Internet-Draft Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols November 2020
Mattsson, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page]
Workgroup:
LWIG Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-05
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Authors:
J. Mattsson
Ericsson AB
F. Palombini
Ericsson AB
M. Vucinic
INRIA

Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols

Abstract

This document analyzes and compares the sizes of key exchange flights and the per-packet message size overheads when using different security protocols to secure CoAP. The analyzed security protocols are DTLS 1.2, DTLS 1.3, TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3, EDHOC, OSCORE, and Group OSCORE. The DTLS and TLS record layers are analyzed with and without 6LoWPAN-GHC compression. DTLS is analyzed with and without Connection ID.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 May 2021.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This document analyzes and compares the sizes of key exchange flights and the per-packet message size overheads when using different security protocols to secure CoAP over UPD [RFC7252] and TCP [RFC8323]. The analyzed security protocols are DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347], DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13], TLS 1.2 [RFC5246], TLS 1.3 [RFC8446], EDHOC [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc], OSCORE [RFC8613], and Group OSCORE [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].

The DTLS and TLS record layers are analyzed with and without 6LoWPAN-GHC compression. DTLS is anlyzed with and without Connection ID [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id]. Readers are expected to be familiar with some of the terms described in RFC 7925 [RFC7925], such as ICV. Section 2 compares the overhead of key exchange, while Section 3 covers the overhead for protection of application data.

2. Overhead of Key Exchange Protocols

This section analyzes and compares the sizes of key exchange flights for different protocols.

To enable a fair comparison between protocols, the following assumptions are made:

Section 2.1 gives a short summary of the message overhead based on different parameters and some assumptions. The following sections detail the assumptions and the calculations.

2.1. Summary

The DTLS overhead is dependent on the parameter Connection ID. The following overheads apply for all Connection IDs of the same length, when Connection ID is used.

The EDHOC overhead is dependent on the key identifiers included. The following overheads apply for Sender IDs of the same length.

All the overhead are dependent on the tag length. The following overheads apply for tags of the same length.

Figure 1 compares the message sizes of EDHOC [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] with the DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] and TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] handshakes with connection ID.

=====================================================================
Flight                             #1         #2        #3      Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.3 RPK + ECDHE              150        373       213        736
DTLS 1.3 Cached X.509/RPK + ECDHE 182        347       213        742
DTLS 1.3 PSK + ECDHE              184        190        57        431
DTLS 1.3 PSK                      134        150        57        341
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EDHOC RPK + ECDHE                  37         46        20        103
EDHOC X.509 + ECDHE                37        117        91        245
=====================================================================
Figure 1: Comparison of message sizes in bytes with Connection ID

Figure 2 compares of message sizes of DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] and TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] handshakes without connection ID.

=====================================================================
Flight                             #1         #2        #3      Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.3 RPK + ECDHE              144        364       212        722
DTLS 1.3 PSK + ECDHE              178        183        56        417
DTLS 1.3 PSK                      128        143        56        327
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TLS 1.3  RPK + ECDHE              129        322       194        645
TLS 1.3  PSK + ECDHE              163        157        50        370
TLS 1.3  PSK                      113        117        50        280
=====================================================================
Figure 2: Comparison of message sizes in bytes without Connection ID

The details of the message size calculations are given in the following sections.

2.2. DTLS 1.3

This section gives an estimate of the message sizes of DTLS 1.3 with different authentication methods. Note that the examples in this section are not test vectors, the cryptographic parts are just replaced with byte strings of the same length, while other fixed length fields are replace with arbitrary strings or omitted, in which case their length is indicated. Values that are not arbitrary are given in hexadecimal.

2.2.1. Message Sizes RPK + ECDHE

In this section, a Connection ID of 1 byte is used.

2.2.1.1. flight_1
Record Header - DTLSPlaintext (13 bytes):
16 fe fd EE EE SS SS SS SS SS SS LL LL

  Handshake Header - Client Hello (10 bytes):
  01 LL LL LL SS SS 00 00 00 LL LL LL

    Legacy Version (2 bytes):
    fe fd

    Client Random (32 bytes):
    00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

    Legacy Session ID (1 bytes):
    00

    Legacy Cookie (1 bytes):
    00

    Cipher Suites (TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256) (4 bytes):
    00 02 13 05

    Compression Methods (null) (2 bytes):
    01 00

    Extensions Length (2 bytes):
    LL LL

      Extension - Supported Groups (x25519) (8 bytes):
      00 0a 00 04 00 02 00 1d

      Extension - Signature Algorithms (ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256)
      (8 bytes):
      00 0d 00 04 00 02 08 07

      Extension - Key Share (42 bytes):
      00 33 00 26 00 24 00 1d 00 20
      00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
      16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

      Extension - Supported Versions (1.3) (7 bytes):
      00 2b 00 03 02 03 04

      Extension - Client Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes):
      00 13 00 01 01 02

      Extension - Server Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes):
      00 14 00 01 01 02

      Extension - Connection Identifier (43) (6 bytes):
      XX XX 00 02 01 42

13 + 10 + 2 + 32 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 8 + 8 + 42 + 7 + 6 + 6 + 6 = 150
bytes

DTLS 1.3 RPK + ECDHE flight_1 gives 150 bytes of overhead.

