Internet-Draft ADEM over UDP October 2024
Linker, et al. Expires 13 April 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
ADEM Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-adem-wg-adem-udp-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
F. E. Linker
ETH Zürich
D. Jackson
None
D. Basin
ETH Zürich

Serving an Authenticated Digital EMblem over UDP

Abstract

This document describes a mechanism using the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) to distribute Authenticated Digital EMblem (ADEM) tokens [ADEM-CORE]. ADEM tokens encode that an asset is protected under international humanitarian law.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adem-wg-adem-udp/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/adem-wg/adem-spec.

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 13 April 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The ADEM Core document [ADEM-CORE] specifies how a set of tokens, encoded as JSON Web Signatures (JWSs) [RFC7515], can constitute signs of protection. Such signs of protection indicate that a digital asset is protected under international humanitarian law (IHL). This document describes a UDP-based distribution method for ADEM tokens, termed ADEM-UDP.

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. UDP Distribution

Any digital, network-connected asset MAY distribute sets of ADEM tokens using the UDP protocol. Whenever an asset distributes tokens using UDP, it MUST set the destination port to 60. The data field encodes three elements (in that order): a uint16 sequence number, a uint16 stating the number of tokens in this sequence, and the token itself as a sequence of ASCII bytes representing the token's JWS compact serialization. Any UDP packet containing an ADEM token, MUST contain exactly one token. The sequence number identifies sets of related tokens. Therefore, sequence numbers SHOULD NOT repeat per recipient IP and within 300 seconds.

ADEM-UDP enabled assets SHOULD send a complete set of tokens allowing for the strongest verification possible (compare [ADEM-CORE], Section 6.1) whenever a client attempts to connect to the respectively protected asset. ADEM-UDP enabled assets MUST at the same apply rate-limiting mechanisms when sending out tokens to the same clients. Rate limitations SHOULD depend on the number of bytes sent per set of tokens, but assets MUST send a verifier a set of tokens at least every 300 seconds, should the verifier probe the protected asset repeatedly.

4. UDP Parsing

When listening on port 60, verifiers can distinguish different sets of tokens using the sequence number. When receiving any token on port 60, verifiers MUST apply a timeout of 300 seconds. That means, they MAY discard tokens from which they were not able to assemble a verifiable sign of protection after 300 seconds. But at the same time, verifiers MUST wait for at least 300 seconds after having probed a protected asset until they may classify this asset as unprotected.

Verifiers are RECOMMENDED to start verification procedures as specified in [ADEM-CORE] as soon as they received all internal endorsements belonging to an emblem. Independent endorsements can be verified individually once they are received.

5. Security Considerations

6. IANA Considerations

As per the IANA Port Number Registry [REG-PORT], port 60 is currently unassigned.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[ADEM-CORE]
Linker, F. E., Jackson, D., and D. Basin, "An Authenticated Digital EMblem - Core Specification", n.d., <./draft-adem-wg-adem-core.html>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2. Informative References

[REG-PORT]
"Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml>.
[RFC7515]
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.

Authors' Addresses

Felix E. Linker
ETH Zürich
Dennis Jackson
None
David Basin
ETH Zürich