[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

ACE Working Group                                            G. Selander
Internet-Draft                                               Ericsson AB
Intended status: Standards Track                                 S. Raza
Expires: March 16, 2018                                        RISE SICS
                                                              M. Vucinic
                                                              M. Furuhed
                                                           M. Richardson
                                                Sandelman Software Works
                                                      September 12, 2017

               Enrollment with Application Layer Security


   This document specifies public key certificate enrollment procedures
   authenticated with application-layer security protocols suitable for
   Internet of Things deployments.  The protocols leverage existing IoT
   standards including Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), Concise
   Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and the CBOR Object Signing and
   Encryption (COSE) format.

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 March 16, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

   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 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  CMC protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Simple Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Re-enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Full Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Compiling Certificate Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Establishment of OSCOAP Input Parameters  . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  EDHOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  ACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Application to 6TiSCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Application to BRSKI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   Asymmetric cryptography with Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) is a de-
   facto key exchange and mutual authentication solution in the
   Internet.  Though solutions based on PSK are still state-of-the-art
   in sensor networks they are not scalable to Internet-connected
   billions of things.  Therefore, most IoT security standards support
   asymmetric cryptographic protocols.  The greatest challenge with
   asymmetric cryptography and PKI is enrollment, the process of
   certifying keys.  Enrollment is even more challenging in the IoT as
   things are resource-constrained and traditional enrollment techniques
   are not compatible with recent IoT security protocols.  Without
   secure enrollment, PKI will not be trustworthy and in turn the

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

   cybersecurity of the entire system will be at stake even though the
   underlying cryptographic cipher suites are most secure.

   Security at the application layer provides an attractive option for
   protecting Internet of Things (IoT) deployments, in particular in
   constrained environments [RFC7228] and when using CoAP [RFC7252]; for
   example where transport layer security is not sufficient
   [I-D.hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs], or where it is beneficial that
   the security protocol is independent of lower layers, such as when
   securing CoAP over mixed transport protocols.

   Application layer security protocols suitable for constrained devices
   are in development, including the secure communication protocol
   OSCOAP [I-D.ietf-core-object-security].  OSCOAP defines an extension
   to the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) providing encryption,
   integrity and replay protection end-to-end between CoAP client and
   server based on a shared secret.  The shared secret can be
   established in different ways e.g. using a trusted third party such
   as in ACE [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], or using a key exchange
   protocol such as EDHOC [I-D.selander-ace-cose-ecdhe].  OSCOAP and
   EDHOC can leverage other constrained device primitives developed in
   the IETF: CoAP, CBOR [RFC7049] and COSE [RFC8152], and makes only a
   small additional implementation footprint.

   Lately, there has been a discussion in several IETF working groups
   about certificate enrollment protocols suitable for IoT devices, to
   support the use case of an IoT device joining a new network domain
   and establishing credentials valid in this domain.  This document
   describes Enrollment with Application Layer Security (EALS), a
   certificate enrollment protocol based on CMC [RFC5272] and using
   OSCOAP as a secure channel.  This document also describes how ACE and
   EDHOC can be used for establishing an authenticated and authorized

   This work is inspired by the Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST)
   protocol [RFC7030], which also is based on CMC, but EALS is secured
   on application layer instead of on transport layer.

1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].  These
   words may also appear in this document in lowercase, absent their
   normative meanings.

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

2.  CMC protocol

2.1.  Simple Enrollment

   This section describes the simple enrollment protocol, which is an
   embedding of the Simple PKI Request/Response protocol of CMC
   [RFC5272] in Object Secure CoAP (OSCOAP)

   The simple enrollment protocol is a 2-pass protocol between an EALS
   client (e.g. an IoT device) and an EALS server (a Certification
   Authority (CA)), see Figure 1.  The protocol assumes that both EALS
   client and EALS server implement CoAP and the Object-Security option
   of CoAP (OSCOAP).

   OSCOAP assumes the existence of a shared secret between an EALS
   client and server.  The shared secret may be obtained by running a
   key agreement algorithm or by an aid of a trusted third party.
   Mutual authentication and authorization occurs during this key
   agreement stage.  The simple enrollment protocol may also be run
   directly with a pre-shared key.  In that case, authentication and
   authorization of EALS client and server is implicit to the shared key
   protecting the /eals resource.

     EALS client                                          EALS server

       |                                                       |
       | POST /eals      (Object-Security; Payload: PKCS #10)  |
       |                                                       |
       |  2.04 Changed   (Object-Security; Payload: PKCS #7)   |
       |                                                       |

                 Figure 1: The Simple Enrollment Protocol.

   The simple enrollment protocol consists of a CoAP message exchange.

   The EALS client sends a CoAP request:

   o  Method is POST

   o  Uri-Path is "eals"

   o  Object-Security option is present

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

   o  Payload is the CMC Simple PKI Request [RFC5272] (i.e. a PKCS #10
      certification request).