2.2.1.2. flight_2
Record Header - DTLSPlaintext (13 bytes):
16 fe fd EE EE SS SS SS SS SS SS LL LL

  Handshake Header - Server Hello (10 bytes):
  02 LL LL LL SS SS 00 00 00 LL LL LL

    Legacy Version (2 bytes):
    fe fd

    Server Random (32 bytes):
    00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

    Legacy Session ID (1 bytes):
    00

    Cipher Suite (TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256) (2 bytes):
    13 05

    Compression Method (null) (1 bytes):
    00

    Extensions Length (2 bytes):
    LL LL

      Extension - Key Share (40 bytes):
      00 33 00 24 00 1d 00 20
      00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
       16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

      Extension - Supported Versions (1.3) (6 bytes):
      00 2b 00 02 03 04

      Extension - Connection Identifier (43) (6 bytes):
      XX XX 00 02 01 43

Record Header - DTLSCiphertext, Full (6 bytes):
HH ES SS 43 LL LL

  Handshake Header - Encrypted Extensions (10 bytes):
  08 LL LL LL SS SS 00 00 00 LL LL LL

    Extensions Length (2 bytes):
    LL LL

      Extension - Client Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes):
      00 13 00 01 01 02

      Extension - Server Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes):
      00 14 00 01 01 02

  Handshake Header - Certificate Request (10 bytes):
  0d LL LL LL SS SS 00 00 00 LL LL LL

    Request Context (1 bytes):
    00

    Extensions Length (2 bytes):
    LL LL

      Extension - Signature Algorithms (ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256)
      (8 bytes):
      00 0d 00 04 00 02 08 07

  Handshake Header - Certificate (10 bytes):
  0b LL LL LL SS SS 00 00 00 LL LL LL

    Request Context (1 bytes):
    00

    Certificate List Length (3 bytes):
    LL LL LL

    Certificate Length (3 bytes):
    LL LL LL

    Certificate (59 bytes) // Point compression
    ....

    Certificate Extensions (2 bytes):
    00 00

  Handshake Header - Certificate Verify (10 bytes):
  0f LL LL LL SS SS 00 00 00 LL LL LL

    Signature  (68 bytes):
    ZZ ZZ 00 40 ....

  Handshake Header - Finished (10 bytes):
  14 LL LL LL SS SS 00 00 00 LL LL LL

    Verify Data (32 bytes):
    00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

  Record Type (1 byte):
  16

Auth Tag (8 bytes):
e0 8b 0e 45 5a 35 0a e5

13 + 102 + 6 + 24 + 21 + 78 + 78 + 42 + 1 + 8 = 373 bytes

DTLS 1.3 RPK + ECDHE flight_2 gives 373 bytes of overhead.

2.2.1.3. flight_3
Record Header (6 bytes) // DTLSCiphertext, Full:
ZZ ES SS 42 LL LL

  Handshake Header - Certificate (10 bytes):
  0b LL LL LL SS SS XX XX XX LL LL LL

    Request Context (1 bytes):
    00

    Certificate List Length (3 bytes):
    LL LL LL

    Certificate Length (3 bytes):
    LL LL LL

    Certificate (59 bytes) // Point compression
    ....

    Certificate Extensions (2 bytes):
    00 00

  Handshake Header - Certificate Verify (10 bytes):
  0f LL LL LL SS SS 00 00 00 LL LL LL

    Signature  (68 bytes):
    04 03 LL LL //ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256
    00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b
     0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

  Handshake Header - Finished (10 bytes):
  14 LL LL LL SS SS 00 00 00 LL LL LL

    Verify Data (32 bytes) // SHA-256:
    00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

  Record Type (1 byte):
  16

Auth Tag (8 bytes) // AES-CCM_8:
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

6 + 78 + 78 + 42 + 1 + 8 = 213 bytes

DTLS 1.3 RPK + ECDHE flight_2 gives 213 bytes of overhead.

2.2.2. Message Sizes PSK + ECDHE

2.2.2.1. flight_1

The differences in overhead compared to Section 2.2.1.1 are:

The following is added:

+ Extension - PSK Key Exchange Modes (6 bytes):
  00 2d 00 02 01 01

+ Extension - Pre Shared Key (48 bytes):
  00 29 00 2F
  00 0a 00 01 ID 00 00 00 00
  00 21 20 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13
  14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

The following is removed:

- Extension - Signature Algorithms (ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256) (8 bytes)

- Extension - Client Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes)

- Extension - Server Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes)

In total:

150 + 6 + 48 - 8 - 6 - 6 = 184 bytes

DTLS 1.3 PSK + ECDHE flight_1 gives 184 bytes of overhead.

2.2.2.2. flight_2

The differences in overhead compared to Section 2.2.1.2 are:

The following is added:

+ Extension - Pre Shared Key (6 bytes)
  00 29 00 02 00 00

The following is removed:

- Handshake Message Certificate (78 bytes)

- Handshake Message CertificateVerify (78 bytes)

- Handshake Message CertificateRequest (21 bytes)

- Extension - Client Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes)

- Extension - Server Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes)

In total:

373 - 78 - 78 - 21 - 6 - 6  + 6 = 190 bytes

DTLS 1.3 PSK + ECDHE flight_2 gives 190 bytes of overhead.

