| Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET) | U. Herberg |
| Internet-Draft | Fujitsu Laboratories of America |
| Obsoletes: 6622 (if approved) | T. Clausen |
| Intended status: Standards Track | LIX, Ecole Polytechnique |
| Expires: March 14, 2014 | C.M. Dearlove |
| BAE Systems ATC | |
| September 10, 2013 |
Integrity Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)
draft-ietf-manet-rfc6622-bis-05
This document revises, extends and replaces RFC 6622. It describes general and flexible TLVs for representing cryptographic Integrity Check Values (ICVs) and timestamps, using the generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) packet/message format defined in RFC 5444. It defines two Packet TLVs, two Message TLVs, and two Address Block TLVs for affixing ICVs and timestamps to a packet, a message, and one or more addresses, respectively.
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 http://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 March 14, 2014.
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
[RFC Editor note: Please replace "xxxx" throughout this document with the RFC number assigned to this document, and remove this note.]
This document specifies a syntactical representation of security- related information for use with [RFC5444] addresses, messages, and packets, and also specifies IANA registrations of TLV types and type extension registries for these TLV types. This specification does not represent a stand-alone protocol, but is intended for use by MANET routing protocols, or security extensions thereof.
Specifically, this document, which revises, extends, and replaces [RFC6622], specifies:
This document specifies IANA registries for recording code points for ICV TLVs and TIMESTAMP TLVs, as well as timestamps, hash-functions, and cryptographic functions.
Moreover, in Section 12, this document defines the following:
This document obsoletes [RFC6622], replacing that document as the specification of two TLV types, TIMESTAMP and ICV, for packets, messages and address blocks. For the ICV type, this document specifies a new type extension, 2 (see Section 12), in addition to including the original type extensions (0 and 1) from [RFC6622].
The TLV value of an ICV TLV with type extension 2 has the same internal structure as an ICV TLV with type extension 1, but is calculated also over the source address of the IP datagram carrying the packet, message, or Address Block. The rationale for adding this type extension is that some MANET protocols, such as [RFC6130], use the IP source address of the IP datagram carrying the packet, message or Address Block, e.g., to identify links with neighbor routers. If this address is not otherwise contained in the packet, message, or Address Block payload (which is permitted, e.g., in [RFC6130]), then the address is not protected against tampering.
This document also incorporates a number of editorial improvements over [RFC6622]. In particular, it makes it clear that an ICV TLV may be used to carry a truncated ICV, and that a single- or multi-value TIMESTAMP or ICV Address Block TLV may cover more than one address. Moreover, to be consistent with the terminology in [RFC5444], the name of the TLVs specified in this document have changed from "Packet ICV TLV" to "ICV Packet TLV" and from "Packet TIMESTAMP TLV" to "TIMESTAMP Packet TLV" (and similar for Message and Address Block TLVs).
A normative requirement in Section 9.2 has changed from SHOULD to MUST in the following sentence: "If a message contains one or more TIMESTAMP TLVs and one or more ICV TLVs, then the TIMESTAMP TLVs (as well as any other Message TLVs) MUST be added to the message before the ICV TLVs (...)".
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document uses the terminology and notation defined in [RFC5444]. In particular, the following TLV fields and notation from [RFC5444] are used in this specification:
In addition to the regular expressions defined in Section 2.1.1 of [RFC5444] this document defines:
+ - One or more occurrences of the preceding element or group.
MANET routing protocols using the format defined in [RFC5444] are accorded the ability to carry additional information in control messages and packets, through the inclusion of TLVs. Information so included MAY be used by a MANET routing protocol, or by an extension of a MANET routing protocol, according to its specification.
This document specifies how to include an ICV for a packet, a message, and addresses in Address Blocks within a message, using such TLVs. This document also specifies how to treat an empty Packet TLV Block, and "mutable" fields, specifically the <msg-hop-count> and <msg-hop-limit> fields, if present in the Message Header when calculating ICVs, such that the resulting ICV can be correctly verified by any recipient.
This document describes a generic framework for creating ICVs, and how to include these ICVs in TLVs. In Section 12, an example method for calculating such ICVs is given, using a cryptographic function and a hash function, for which two TLV type extensions are allocated.