   If successful, the EALS server sends a CoAP response:

   o  Code is 2.04 (Changed)

   o  Content-Format is "application/pkcs7-mime" (TBD)

   o  Object-Security option is present

   o  Payload is a certs-only CMC Simple PKI Response [RFC5272] (i.e the
      issued certificate)

   OSCOAP protects the CoAP message exchange between the endpoints over
   any transport and via intermediary nodes.  The OSCOAP protection
   requires that a security context is established between client and
   server.  The security context can be derived from a set of Input
   Parameters (Section 3.3 of [I-D.ietf-core-object-security]),
   including at least the following:

   o  Master Secret

   o  Sender ID

   o  Recipient ID

   where the Master Secret is a uniformly random byte string, and the
   Sender ID and Recipient ID are byte strings identifying the
   endpoints.  In Section 3 we give examples of how to the OSCOAP input
   parameters can be established.

   The server MUST verify that the Master Secret is associated to the
   Distinguished Name for which the client is requesting a certificate.

   Note 1: The encodings and formats used by CMC may later be updated
   with other equivalents more adapted to constrained environments.

2.2.  Re-enrollment

   Re-enrollment and re-keying of clients occurs using the same exchange
   as during the simple enrollment protocol.  Re-enrollment request
   follows the same format as during the simple enrollment.  In case of
   success, re-enrollment response contains certs-only CMC Simple PKI
   Response, as in the case of simple enrollment with content-format set
   to "application/pkcs7-mime".

   TBD.  Requirements on parsing PKCS messages and X.509 certificates

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

   TBD.  Error handling with CoAP error codes

   TBD.  Server-side key generation

2.3.  Full Enrollment

   It is straightforward to extend the simple enrollment to the CMC Full
   PKI Request/Response protocol.

   In this case, to authorize the PKCS#10 request to the CA, it is
   enveloped in a CMC message and signed with a pre-installed device
   private key and certificate by the device itself.

   The public key in the device certificate acts as a unique identifier
   of the device.  By trusting the CA issuing the pre-installed
   certificate, the enrolment CA can acknowledge the signed request.
   The trusted factory CA will also ensure the origin of the device.

   An alternative to authorize the PKCS#10 request to the CA, is to use
   a security gateway that can envelope the request in a CMC message
   using a certificate trusted by the CA.

   The details are FFS.

2.4.  Compiling Certificate Content

   A CA have several means of compiling certificate content during
   issuance.  The subject Distinguished Name (DN) information for the
   certificate may be based on the content of the request alone.

   Alternatively, complementary data can be added to the request by the
   CA from an external source trusted by the CA, or taken from records
   of pre-registered information on end-entities that is stored in the
   CA system and which can be uniquely matched to the data in the
   request.  Due to the constrained device capabilities the amount of
   subject DN data in a request may be very limited.  The method of
   adding complementary data for the certificate can be a choice of the
   CA, assuming the source of complementary data can be provided in a
   trustworthy way.

   With the option to add complementary data to a certificate request,
   the end-entity provided data can be diminished by e.g. submitting
   only the public key in the PKCS#10 content.  The public key can be
   used to match the device to pre-registered data or for retrieval of
   subject data from other sources.

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

3.  Establishment of OSCOAP Input Parameters

   In this section we present two application layer protocols for
   establishing OSCOAP input parameters (Section 3.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-core-object-security]), in particular the OSCOAP master

3.1.  EDHOC

   EDHOC [I-D.selander-ace-cose-ecdhe] is a key establishment protocol,
   corresponding to the handshake protocol of TLS, encoded with CBOR and
   using COSE that may be transported with e.g.  CoAP.  EDHOC provides
   mutual authentication of client and server and establishes a shared
   secret with forward secrecy which may be used as OSCOAP master secret
   in the CMC protocol (Section 2).

   The asymmetric keys authenticated version of EDHOC is described in
   section 4 of [I-D.selander-ace-cose-ecdhe], a simplified version of
   the protocol is shown in Figure 2.

    Party U                                                    Party V
       |                   S_U, N_U, E_U, EXT_1                   |
       |                                                          |
       |  S_U, S_V, N_V, E_V, AEAD(EXT_2, ID_V, Sig(V; E_U, E_V)) |
       |                                                          |
       |        S_V, AEAD(EXT_3, ID_U, Sig(U; E_V, E_U))          |
       |                                                          |

   Figure 2: EDHOC with asymmetric key authentication (simplified).  S =
       session identifer, N = nonce, E = ephemeral public key, ID =
           identifier, and EXT = application defined extension.

   The session identifiers S_U and S_V may be used as OSCOAP input
   parameters Sender ID and Recipient ID of party U, and v.v. as
   described in Appendix B2 of [I-D.selander-ace-cose-ecdhe].

   Figure 3 shows an example of using the EDHOC protocol to establish a
   mutually authenticated and authorized channel for the simple
   enrolment protocol.  In this case the EALS server is EDHOC client
   (the mapping with interchanged roles is straightforward and left
   FFS).  This setting has the following properties:

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

   1.  The EALS server initiates the EDHOC protocol.  This allows the
       EALS server to orchestrate many concurrent enrollments, and
       control the associated network load.

   2.  The EALS client is authenticated first (EDHOC message_2).  This
       allows the EALS server to authenticate the EALS client, and with
       this information to authorize the EALS client before completing
       the EDHOC protocol.  The EALS server may in this case also relay
       authorizaton information about the EALS client, such as an
       ownership voucher, to the client in EDHOC extension EXT_3.

      EALS                                     EALS
     client                                   server

       |                                        |
       |                                        |
       |                                        |
       |             EDHOC message_1            |
       |                                        |
       |            EDHOC message_2             |
       +--------------------------------------->|    Third party
       |                                        | < - - - - - - - - >
       |  EDHOC message_3 (EXT_3 = Authz info)  |    authorization
       |                                        |

                    Figure 3: EALS extension of EDHOC.

   Appendix B1 of [I-D.selander-ace-cose-ecdhe] shows how to embed EDHOC
   in a CoAP message exchange, a similar embedding can be applied here.

   TBD Detail the protocol

3.2.  ACE

   The ACE protocol framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] is an
   adaptation of OAuth 2.0 to IoT deployments.  ACE describes different
   message flows for a Client to get authorized access to a Resource
   Server (RS) by leveraging an Authorization Server (AS).

   The Token Introspection flow (Section 7 of
   [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]) allows an RS to access authorization
   information relating to a client provided Access Token.  If the
   access token is valid, the RS obtains information about the access
   rights and a symmetric key used by the client, and also a Client

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

   Token containing the same shared key protected for the legitimate
   client (Section 7.4 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], Figure 4).

   This message flow assumes that the Client and AS, as well as the RS
   and AS, has or can establish a mutually authenticated secure channel
   such that:

   o  The AS can encrypt the symmetric key for the Client in the Client
      Token, and the Client can verify the Client Token is issued by the

   o  The RS and AS can exchange encrypted, integrity and replay
      protected introspection messages.  In this case, the establishment
      of the secure channel can take place immediately before
      introspection, triggered by the RS receiveing the Access Token.

                                  Resource       Authorization
                 Client            Server           Server
                    |                |                |
                    |                |                |
                    +--------------->|                |
                    |  POST          |                |
                    |  Access Token  |                |
                    |                |<- - - - - - - >|
                    |                |(Authentication)|
                    |                |                |
                    |                +--------------->|
                    |                | Introspection  |
                    |                |    Request     |
                    |                |                |
                    |                +<---------------+
                    |                | Introspection  |
                    |                |   Response     |
                    |                | + Client Token |
                    |<---------------+                |
                    |  2.01 Created  |                |
                    | + Client Token |

           Figure 4: ACE Token Introspection with Client Token.

   By mapping the EALS client and server to the ACE client and resource
   server, respectively, this application of ACE enables the
   authorization of EALS client and establishment of a shared key, which
   can be used as master secret with OSCOAP in the CMC protocol
   (Section 2).  In this case, the access token contains access rights
   to /eals, but is not (yet) bound to a particular resource server.

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

   The access token could be pre-provisioned to the client, e.g. during
   manufacture.  Information about binding to resource server comes with
   the introspection response.

   Section 2 of [I-D.seitz-ace-oscoap-profile] defines additional common
   header parameters for COSE_Key structure that are used to carry
   OSCOAP input parameters Sender and Recipient ID.  The OSCOAP master
   secret is transported as part of the symmetric COSE_Key object.  This
   document uses the same construct: COSE_Key object with OSCOAP input
   parameters present is transported as part of the Introspection
   Response and in the Client Token.

   For the benefit of the client authorizing the enrollment, this
   document defines an additional common parameter for the Client Token
   called Voucher, extending the definition in Section 7.4 of

       OPTIONAL. Contains authorization information about the server,
       e.g. ownership voucher. The encoding is TBD.

            | Parameter name    | CBOR Key | Major Type      |
            | voucher           | TBD      | 2 (byte string) |

     Figure 5: CBOR mapping of parameters extending the client token.

   Additionally, the certificate attributes presented by the Client in
   the enrolment request (Section 2) may be carried in the Client Token.
   The encoding is TBD.