2.2.2.3. flight_3

The differences in overhead compared to Section 2.2.1.3 are:

The following is removed:

- Handshake Message Certificate (78 bytes)

- Handshake Message Certificate Verify (78 bytes)

In total:

213 - 78 - 78 = 57 bytes

DTLS 1.3 PSK + ECDHE flight_3 gives 57 bytes of overhead.

2.2.3. Message Sizes PSK

2.2.3.1. flight_1

The differences in overhead compared to Section 2.2.2.1 are:

The following is removed:

- Extension - Supported Groups (x25519) (8 bytes)

- Extension - Key Share (42 bytes)

In total:

184 - 8 - 42 = 134 bytes

DTLS 1.3 PSK flight_1 gives 134 bytes of overhead.

2.2.3.2. flight_2

The differences in overhead compared to Section 2.2.2.2 are:

The following is removed:

- Extension - Key Share (40 bytes)

In total:

190 - 40 = 150 bytes

DTLS 1.3 PSK flight_2 gives 150 bytes of overhead.

2.2.3.3. flight_3

There are no differences in overhead compared to Section 2.2.2.3.

DTLS 1.3 PSK flight_3 gives 57 bytes of overhead.

2.2.4. Cached Information

In this section, we consider the effect of [RFC7924] on the message size overhead.

Cached information together with server X.509 can be used to move bytes from flight #2 to flight #1 (cached RPK increases the number of bytes compared to cached X.509).

The differences compared to Section 2.2.1 are the following.

For the flight #1, the following is added:

+ Extension - Client Cashed Information (39 bytes):
  00 19 LL LL LL LL
  01 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
  16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

And the following is removed:

- Extension - Server Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes)

Giving a total of:

150 + 33 = 183 bytes

For the flight #2, the following is added:

+ Extension - Server Cashed Information (7 bytes):
  00 19 LL LL LL LL 01

And the following is removed:

- Extension - Server Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes)

- Server Certificate (59 bytes -> 32 bytes)

Giving a total of:

373 - 26 = 347 bytes

A summary of the calculation is given in Figure 3.

======================================================================
Flight                             #1         #2        #3      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.3 Cached X.509/RPK + ECDHE 183        347       213       743
DTLS 1.3 RPK + ECDHE              150        373       213       736
=======================================================================
Figure 3: Comparison of message sizes in bytes for DTLS 1.3 RPK + ECDH with and without cached X.509

2.2.5. Resumption

To enable resumption, a 4th flight (New Session Ticket) is added to the PSK handshake.

Record Header - DTLSCiphertext, Full (6 bytes):
HH ES SS 43 LL LL

  Handshake Header - New Session Ticket (10 bytes):
  04 LL LL LL SS SS 00 00 00 LL LL LL

    Ticket Lifetime (4 bytes):
    00 01 02 03

    Ticket Age Add (4 bytes):
    00 01 02 03

    Ticket Nonce (2 bytes):
    01 00

    Ticket (6 bytes):
    00 04 ID ID ID ID

    Extensions (2 bytes):
    00 00

Auth Tag (8 bytes) // AES-CCM_8:
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

6 + 10 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 6 + 2 + 8 = 42 bytes

The initial handshake when resumption is enabled is just a PSK handshake with 134 + 150 + 57 + 42 = 383 bytes.

2.2.6. Without Connection ID

Without a Connection ID the DTLS 1.3 flight sizes changes as follows.

DTLS 1.3 Flight #1:   -6 bytes
DTLS 1.3 Flight #2:   -7 bytes
DTLS 1.3 Flight #3:   -1 byte
=======================================================================
Flight                                #1         #2       #3    Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.3 RPK + ECDHE (no cid)        144        364       212    722
DTLS 1.3 PSK + ECDHE (no cid)        178        183        56    417
DTLS 1.3 PSK (no cid)                128        143        56    327
=======================================================================
Figure 4: Comparison of message sizes in bytes for DTLS 1.3 without Connection ID

2.2.7. DTLS Raw Public Keys

TODO

2.2.7.1. SubjectPublicKeyInfo without point compression
0x30 // Sequence
0x59 // Size 89

0x30 // Sequence
0x13 // Size 19
0x06 0x07 0x2A 0x86 0x48 0xCE 0x3D 0x02 0x01
     // OID 1.2.840.10045.2.1 (ecPublicKey)
0x06 0x08 0x2A 0x86 0x48 0xCE 0x3D 0x03 0x01 0x07
     // OID 1.2.840.10045.3.1.7 (secp256r1)

0x03 // Bit string
0x42 // Size 66
0x00 // Unused bits 0
0x04 // Uncompressed
...... 64 bytes X and Y

Total of 91 bytes
2.2.7.2. SubjectPublicKeyInfo with point compression
0x30 // Sequence
0x59 // Size 89

0x30 // Sequence
0x13 // Size 19
0x06 0x07 0x2A 0x86 0x48 0xCE 0x3D 0x02 0x01
     // OID 1.2.840.10045.2.1 (ecPublicKey)
0x06 0x08 0x2A 0x86 0x48 0xCE 0x3D 0x03 0x01 0x07
     // OID 1.2.840.10045.3.1.7 (secp256r1)

0x03 // Bit string
0x42 // Size 66
0x00 // Unused bits 0
0x03 // Compressed
...... 32 bytes X

Total of 59 bytes

2.3. TLS 1.3

In this section, the message sizes are calculated for TLS 1.3. The major changes compared to DTLS 1.3 are that the record header is smaller, the handshake headers is smaller, and that Connection ID is not supported. Recently, additional work has taken shape with the goal to further reduce overhead for TLS 1.3 (see [I-D.rescorla-tls-ctls]).

