Updated gnulib and added hash-pjw-bare

[gnutls.git] / doc / protocol / draft-rescorla-dtls-03.txt

                                                             E. Rescorla
                                                              RTFM, Inc.
                                                             N. Modadugu
INTERNET-DRAFT                                       Stanford University
<draft-rescorla-dtls-03.txt>         February 2004 (Expires August 2005)

                   Datagram Transport Layer Security

Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

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 a "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999-2004). All Rights Reserved.







Rescorla, Modadugu                                               [Page 1]\f


Abstract

   This document specifies Version 1.0 of the Datagram Transport Layer
   Security (DTLS) protocol. The DTLS protocol provides communications
   privacy for datagram protocols. The protocol allows client/server
   applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent
   eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. The DTLS protocol is
   based on the TLS protocol and provides equivalent security
   guarantees. Datagram semantics of the underlying transport are
   preserved by the DTLS protocol.


Contents




1. Introduction

   TLS [TLS] is the most widely deployed protocol for securing network
   traffic. It is widely used for protecting Web traffic and for e-mail
   protocols such as IMAP [IMAP] and POP [POP]. The primary advantage of
   TLS is that it provides a transparent connection-oriented channel.
   Thus, it is easy to secure an application protocol by inserting TLS
   between the application layer and the transport layer. However, TLS
   must run over a reliable transport channel--typically TCP [TCP]. It
   therefore cannot be used to secure unreliable datagram traffic.

   However, over the past few years an increasing number of application
   layer protocols have been designed which UDP transport. In particular
   such protocols as the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [SIP], and
   electronic gaming protocols are increasingly popular. (Note that SIP
   can run over both TCP and UDP, but that there are situations in which
   UDP is preferable). Currently, designers of these applications are
   faced with a number of unsatisfactory choices. First, they can use
   IPsec [RFC2401]. However, for a number of reasons detailed in
   [WHYIPSEC], this is only suitable for some applications. Second, they
   can design a custom application layer security protocol. SIP, for
   instance, uses a subsert of S/MIME to secure its traffic.
   Unfortunately, while application layer security protocols generally
   provide superior security properties (e.g., end-to-end security in
   the case of S/MIME) it typically require a large amount of effort to
   design--by contrast to the relatively small amount of effort required
   to run the protocol over TLS.

   In many cases, the most desirable way to secure client/server
   applications would be to use TLS; however the requirement for
   datagram semantics automatically prohibits use of TLS. Thus, a



Rescorla, Modadugu                                               [Page 2]\f


   datagram-compatible variant of TLS would be very desirable. This memo
   describes such a protocol: Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS).
   DTLS is deliberately designed to be as similar to to TLS as possible,
   both to minimize new security invention and to maximize the amount of
   code and infrastructure reuse.


1.1. Requirements Terminology

   Keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and
   "MAY" that appear in this document are to be interpreted as described
   in RFC 2119 [REQ].

2. Usage Model

   The DTLS protocol is designed to secure data between communicating
   applications. It is designed to run in application space, without
   requiring any kernel modifications. While the design of the DTLS
   protocol does not preclude its use in securing arbitrary datagram
   traffic, it is primarily expected to secure communication based on
   datagram sockets.

   Datagram transport does not require or provide reliable or in-order
   delivery of data. The DTLS protocol preserves this property for
   payload data. Applications such as media streaming, Internet
   telephony and online gaming use datagram transport for communication
   due to the delay-sensitive nature of transported data. The behavior
   of such applications is unchanged when the DTLS protocol is used to
   secure communication, since the DTLS protocol does not compensate for
   lost or re-ordered data traffic.

3. Overview of DTLS

   The basic design philosophy of DTLS is to construct "TLS over
   datagram". The reason that TLS cannot be used directly in datagram
   environments is simply that packets may be lost or reordered. TLS has
   no internal facilities to handle this kind of unreliability and
   therefore TLS implementations break when rehosted on datagram
   transport. The purpose of DTLS is to make only the minimal changes to
   TLS required to fix this problem. To the greatest extent possible,
   DTLS is identical to TLS. Whenever we need to invent new mechanisms,
   we attempt to do so in such a way that it preserves the style of TLS.