This document does not specify a protocol. Protocol specifications that make use of the framework, specified in this document, will reference this document in a normative way, and may require the implementation of some or all of the algorithms described in this document. As this document does not specify a protocol itself, key management and key exchange mechanisms are out of scope, and may be specified in the protocol or protocol extension using this specification.
MANET routing protocol specifications may have a clause allowing a control message to be rejected as "badly formed" or "insecure" prior to the message being processed or forwarded. In particular, MANET routing protocols such as the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) [RFC6130] and the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 [OLSRv2] recognize external reasons (such as failure to verify an ICV) for rejecting a message that would be considered "invalid for processing".
This architecture is a result of the observation that with respect to security in MANETs, "one size rarely fits all" and that MANET routing protocol deployment domains have varying security requirements ranging from "unbreakable" to "virtually none". The virtue of this approach is that MANET routing protocol specifications (and implementations) can remain "generic", with extensions providing proper security mechanisms specific to a deployment domain.
The MANET routing protocol "security architecture", in which this specification situates itself, can therefore be summarized as follows:
This document addresses the last of the points above, by specifying a common exchange format for cryptographic ICVs and timestamps, making reservations from within the Packet TLV, Message TLV, and Address Block TLV registries of [RFC5444], to be used by (and shared among) MANET routing protocol security extensions.
For the specific decomposition of an ICV using a cryptographic function and a hash function (specified in Section 12), this document specifies two IANA registries (see Section 13) for code points for hash functions and cryptographic functions.
With respect to [RFC5444], this document is:
This document specifies a syntactical representation of security-related information for use with [RFC5444] addresses, messages, and packets, and also specifies IANA registrations (see Section 13) of TLV types and type extension registries for these TLV types.
Moreover, this document provides guidelines for how MANET routing protocols, and MANET routing protocol extensions using this specification, should treat ICV and Timestamp TLVs, and mutable fields in messages. This specification does not represent a stand-alone protocol. MANET routing protocols, and MANET routing protocol extensions using this specification, MUST provide instructions as to how to handle packets, messages, and addresses with security information, associated as specified in this document.
This document specifies TLV type assignments (see Section 13) from the registries defined for Packet, Message, and Address Block TLVs in [RFC5444]. When a TLV type is assigned from one of these registries, a registry for type extensions for that TLV type is created by IANA. This document specifies these type extension registries, in order to specify internal structure (and accompanying processing) of the <value> field of a TLV.
For example, and as reported in this document, an ICV TLV with type extension = 0 specifies that the <value> field has no pre-defined internal structure, but is simply a sequence of octets. An ICV TLV with type extension = 1 specifies that the <value> field has a pre-defined internal structure and defines its interpretation. An ICV TLV with type extension = 2 (added in this document) is the same as an ICV TLV with type extension = 1, except that the integrity protection also covers the source address of the IP datagram carrying the packet, message, or Address Block.
Specifically, with type extension = 1 or type extension = 2, the <value> field contains the result of combining a cryptographic function and a hash function, calculated over the contents of the packet, message, or Address Block. The <value> field contains sub-fields indicating which hash function and cryptographic function have been used, as specified in Section 12.
Other documents can request assignments for other type extensions; if they do so, they MUST specify their internal structure (if any) and interpretation.
The value of the ICV TLV is:
<value> := <ICV-value>+
where:
Note that this does not specify how to calculate the <ICV-value> nor the internal structure thereof, if any; such information MUST be specified by the type extension for the ICV TLV type; see Section 13. This document specifies three such type extensions -- one for ICVs without pre-defined structures, and two for ICVs constructed combining a cryptographic function and a hash function.
The value of the Timestamp TLV is:
<value> := <time-value>+
where: Section 13.
Note that this does not specify how to calculate the <time‑value> nor the internal structure thereof, if any; such information MUST be specified by the type extension for the TIMESTAMP TLV type; see
A timestamp is essentially "freshness information". As such, its setting and interpretation are to be determined by the MANET routing protocol, or MANET routing protocol extension, that uses the timestamp and can, for example, correspond to a POSIX timestamp, GPS timestamp, or a simple sequence number. Note that ensuring time synchronization in a MANET may be difficult because of the decentralized architecture as well as highly dynamic topology due to mobility or other factors. It is out of scope for this document to specify a time synchronization mechanism.