TLS Assumptions:

  • Minimum number of algorithms and cipher suites offered
  • Curve25519, ECDSA with P-256, AES-CCM_8, SHA-256
  • Length of key identifiers: 1 bytes
  • TLS RPK with point compression (saves 32 bytes)
  • Only mandatory TLS extensions

For the PSK calculations, [Ulfheim-TLS13] was a useful resource, while for RPK calculations we followed the work of [IoT-Cert].

2.3.1. Message Sizes RPK + ECDHE

2.3.1.1. flight_1
Record Header - TLSPlaintext (5 bytes):
16 03 03 LL LL

  Handshake Header - Client Hello (4 bytes):
  01 LL LL LL

    Legacy Version (2 bytes):
    03 03

    Client Random (32 bytes):
    00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

    Legacy Session ID (1 bytes):
    00

    Cipher Suites (TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256) (4 bytes):
    00 02 13 05

    Compression Methods (null) (2 bytes):
    01 00

    Extensions Length (2 bytes):
    LL LL

      Extension - Supported Groups (x25519) (8 bytes):
      00 0a 00 04 00 02 00 1d

      Extension - Signature Algorithms(ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256)(8 bytes):
      00 0d 00 04 00 02 08 07

      Extension - Key Share (42 bytes):
      00 33 00 26 00 24 00 1d 00 20
      00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
      16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

      Extension - Supported Versions (1.3) (7 bytes):
      00 2b 00 03 02 03 04

      Extension - Client Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes):
      00 13 00 01 01 02

      Extension - Server Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes):
      00 14 00 01 01 02

5 + 4 + 2 + 32 + 1 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 8 + 8 + 42 + 7 + 6 + 6 = 129 bytes

TLS 1.3 RPK + ECDHE flight_1 gives 129 bytes of overhead.

2.3.1.2. flight_2
Record Header - TLSPlaintext (5 bytes):
16 03 03 LL LL

  Handshake Header - Server Hello (4 bytes):
  02 LL LL LL

    Legacy Version (2 bytes):
    fe fd

    Server Random (32 bytes):
    00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

    Legacy Session ID (1 bytes):
    00

    Cipher Suite (TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256) (2 bytes):
    13 05

    Compression Method (null) (1 bytes):
    00

    Extensions Length (2 bytes):
    LL LL

      Extension - Key Share (40 bytes):
      00 33 00 24 00 1d 00 20
      00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
      16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

      Extension - Supported Versions (1.3) (6 bytes):
      00 2b 00 02 03 04

Record Header - TLSCiphertext (5 bytes):
17 03 03 LL LL

  Handshake Header - Encrypted Extensions (4 bytes):
  08 LL LL LL

    Extensions Length (2 bytes):
    LL LL

      Extension - Client Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes):
      00 13 00 01 01 02

      Extension - Server Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes):
      00 14 00 01 01 02

  Handshake Header - Certificate Request (4 bytes):
  0d LL LL LL

    Request Context (1 bytes):
    00

    Extensions Length (2 bytes):
    LL LL

      Extension - Signature Algorithms(ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256)(8 bytes):
      00 0d 00 04 00 02 08 07

  Handshake Header - Certificate (4 bytes):
  0b LL LL LL

    Request Context (1 bytes):
    00

    Certificate List Length (3 bytes):
    LL LL LL

    Certificate Length (3 bytes):
    LL LL LL

    Certificate (59 bytes) // Point compression
    ....

    Certificate Extensions (2 bytes):
    00 00

  Handshake Header - Certificate Verify (4 bytes):
  0f LL LL LL

    Signature  (68 bytes):
    ZZ ZZ 00 40 ....

  Handshake Header - Finished (4 bytes):
  14 LL LL LL

    Verify Data (32 bytes):
    00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

  Record Type (1 byte):
  16

Auth Tag (8 bytes):
e0 8b 0e 45 5a 35 0a e5

5 + 90 + 5 + 18 + 15 + 72 + 72 + 36 + 1 + 8 = 322 bytes

TLS 1.3 RPK + ECDHE flight_2 gives 322 bytes of overhead.

2.3.1.3. flight_3
Record Header - TLSCiphertext (5 bytes):
17 03 03 LL LL

  Handshake Header - Certificate (4 bytes):
  0b LL LL LL

    Request Context (1 bytes):
    00

    Certificate List Length (3 bytes):
    LL LL LL


    Certificate Length (3 bytes):
    LL LL LL

    Certificate (59 bytes) // Point compression
    ....

    Certificate Extensions (2 bytes):
    00 00

  Handshake Header - Certificate Verify (4 bytes):
  0f LL LL LL

    Signature  (68 bytes):
    04 03 LL LL //ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256
    00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b
    0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

  Handshake Header - Finished (4 bytes):
  14 LL LL LL

    Verify Data (32 bytes) // SHA-256:
    00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

  Record Type (1 byte)
  16

Auth Tag (8 bytes) // AES-CCM_8:
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

5 + 72 + 72 + 36 + 1 + 8 = 194 bytes

TLS 1.3 RPK + ECDHE flight_3 gives 194 bytes of overhead.