   Unreliability creates problems for TLS at two levels:

      1. TLS's traffic encryption layer does not allow independent
      decryption of individual records. If record N is not received,
      then record N+1 cannot be decrypted.



Rescorla, Modadugu                                               [Page 3]\f


      2. The TLS handshake layer assumes that handshake messages are
      delivered reliably and breaks if those messages are lost.

   The rest of this section describes the approach that DTLS uses to
   solve these problems.

3.1. Loss-insensitive messaging

   In TLS's traffic encryption layer (called the TLS Record Layer),
   records are not independent. There are two kinds of inter-record
   dependency:

      1. Cryptographic context (CBC state, stream cipher key stream) is
      chained between records.

      2. Anti-replay and message reordering protection are provided by a
      MAC which includes a sequence number, but the sequence numbers are
      implicit in the records.

   The fix for both of these problems is straightforward and well-known
   from IPsec ESP [ESP]: add explicit state to the records. TLS 1.1
   [TLS11] is already adding explicit CBC state to TLS records. DTLS
   borrows that mechanism and adds explicit sequence numbers.

3.2. Providing Reliability for Handshake

   The TLS handshake is a lockstep cryptographic handshake. Messages
   must be transmitted and received in a defined order and any other
   order is an error. Clearly, this is incompatible with reordering and
   message loss. In addition, TLS handshake messages are potentially
   larger than any given datagram, thus creating the problem of
   fragmentation. DTLS must provide fixes for both these problems.

3.2.1. Packet Loss

   DTLS uses a simple retransmission timer to handle packet loss. The
   following figure demonstrates the basic concept using the first phase
   of the DTLS handshake:

      Client                                   Server
      ------                                   ------
      ClientHello           ------>

                              X<-- HelloVerifyRequest
                                               (lost)

      [Timer Expires]




Rescorla, Modadugu                                               [Page 4]\f


      ClientHello           ------>
      (retransmit)

   Once the client has transmitted the ClientHello message, it expects
   to see a HelloVerifyRequest from the server. However, if the server's
   message is lost the client knows that either the ClientHello or the
   HelloVerifyRequest has been lost and retransmits. When the server
   receives the retransmission, it knows to retransmit. The server also
   maintains a retransmission timer and retransmits when that timer
   expires.

3.2.2. Reordering

   In DTLS, each handshake message is assigned a specific sequence
   number within that handshake. When a peer receives a handshake
   message, it can quickly determine whether that message is the next
   message it expects. If it is, then it processes it. If not, it queues
   it up for future handling once all previous messages have been
   received.

3.2.3. Message Size

   TLS and DTLS handshake messages can be quite large (in theory up to
   2^24-1 bytes, in practice many kilobytes). By contrast, UDP datagrams
   are often limited to <1500 bytes. In order to compensate for this
   limitation, each DTLS handshake message may be fragmented over
   several DTLS records. Each DTLS handshake message contains both a
   fragment offset and a fragment length. Thus, a recipient in
   possession of all bytes of a handshake message can reassemble the
   original unfragmented message.

3.3. Replay Detection

   DTLS optionally supports record replay detection. The technique used
   is the same as in IPsec AH/ESP, by maintaining a bitmap window of
   received records. Records that are too old to fit in the window and
   records that have been previously received are silently discarded.
   The replay detection feature is optional, since packet duplication is
   not always malicious, but can also occur due to routing errors.
   Applications may conceivably detect duplicate packets and accordingly
   modify their data transmission strategy.

4. Differences from TLS

   As mentioned in Section 3., DTLS is intentionally very similar to
   TLS. Therefore, instead of presenting DTLS as a new protocol, we
   instead present it as a series of deltas from TLS 1.1 [TLS11]. Where
   we do not explicitly call out differences, DTLS is the same as TLS.



