the TLS extensions [N4] in the client and server hello
messages. Receiving an unexpected SupplementalData handshake message
results in a fatal error, and the receiver MUST close the connection
with a fatal unexpected_message alert.
Santesson Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4680 TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data September 2006
Other documents will define specific SupplementalDataTypes and their
associated data syntax and processing. These same specifications
must also specify the client and server hello message extensions that
are used to negotiate the support for the specified supplemental data
type. This document simply specifies the TLS Handshake Protocol
message that will carry the supplemental data objects.
Different situations require the transfer of supplemental data from
the client to the server, require the transfer of supplemental data
from the server to the client, or both ways. All three situations
are fully supported.
3. Message Flow
The SupplementalData handshake message, if exchanged, MUST be sent as
the first handshake message as illustrated in Figure 1 below.
Client Server
ClientHello (with extensions) -------->
ServerHello(with extensions)
SupplementalData*
Certificate*
ServerKeyExchange*
CertificateRequest*
<-------- ServerHelloDone
SupplementalData*
Certificate*
ClientKeyExchange
CertificateVerify*
[ChangeCipherSpec]
Finished -------->
[ChangeCipherSpec]
<-------- Finished
Application Data <-------> Application Data
* Indicates optional or situation-dependent messages.
Figure 1. Message Flow with SupplementalData
Santesson Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4680 TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data September 2006
4. Security Considerations
Each SupplementalDataType included in the handshake message defined
in this specification introduces its own unique set of security
properties and related considerations. Security considerations must
therefore be defined in each document that defines a supplemental
data type.
In some cases, the SupplementalData information may be sensitive.
The double handshake technique can be used to provide protection for
the SupplementalData information. Figure 2 illustrates the double
handshake, where the initial handshake does not include any
extensions, but it does result in protected communications. Then, a
second handshake that includes the SupplementalData information is
performed using the protected communications. In Figure 2, the
number on the right side indicates the amount of protection for the
TLS message on that line. A zero (0) indicates that there is no
communication protection; a one (1) indicates that protection is
provided by the first TLS session; and a two (2) indicates that
protection is provided by both TLS sessions.
The placement of the SupplementalData message in the TLS Handshake
results in the server providing its SupplementalData information
before the client is authenticated. In many situations, servers will
not want to provide authorization information until the client is
authenticated. The double handshake illustrated in Figure 2 provides
a technique to ensure that the parties are mutually authenticated
before either party provides SupplementalData information.
Santesson Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4680 TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data September 2006
Client Server
ClientHello (no extensions) --------> |0
ServerHello (no extensions) |0
Certificate* |0
ServerKeyExchange* |0
CertificateRequest* |0
<-------- ServerHelloDone |0
Certificate* |0
ClientKeyExchange |0
CertificateVerify* |0
[ChangeCipherSpec] |0
Finished --------> |1
[ChangeCipherSpec] |0
<-------- Finished |1
ClientHello (w/ extensions) --------> |1
ServerHello (w/ extensions) |1
SupplementalData* |1
Certificate* |1
ServerKeyExchange* |1
CertificateRequest* |1
<-------- ServerHelloDone |1
SupplementalData* |1
Certificate* |1
ClientKeyExchange |1
CertificateVerify* |1
[ChangeCipherSpec] |1
Finished --------> |2
[ChangeCipherSpec] |1
<-------- Finished |2
Application Data <-------> Application Data |2
* Indicates optional or situation-dependent messages.
Figure 2. Double Handshake to Protect Supplemental Data
Santesson Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4680 TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data September 2006
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has taken the following actions:
1) Created an entry, supplemental_data(23), in the existing registry
for HandshakeType (defined in RFC 2246 [N2]).
2) Established a registry for TLS Supplemental Data Formats
(SupplementalDataType). Values in the inclusive range 0-16385
(decimal) are assigned via RFC 2434 [N5] Standards Action. Values
from the inclusive range 16386-65279 (decimal) are assigned via
RFC 2434 IETF Consensus. Values from the inclusive range
65280-65535 (decimal) are reserved for RFC 2434 Private Use.
6. Normative References
[N1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[N2] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC
2246, January 1999.
[N3] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
[N4] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J., and
T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions", RFC
4366, April 2006.
[N5] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October
1998.
7. Acknowledgements
The fundamental architectural idea for the supplemental data
handshake message was provided by Russ Housley and Eric Rescorla.
Santesson Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4680 TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data September 2006
Author's Address
Stefan Santesson
Microsoft
Finlandsgatan 30
164 93 KISTA
Sweden
EMail: stefans@microsoft.com
Santesson Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4680 TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data September 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Santesson Standards Track [Page 9]