rfc8449.txt   test8449.v2v3.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Thomson Internet Engineering Task Force M. Thomson
Request for Comments: 8449 Mozilla Request for Comments: 8449 Mozilla
Updates: 6066 August 2018 Updates: 6066 August 2018
Category: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721 ISSN: 2070-1721
Record Size Limit Extension for TLS Record Size Limit Extension for TLS
Abstract Abstract
An extension to Transport Layer Security (TLS) is defined that allows An extension to Transport Layer Security (TLS) is defined that allows
skipping to change at page 1, line 31 skipping to change at line 30
This is an Internet Standards Track document. This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8449. editor.org/info/rfc8449.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions and Definitions
3. Limitations of the "max_fragment_length" Extension . . . . . 3 3. Limitations of the "max_fragment_length" Extension
4. The "record_size_limit" Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. The "record_size_limit" Extension
4.1. Record Expansion Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Record Expansion Limits
5. Deprecating "max_fragment_length" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Deprecating "max_fragment_length"
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. References
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Normative References
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Acknowledgments
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Author's Address
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Implementing Transport Layer Security (TLS) [TLS] or Datagram TLS Implementing Transport Layer Security (TLS) [TLS] or Datagram TLS
(DTLS) [DTLS] for constrained devices can be challenging. However, (DTLS) [DTLS] for constrained devices can be challenging. However,
recent improvements to the design and implementation of cryptographic recent improvements to the design and implementation of cryptographic
algorithms have made TLS accessible to some highly limited devices algorithms have made TLS accessible to some highly limited devices
(see, for example, [RFC7925]). (see, for example, [RFC7925]).
Receiving large protected records can be particularly difficult for a Receiving large protected records can be particularly difficult for a
skipping to change at page 2, line 49 skipping to change at line 91
and authenticate it. Similarly, other ciphers cannot produce and authenticate it. Similarly, other ciphers cannot produce
authenticated data until the entire record is present. Incremental authenticated data until the entire record is present. Incremental
processing of records exposes endpoints to the risk of forged data. processing of records exposes endpoints to the risk of forged data.
The "max_fragment_length" extension [RFC6066] was designed to enable The "max_fragment_length" extension [RFC6066] was designed to enable
constrained clients to negotiate a lower record size. However, constrained clients to negotiate a lower record size. However,
"max_fragment_length" suffers from several design problems (see "max_fragment_length" suffers from several design problems (see
Section 3). Section 3).
This document defines a "record_size_limit" extension (Section 4). This document defines a "record_size_limit" extension (Section 4).
This extension replaces "max_fragment_length" [RFC6066], which this This extension replaces "max_fragment_length"[RFC6066], which this
document deprecates. This extension is valid in all versions of TLS. document deprecates. This extension is valid in all versions of TLS.
A smaller protected record size is just one of many problems that a A smaller protected record size is just one of many problems that a
constrained implementation might need to address. The constrained implementation might need to address. The
"record_size_limit" extension only addresses the memory allocation "record_size_limit" extension only addresses the memory allocation
problem; it does not address limits of code size, processing problem; it does not address limits of code size, processing
capability, or bandwidth capacity. capability, or bandwidth capacity.
2. Conventions and Definitions 2. Conventions and Definitions
skipping to change at page 7, line 16 skipping to change at line 292
Very small record sizes might generate additional work for senders Very small record sizes might generate additional work for senders
and receivers, limiting throughput and increasing exposure to denial and receivers, limiting throughput and increasing exposure to denial
of service. of service.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document registers the "record_size_limit" extension in the "TLS This document registers the "record_size_limit" extension in the "TLS
ExtensionType Values" registry established in [RFC5246]. The ExtensionType Values" registry established in [RFC5246]. The
"record_size_limit" extension has been assigned a code point of 28. "record_size_limit" extension has been assigned a code point of 28.
The IANA registry [TLS-REGISTRY] lists this extension as The IANA registry [TLS-REGISTRY] lists this extension as as
"Recommended" (i.e., "Y") and indicates that it may appear in the "Recommended" (i.e., "Y") and indicates that it may appear in the
ClientHello (CH) or EncryptedExtensions (EE) messages in TLS 1.3 ClientHello (CH) or EncryptedExtensions (EE) messages in TLS 1.3
[TLS]. [TLS].
In the same registry, the "max_fragment_length" has been changed to In the same registry, the "max_fragment_length" has been changed to
not recommended (i.e., "N"). not recommended (i.e., "N").
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, <https://www.rfc-
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>. editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6066] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC6066] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011, <https://www.rfc-
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>. editor.org/info/rfc6066>.
[RFC7366] Gutmann, P., "Encrypt-then-MAC for Transport Layer [RFC7366] Gutmann, P., "Encrypt-then-MAC for Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", RFC 7366, DOI 10.17487/RFC7366, September 2014, (DTLS)", RFC 7366, DOI 10.17487/RFC7366, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7366>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7366>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
skipping to change at page 8, line 16 skipping to change at line 339
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[DTLS] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer [DTLS] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>. January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[PMTU] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed., [PMTU] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201, "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, STD 87, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>. editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated [RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated
Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008, Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>.
[RFC7925] Tschofenig, H., Ed. and T. Fossati, "Transport Layer [RFC7925] Tschofenig, H., Ed. and T. Fossati, "Transport Layer
Security (TLS) / Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Security (TLS) / Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
Profiles for the Internet of Things", RFC 7925, Profiles for the Internet of Things", RFC 7925,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7925, July 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7925, July 2016, <https://www.rfc-
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7925>. editor.org/info/rfc7925>.
[TLS-REGISTRY] [TLS-REGISTRY]
Salowey, J. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for TLS Salowey, J. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for TLS
and DTLS", RFC 8447, DOI 10.17487/RFC8447, August 2018, and DTLS", RFC 8447, DOI 10.17487/RFC8447, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8447>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8447>.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
Thomas Pornin and Hannes Tschofenig provided significant input to Thomas Pornin and Hannes Tschofenig provided significant input to
this document. Alan DeKok identified an issue with the interaction this document. Alan DeKok identified an issue with the interaction
between record size limits and PMTU. between record size limits and PMTU.
Author's Address Author's Address
Martin Thomson Martin Thomson
Mozilla Mozilla
EMail: martin.thomson@gmail.com
Email: martin.thomson@gmail.com
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 36 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/

mirror server hosted at Truenetwork, Russian Federation.