Rescorla, Modadugu                                               [Page 5]\f


4.1. Record Layer

   The DTLS record layer is extremely similar to that of TLS 1.1. The
   only change is the inclusion of an explicit sequence number in the
   record. This sequence number allows the recipient to correctly verify
   the TLS MAC. The DTLS record format is shown below:

       struct {
        ContentType type;
        ProtocolVersion version;
        uint16 epoch;               // New field
        uint48 sequence_number;       // New field
        uint16 length;
        opaque fragment[DTLSPlaintext.length];
       } DTLSPlaintext;

      type
       Equivalent to the type field in a TLS 1.1 record.

      version
       The version of the protocol being employed. This document
       describes DTLS Version 1.0, which uses the version { 254, 255
       }. The version value of 254.255 is the 1's complement of DTLS
       Version 1.0. This maximal spacing between TLS and DTLS version
       numbers ensures that records from the two protocols can be
       easily distinguished.

      epoch
       A counter value that is incremented on every cipher state
       change.

      sequence_number
       The sequence number for this record.

      length
       Identical to the length field in a TLS 1.1 record. As in TLS
       1.1, the length should not exceed 2^14.

      fragment
       Identical to the fragment field of a TLS 1.1 record.

   DTLS uses an explicit rather than implicit sequence number, carried
   in the sequence_number field of the record. As with TLS, the sequence
   number is set to zero after each ChangeCipherSpec message is sent.

   If several handshakes are performed in close succession, there might
   be multiple records on the wire with the same sequence number but
   from different cipher states. The epoch field allows recipients to



Rescorla, Modadugu                                               [Page 6]\f


   distinguish such packets. The epoch number is initially zero and is
   incremented each time the ChangeCipherSpec messages is sent. In order
   to ensure that any given sequence/epoch pair is unique,
   implementations MUST NOT allow the same epoch value to be reused
   within two times the maximum segment lifetime. In practice, TLS
   implementations rehandshake rarely and we therefore do not expect
   this to be a problem.

4.1.1. Transport Layer Mapping

   Each DTLS record MUST fit within a single datagram. In order to avoid
   IP fragmentation [MOGUL], DTLS implementations SHOULD determine the
   MTU and send records smaller than the MTU. DTLS implementations
   SHOULD provide a way for applications to determine the value of the
   MTU (optimally the maximum application datagram size, which is the
   PMTU minus the DTLS per-record overhead). If the application attempts
   to send a record larger than the MTU, the DTLS implementation MUST
   either generate an error or fragment the packet.

   Multiple DTLS records may be placed in a single datagram. They are
   simply encoded consecutively. The DTLS record framing is sufficient
   to determine the boundaries. Note, however, that the first byte of
   the datagram payload must be the beginning of a record. Records may
   not span datagrams.

4.1.1.1. PMTU Discovery

   The PMTU SHOULD be initialized from the interface MTU that will be
   used to send packets.

   To perform PMTU discovery, the DTLS sender sets the IP Don't Fragment
   (DF) bit. As specified in [RFC 1191], when a router receives a packet
   with DF set that is larger than the next link's MTU, it sends an ICMP
   Destination Unreachable message to the source of the datagram with
   the Code indicating "fragmentation needed and DF set" (also known as
   a "Datagram Too Big" message). When a DTLS implementation receives a
   Datagram Too Big message, it decreases its PMTU to the Next-Hop MTU
   value given in the ICMP message. If the MTU given in the message is
   zero, the sender chooses a value for PMTU using the algorithm
   described in Section 7 of [RFC 1191]. If the MTU given in the message
   is greater than the current PMTU, the Datagram Too Big message is
   ignored, as described in [RFC 1191].

   A DTLS implementation may allow the application to occasionally
   request that PMTU discovery be performed again. This will reset the
   PMTU to the outgoing interface's MTU. Such requests SHOULD be rate
   limited, to one per two seconds, for example.