2.3.2. Message Sizes PSK + ECDHE

2.3.2.1. flight_1

The differences in overhead compared to Section 2.3.1.3 are:

The following is added:

+ Extension - PSK Key Exchange Modes (6 bytes):
  00 2d 00 02 01 01

+ Extension - Pre Shared Key (48 bytes):
  00 29 00 2F
  00 0a 00 01 ID 00 00 00 00
  00 21 20 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0a 0b 0c 0d 0e 0f 10 11 12 13
  14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f

The following is removed:

- Extension - Signature Algorithms (ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256) (8 bytes)

- Extension - Client Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes)

- Extension - Server Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes)

In total:

129 + 6 + 48 - 8 - 6 - 6 = 163 bytes

TLS 1.3 PSK + ECDHE flight_1 gives 166 bytes of overhead.

2.3.2.2. flight_2

The differences in overhead compared to Section 2.3.1.2 are:

The following is added:

+ Extension - Pre Shared Key (6 bytes)
  00 29 00 02 00 00

The following is removed:

- Handshake Message Certificate (72 bytes)

- Handshake Message CertificateVerify (72 bytes)

- Handshake Message CertificateRequest (15 bytes)

- Extension - Client Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes)

- Extension - Server Certificate Type (Raw Public Key) (6 bytes)

In total:

322 - 72 - 72 - 15 - 6 - 6  + 6 = 157 bytes

TLS 1.3 PSK + ECDHE flight_2 gives 157 bytes of overhead.

2.3.2.3. flight_3

The differences in overhead compared to Section 2.3.1.3 are:

The following is removed:

- Handshake Message Certificate (72 bytes)

- Handshake Message Certificate Verify (72 bytes)

In total:

194 - 72 - 72 = 50 bytes

TLS 1.3 PSK + ECDHE flight_3 gives 50 bytes of overhead.

2.3.3. Message Sizes PSK

2.3.3.1. flight_1

The differences in overhead compared to Section 2.3.2.1 are:

The following is removed:

- Extension - Supported Groups (x25519) (8 bytes)

- Extension - Key Share (42 bytes)

In total:

163 - 8 - 42 = 113 bytes

TLS 1.3 PSK flight_1 gives 116 bytes of overhead.

2.3.3.2. flight_2

The differences in overhead compared to Section 2.3.2.2 are:

The following is removed:

- Extension - Key Share (40 bytes)

In total:

157 - 40 = 117 bytes

TLS 1.3 PSK flight_2 gives 117 bytes of overhead.

2.3.3.3. flight_3

There are no differences in overhead compared to Section 2.3.2.3.

TLS 1.3 PSK flight_3 gives 57 bytes of overhead.

2.4. EDHOC

This section gives an estimate of the message sizes of EDHOC with authenticated with static Diffie-Hellman keys. All examples are given in CBOR diagnostic notation and hexadecimal, and are based on the test vectors in Appendix B.2 of [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc].

2.4.1. Message Sizes RPK

2.4.1.1. message_1
message_1 = (
  13,
  0,
  h'8D3EF56D1B750A4351D68AC250A0E883790EFC80A538A444EE9E2B57E244
    1A7C',
  -2
)
message_1 (37 bytes):
0d 00 58 20 8d 3e f5 6d 1b 75 0a 43 51 d6 8a c2 50 a0 e8 83
79 0e fc 80  a5 38 a4 44 ee 9e 2b 57 e2 44 1a 7c 21
2.4.1.2. message_2
message_2 = (
  h'52FBA0BDC8D953DD86CE1AB2FD7C05A4658C7C30AFDBFC3301047069451B
    AF35',
  8,
  h'DCF6FE9C524C22454DEB'
)
message_2 (46 bytes):
58 20 52 fb a0 bd c8 d9 53 dd 86 ce 1a b2 fd 7c 05 a4 65 8c
7c 30 af db fc 33 01 04 70 69 45 1b af 35 08 4a dc f6 fe 9c
52 4c 22 45 4d eb
2.4.1.3. message_3
message_3 = (
  8,
  h'53C3991999A5FFB86921E99B607C067770E0'
)
message_3 (20 bytes):
08 52 53 c3 99 19 99 a5 ff b8 69 21 e9 9b 60 7c 06 77 70 e0

2.4.2. Summary

The typical message sizes for the previous example and for an example of EDHOC authenticated with signature keys and X.509 certificates based on Appendix B.1 of [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] are summarized in Figure 5.

===============================
               RPK       x5t
-------------------------------
message_1       37        37
message_2       46       117
message_3       20        91
-------------------------------
Total          103       245
===============================
Figure 5: Typical message sizes in bytes

2.5. Conclusion

To do a fair comparison, one has to choose a specific deployment and look at the topology, the whole protocol stack, frame sizes (e.g. 51 or 128 bytes), how and where in the protocol stack fragmentation is done, and the expected packet loss. Note that the number of bytes in each frame that is available for the key exchange protocol may depend on the underlying protocol layers as well as on the number of hops in multi-hop networks. The packet loss may depend on how many other devices are transmitting at the same time, and may increase during network formation. The total overhead will be larger due to mechanisms for fragmentation, retransmission, and packet ordering. The overhead of fragmentation is roughly proportional to the number of fragments, while the expected overhead due to retransmission in noisy environments is a superlinear function of the flight sizes.

