Internet-Draft tigress-requirements September 2022
Vinokurov, et al. Expires 13 March 2023 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-tigress-requirements-01
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Authors:
D. Vinokurov
Apple Inc
C. Astiz
Apple Inc
A. Pelletier
Apple Inc
J. L. Giraud
Apple Inc
A. Bulgakov
Apple Inc
M. Byington
Apple Inc
N. Sha
Alphabet Inc

Transfer Digital Credentials Securely - Requirements

Abstract

This document describes the use cases necessitating the secure transfer of digital credentials. The document also comprises a proposal, and defines requirements and scope.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://dimmyvi.github.io/tigress-requirements/draft-tigress-requirements.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tigress-requirements/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/dimmyvi/tigress-requirements.

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 13 March 2023.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

TODO Introduction

2. Conventions and Definitions

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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

General terms:

3. Use Cases

4. Assumptions

5. Requirements

6. Review of existing solutions

A number of existing solutions / protocols have been reviewed in order to be used for secure credential transfer based on the requirements: GSS-API, Kerberos, AWS S3, email, Signal. None of the existing protocols comply with the requirements; the effort of modifying the existing protocols has been accessed to be significantly higher than introducing a new solution to solve this problem.

6.1. Arbitrary Messaging Channel (Email / WhatsApp / SMS / Signal / etc.)

The Provisioning Information MAY be sent from Sender to Receiver over an arbitrary messaging channel, but that would not provide a good user experience. Users MAY need to copy and paste the Provisioning Information, or need a special application to handle some new file type. This violates (Req-SmoothUX). If multiple round trips were required the user would need to manually managing multiple payloads of Provisioning Information. This would be very hard for anyone non technical and greatly limit adoption. This violates (Req-NontechnicalUX).

6.2. GSS-API, Kerberos

GSS-API [RFC2078] and Kerberos [RFC4120] are authentication technologies which could be used to authenticate Sender, Receiver and intermediary. However, as they provide strong authentication, they would allow the Intermediary server to build a social graph in violation of (Req-Privacy). Their setup also require strong coordination between the actors of the system which seems overly costly for the intended system. AWS S3 could be used as an Intermediary server but it would force all participants to use a specific cloud service which is in violation of (Req-AnyPlatorm).

6.3. Signal Protocol

As a messaging protocol, Signal could be used between Sender, Receiver and Intermediary but this protocol is fairly complex and its use would most like violate (Req-Simplicity). The system will however support the Signal service for share initiation, in line with (Req-init).

7. Out of Scope:

8. Security Considerations

TODO Security

9. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

10. Normative References

[CCC-Digital-Key-30]
Car Connectivity Consortium, "Digital Key – The Future of Vehicle Access", , <https://global-carconnectivity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CCC_Digital_Key_Whitepaper_Approved.pdf>.
[RFC2078]
Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program Interface, Version 2", RFC 2078, DOI 10.17487/RFC2078, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2078>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC4120]
Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120, DOI 10.17487/RFC4120, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4120>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.

Authors' Addresses

Dmitry Vinokurov
Apple Inc
Casey Astiz
Apple Inc
Alex Pelletier
Apple Inc
Jean-Luc Giraud
Apple Inc
Alexey Bulgakov
Apple Inc
Matt Byington
Apple Inc
Nick Sha
Alphabet Inc