Rescorla, Modadugu                                               [Page 7]\f


   Because some firewalls and routers screen out ICMP messages, it is
   difficult to distinguish packet loss from a large PMTU estimate. In
   order to allow connections under these circumstances, DTLS
   implementations MAY choose to back off their PMTU estimate during the
   retransmit backoff described in Section 4.2.4.. For instance, if a
   large packet is being sent, after 3 retransmits a sender might choose
   to fragment the packet.

4.1.2. Record payload protection

   Like TLS, DTLS transmits data as a series of protected records. The
   rest of this section describes the details of that format.

4.1.2.1. MAC

   The DTLS MAC is the same as that of TLS 1.1. However, rather than
   using TLS's implicit sequence number, the sequence number used to
   compute the MAC is the 64-bit value formed by concatenating the epoch
   and the sequence number in the order they appear on the wire. Note
   that the DTLS epoch + sequence number is the same length as the TLS
   sequence number.

4.1.2.2. Null or standard stream cipher

   The DTLS NULL cipher is performed exactly as the TLS 1.1 NULL cipher.

   The only stream cipher described in TLS 1.1 is RC4, which cannot be
   randomly accessed. RC4 MUST NOT be used with DTLS.

4.1.2.3. Block Cipher

   DTLS block cipher encryption and decryption are performed exactly as
   with TLS 1.1.

4.1.2.4. New Cipher Suites

   Upon registration, new TLS cipher suites MUST indicate whether they
   are suitable for DTLS usage and what, if any, adaptations must be
   made.

4.1.2.5. Anti-Replay

   DTLS records contain a sequence number to provide replay protection.
   Sequence number verification SHOULD be performed using the following
   sliding, window procedure, borrowed from Section 3.4.3 of [RFC 2402]

   The receiver packet counter for this session MUST be initialized to
   zero when the session is established. For each received record, the



Rescorla, Modadugu                                               [Page 8]\f


   receiver MUST verify that the record contains a Sequence Number that
   does not duplicate the Sequence Number of any other record received
   during the life of this session. This SHOULD be the first check
   applied to a packet after it has been matched to a session, to speed
   rejection of duplicate records.

   Duplicates are rejected through the use of a sliding receive window.
   (How the window is implemented is a local matter, but the following
   text describes the functionality that the implementation must
   exhibit.) A minimum window size of 32 MUST be supported; but a window
   size of 64 is preferred and SHOULD be employed as the default.
   Another window size (larger than the minimum) MAY be chosen by the
   receiver. (The receiver does not notify the sender of the window
   size.)

   The "right" edge of the window represents the highest, validated
   Sequence Number value received on this session. Records that contain
   Sequence Numbers lower than the "left" edge of the window are
   rejected. Packets falling within the window are checked against a
   list of received packets within the window. An efficient means for
   performing this check, based on the use of a bit mask, is described
   in Appendix C of [RFC 2401].

   If the received record falls within the window and is new, or if the
   packet is to the right of the window, then the receiver proceeds to
   MAC verification. If the MAC validation fails, the receiver MUST
   discard the received record as invalid. The receive window is updated
   only if the MAC verification succeeds.

4.2. The DTLS Handshake Protocol

   DTLS uses all of the same handshake messages and flows as TLS, with
   three principal changes:

      1. A stateless cookie exchange has been added to prevent denial of
      service attacks.

      2. Modifications to the handshake header to handle message loss,
      reordering and fragmentation.

      3. Retransmission timers to handle message loss.

   With these exceptions, the DTLS message formats, flows, and logic are
   the same as those of TLS 1.1.







Rescorla, Modadugu                                               [Page 9]\f


4.2.1. Denial of Service Countermeasures

   Datagram security protocols are extremely susceptible to a variety of
   denial of service (DoS) attacks. Two attacks are of particular
   concern:

      1. An attacker can consume excessive resources on the server by
      transmitting a series of handshake initiation requests, causing
      the server to allocate state and potentially perform expensive
      cryptographic operations.

      2. An attacker can use the server as an amplifier by sending
      connection initiation messages with a forged source of the victim.
      The server then sends its next message (in DTLS, a Certificate
      message, which can be quite large) to the victim machine, thus
      flooding it.

   In order to prevent both of these attacks, DTLS borrows the stateless
   cookie technique used by Photuris [PHOTURIS] and IKEv2 [IKE]. When
   the client sends its ClientHello message to the server, the server
   MAY respond with a HelloVerifyRequest message. This message contains
   a stateless cookie generated using the technique of [PHOTURIS]. The
   client MUST retransmit the ClientHello with the cookie added. The
   server then verifies the cookie and proceeds with the handshake only
   if it is valid.

   The exchange is shown below:

         Client                                   Server
         ------                                   ------
         ClientHello           ------>

                               <----- HelloVerifyRequest
                                      (contains cookie)

         ClientHello           ------>
         (with cookie)

         [Rest of handshake]

   DTLS therefore modifies the ClientHello message to add the cookie
   value.

      struct {
        ProtocolVersion client_version;
        Random random;
        SessionID session_id;
        Cookie cookie<0..32>;                 // New field



Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 10]\f


        CipherSuite cipher_suites<2..2^16-1>;
        CompressionMethod compression_methods<1..2^8-1>;
      } ClientHello;

   If the client does not have a cookie for a given server, it should
   use a zero-length cookie.

   The definition of HelloVerifyRequest is as follows:

      struct {
        Cookie cookie<0..32>;
      } HelloVerifyRequest;

   The HelloVerifyRequest message type is hello_verify_request(3).

   When responding to a HelloVerifyRequest the client MUST use the same
   parameter values (version, random, session_id, cipher_suites,
   compression_method) as in the original ClientHello. The server SHOULD
   use those values to generate its cookie and verify that they are
   correct upon cookie receipt.

   Although DTLS servers are not required to do a cookie exchange, they
   SHOULD do so whenever a new handshake is performed in order to avoid
   being used as amplifiers. If the server is being operated in an
   environment where amplification is not a problem, the server MAY
   choose not to perform a cookie exchange. In addition, the server MAY
   choose not do to a cookie exchange when a session is resumed. Clients
   MUST be prepared to do a cookie exchange with every handshake.

4.2.2. Handshake Message Format

   In order to support message loss, reordering, and fragmentation DTLS
   modifies the TLS 1.1 handshake header:

      struct {
        HandshakeType msg_type;
        uint24 length;
        uint16 message_seq;                              // New field
        uint24 fragment_offset;                          // New field
        uint24 fragment_length;                          // New field
        select (HandshakeType) {
      case hello_request: HelloRequest;
      case client_hello:  ClientHello;
      case hello_verify_request: HelloVerifyRequest;     // New type
      case server_hello:  ServerHello;
      case certificate:Certificate;
      case server_key_exchange: ServerKeyExchange;
      case certificate_request: CertificateRequest;



Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 11]\f


      case server_hello_done:ServerHelloDone;
      case certificate_verify:  CertificateVerify;
      case client_key_exchange: ClientKeyExchange;
      case finished:Finished;
        } body;
      } Handshake;

   The first message each side transmits in each handshake always has
   message_seq = 0. Whenever each new message is generated, the
   message_seq value is incremented by one. When a message is
   retransmitted, the same message_seq value is used. For example.

      Client                             Server
      ------                             ------
      ClientHello (seq=0)  ------>

                              X<-- HelloVerifyRequest (seq=0)
                                              (lost)

      [Timer Expires]

      ClientHello (seq=0)  ------>
      (retransmit)

                           <------ HelloVerifyRequest (seq=0)

      ClientHello (seq=1)  ------>
      (with cookie)

                           <------        ServerHello (seq=1)
                           <------        Certificate (seq=2)
                           <------    ServerHelloDone (seq=3)

      [Rest of handshake]

   DTLS implementations maintain (at least notionally) a
   next_receive_seq counter. This counter is initially set to zero. When
   a message is received, if its sequence number matches
   next_receive_seq, next_receive_seq is incremented and the message is
   processed. If the sequence number is less than next_receive_seq the
   message MUST be discarded. If the sequence number is greater than
   next_receive_seq, the implementation SHOULD queue the message but MAY
   discard it. (This is a simple space/bandwidth tradeoff).