3. Overhead for Protection of Application Data

To enable comparison, all the overhead calculations in this section use AES-CCM with a tag length of 8 bytes (e.g. AES_128_CCM_8 or AES-CCM-16-64), a plaintext of 6 bytes, and the sequence number '05'. This follows the example in [RFC7400], Figure 16.

Note that the compressed overhead calculations for DLTS 1.2, DTLS 1.3, TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 are dependent on the parameters epoch, sequence number, and length, and all the overhead calculations are dependent on the parameter Connection ID when used. Note that the OSCORE overhead calculations are dependent on the CoAP option numbers, as well as the length of the OSCORE parameters Sender ID and Sequence Number. The following calculations are only examples.

Section 3.1 gives a short summary of the message overhead based on different parameters and some assumptions. The following sections detail the assumptions and the calculations.

3.1. Summary

The DTLS overhead is dependent on the parameter Connection ID. The following overheads apply for all Connection IDs with the same length.

The compression overhead (GHC) is dependent on the parameters epoch, sequence number, Connection ID, and length (where applicable). The following overheads should be representative for sequence numbers and Connection IDs with the same length.

The OSCORE overhead is dependent on the included CoAP Option numbers as well as the length of the OSCORE parameters Sender ID and sequence number. The following overheads apply for all sequence numbers and Sender IDs with the same length.

Sequence Number                '05'       '1005'     '100005'
-------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.2                        29          29          29
DTLS 1.3                        11          12          12
-------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.2 (GHC)                  16          16          16
DTLS 1.3 (GHC)                  12          13          13
-------------------------------------------------------------
TLS  1.2                        21          21          21
TLS  1.3                        14          14          14
-------------------------------------------------------------
TLS  1.2 (GHC)                  17          18          19
TLS  1.3 (GHC)                  15          16          17
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSCORE request                  13          14          15
OSCORE response                 11          11          11
Figure 6: Overhead in bytes as a function of sequence number       (Connection/Sender ID = '')
Connection/Sender ID            ''         '42'       '4002'
-------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.2                        29          30          31
DTLS 1.3                        11          12          13
-------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.2 (GHC)                  16          17          18
DTLS 1.3 (GHC)                  12          13          14
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSCORE request                  13          14          15
OSCORE response                 11          11          11
Figure 7: Overhead in bytes as a function of Connection/Sender ID       (Sequence Number = '05')
Protocol                     Overhead      Overhead (GHC)
-------------------------------------------------------------
DTLS 1.2                        21               8
DTLS 1.3                         3               4
-------------------------------------------------------------
TLS  1.2                        13               9
TLS  1.3                         6               7
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSCORE request                   5
OSCORE response                  3
Figure 8: Overhead (excluding ICV) in bytes                   (Connection/Sender ID = '', Sequence Number = '05')

3.2. DTLS 1.2

3.2.1. DTLS 1.2

This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347]. The nonce follow the strict profiling given in [RFC7925]. This example is taken directly from [RFC7400], Figure 16.

DTLS 1.2 record layer (35 bytes, 29 bytes overhead):
17 fe fd 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 05 00 16 00 01 00
00 00 00 00 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4
cb 35 b9

Content type:
17
Version:
fe fd
Epoch:
00 01
Sequence number:
00 00 00 00 00 05
Length:
00 16
Nonce:
00 01 00 00 00 00 00 05
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

DTLS 1.2 gives 29 bytes overhead.

3.2.2. DTLS 1.2 with 6LoWPAN-GHC

This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] when compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC [RFC7400]. The compression was done with [OlegHahm-ghc].

Note that the sequence number '01' used in [RFC7400], Figure 15 gives an exceptionally small overhead that is not representative.

Note that this header compression is not available when DTLS is used over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with 6LoWPAN-GHC.

Compressed DTLS 1.2 record layer (22 bytes, 16 bytes overhead):
b0 c3 03 05 00 16 f2 0e ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff
8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

Compressed DTLS 1.2 record layer header and nonce:
b0 c3 03 05 00 16 f2 0e
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, DTLS 1.2 with the above parameters (epoch, sequence number, length) gives 16 bytes overhead.

3.2.3. DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID

This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] with Connection ID [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id]. The overhead calculations in this section uses Connection ID = '42'. DTLS recored layer with a Connection ID = '' (the empty string) is equal to DTLS without Connection ID.

DTLS 1.2 record layer (36 bytes, 30 bytes overhead):
17 fe fd 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 05 42 00 16 00 01
00 00 00 00 00 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24
e4 cb 35 b9

Content type:
17
Version:
fe fd
Epoch:
00 01
Sequence number:
00 00 00 00 00 05
Connection ID:
42
Length:
00 16
Nonce:
00 01 00 00 00 00 00 05
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID gives 30 bytes overhead.

3.2.4. DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID and 6LoWPAN-GHC

This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] with Connection ID [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id] when compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC [RFC7400] [OlegHahm-ghc].

Note that the sequence number '01' used in [RFC7400], Figure 15 gives an exceptionally small overhead that is not representative.

Note that this header compression is not available when DTLS is used over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with 6LoWPAN-GHC.

