Re: [TLS] SCHC for DTLS
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 30 May 2022 17:04 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7FDC15AAC7 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2022 10:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BFlJy4S0Fqaj for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2022 10:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16D23C157B3A for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 May 2022 10:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id y12so11845426ior.7 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 May 2022 10:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Df4mfvst+DjFZ3y6pJ0gVK5J31CN3/pQ9ey+o8H4V9Y=; b=cfjBLsdiheDQW4y+Tyreyc2HkCRV5CAabnCqXGUe0yJls62EXFiNreX4yl2j53YWFT gDO2mLQehxdgWKMo2q5dhCx+IXN2+CMkVGtgXpf8+8vmE4gbohI/NOU1QQDPe6da0zX/ AJvAr1oc3vVaLkxTQJJ2KndM6NN/dhtIUfhwFXibkK0Ih/fRlFQJMxuMpmSjLjqgCN6s bXpIEoW0y0GOoue4bsPlZOo23NnQApZGPf+K5b1cqeafC3s/VKsp6oLd/MlnwUopea1W zrtaQiUxTcGhLTe2Kse03xTVqk9guc+DMRONXWp4z6H1Fp5dTbQNIvBA2yhzsCK6tVm+ 7SPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Df4mfvst+DjFZ3y6pJ0gVK5J31CN3/pQ9ey+o8H4V9Y=; b=BDBtlMhAJObAl5tLRJMcwjebhi950YnIgB1b0D1lOQpw3ECREBypsPyedorC5W/kGK iYY78u0QtDWrc3ocZI7VAekjXOfMfrthpeAxyM7BV30A+38Hw3wRca3ovHyemiuycYQX OzR9R8rzmJuv1yaS4SLnJtqT9XPwbfQRZfXk2pb5gDHEdjONKQV6oD2H8m5pwapnMie6 DqVwWwywTMfgkygo7JxmVbVuJmvZRPegN7jJlJsRYNg4+IfLZy8iqfgsUj6VKVeWn6Fh 04HEWOnYcayPUjmaR9ELbvSY4qOQ04f+gyduNduuIQ1NKRx90lYmmRwY1MQ5r5TXx0a3 oE4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533i6EePYq/oR4/00H0n91lIwwHyd33munVAOJgQpLS/mdX3xWqV oBdgj1Rb+l3veHmNsgUkAY4nsU+34QGh2jslla4BbGZPykM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx9YOxQdxAILgY7odpmGzcZf//QvxGGI/KvaPu7eydNLS4OlTAJ6/89Sj+BQEoXU1UvPJShR+OoIIeeKFjvUwc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:16c7:b0:32e:aa6f:b9dd with SMTP id g7-20020a05663816c700b0032eaa6fb9ddmr24703321jat.94.1653930260066; Mon, 30 May 2022 10:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f92962a4-dd76-5fd0-2a4d-91d4de87d251@htt-consult.com> <CABcZeBPLHiSO8V88C-8bwgxsH6vcNBs1t3rb0bggzJBKZPMT3g@mail.gmail.com> <DBBPR08MB5915042FBEF11C5A93DB12C6FADD9@DBBPR08MB5915.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <55d0ed70-9f53-8d3c-c421-927065f33348@htt-consult.com> <CABcZeBNVkTVzLEwmkt1arT0jeGnz3+Tarx+v0e33EcTgucfOYQ@mail.gmail.com> <6e85e9f0-8ebc-6554-cb7c-26011b23c42c@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <6e85e9f0-8ebc-6554-cb7c-26011b23c42c@htt-consult.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 10:03:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOefy0Kbt=Rbkd51UfyLoMBcpT9N3ACoRoY+99BgaQ=6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com>
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a28d3405e03da507"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/DdyXuzvX7j_gwDuoc05HakCGjPI>
Subject: Re: [TLS] SCHC for DTLS
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 17:04:24 -0000
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 9:38 AM Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com> wrote: > Great to know. thanks. My feable attempts to find this were coming up > empty. But now I should be able to put some things together. > > I am assuming that the DTLS header is part of the AEAD protection. Thus I > can squeeze out the UDP CRC? > The DTLS header is included in the AD, yes. > I recall seeing length in the DTLS header, but I do not have it in front > of me. Also want to drop that from the UDP header... > DTLS 1.3 has a header mode in which it omits the length and just uses the UDP length. That may be easier. -Ekr > Anyway, this is good info. > > On 5/30/22 12:12, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > We spent a fair bit of time working to shrink the DTLS 1.3 record layer, > so I'm not sure how much room there is for optimization. > See: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9147.html#name-the-dtls-record-layer > > Specifically, the longest header (w/o CID) is 5 octets and the shortest is > 2 octets. The