4.2.3. Message Fragmentation and Reassembly

   As noted in Section 4.1.1., each DTLS message MUST fit within a
   single transport layer datagram. However, handshake messages are



Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 12]\f


   potentially bigger than the maximum record size. Therefore DTLS
   provides a mechanism for fragmenting a handshake message over a
   number of records.

   When transmitting the handshake message, the sender divides the
   message into a series of N contiguous data ranges. These range MUST
   NOT be larger than the maximum handshake fragment size and MUST
   jointly contain the entire handshake message. The ranges SHOULD NOT
   overlap. The sender then creates N handshake messages, all with the
   same message_seq value as the original handshake message. Each new
   message is labelled with the fragment_offset (the number of bytes
   contained in previous fragments) and the fragment_length (the length
   of this fragment). The length field in all messages is the same as
   the length field of the original message. An unfragmented message is
   a degenerate case with fragment_offset=0 and fragment_length=length.

   When a DTLS implementation receives a handshake message fragment, it
   MUST buffer it until it has the entire handshake message. DTLS
   implementations MUST be able to handle overlapping fragment ranges.
   This allows senders to retransmit handshake messages with smaller
   fragment sizes during path MTU discovery.

   Note that as with TLS, multiple handshake messages may be placed in
   the same DTLS record, provided that there is room and that they are
   part of the same flight. Thus, there are two acceptable ways to pack
   two DTLS messages into the same datagram: in the same record or in
   separate records.

4.2.4. Timeout and Retransmission

   DTLS messages are grouped into a series of message flights, according
   the diagrams below. Although each flight of messages may consist of a
   number of messages, they should be viewed as monolithic for the
   purpose of timeout and retransmission.

















Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 13]\f


      Client                                          Server
      ------                                          ------

      ClientHello             -------->                           Flight 1

                              <-------    HelloVerifyRequest      Flight 2

     ClientHello              -------->                           Flight 3

                                                 ServerHello    \
                                                Certificate*     \
                                          ServerKeyExchange*      Flight 4
                                         CertificateRequest*     /
                              <--------      ServerHelloDone    /

      Certificate*                                              \
      ClientKeyExchange                                          \
      CertificateVerify*                                          Flight 5
      [ChangeCipherSpec]                                         /
      Finished                -------->                         /

                                          [ChangeCipherSpec]    \ Flight 6
                              <--------             Finished    /
               Figure 1: Message flights for full handshake


      Client                                           Server
      ------                                           ------

      ClientHello             -------->                          Flight 1

                                                 ServerHello    \
                                          [ChangeCipherSpec]     Flight 2
                               <--------             Finished    /

      [ChangeCipherSpec]                                         \Flight 3
      Finished                 -------->                         /
   Figure 2: Message flights for session resuming handshake (no cookie exchange)


   DTLS uses a simple timeout and retransmission scheme with the
   following state machine. Because DTLS clients send the first message
   (ClientHello) they start in the PREPARING state. DTLS servers start
   in the WAITING state, but with empty buffers and no retransmit timer.







Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 14]\f


                   +-----------+
                   | PREPARING |
             +---> |           |
             |     |           |
             |     +-----------+
             |           |
             |           |
             |           | Buffer next flight
             |           |
             |          \|/
             |     +-----------+
             |     |           |
             |     |  SENDING  |<------------------+
             |     |           |                   |
             |     +-----------+                   |
     Receive |           |                         |
        next |           | Send flight             |
      flight |  +--------+                         |
             |  |        | Set retransmit timer    |
             |  |       \|/                        |
             |  |  +-----------+                   |
             |  |  |           |                   |
             +--)--|  WAITING  |-------------------+
             |  |  |           |   Timer expires   |
             |  |  +-----------+                   |
             |  |         |                        |
             |  |         |                        |
             |  |         +------------------------+
             |  |                Read retransmit
     Receive |  |
        last |  |
      flight |  |
             |  |
            \|/\|/

         +-----------+
         |           |
         | FINISHED  |
         |           |
         +-----------+

          Figure 3: DTLS timeout and retransmission state machine


   The state machine has three basic states.

