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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

ACE Working Group                                           F. Palombini
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track                           June 27, 2018
Expires: December 29, 2018


     CoAP Pub-Sub Profile for Authentication and Authorization for
                     Constrained Environments (ACE)
               draft-palombini-ace-coap-pubsub-profile-03

Abstract

   This specification defines a profile for authentication and
   authorization for publishers and subscribers in a pub-sub setting
   scenario in a constrained environment, using the ACE framework.  This
   profile relies on transport layer or application layer security to
   authorize the publisher to the broker.  Moreover, it relies on
   application layer security for publisher-broker and subscriber-broker
   communication.

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 December 29, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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



Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Profile Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  coap_pubsub Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Retrieval of COSE Key for protection of content . . . . .   5
   4.  Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Subscriber  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Pub-Sub Protected Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Using COSE Objects to protect the resource representation  12
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   The publisher-subscriber setting allows for devices with limited
   reachability to communicate via a broker that enables store-and-
   forward messaging between the devices.  The pub-sub scenario using
   the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is specified in
   [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub].  This document defines a way to
   authorize nodes in a CoAP pub-sub type of setting, using the ACE
   framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].

1.1.  Terminology

   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].

   Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts
   described in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz],
   [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm] and [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub].
   In particular, analogously to [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], terminology
   for entities in the architecture such as Client (C), Resource Server
   (RS), and Authorization Server (AS) is defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]
   and [I-D.ietf-ace-actors], and terminology for entities such as the
   Key Distribution Center (KDC) and Dispatcher in
   [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm].



Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


2.  Profile Overview

   The objective of this document is to specify how to protect a CoAP
   pub-sub communication, as described in [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub],
   using [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm], which itself expands the Ace
   framework ([I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]), and profiles
   ([I-D.ietf-ace-dtls-authorize], [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]).

   The architecture of the scenario is shown in Figure 1.

                +----------------+   +----------------+
                |                |   |                |
                | Authorization  |   | Authorization  |
                |    Server 1    |   |    Server 2    |
                |                |   |                |
                +----------------+   +----------------+
                         ^                  ^  ^
                         |                  |  |
        +---------(A)----+                  |  +-----(D)------+
        |   +--------------------(B)--------+                 |
        v   v                                                 v
   +------------+             +------------+              +------------+
   |   CoAP     | ----(C)---> |   CoAP     |              |    CoAP    |
   |  Client -  | ----(E)---> |  Server -  |              |  Client -  |
   |            |             |            | <----(F)---- |            |
   | Publisher  |             |   Broker   | -----(G)---> | Subscriber |
   +------------+             +------------+              +------------+

       Figure 1: Architecture CoAP pubsub with Authorization Servers

   The RS is the broker, which contains the topic.  This node
   corresponds to the Dispatcher, in [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm].
   The AS1 hosts the policies about the Broker: what endpoints are
   allowed to Publish on the Broker.  The Clients access this node to
   get write access to the Broker.  The AS2 hosts the policies about the
   topic: what endpoints are allowed to access what topic.  This node
   represents both the AS and Key Distribution Center roles from
   [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm].

   There are four phases, the first three can be done in parallel.

   1.  The Publisher requests publishing access to the Broker at the
       AS1, and communicates with the Broker to set up security.

   2.  The Publisher requests access to a specific topic at the AS2

   3.  The Subscriber requests access to a specific topic at the AS2.




Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


   4.  The Publisher and the Subscriber securely post to and get
       publications from the Broker.

   This exchange aims at setting up 2 different security associations:
   on the one hand, the Publisher has a security association with the
   Broker, to protect the communication and securely authorize the
   Publisher to publish on a topic (Security Association 1).  On the
   other hand, the Publisher has a security association with the
   Subscriber, to protect the publication content itself (Security
   Association 2).  The Security Association 1 is set up using AS1 and a
   profile of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], the Security Association 2 is
   set up using AS2 and [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm].

   Note that, analogously to the Publisher, the Subscriber can also set
   up an additional security association with the Broker, using an AS,
   in the same way the Publisher does with AS1.  In this case, only
   authorized Subscribers would be able to get notifications from the
   Broker.  The overhead would be that each Subscriber should access the
   AS and get all the information to start a secure exchange with the
   Broker.

   +------------+             +------------+              +------------+
   |   CoAP     |             |   CoAP     |              |    CoAP    |
   |  Client -  |             |  Server -  |              |  Client -  |
   |            |             |            |              |            |
   | Publisher  |             |   Broker   |              | Subscriber |
   +------------+             +------------+              +------------+
         :   :                       :                           :
         :   '------ Security -------'                           :
         :         Association 1                                 :
         '------------------------------- Security --------------'
                                        Association 2

   Note that AS1 and AS2 might either be co-resident or be 2 separate
   physical entities, in which case access control policies must be
   exchanged between AS1 and AS2, so that they agree on rights for
   joining nodes about specific topics.  How the policies are exchanged
   is out of scope for this profile.

3.  coap_pubsub Profile

   This profile uses [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm], which expands
   the ACE framework.  This document specifies which exact parameters
   from [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm] have to be used, and the
   values for each parameter.






Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


   The Publisher and the Subscriber map to the Client in
   [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm], the AS2 maps to the AS and to the
   KDC, the Broker maps to the Dispatcher.

   Note that both publishers and subscribers use the same profile,
   called "coap_pubsub".

3.1.  Retrieval of COSE Key for protection of content

   This phase is common to both Publisher and Subscriber.  To maintain
   the generality, the Publisher or Subscriber is referred as Client in
   this section.

           Client                            Broker             AS2
              | [----- Resource Request ---->] |                 |
              |                                |                 |
              | [<-- AS1, AS2 Information ---] |                 |
              |                                                  |
              | -- Authorization + Key Distribution Request ---> |
              |                                                  |
              | <-- Authorization + Key Distribution Response -- |
              |                                                  |

                  Figure 2: B: Access request - response

   Complementary to what is defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]
   (Section 5.1.1), to determine the AS2 in charge of a topic hosted at
   the Broker, the Broker MAY send the address of both the AS in charge
   of the topic back to the Client in the 'AS' parameter in the AS
   Information, as a response to an Unauthorized Resource Request
   (Section 5.1.2).  An example using CBOR diagnostic notation is given
   below:

                 4.01 Unauthorized
                 Content-Format: application/ace+cbor
                 {"AS1": "coaps://as1.example.com/token",
                  "AS2": "coaps://as2.example.com/pubsubkey"}

                  Figure 3: AS1, AS2 Information example

   After retrieving the AS2 address, the Client sends an Authorization +
   Key Distribution Request, which is an Authorization Request merged
   with a Key Distribution Request, as described in
   [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm], Sections 3.1 and 4.1.  The reason
   for merging these two messages is that the AS2 is both the AS and the
   KDC, in this setting, so the Authorization Response and the Post
   Token message are not necessary.




Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


   More specifically, the Client sends a POST request to the /token
   endpoint on AS2, that MUST contain in the payload (formatted as a
   CBOR map):

   o  the following fields from the Authorization Request (Section 3.1
      of [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm]):

      *  the grant type set to "client_credentials",

      *  OPTIONALLY, if needed, other additional parameters such as
         "Client_id"

   o  the following fields from the Key Distribution Request
      (Section 4.1 of [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm]):

      *  the client_cred parameter containing the Client's public key,
         if the Client needs to directly send that to the AS2,

      *  the scope parameter set to a CBOR array containing the broker's
         topic as first element and the string "publisher" for
         publishers and "subscriber" for subscribers as second element

      *  the get_pub_keys parameter set to the empty array if the Client
         needs to retrieve the public keys of the other pubsub members

      *  OPTIONALLY, if needed, the pub_keys_repos parameters

   Note that the alg parameter in the client_cred COSE_Key MUST be a
   signing algorithm, as defined in section 8 of [RFC8152].

   Examples of the payload of a Authorization + Key Distribution Request
   are specified in Figure 5 and Figure 8.

   The AS2 verifies that the Client is authorized to access the topic
   and, if the 'client_cred' parameter is present, stores the public key
   of the Client.

   The AS2 response is an Authorization + Key Distribution Response, see
   Section 4.2 of [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm].  The payload
   (formatted as a CBOR map) MUST contain:

   o  the following fields from the Authorization Response (Section 3.2
      of [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm]):

      *  profile set to "coap_pubsub"

      *  scope parameter (optionally), set to a CBOR array containing
         the broker's topic as first element and the string "publisher"



Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


         for publishers and "subscriber" for subscribers as second
         element

   o  the following fields from the Key Distribution Response
      (Section 4.2 of [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm]):

      *  "key" parameter including:

         +  kty with value 4 (symmetric)

         +  alg with value defined by the AS2 (Content Encryption
            Algorithm)

         +  Base IV with value defined by the AS2

         +  k with value the symmetric key value

         +  OPTIONALLY, exp with the expiration time of the key

         +  OPTIONALLY, kid with an identifier for the key value

      *  "pub_keys", containing the public keys of all authorized
         signing members, if the "get_pub_keys" parameter was present
         and set to the empty array in the Authorization + Key
         Distribution Request

   Examples for the response payload are detailed in Figure 6 and
   Figure 9.

