Re: [Dots] TLS APLN extension

["Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <[e-mail]>]

Although coaps+tcp URI scheme is used by DOTS signal channel, we have not yet seen any requirement where multiple protocols will be run on the DOTS server port number 4646. 
I don't see the need to define a new ALPN for DOTS signal channel.

Cheers
-Tiru

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jon Shallow
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 1:58 PM
> To: 'Benjamin Kaduk' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Dots] TLS APLN extension
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> The DOTS signal spec calls for CoAP secured by running over (D)TLS (either
> UDP and/or TCP), and CoAP over TLS is coaps+tcp.  So, yes, both coaps and
> coaps+tcp have to be supported.
> 
> For example, I can use the github libcoap coap-client (Pull Request #176
> installed) and do "coap-client -c cert.pem
> coaps+tcp://127.0.0.1:4646/.well-known/dots/v1/config" against my DOTS
> server and get back binary data (it is CBOR encoded).
> 
> Regards
> 
> Jon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots [mailto: [e-mail]] On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: 23 May 2018 01:35
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Jon Shallow; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Dots] TLS APLN extension
> 
> The dedicated port number is only somewhat relevant, I think -- the main
> question is whether the coaps+tcp URI scheme is in use.  The RFC 8323
> requirements only come into play for that URI scheme.
> 
> -Ben
> 
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 07:54:39AM +0000,
> [e-mail]
> wrote:
> > Re-,
> >
> > Do we need this given that DOTS is using a dedicated port number?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > De : Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Jon Shallow
> > Envoyé : lundi 21 mai 2018 09:55 À : [e-mail] Objet : [Dots] TLS
> > APLN extension
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > As per RFC 8323: 8.2.  coaps+tcp URI Scheme
> >
> > ....
> >
> >    o  If a TLS server does not support the Application-Layer Protocol
> >       Negotiation (ALPN) extension [RFC7301] or wishes to accommodate
> >       TLS clients that do not support ALPN, it MAY offer a coaps+tcp
> >       endpoint on TCP port 5684.  This endpoint MAY also be ALPN
> >       enabled.  A TLS server MAY offer coaps+tcp endpoints on ports
> >       other than TCP port 5684, which MUST be ALPN enabled.
> >
> >    o  For TCP ports other than port 5684, the TLS client MUST use the
> >       ALPN extension to advertise the "coap" protocol identifier (see
> >       Section 11.7) in the list of protocols in its ClientHello.  If the
> >       TCP server selects and returns the "coap" protocol identifier
> >       using the ALPN extension in its ServerHello, then the connection
> >       succeeds.  If the TLS server either does not negotiate the ALPN
> >       extension or returns a no_application_protocol alert, the TLS
> >       client MUST close the connection.
> >
> > Do we need to refer to the requirement for ALPN as we are not hosting
> > on
> port 5684?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jon
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dots mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots