Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           G. Zorn
Request for Comments: 6734                                   Network Zen
Category: Standards Track                                          Q. Wu
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   Huawei
                                                             V. Cakulev
                                                         Alcatel Lucent
                                                           October 2012


    Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Transport

Abstract

  Some Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) applications
  require the transport of cryptographic keying material.  This
  document specifies a set of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) providing
  native Diameter support of cryptographic key delivery.

Status of This Memo

  This is an Internet Standards Track document.

  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
  (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
  received public review and has been approved for publication by the
  Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
  Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

  Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
  and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6734.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (c) 2012 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.





Zorn, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 6734               Diameter Key Transport AVPs          October 2012


Table of Contents

  1. Introduction ....................................................2
  2. Terminology .....................................................3
     2.1. Requirements Language ......................................3
     2.2. Technical Terms and Acronyms ...............................3
  3. Attribute-Value Pair Definitions ................................3
     3.1. Key AVP ....................................................3
          3.1.1. Key-Type AVP ........................................4
          3.1.2. Key-Name AVP ........................................4
          3.1.3. Keying-Material AVP .................................4
          3.1.4. Key-Lifetime AVP ....................................4
          3.1.5. Key-SPI .............................................5
  4. Security Considerations .........................................5
  5. IANA Considerations .............................................5
     5.1. AVP Codes ..................................................5
     5.2. AVP Values .................................................5
  6. Acknowledgements ................................................6
  7. References ......................................................6
     7.1. Normative References .......................................6
     7.2. Informative References .....................................6

1.  Introduction

  The Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) application
  [RFC4072] defines the EAP-Master-Session-Key and EAP-Key-Name AVPs
  for the purpose of transporting cryptographic keying material derived
  during the execution of certain Extensible Authentication Protocol
  (EAP) [RFC3748] methods (for example, EAP-TLS [RFC5216]).  At most
  one instance of either of these AVPs is allowed in any Diameter
  message.

  However, recent work (see, for example, [RFC5295]) has specified
  methods to derive other keys from the keying material created during
  EAP method execution that may require transport in addition to the
  Master Session Key (MSK).  Also, the EAP Re-authentication Protocol
  (ERP) [RFC6696] specifies new keys that may need to be transported
  between Diameter nodes.

  This document specifies a set of AVPs allowing the transport of
  multiple cryptographic keys in a single Diameter message.










Zorn, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 6734               Diameter Key Transport AVPs          October 2012


2.  Terminology

2.1.  Requirements Language

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.2.  Technical Terms and Acronyms

  DSRK
     Domain-Specific Root Key [RFC5295].

  MSK
     Master Session Key [RFC3748].

  rMSK
     re-authentication MSK [RFC6696].  This is a per-authenticator key,
     derived from the rRK (below).

  rRK
     re-authentication Root Key, derived from the Extended Master
     Session Key (EMSK) [RFC3748] or DSRK [RFC6696].

3.  Attribute-Value Pair Definitions

  This section defines new AVPs for the transport of cryptographic keys
  in the Diameter EAP application [RFC4072], as well as other Diameter
  applications.

3.1.  Key AVP

  The Key AVP (AVP Code 581) is of type Grouped.  It contains the type
  and keying material and, optionally, an indication of the usable
  lifetime of the key, the name of the key and a Security Parameter
  Index (SPI) with which the key is associated.

  Key ::= < AVP Header: 581 >
            < Key-Type >
            { Keying-Material }
            [ Key-Lifetime ]
            [ Key-Name ]
            [ Key-SPI ]
          * [ AVP ]







Zorn, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 6734               Diameter Key Transport AVPs          October 2012


3.1.1.  Key-Type AVP

  The Key-Type AVP (AVP Code 582) is of type Enumerated.  This AVP
  identifies the type of the key being sent.  The following decimal
  values are defined in this document:

  DSRK (0)
     A Domain-Specific Root Key [RFC5295].

  rRK (1)
     A re-authentication Root Key [RFC6696].

  rMSK (2)
     A re-authentication Master Session Key [RFC6696].

  If additional values are needed, they are to be assigned by IANA
  according to the policy stated in Section 5.2.

3.1.2.  Key-Name AVP

  The Key-Name AVP (AVP Code 586) is of type OctetString.  It contains
  an opaque key identifier.  Exactly how this name is generated and
  used depends on the key type and usage in question and is beyond the
  scope of this document (see [RFC5247] and [RFC5295] for discussions
  of key name generation in the context of EAP).