4.  Publisher

   In this section, it is specified how the Publisher requests, obtains
   and communicates to the Broker the access token, as well as the
   retrieval of the keying material to protect the publication.

















Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


                        +----------------+   +----------------+
                        |                |   |                |
                        | Authorization  |   | Authorization  |
                        |    Server 1    |   |    Server 2    |
                        |                |   |                |
                        +----------------+   +----------------+
                                 ^                  ^
                                 |                  |
                +---------(A)----+                  |
                |   +--------------------(B)--------+
                v   v
           +------------+             +------------+
           |   CoAP     | ----(C)---> |   CoAP     |
           |  Client -  |             |  Server -  |
           |            |             |            |
           | Publisher  |             |   Broker   |
           +------------+             +------------+

                     Figure 4: Phase 1: Publisher side

   This is a combination of two independent phases:

   o  one is the establishment of a secure connection between Publisher
      and Broker, using an ACE profile such as DTLS
      [I-D.ietf-ace-dtls-authorize] or OSCOAP
      [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile].  (A)(C)

   o  the other is the Publisher's retrieval of keying material to
      protect the publication.  (B)

   In detail:

   (A) corresponds to the Access Token Request and Response between
   Publisher and Authorization Server to retrieve the Access Token and
   RS (Broker) Information.  As specified, the Publisher has the role of
   a CoAP client, the Broker has the role of the CoAP server.

   (C) corresponds to the exchange between Publisher and Broker, where
   the Publisher sends its access token to the Broker and establishes a
   secure connection with the Broker.  Depending on the Information
   received in (A), this can be for example DTLS handshake, or other
   protocols.  Depending on the application, there may not be the need
   for this set up phase: for example, if OSCOAP is used directly.

   (A) and (C) details are specified in the profile used.






Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


   (B) corresponds to the retrieval of the keying material to protect
   the publication, and uses [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm].  The
   details are defined in Section 3.1.

   An example of the payload of an Authorization + Key Distribution
   Request and corresponding Response for a Publisher is specified in
   Figure 5 and Figure 6.

   {
     "grant_type" : "client_credentials",
     "scope" : ["Broker1/Temp", "publisher"],
     "client_id" : "publisher1",
     "client_cred" :
       { / COSE_Key /
         / type / 1 : 2, / EC2 /
         / kid / 2 : h'11',
         / alg / 3 : -7, / ECDSA with SHA-256 /
         / crv / -1 : 1 , / P-256 /
         / x / -2 : h'65eda5a12577c2bae829437fe338701a10aaa375e1bb5b5de1
         08de439c08551d',
         / y /-3 : h'1e52ed75701163f7f9e40ddf9f341b3dc9ba860af7e0ca7ca7e
         9eecd0084d19c'
       }
   }

     Figure 5: Authorization + Key Distribution Request payload for a
                                 Publisher

         {
           "profile" : "coap_pubsub",
           "key" : {1: 4, 2: h'1234', 3: 12, 5: h'1f389d14d17dc7',
           -1:   h'02e2cc3a9b92855220f255fff1c615bc'}
         }

     Figure 6: Authorization + Key Distribution Response payload for a
                                 Publisher

5.  Subscriber

   In this section, it is specified how the Subscriber retrieves the
   keying material to protect the publication.










Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


                                     +----------------+
                                     |                |
                                     | Authorization  |
                                     |    Server 2    |
                                     |                |
                                     +----------------+
                                               ^
                                               |
                                               +-----(D)------+
                                                              |
                                                              v
                                                          +------------+
                                                          |    CoAP    |
                                                          |  Client -  |
                                                          |            |
                                                          | Subscriber |
                                                          |            |
                                                          +------------+

                    Figure 7: Phase 2: Subscriber side

   Step (D) between Subscriber and AS2 corresponds to the retrieval of
   the keying material to verify the publication.  The details are
   defined in Section 3.1

   This step is the same as (B) between Publisher and AS2 (Section 3.1),
   with the following differences:

   o  The Authorization + Key Distribution Request MUST NOT contain the
      client_cred parameter, the role element in the 'scope' parameter
      MUST be set to "subscriber".  The Subscriber MUST have access to
      the public keys of all the Publishers; this MAY be achieved in the
      Authorization + Key Distribution Request by using the parameter
      get_pub_keys set to empty array.

   o  The Authorization + Key Distribution Response MUST contain the
      pub_keys parameter.