Two Packet TLVs are defined: one for including the cryptographic ICV of a packet and one for including the timestamp indicating the time at which the cryptographic ICV was calculated.
An ICV Packet TLV is an example of an ICV TLV as described in Section 6. When determining the <ICV-value> for a packet, and adding an ICV Packet TLV to a packet, the following considerations MUST be applied:
The rationale for removing any ICV Packet TLVs already present prior to calculating the ICV is that several ICV TLVs may be added to the same packet, e.g., using different ICV cryptographic and/or hash functions. The rationale for removing an empty Packet TLV Block is because the receiver of the packet cannot tell the difference between what was an absent Packet TLV Block, and what was an empty Packet TLV Block when removing and verifying the ICV Packet TLV if no other Packet TLVs are present.
A TIMESTAMP Packet TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as described in Section 7. If a packet contains one or more TIMESTAMP TLVs and one or more ICV TLVs, then the TIMESTAMP TLVs (as well as any other Packet TLVs) MUST be added to the packet before the ICV TLVs, in order to include the timestamps and other TLVs in the calculation of the ICVs.
Two Message TLVs are defined: one for including the cryptographic ICV of a message and one for including the timestamp indicating the time at which the cryptographic ICV was calculated.
An ICV Message TLV is an example of an ICV TLV as described in Section 6. When determining the <ICV-value> for a message, the following considerations MUST be applied:
The rationale for removing any ICV Message TLVs already present prior to calculating the ICV is that several ICV TLVs may be added to the same message, e.g., using different ICV cryptographic and/or hash functions.
A TIMESTAMP Message TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as described in Section 7. If a message contains one or more TIMESTAMP TLVs and one or more ICV TLVs, then the TIMESTAMP TLVs (as well as any other Message TLVs) MUST be added to the message before the ICV TLVs, in order to include the timestamps and other Message TLVs in the calculation of the ICV.
Two Address Block TLVs are defined: one for associating a cryptographic ICV to one or more addresses and their associated information, and one for including the timestamp indicating the time at which the cryptographic ICV was calculated.
An ICV Address Block TLV is an example of an ICV TLV as described in Section 6. The ICV is calculated over one or more addresses, concatenated with any other values -- for example, other Address Block TLV <value> fields -- associated with those addresses. A MANET routing protocol, or MANET routing protocol extension, using ICV Address Block TLVs MUST specify how to include any such concatenated attributes of the addresses in the calculation and verification processes for the ICV. When determining an <ICV‑value> for one or more addresses, the following consideration MUST be applied:
The rationale for not concatenating the addresses with any ICV TLV values already associated with the addresses when calculating the ICV is that several ICVs may be added to the same address or addresses, e.g., using different ICV cryptographic and/or hash functions, and the order of addition is not known to the recipient.
A TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as described in Section 7. If one or more TIMESTAMP TLVs and one or more ICV TLVs are associated with an address, the relevant TIMESTAMP TLV <time-value>(s) MUST be included before calculating the value of the ICV to be contained in the ICV TLV value (i.e., concatenated with the associated addresses and any other values as described in Section 10.1).
The basic ICV, represented by way of an ICV TLV with type extension = 0, is a simple bit-field containing the cryptographic ICV. This assumes that the mechanism stipulating how ICVs are calculated and verified is established outside of this specification, e.g., by administrative configuration or external out-of-band signaling. Thus, the <ICV-value>, when using type extension = 0, is:
<ICV-value> := <ICV-data>
where:
One common way of calculating an ICV is combining a cryptographic function and a hash function applied to the content. This decomposition is specified in this section, using either type extension = 1 or type extension = 2, in the ICV TLVs.
The following data structure allows representation of a cryptographic ICV, including specification of the appropriate hash function and cryptographic function used for calculating the ICV:
<ICV-value> := <hash-function>
<cryptographic-function>
<key-id-length>
<key-id>?
<ICV-data>
where: Section 13.12, using the hash function twice. Using cryptographic-function "none" is provided for symmetry and possible future use, but it SHOULD NOT be used with any currently specified hash-function.