3.1.3.  Keying-Material AVP

  The Keying-Material AVP (AVP Code 583) is of type OctetString.  The
  exact usage of this keying material depends upon several factors,
  including the type of the key and the link layer in use and is beyond
  the scope of this document.

3.1.4.  Key-Lifetime AVP

  The Key-Lifetime AVP (AVP Code 584) is of type Unsigned32 and
  represents the period of time (in seconds) for which the contents of
  the Keying-Material AVP (Section 3.1.3) is valid.

  NOTE:
     Applications using this value SHOULD consider the beginning of the
     lifetime to be the point in time when the message containing the
     keying material is received.  In addition, client implementations
     SHOULD check to ensure that the value is reasonable; for example,
     the lifetime of a key should not generally be longer than the
     session lifetime (see Section 8.13 of [RFC6733]).





Zorn, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 6734               Diameter Key Transport AVPs          October 2012


3.1.5.  Key-SPI

  The Key-SPI AVP (AVP Code 585) is of type Unsigned32 and contains an
  SPI value that can be used with other parameters for identifying
  associated keying material.

4.  Security Considerations

  Transporting keys is a security-sensitive action.  Some forms of
  keying material are already protected and can be sent safely over the
  open Internet.  However, if a Key AVP contains a Keying-Material AVP
  that is not already protected, then the Diameter messages containing
  that Key AVP MUST only be sent protected via mutually authenticated
  TLS or IPsec.

  The security considerations applicable to the Diameter base protocol
  [RFC6733] are also applicable to this document, as are those in
  Section 8.4 of RFC 4072 [RFC4072].

5.  IANA Considerations

  IANA has assigned values as described in the following sections.

5.1.  AVP Codes

  Codes have been assigned for the following AVPs using the policy
  specified in [RFC6733], Section 11.1.1:

  o  Key (581, Section 3.1)

  o  Key-Type (582, Section 3.1.1)

  o  Keying-Material (583, Section 3.1.3)

  o  Key-Lifetime (584, Section 3.1.4)

  o  Key-SPI (585, Section 3.1.5)

  o  Key-Name (586, Section 3.1.2)

5.2.  AVP Values

  IANA has created a new registry for values assigned to the Key-Type
  AVP and populated it with the decimal values defined in this document
  (Section 3.1.1).  New values may be assigned for the Key-Type AVP
  using the "Specification Required" policy [RFC5226]; once values have
  been assigned, they MUST NOT be deleted, replaced, or modified.




Zorn, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 6734               Diameter Key Transport AVPs          October 2012


6.  Acknowledgements

  Thanks (in no particular order) to Niclas Comstedt, Semyon
  Mizikovsky, Hannes Tschofenig, Joe Salowey, Tom Taylor, Frank Xia,
  Lionel Morand, Dan Romascanu, Bernard Aboba, Jouni Korhonen, Stephen
  Farrel, Joel Halpern, Phillip Hallam-Baker, Sean Turner, and
  Sebastien Decugis for useful comments, suggestions, and review.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

  [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

  [RFC3748]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
             Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)",
             RFC 3748, June 2004.

  [RFC4072]  Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible
             Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072,
             August 2005.

  [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
             IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
             May 2008.

  [RFC6733]  Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
             "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.

7.2.  Informative References

  [RFC5216]  Simon, D., Aboba, B., and R. Hurst, "The EAP-TLS
             Authentication Protocol", RFC 5216, March 2008.

  [RFC5247]  Aboba, B., Simon, D., and P. Eronen, "Extensible
             Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework",
             RFC 5247, August 2008.

  [RFC5295]  Salowey, J., Dondeti, L., Narayanan, V., and M. Nakhjiri,
             "Specification for the Derivation of Root Keys from an
             Extended Master Session Key (EMSK)", RFC 5295,
             August 2008.

  [RFC6696]  Cao, Z., He, B., Shi, Y., Wu, Q., Ed., and G. Zorn, Ed.,
             "EAP Extensions for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol
             (ERP)", RFC 6696, July 2012.




Zorn, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 6734               Diameter Key Transport AVPs          October 2012


Authors' Addresses

  Glen Zorn
  Network Zen
  227/358 Thanon Sanphawut
  Bang Na, Bangkok  10260
  Thailand

  Phone: +66 (0) 909-201060
  EMail: [email protected]


  Qin Wu
  Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
  101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
  Nanjing, Jiangsu  21001
  China

  Phone: +86-25-56623633
  EMail: [email protected]


  Violeta Cakulev
  Alcatel Lucent
  600 Mountain Ave.
  3D-517
  Murray Hill, NJ  07974
  US

  Phone: +1 908 582 3207
  EMail: [email protected]




















Zorn, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 7]