4.  Application to 6TiSCH

   One candidate embedding of EALS into a bootstrapping architecture is
   as described in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security].  The new device
   (a.k.a.  Pledge) requests to be admitted into the network managed by
   the Join Registrar/Coordinator.  The Pledge maps to an EALS/CoAP
   client, and the Join Registrar/Coordinator maps to an EALS/CoAP

   When a pledge first joins a constrained network, it typically does
   not have IPv6 connectivity to reach the Join Registrar/Coordinator.
   For that reason, pledge communicates with the Join Proxy, a one hop
   neighbor of the pledge.  Join Proxy statelessly relays the exchanges
   between the pledge and the Join Registrar/Coordinator.

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

   As in the model of [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security], the Join Proxy
   plays the role of a CoAP proxy.  Default CoAP proxy, however, keeps
   state information in order to relay the response back to the
   originating client, in this case the pledge.  To mitigate Denial of
   Service attacks at the Join Proxy, [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]
   mandates the use of a new CoAP option, Stateless-Proxy option, that
   allows the Join Proxy to operate without keeping per-client state.

   The use of EDHOC as described in Section 3.1 enables mutual
   authentication and authorization of Pledge and Join Registrar/
   Coordinator, and supports the use of the Stateless-Proxy option in
   order to provide the CoAP Proxy functionality described in this

5.  Application to BRSKI

   Another application of EALS is to the BRSKI
   [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] problem statement.  BRSKI
   specifies an automated bootstrapping of a remote secure key
   infrastructure (BRSKI) using vendor installed X.509 certificate, in
   combination with a vendor authorized service on the Internet.  BRSKI
   is referencing Enrolment over Secure Transport (EST) [RFC7030] to
   enable zero-touch joining of a device in a network domain.  The same
   approach can be applied using EDHOC instead of EST, as is outlined in
   this document.

   The audit/ownership vouchers specified in
   [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] are carried as part of EDHOC
   application-defined extensions, as described in Section 3.1.  Nonces
   of the EDHOC protocol can be used for freshness also of the
   authorization step.

   The limitations of applicability to energy-constrained devices due to
   credential size applies also to this document, and further work is
   needed to specify certificate formats relevant to constrained
   devices.  Having said that, one rationale for this document is a more
   optimized message exchange, and potentially also code footprint,
   which is favorable in low-power deployments.

6.  Security Considerations

7.  Privacy Considerations

8.  IANA Considerations

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wants to thank the participants of the 6tisch security
   design team for discussions and input contributing to this document.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

              Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and
              H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for
              Constrained Environments (ACE)", draft-ietf-ace-oauth-
              authz-07 (work in progress), August 2017.

              Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security of CoAP (OSCOAP)", draft-ietf-core-
              object-security-04 (work in progress), July 2017.

              Selander, G., Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral
              Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", draft-selander-ace-
              cose-ecdhe-07 (work in progress), July 2017.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC7049]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
              October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,

   [RFC8152]  Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
              RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,

10.2.  Informative References

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

              Selander, G., Palombini, F., and K. Hartke, "Requirements
              for CoAP End-To-End Security", draft-hartke-core-e2e-
              security-reqs-03 (work in progress), July 2017.

              Vucinic, M., Simon, J., Pister, K., and M. Richardson,
              "Minimal Security Framework for 6TiSCH", draft-ietf-
              6tisch-minimal-security-03 (work in progress), June 2017.

              Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason,
              S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
              Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-
              keyinfra-07 (work in progress), July 2017.

              Seitz, L., Palombini, F., and M. Gunnarsson, "OSCOAP
              profile of the Authentication and Authorization for
              Constrained Environments Framework", draft-seitz-ace-
              oscoap-profile-04 (work in progress), July 2017.

   [RFC5272]  Schaad, J. and M. Myers, "Certificate Management over CMS
              (CMC)", RFC 5272, DOI 10.17487/RFC5272, June 2008,

   [RFC7030]  Pritikin, M., Ed., Yee, P., Ed., and D. Harkins, Ed.,
              "Enrollment over Secure Transport", RFC 7030,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7030, October 2013,

   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,

Appendix A.  Examples

Authors' Addresses

   Goeran Selander
   Ericsson AB
   Farogatan 6
   Kista  SE-16480 Stockholm

   Email: goran.selander@ericsson.com

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft Enrollment with Application Layer Security September 2017

   Shahid Raza
   Isafjordsgatan 22
   Kista  SE-16440 Stockholm

   Email: shahid.raza@ri.se

   Malisa Vucinic
   2 Rue Simone Iff
   Paris  75012

   Email: malisa.vucinic@inria.fr

   Martin Furuhed
   Telefonv. 26
   Stockholm  SE-12626

   Email: martin.furuhed@nexusgroup.com

   Michael Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works
   470 Dawson Avenue
   Ottawa, ON  K1Z5V7

   Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca

Selander, et al.         Expires March 16, 2018                [Page 14]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/