   An example of the payload of an Authorization + Key Distribution
   Request and corresponding Response for a Subscriber is specified in
   Figure 8 and Figure 9.










Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


                {
                  "grant_type" : "client_credentials",
                  "scope" : ["Broker1/Temp", "subscriber"],
                  "get_pub_keys" : [ ]
                }

     Figure 8: Authorization + Key Distribution Request payload for a
                                Subscriber

   {
     "profile" : "coap_pubsub",
     "scope" : ["Broker1/Temp", "subscriber"],
     "key" : {1: 4, 2: h'1234', 3: 12, 5: h'1f389d14d17dc7',
     -1: h'02e2cc3a9b92855220f255fff1c615bc'},
     "pub_keys" : [
      {
         1 : 2, / type EC2 /
         2 : h'11', / kid /
         3 : -7, / alg ECDSA with SHA-256 /
         -1 : 1 , / crv P-256 /
         -2 : h'65eda5a12577c2bae829437fe338701a10aaa375e1bb5b5de108de43
         9c08551d', / x /
         -3 : h'1e52ed75701163f7f9e40ddf9f341b3dc9ba860af7e0ca7ca7e9eecd
         0084d19c' / y /
       }
     ]
   }

     Figure 9: Authorization + Key Distribution Response payload for a
                                Subscriber

6.  Pub-Sub Protected Communication

   This section specifies the communication Publisher-Broker and
   Subscriber-Broker, after the previous phases have taken place.

   +------------+             +------------+              +------------+
   |   CoAP     |             |   CoAP     |              |    CoAP    |
   |  Client -  |             |  Server -  |              |  Client -  |
   |            | ----(E)---> |            |              |            |
   | Publisher  |             |   Broker   | <----(F)---- | Subscriber |
   |            |             |            | -----(G)---> |            |
   +------------+             +------------+              +------------+

      Figure 10: Phase 3: Secure communication between Publisher and
                                Subscriber





Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


   The (E) message corresponds to the publication of a topic on the
   Broker.  The publication (the resource representation) is protected
   with COSE ([RFC8152]).  The (F) message is the subscription of the
   Subscriber, which is unprotected.  The (G) message is the response
   from the Broker, where the publication is protected with COSE.

   The flow graph is presented below.

          Publisher                Broker               Subscriber
              | --- PUT /topic ----> |                       |
              |  protected with COSE |                       |
              |                      | <--- GET /topic ----- |
              |                      |                       |
              |                      | ---- response ------> |
              |                      |  protected with COSE  |

       Figure 11: (E), (F), (G): Example of protected communication

6.1.  Using COSE Objects to protect the resource representation

   The Publisher uses the symmetric COSE Key received from AS2 in
   exchange B (Section 3.1) to protect the payload of the PUBLISH
   operation (Section 4.3 of [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub]).
   Specifically, the COSE Key is used to create a COSE_Encrypt0 with
   algorithm specified by AS2.  The Publisher uses the private key
   corresponding to the public key sent to the AS2 in exchange B
   (Section 3.1) to countersign the COSE Object as specified in
   Section 4.5 of [RFC8152].  The CoAP payload is replaced by the COSE
   object before the publication is sent to the Broker.

   The Subscriber uses the kid in the countersignature field in the COSE
   object to retrieve the right public key to verify the
   countersignature.  It then uses the symmetric key received from AS2
   to verify and decrypt the publication received in the payload of the
   CoAP Notification from the Broker.

   The COSE object is constructed in the following way:

   o  The protected Headers (as described in Section 3 of [RFC8152]) MAY
      contain the kid parameter, with value the kid of the symmetric
      COSE Key received in Section 3.1 and MUST contain the content
      encryption algorithm

   o  The unprotected Headers MUST contain the Partial IV and the
      counter signature that includes:

      *  the algorithm (same value as in the asymmetric COSE Key
         received in (B)) in the protected header



Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


      *  the kid (same value as the kid of the asymmetric COSE Key
         received in (B)) in the unprotected header

      *  the signature computed as specified in Section 4.5 of [RFC8152]

   o  The ciphertext, computed over the plaintext that MUST contain the
      CoAP payload.

   The external_aad, when using AEAD, is an empty string.