sequence number is used for the IV, so there's no extra there. > > -Ekr > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 6:28 AM Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com> > wrote: > >> Greetings Hannes, >> >> This is for the record layer. And I really don't know how much would be >> gained. >> >> But as I would see it, this use of SCHC would be for UDP/DTLS/cipher. >> Since it is starting with UDP, SCHC would have to be an IP Protocol (not >> currently defined as such). So you loose 1 byte for the SCHC rule, against >> the 8 probably saved in compressing UDP to 0 bytes. Then there is the >> cipher. Try AES-GCM-12; what is currently used for the IV? Can something >> like rfc8750 be added to use the seq # in the DTLS header and gain maybe 16 >> bytes? I really don't know the DTLS header at all. I have tried to find >> some decent layout as I am use to for ESP in 4303 (Fig 1) for side-by-side >> comparison. >> >> But if it means being able to fit over some UHF carrier for unmanned >> aircraft (UA) Network Remote ID (Net-RID) and Command and Control (C2)? >> Worth the effort. >> >> So this is not something I could do myself, but something that I see >> using and thus pitching in on doing it. >> >> On 5/30/22 05:33, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> >> Bob, is this about compressing the DTLS record layer or the DTLS >> handshake protocol? >> >> For the former, I wonder how much is there actually to compress (when >> using DTLS 1.3)? >> >> >> >> *From:* TLS <tls-bounces@ietf.org> <tls-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * >> Eric Rescorla >> *Sent:* Friday, May 27, 2022 5:30 PM >> *To:* Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com> >> <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com> >> *Cc:* <tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [TLS] SCHC for DTLS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 6:27 AM Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com> >> wrote: >> >> Is there any activity to define SCHC rules for DTLS? >> >> >> >> Not to my knowledge. >> >> >> >> -Ekr >> >> >> >> >> I want this for Unmanned Aircraft (UA) Network Remote ID (Net-RID) >> communications from the UA to the Net-RID Service Provider (SP). >> >> See >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moskowitz-drip-secure-nrid-c2/ >> >> I am compressing ESP traffic using rfc 8750 and: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp/ >> >> SCHC is negotiated in IKE (and will be in HIP) and SA tables allow the >> ESP receiver to recognize a SCHC compressed ESP Header and act properly. >> >> It is not so simple with DTLS. First UDP is below DTLS, so how do you >> compress it? The way I see it, SCHC would need to be assigned an IP >> Protocol type so that the transport processing can start right up with >> the SCHC rule for UDP and then on to DTLS and then the cipher. >> >> Or at least how I see the challenge. >> >> So I am looking for any extant work on SCHC for DTLS and/or interest in >> this activity. >> >> The CoAP SCHC work, rfc 8824, dodge DTLS compression. Or that is how I >> read it. >> >> Thanks >> >> Bob >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list >> TLS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >> >> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are >> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended >> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the >> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the >> information in any medium. Thank you. >> >> >> >
- [TLS] SCHC for DTLS Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [TLS] SCHC for DTLS Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] SCHC for DTLS Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] SCHC for DTLS Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [TLS] SCHC for DTLS Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] SCHC for DTLS Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [TLS] SCHC for DTLS Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] SCHC for DTLS Robert Moskowitz