The version of this TLV, specified in this section, assumes that, unless otherwise specified, calculating the ICV can be decomposed into:
In some cases a different combination of cryptographic function and hash function may be specified. This is the case for the HMAC function, which is specified as defined in
The difference between the two type extensions is that in addition to the information covered by the ICV using type extension 1 (which is detailed in the following sections), the ICV using type extension 2 also MUST cover the source address of the IP datagram carrying the corresponding packet, message, or Address Block.
The <ICV-data> field MAY be truncated after being calculated, this is indicated by its length, calculated as described above. The truncation SHOULD be as specified for the relevant cryptographic function (and, if appropriate, hash function). When using truncation, it is RECOMMENDED to follow the guidelines for minimal ICV length set out in [NIST-SP-800-107]. In particular, the <ICV-data> field HMAC SHOULD NOT be truncated below 4 octets.
The hash function and the cryptographic function correspond to the entries in two IANA registries, which are described in Section 13.
The rationale for separating the hash function and the cryptographic function into two octets instead of having all combinations in a single octet -- possibly as a TLV type extension -- is that adding further hash functions or cryptographic functions in the future may lead to a non-contiguous number space, as well as providing a smaller overall space.
The rationale for not including a field that lists parameters of the cryptographic ICV in the TLV is that, before being able to validate a cryptographic ICV, routers have to exchange or acquire keys. Any additional parameters can be provided together with the keys in that bootstrap process. It is therefore not necessary, and would even entail an extra overhead, to transmit the parameters within every message.
The rationale for the addition of type extension 2 is that the source code address is used in some cases, such as when processing HELLO messages in [RFC6130]. This is applicable only to packets (which only ever travel one hop) and messages (and their Address Blocks) that only travel one hop. It is not applicable to messages that may be forwarded more than one hop, such as TC messages in [OLSRv2].
The considerations listed in the following subsections MUST be applied when calculating the ICV for Packet, Message, and Address Block TLVs, respectively.
When determining the <ICV‑data> for a packet, with type extension = 1:
When determining the <ICV‑data> for a packet, with type extension = 2:
When determining the <ICV‑data> for a message, with type extension = 1:
When determining the <ICV‑data> for a message, with type extension = 2:
When determining the <ICV‑data> for one or more addresses, with type extension = 1:
When determining the <ICV‑data> for one or more addresses, with type extension = 2:
The sample message depicted in Figure 1 is derived from Appendix D of [RFC5444]. The message contains an ICV Message TLV, with the value representing an ICV that is 16 octets long of the whole message, and a key identifier that is 4 octets long. The type extension of the Message TLV is 1, for the specific decomposition of an ICV using a cryptographic function and a hash function, as specified in Section 12.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PV=0 | PF=8 | Packet Sequence Number | Message Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MF=15 | MAL=3 | Message Length = 44 | Msg Orig Addr |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Originator Address (cont) | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Count | Message Sequence Number | Msg TLV Block |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length = 27 | ICV | MTLVF = 144 | MTLVExt = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Value Len = 23 | Hash Func | Crypto Func |Key ID length=4|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Key Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ICV Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ICV Value (cont) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ICV Value (cont) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ICV Value (cont) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Example Message with ICV
The IANA registrations for TLV Types and the TLV Type Extension registries given in this specification replace the identical registrations and registries from [RFC6622].
This specification defines the following TLV Types, replacing the original specifications in [RFC6622]: [RFC6622]:
This specification updates the following registries that were created in
The following terms are used as defined in [BCP26]: "Namespace", "Registration", and "Designated Expert".
The following policy is used as defined in [BCP26]: "Expert Review".
For TLV type extensions registries where an Expert Review is required, the Designated Expert SHOULD take the same general recommendations into consideration as those specified by [RFC5444].
For both TIMESTAMP and ICV TLVs, functionally similar extensions for Packet, Message, and Address Block TLVs SHOULD be numbered identically.
IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "Packet TLV Types" namespace of [RFC5444] for the Packet TLVs specified in Table 1. IANA is requested to modify this allocation as indicated.
| Type | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | ICV | RFC xxxx |
| 6 | TIMESTAMP | RFC xxxx |
IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "Message TLV Types" namespace of [RFC5444] for the Message TLVs specified in Table 2. IANA is requested to modify this allocation as indicated.
| Type | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | ICV | RFC xxxx |
| 6 | TIMESTAMP | RFC xxxx |
IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "Address Block TLV Types" namespace of [RFC5444] for the Packet TLVs specified in Table 3. IANA is requested to modify this allocation as indicated.
| Type | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | ICV | RFC xxxx |
| 6 | TIMESTAMP | RFC xxxx |
IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Packet TLVs specified in Table 4. IANA is requested to modify this allocation (including defining type extension = 2) as indicated.
| Type Extension | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | ICV of a packet | RFC xxxx |
| 1 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a hash function, as specified in Section 12 of this document | RFC xxxx |
| 2 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a hash function, and including the IP datagram source address, as specified in Section 12 of this document | RFC xxxx |
| 3-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | |
| 252-255 | Experimental Use | RFC xxxx |
More than one ICV Packet TLV with the same type extension MAY be included in a packet if these represent different ICV calculations (e.g., with type extension 1 or 2 and different cryptographic function and/or hash function, or with a different key identifier). ICV Packet TLVs that carry what is declared to be the same information MUST NOT be included in the same packet.
IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "TIMESTAMP Packet TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Packet TLVs specified in Table 5. IANA is requested to modify this allocation as indicated.
| Type Extension | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary length, given by the TLV Length field. The MANET routing protocol has to define how to interpret this timestamp | RFC xxxx |
| 1 | Unsigned 32-bit timestamp, as specified in [IEEE 1003.1-2008 (POSIX)] | RFC xxxx |
| 2 | NTP timestamp format, as specified in [RFC5905] | RFC xxxx |
| 3 | Signed timestamp of arbitrary length with no constraints such as monotonicity. In particular, it may represent any random value | RFC xxxx |
| 4-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | |
| 252-255 | Experimental Use | RFC xxxx |
More than one TIMESTAMP Packet TLV with the same type extension MUST NOT be included in a packet.
IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "ICV Message TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Message TLVs specified in Table 6. IANA is requested to modify this allocation (including defining type extension = 2) as indicated.
| Type Extension | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | ICV of a message | RFC xxxx |
| 1 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a hash function, as specified in Section 12 of this document | RFC xxxx |
| 2 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a hash function, and including the IP datagram source address, as specified in Section 12 of this document | RFC xxxx |
| 3-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | |
| 252-255 | Experimental Use | RFC xxxx |
More than one ICV Message TLV with the same type extension MAY be included in a message if these represent different ICV calculations (e.g., with type extension 1 or 2 and different cryptographic function and/or hash function, or with a different key identifier). ICV Message TLVs that carry what is declared to be the same information MUST NOT be included in the same message.
IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "TIMESTAMP Message TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Message TLVs specified in Table 7. IANA is requested to modify this allocation as indicated.
| Type Extension | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary length, given by the TLV Length field. The MANET routing protocol has to define how to interpret this timestamp | RFC xxxx |
| 1 | Unsigned 32-bit timestamp, as specified in [IEEE 1003.1-2008 (POSIX)] | RFC xxxx |
| 2 | NTP timestamp format, as specified in [RFC5905] | RFC xxxx |
| 3 | Signed timestamp of arbitrary length with no constraints such as monotonicity. In particular, it may represent any random value | RFC xxxx |
| 4-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | |
| 252-255 | Experimental Use | RFC xxxx |
More than one TIMESTAMP Message TLV with the same type extension MUST NOT be included in a message.
IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Address Block TLVs specified in Table 8. IANA is requested to modify this allocation (including defining type extension = 2) as indicated.
| Type Extension | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | ICV of an object (e.g., an address) | RFC xxxx |
| 1 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a hash function, as specified in Section 12 of this document | RFC xxxx |
| 2 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a hash function, and including the IP datagram source address, as specified in Section 12 of this document | RFC xxxx |
| 3-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | |
| 252-255 | Experimental Use | RFC xxxx |
More than one ICV Address Block TLV with the same type extension MAY be associate with an address if these represent different ICV calculations (e.g., with type extension 1 or 2 and different cryptographic function and/or hash function, or with a different key identifier). ICV Address Block TLVs that carry what is declared to be the same information MUST NOT be associated with the same address.
IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Address Block TLVs specified in Table 9. IANA is requested to modify this allocation as indicated.
| Type Extension | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary length, given by the TLV Length field. The MANET routing protocol has to define how to interpret this timestamp | RFC xxxx |
| 1 | Unsigned 32-bit timestamp, as specified in [IEEE 1003.1-2008 (POSIX)] | RFC xxxx |
| 2 | NTP timestamp format, as specified in [RFC5905] | RFC xxxx |
| 3 | Signed timestamp of arbitrary length with no constraints such as monotonicity. In particular, it may represent any random value | RFC xxxx |
| 4-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | |
| 252-255 | Experimental Use | RFC xxxx |
More than one TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV with the same type extension MUST NOT be associated with any address.
IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], created a registry for hash functions that can be used when creating an ICV, as specified in Section 12 of this document. The initial assignments and allocation policies are specified in Table 10. IANA is requested to modify this allocation as indicated.
| Value | Algorithm | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | none | The "identity function": The hash value of an object is the object itself | RFC xxxx |
| 1 | SHA-1 | [NIST-FIPS-180-4] | RFC xxxx |
| 2 | SHA-224 | [NIST-FIPS-180-4] | RFC xxxx |
| 3 | SHA-256 | [NIST-FIPS-180-4] | RFC xxxx |
| 4 | SHA-384 | [NIST-FIPS-180-4] | RFC xxxx |
| 5 | SHA-512 | [NIST-FIPS-180-4] | RFC xxxx |
| 6-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | ||
| 252-255 | Experimental Use | RFC xxxx |
IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], created a registry for the cryptographic functions, as specified in Section 12 of this document. Initial assignments and allocation policies are specified in Table 11. IANA is requested to modify this allocation as indicated.
| Value | Algorithm | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | none | The "identity function": The value of an encrypted hash is the hash itself | RFC xxxx |
| 1 | RSA | [RFC3447] | RFC xxxx |
| 2 | DSA | [NIST-FIPS-186-3] | RFC xxxx |
| 3 | HMAC | [RFC2104] | RFC xxxx |
| 4 | 3DES | [NIST-SP-800-67] | RFC xxxx |
| 5 | AES-128 | [NIST-FIPS-197] | RFC xxxx |
| 6 | ECDSA | [RFC6090] | RFC xxxx |
| 7-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | ||
| 252-255 | Experimental Use | RFC xxxx |
This document does not specify a protocol. It provides a syntactical component for cryptographic ICVs of messages and packets, as defined in [RFC5444]. It can be used to address security issues of a MANET routing protocol or MANET routing protocol extension. As such, it has the same security considerations as [RFC5444].
In addition, a MANET routing protocol or MANET routing protocol extension that uses this specification MUST specify how to use the framework, and the TLVs presented in this document. In addition, the protection that the MANET routing protocol or MANET routing protocol extensions attain by using this framework MUST be described.
As an example, a MANET routing protocol that uses this component to reject "badly formed" or "insecure" messages if a control message does not contain a valid ICV SHOULD indicate the security assumption that if the ICV is valid, the message is considered valid. It also SHOULD indicate the security issues that are counteracted by this measure (e.g., link or identity spoofing) as well as the issues that are not counteracted (e.g., compromised keys).
The authors would like to thank Bo Berry (Cisco), Alan Cullen (BAE Systems), Justin Dean (NRL), Paul Lambert (Marvell), Jerome Milan (Ecole Polytechnique), and Henning Rogge (FGAN) for their constructive comments on [RFC6622].
The authors also appreciate the detailed reviews of [RFC6622] from the Area Directors, in particular Stewart Bryant (Cisco), Stephen Farrell (Trinity College Dublin), and Robert Sparks (Tekelec), as well as Donald Eastlake (Huawei) from the Security Directorate.
The authors would like to thank Justin Dean (NRL) and Henning Rogge (FGAN) for their constructive comments on this specification.
| [RFC6130] | Clausen, T., Dearlove, C. and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 6130, April 2011. |
| [RFC6622] | Herberg, U. and T. Clausen, "Integrity Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 6622, May 2012. |
| [OLSRv2] | Clausen, T.H., Dearlove, C.M., Jacquet, P. and U. Herberg, "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2", work in progress draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19, March 2013. |