   An example is given in Figure 12

        16(
          [
            / protected / h'a2010c04421234' / {
                \ alg \ 1:12, \ AES-CCM-64-64-128 \
                \ kid \ 4: h'1234'
              } / ,
            / unprotected / {
              / iv / 5:h'89f52f65a1c580',
              / countersign / 7:[
                / protected / h'a10126' / {
                  \ alg \ 1:-7
                } / ,
                / unprotected / {
                  / kid / 4:h'11'
                },
                / signature / SIG / 64 bytes signature /
              ]
            },
            / ciphertext / h'8df0a3b62fccff37aa313c8020e971f8aC8d'
          ]
        )

    Figure 12: Example of COSE Object sent in the payload of a PUBLISH
                                 operation

   The encryption and decryption operations are described in sections
   5.3 and 5.4 of [RFC8152].

7.  Security Considerations

   In the profile described above, the Publisher and Subscriber use
   asymmetric crypto, which would make the message exchange quite heavy
   for small constrained devices.  Moreover, all Subscribers must be
   able to access the public keys of all the Publishers to a specific
   topic to be able to verify the publications.  Such a database could




Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


   be set up and managed by the same entity having control of the topic,
   i.e. AS2.

   An application where it is not critical that only authorized
   Publishers can publish on a topic may decide not to make use of the
   asymmetric crypto and only use symmetric encryption/MAC to
   confidentiality and integrity protect the publication, but this is
   not recommended since, as a result, any authorized Subscribers with
   access to the Broker may forge unauthorized publications without
   being detected.  In this symmetric case the Subscribers would only
   need one symmetric key per topic, and would not need to know any
   information about the Publishers, that can be anonymous to it and the
   Broker.

   Subscribers can be excluded from future publications through re-
   keying for a certain topic.  This could be set up to happen on a
   regular basis, for certain applications.  How this could be done is
   out of scope for this work.

   The Broker is only trusted with verifying that the Publisher is
   authorized to publish, but is not trusted with the publications
   itself, which it cannot read nor modify.  In this setting, caching of
   publications on the Broker is still allowed.

   TODO: expand on security and Privacy considerations

8.  IANA Considerations

   The following registrations are done for the ACE OAuth Profile
   Registry following the procedure specified in
   [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].

   Note to RFC Editor: Please replace all occurrences of "[[This
   document]]" with the RFC number of this specification and delete this
   paragraph.

   Name: coap_pubsub

   Description: Profile for delegating client authentication and
   authorization for publishers and subscribers in a pub-sub setting
   scenario in a constrained environment.

   CBOR Key: TBD

   Reference: [[This document]]






Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]
              Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and
              H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for
              Constrained Environments (ACE) using the OAuth 2.0
              Framework (ACE-OAuth)", draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-12
              (work in progress), May 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub]
              Koster, M., Keranen, A., and J. Jimenez, "Publish-
              Subscribe Broker for the Constrained Application Protocol
              (CoAP)", draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub-04 (work in
              progress), March 2018.

   [I-D.palombini-ace-key-groupcomm]
              Palombini, F. and M. Tiloca, "Key Provisioning for Group
              Communication using ACE", draft-palombini-ace-key-
              groupcomm-00 (work in progress), March 2018.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
              RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.

   [RFC8152]  Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
              RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-ace-actors]
              Gerdes, S., Seitz, L., Selander, G., and C. Bormann, "An
              architecture for authorization in constrained
              environments", draft-ietf-ace-actors-06 (work in
              progress), November 2017.









Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             coap-pubsub-profile                 June 2018


   [I-D.ietf-ace-dtls-authorize]
              Gerdes, S., Bergmann, O., Bormann, C., Selander, G., and
              L. Seitz, "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
              Profile for Authentication and Authorization for
              Constrained Environments (ACE)", draft-ietf-ace-dtls-
              authorize-03 (work in progress), March 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile]
              Seitz, L., Palombini, F., Gunnarsson, M., and G. Selander,
              "OSCORE profile of the Authentication and Authorization
              for Constrained Environments Framework", draft-ietf-ace-
              oscore-profile-01 (work in progress), March 2018.

Acknowledgments

   The author wishes to thank Ari Keraenen, John Mattsson, Ludwig Seitz,
   Goeran Selander, Jim Schaad and Marco Tiloca for the useful
   discussion and reviews that helped shape this document.

Author's Address

   Francesca Palombini
   Ericsson

   Email: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com


























Palombini               Expires December 29, 2018              [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/