Updates for PCEPS

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 20 February 2024.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

[RFC8253] defines how to protect PCEP messages [RFC5440] with TLS 1.2 [RFC5246]. This document updates [RFC8253] to address support requirements for TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] and the use of TLS 1.3's early data, which is also known as 0-RTT data. All other provisions set forth in [RFC8253] are unchanged, including connection initiation, message framing, connection closure, certificate validation, peer identity, and failure handling.¶

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.¶

3. Early Data

Early data (aka 0-RTT data) is a mechanism defined in TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] that allows a client to send data ("early data") as part of the first flight of messages to a server. Note that TLS 1.3 can be used without early data as per Appendix F.5 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]. In fact, early data is permitted by TLS 1.3 only when the client and server share a Pre-Shared Key (PSK), either obtained externally or via a previous handshake. The client uses the PSK to authenticate the server and to encrypt the early data.¶

As noted in Section 2.3 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], the security properties for early data are weaker than those for subsequent TLS-protected data. In particular, early data is not forward secret, and there is no protection against the replay of early data between connections. Appendix E.5 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] requires applications not use early data without a profile that defines its use. This document specifies that PCEPS implementations that support TLS 1.3 MUST NOT use early data.¶

4. Cipher Suites

Implementations MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and are REQUIRED to support the TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 cipher suite [RFC9325].¶

Implementations MAY implement additional TLS 1.2 cipher suites that provide mutual authentication and confidentiality as required by PCEP.¶

Implementations SHOULD support TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] and, if implemented, MUST prefer to negotiate TLS 1.3 over earlier versions of TLS.¶

Implementations that support TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] are REQUIRED to support the mandatory-to-implement cipher suites listed in Section 9.1 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis].¶

Implementations that support TLS 1.3 MAY implement additional TLS 1.3 cipher suites that provide mutual authentication and confidentiality as required by PCEP.¶

PCEPS Implementations SHOULD follow the recommendations given in [RFC9325].¶

5. Security Considerations

The Security Considerations of PCEP [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281], and [RFC8283]; TLS 1.2 [RFC5246]; TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], and; [RFC9325] apply here as well.¶

The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [RFC4655] is an entity that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be computed. PCEP is the communication protocol between a PCC and PCE and is defined in [RFC5440]. Stateful PCE [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable control of TE-LSPs by a PCE that retains the state of the LSPs provisioned in the network (a stateful PCE). [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance, and teardown of LSPs initiated by a stateful PCE without the need for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic network that is centrally controlled. [RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller¶

TLS mutual authentication is used to ensure that only authorized users and systems are able to send and receive PCEP messages. To this end, neither the PCC nor the PCE should establish a PCEPS with TLS connection with an unknown, unexpected, or incorrectly identified peer; see Section 3.5 of [RFC5440]. If deployments make use of a trusted list of Certification Authority (CA) certificates [RFC5280], then the listed CAs should only issue certificates to parties that are authorized to access the PCE. Doing otherwise will allow certificates that were issued for other purposes to be inappropriately accepted by a PCE.¶

6. IANA Considerations

There are no IANA considerations.¶

7. Implementation Status

[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]¶

This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalogue of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist.¶

According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit".¶

At the time of posting the -01 version of this document, there are no known implementations of this mechanism.¶

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Adrian Farrel for their review.¶

Authors' Addresses