   In the PREPARING state the implementation does whatever computations
   are necessary to prepare the next flight of messages. It then buffers



Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 15]\f


   them up for transmission (emptying the buffer first) and enters the
   SENDING state.

   In the SENDING state, the implementation transmits the buffered
   flight of messages. Once the messages have been sent, the
   implementation then enters the FINISHED state if this is the last
   flight in the handshake, or, if the implementation expects to receive
   more messages, sets a retransmit timer and then enters the WAITING
   state.

   There are three ways to exit the WAITING state:

      1. The retransmit timer expires: the implementation transitions to
      the SENDING state, where it retransmits the flight, resets the
      retransmit timer, and returns to the WAITING state.

      2. The implementation reads a retransmitted flight from the peer:
      the implementation transitions to the SENDING state, where it
      retransmits the flight, resets the retransmit timer, and returns
      to the WAITING state. The rationale here is that the receipt of a
      duplicate message is the likely result of timer expiry on the peer
      and therefore suggests that part of one's previous flight was
      lost.

      3. The implementation receives the next flight of messages: if
      this is the final flight of messages the implementation
      transitions to FINISHED. If the implementation needs to send a new
      flight, it transitions to the PREPARING state. Partial reads
      (whether partial messages or only some of the messages in the
      flight) do not cause state transitions or timer resets.


4.2.4.1. Timer Values

   Timer value choices are a local matter. We RECOMMEND that
   implementations use an initial timer value of 500 ms and double the
   value at each retransmission, up to twice the TCP Maximum Segment
   Lifetime. [TCP] Implementations SHOULD start the timer value at the
   initial value with each new flight of messages.

4.2.5. ChangeCipherSpec

   As with TLS, the ChangeCipherSpec message is not technically a
   handshake message but MUST be treated as part of the same flight as
   the associated Finished message for the purposes of timeout and
   retransmission.





Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 16]\f


4.2.6. Finished messages

   Finished messages have the same format as in TLS. However, in order
   to remove sensitivity to fragmentation, the Finished MAC MUST be
   computed as if each handshake message had been sent as a single
   fragment. Note that in cases where the cookie exchange is used, the
   initial ClientHello and HelloVerifyRequest MUST BE included in the
   Finished MAC.



A.1\bSummary of new syntax

   This section includes specifications for the data structures that
   have changed between TLS 1.1 and DTLS.

4.2. Record Layer
   struct {
     ContentType type;
     ProtocolVersion version;
     uint16 epoch;                                   // New field
     uint48 sequence_number;                         // New field
     uint16 length;
     opaque fragment[DTLSPlaintext.length];
   } DTLSPlaintext;

   struct {
     ContentType type;
     ProtocolVersion version;
     uint16 epoch;                                   // New field
     uint48 sequence_number;                         // New field
     uint16 length;
     opaque fragment[DTLSCompressed.length];
   } DTLSCompressed;

   struct {
     ContentType type;
     ProtocolVersion version;
     uint16 epoch;                                   // New field
     uint48 sequence_number;                         // New field
     uint16 length;
     select (CipherSpec.cipher_type) {
   case block:  GenericBlockCipher;
     } fragment;
   } DTLSCiphertext;






Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 17]\f


4.3. Handshake Protocol

   enum {
     hello_request(0), client_hello(1), server_hello(2),
     hello_verify_request(3),                        // New field
     certificate(11), server_key_exchange (12),
     certificate_request(13), server_hello_done(14),
     certificate_verify(15), client_key_exchange(16),
     finished(20), (255)
   } HandshakeType;

   struct {
     HandshakeType msg_type;
     uint24 length;
     uint16 message_seq;                             // New field
     uint24 fragment_offset;                         // New field
     uint24 fragment_length;                         // New field
     select (HandshakeType) {
   case hello_request: HelloRequest;
   case client_hello:  ClientHello;
   case server_hello:  ServerHello;
   case hello_verify_request: HelloVerifyRequest;    // New field
   case certificate:Certificate;
   case server_key_exchange: ServerKeyExchange;
   case certificate_request: CertificateRequest;
   case server_hello_done:ServerHelloDone;
   case certificate_verify:  CertificateVerify;
   case client_key_exchange: ClientKeyExchange;
   case finished:Finished;
     } body;
   } Handshake;

   struct {
     Cookie cookie<H0..32>;
   } HelloVerifyRequest;