Compressed DTLS 1.2 record layer (23 bytes, 17 bytes overhead):
b0 c3 04 05 42 00 16 f2 0e ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d
ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

Compressed DTLS 1.2 record layer header and nonce:
b0 c3 04 05 42 00 16 f2 0e
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, DTLS 1.2 with the above parameters (epoch, sequence number, Connection ID, length) gives 17 bytes overhead.

3.3. DTLS 1.3

3.3.1. DTLS 1.3

This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]. The changes compared to DTLS 1.2 are: omission of version number, merging of epoch into the first byte containing signalling bits, optional omission of length, reduction of sequence number into a 1 or 2-bytes field.

Only the minimal header format for DTLS 1.3 is analyzed (see Figure 4 of [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]). The minimal header formal omit the length field and only a 1-byte field is used to carry the 8 low order bits of the sequence number

DTLS 1.3 record layer (17 bytes, 11 bytes overhead):
21 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

First byte (including epoch):
21
Sequence number:
05
Ciphertext (including encrypted content type):
ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

DTLS 1.3 gives 11 bytes overhead.

3.3.2. DTLS 1.3 with 6LoWPAN-GHC

This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] when compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC [RFC7400] [OlegHahm-ghc].

Note that this header compression is not available when DTLS is used over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with 6LoWPAN-GHC.

Compressed DTLS 1.3 record layer (18 bytes, 12 bytes overhead):
11 21 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb
35 b9

Compressed DTLS 1.3 record layer header and nonce:
11 21 05
Ciphertext (including encrypted content type):
ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, DTLS 1.3 with the above parameters (epoch, sequence number, no length) gives 12 bytes overhead.

3.3.3. DTLS 1.3 with Connection ID

This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] with Connection ID [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id].

In this example, the length field is omitted, and the 1-byte field is used for the sequence number. The minimal DTLSCiphertext structure is used (see Figure 4 of [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]), with the addition of the Connection ID field.

DTLS 1.3 record layer (18 bytes, 12 bytes overhead):
31 42 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

First byte (including epoch):
31
Connection ID:
42
Sequence number:
05
Ciphertext (including encrypted content type):
ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

DTLS 1.3 with Connection ID gives 12 bytes overhead.

3.3.4. DTLS 1.3 with Connection ID and 6LoWPAN-GHC

This section analyzes the overhead of DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] with Connection ID [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id] when compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC [RFC7400] [OlegHahm-ghc].

Note that this header compression is not available when DTLS is used over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with 6LoWPAN-GHC.

Compressed DTLS 1.3 record layer (19 bytes, 13 bytes overhead):
12 31 05 42 ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec 4d ff 8a 24 e4
cb 35 b9

Compressed DTLS 1.3 record layer header and nonce:
12 31 05 42
Ciphertext (including encrypted content type):
ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, DTLS 1.3 with the above parameters (epoch, sequence number, Connection ID, no length) gives 13 bytes overhead.

3.4. TLS 1.2

3.4.1. TLS 1.2

This section analyzes the overhead of TLS 1.2 [RFC5246]. The changes compared to DTLS 1.2 is that the TLS 1.2 record layer does not have epoch and sequence number, and that the version is different.

TLS 1.2 Record Layer (27 bytes, 21 bytes overhead):
17 03 03 00 16 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 05 ae a0 15
56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

Content type:
17
Version:
03 03
Length:
00 16
Nonce:
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 05
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

TLS 1.2 gives 21 bytes overhead.

3.4.2. TLS 1.2 with 6LoWPAN-GHC

This section analyzes the overhead of TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] when compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC [RFC7400] [OlegHahm-ghc].

Note that this header compression is not available when TLS is used over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with 6LoWPAN-GHC.

Compressed TLS 1.2 record layer (23 bytes, 17 bytes overhead):
05 17 03 03 00 16 85 0f 05 ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d
ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

Compressed TLS 1.2 record layer header and nonce:
05 17 03 03 00 16 85 0f 05
Ciphertext:
ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, TLS 1.2 with the above parameters (epoch, sequence number, length) gives 17 bytes overhead.

3.5. TLS 1.3

3.5.1. TLS 1.3

This section analyzes the overhead of TLS 1.3 [RFC8446]. The change compared to TLS 1.2 is that the TLS 1.3 record layer uses a different version.

TLS 1.3 Record Layer (20 bytes, 14 bytes overhead):
17 03 03 00 16 ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec 4d ff 8a 24
e4 cb 35 b9

Content type:
17
Legacy version:
03 03
Length:
00 0f
Ciphertext (including encrypted content type):
ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

TLS 1.3 gives 14 bytes overhead.

3.5.2. TLS 1.3 with 6LoWPAN-GHC

This section analyzes the overhead of TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] when compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC [RFC7400] [OlegHahm-ghc].

Note that this header compression is not available when TLS is used over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with 6LoWPAN-GHC.

Compressed TLS 1.3 record layer (21 bytes, 15 bytes overhead):
14 17 03 03 00 0f ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec 4d ff 8a
24 e4 cb 35 b9

Compressed TLS 1.3 record layer header and nonce:
14 17 03 03 00 0f
Ciphertext (including encrypted content type):
ae a0 15 56 67 92 ec
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

When compressed with 6LoWPAN-GHC, TLS 1.3 with the above parameters (epoch, sequence number, length) gives 15 bytes overhead.

3.6. OSCORE

This section analyzes the overhead of OSCORE [RFC8613].

The below calculation Option Delta = '9', Sender ID = '' (empty string), and Sequence Number = '05', and is only an example. Note that Sender ID = '' (empty string) can only be used by one client per server.

OSCORE request (19 bytes, 13 bytes overhead):
92 09 05
ff ec ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

CoAP option delta and length:
92
Option value (flag byte and sequence number):
09 05
Payload marker:
ff
Ciphertext (including encrypted code):
ec ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

The below calculation Option Delta = '9', Sender ID = '42', and Sequence Number = '05', and is only an example.

OSCORE request (20 bytes, 14 bytes overhead):
93 09 05 42
ff ec ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

CoAP option delta and length:
93
Option Value (flag byte, sequence number, and Sender ID):
09 05 42
Payload marker:
ff
Ciphertext (including encrypted code):
ec ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

The below calculation uses Option Delta = '9'.

OSCORE response (17 bytes, 11 bytes overhead):
90
ff ec ae a0 15 56 67 92 4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

CoAP delta and option length:
90
Option value:
-
Payload marker:
ff
Ciphertext (including encrypted code):
ec ae a0 15 56 67 92
ICV:
4d ff 8a 24 e4 cb 35 b9

OSCORE with the above parameters gives 13-14 bytes overhead for requests and 11 bytes overhead for responses.

Unlike DTLS and TLS, OSCORE has much smaller overhead for responses than requests.

3.7. Group OSCORE

This section analyzes the overhead of Group OSCORE [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].

TODO

3.8. Conclusion

DTLS 1.2 has quite a large overhead as it uses an explicit sequence number and an explicit nonce. TLS 1.2 has significantly less (but not small) overhead. TLS 1.3 has quite a small overhead. OSCORE and DTLS 1.3 (using the minimal structure) format have very small overhead.

The Generic Header Compression (6LoWPAN-GHC) can in addition to DTLS 1.2 handle TLS 1.2, and DTLS 1.2 with Connection ID. The Generic Header Compression (6LoWPAN-GHC) works very well for Connection ID and the overhead seems to increase exactly with the length of the Connection ID (which is optimal). The compression of TLS 1.2 is not as good as the compression of DTLS 1.2 (as the static dictionary only contains the DTLS 1.2 version number). Similar compression levels as for DTLS could be achieved also for TLS 1.2, but this would require different static dictionaries. For TLS 1.3 and DTLS 1.3, GHC increases the overhead. The 6LoWPAN-GHC header compression is not available when (D)TLS is used over transports that do not use 6LoWPAN together with 6LoWPAN-GHC.

New security protocols like OSCORE, TLS 1.3, and DTLS 1.3 have much lower overhead than DTLS 1.2 and TLS 1.2. The overhead is even smaller than DTLS 1.2 and TLS 1.2 over 6LoWPAN with compression, and therefore the small overhead is achieved even on deployments without 6LoWPAN or 6LoWPAN without compression. OSCORE is lightweight because it makes use of CoAP, CBOR, and COSE, which were designed to have as low overhead as possible.

Note that the compared protocols have slightly different use cases. TLS and DTLS are designed for the transport layer and are terminated in CoAP proxies. OSCORE is designed for the application layer and protects information end-to-end between the CoAP client and the CoAP server. Group OSCORE is designed for group communication and protects information between a CoAP client and any number of CoAP servers.

4. Security Considerations

This document is purely informational.

5. IANA Considerations

This document has no actions for IANA.

6. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]
Tiloca, M., Selander, G., Palombini, F., and J. Park, "Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-09, , <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-09.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc]
Selander, G., Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-01, , <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-01.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id]
Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and T. Fossati, "Connection Identifiers for DTLS 1.2", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-07, , <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-07.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]
Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-38, , <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-38.txt>.
[I-D.rescorla-tls-ctls]
Rescorla, E., Barnes, R., and H. Tschofenig, "Compact TLS 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-rescorla-tls-ctls-04, , <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rescorla-tls-ctls-04.txt>.
[IoT-Cert]
Forsby, F., "Digital Certificates for the Internet of Things", , <https://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1153958/FULLTEXT01.pdf>.
[OlegHahm-ghc]
Hahm, O., "Generic Header Compression", , <https://github.com/OlegHahm/ghc>.
[RFC5246]
Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6347]
Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7252]
Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7400]
Bormann, C., "6LoWPAN-GHC: Generic Header Compression for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 7400, DOI 10.17487/RFC7400, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7400>.
[RFC7924]
Santesson, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extension", RFC 7924, DOI 10.17487/RFC7924, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7924>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7925>.
[RFC8323]
Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K., Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets", RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC8323, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8323>.
[RFC8446]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8613]
Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz, "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>.
[Ulfheim-TLS13]
Driscoll, M., "Every Byte Explained The Illustrated TLS 1.3 Connection", , <https://tls13.ulfheim.net>.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank Ari Keraenen, Carsten Bormann, Goeran Selander, and Hannes Tschofenig for comments and suggestions on previous versions of the draft.

All 6LoWPAN-GHC compression was done with [OlegHahm-ghc].

Authors' Addresses

John Preuß Mattsson
Ericsson AB
Francesca Palombini
Ericsson AB
Malisa Vucinic
INRIA