5. Security Considerations

   This document describes a variant of TLS 1.1 and therefore most of
   the security considerations are the same as those of TLS 1.1 [TLS11],
   described in Appendices D, E, and F.

   The primary additional security consideration raised by DTLS is that
   of denial of service. DTLS includes a cookie exchange designed to
   protect against denial of service. However, implementations which do
   not use this cookie exchange are still vulnerable to DoS. In
   particular, DTLS servers which do not use the cookie exchange may be
   used as attack amplifiers even if they themselves are not



Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 18]\f


   experiencing DoS. Therefore DTLS servers SHOULD use the cookie
   exchange unless there is good reason to believe that amplification is
   not a threat in their environment.

6. IANA Considerations

   This document uses the same identifier space as TLS [TLS11], so no
   IANA registries are required beyond those for TLS. Identifiers MAY
   NOT be assigned for DTLS that conflict with TLS. When new identifiers
   are assigned for TLS, authors MUST specify whether they are suitable
   for DTLS.

References

Normative References

   [PHOTURIS] Karn, P., Simpson, W., "Photuris: Session-Key Management
              Protocol", RFC 2521, March 1999.

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

   [REQ]

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. C., Deering, S.E., "Path MTU Discovery",
              RFC 1191, November 1990.

   [RFC2401]  Kent, S., Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC2401, November 1998.

   [TCP]      Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol",
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [TLS]      Dierks, T., and Allen, C., "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
              RFC 2246, January 1999.

   [TLS11]    Dierks, T., Rescorla, E., "The TLS Protocol Version 1.1",
              draft-ietf-tls-rfc2246-bis-05.txt, July 2003.


Informative References

   [AH]       Kent, S., and Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication Header",
              RFC 2402, November 1998.

   [DCCP]     Kohler, E., Handley, M., Floyd, S., Padhye, J., "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol", draft-ietf-dccp-spec-05.txt,
              October 2003



Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 19]\f


   [DTLS]     Modadugu, N., Rescorla, E., "The Design and Implementation
              of Datagram TLS", in Proceedings of ISOC NDSS 2004,
              February 2004.

   [ESP]      Kent, S., and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security
              Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.


   [IKE]      Harkins, D., Carrel, D., "The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)",
              RFC 2409, November 1998.

   [IMAP]     Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
              4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.

   [POP]      Myers, J., and Rose, M., "Post Office Protocol -
              Version 3", RFC 1939, May 1996.


   [SIP]      Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
              Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., Schooler, E.,
              "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [WHYIPSEC] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Mandating the Use of IPsec",
              draft-bellovin-useipsec-02.txt, October 2003

Authors' Address

   Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
   RTFM, Inc.
   2064 Edgewood Drive
   Palo Alto, CA 94303

   Nagendra Modadugu <nagendra@cs.stanford.edu>
   Computer Science Department
   353 Serra Mall
   Stanford University
   Stanford, CA 94305



Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Dan Boneh, Eu-Jin Goh, Russ Housley,
   Constantine Sapuntzakis, and Hovav Shacham for discussions and
   comments on the design of DTLS. Thanks to the anonymous NDSS
   reviewers of our original NDSS paper on DTLS [DTLS] for their
   comments. Also, thanks to Steve Kent for feedback that helped clarify



Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 20]\f


   many points. The section on PMTU was cribbed from the DCCP
   specification [DCCP].

















































Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 21]\f


Full Copyright Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Copyright Notice
   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.















Rescorla, Modadugu                                              [Page 22]\f