<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [

<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4301 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4301.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5570 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5570.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7296 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7296.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7942 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7942.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<rfc ipr="trust200902"
    updates=""
    obsoletes=""
    category="std"
    docName="draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-10">

  <front>

    <title abbrev="Labeled IPsec">Labeled IPsec Traffic Selector support for IKEv2 </title>

    <author initials='P.' surname="Wouters" fullname='Paul Wouters'>
     <organization>Aiven</organization>
     <address>
      <email>paul.wouters@aiven.io</email>
     </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Sahana Prasad" initials="S." surname="Prasad">
        <organization>Red Hat</organization>
        
        <address>
            <email>sahana@redhat.com</email>
        </address>
    </author>
    
    <date/>

    <area>General</area>

    <workgroup>Network</workgroup>

    <keyword>IKEv2</keyword>
    <keyword>SPD</keyword>
     <keyword>SAD</keyword>
    
    <abstract>
      <t> This document defines a new Traffic Selector (TS) Type for
      Internet Key Exchange version 2 to add support for negotiating
      Mandatory Access Control (MAC) security labels as a traffic selector
      of the Security Policy Database (SPD). Security Labels for IPsec
      are also known as "Labeled IPsec".  The new TS type is TS_SECLABEL,
      which consists of a variable length opaque field specifying the
      security label.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
        <t> In computer security, Mandatory Access Control usually
        refers to systems in which all subjects and objects are assigned
        a security label. A security label is comprised of a set of
        security attributes. The security labels along with a system
        authorization policy determine access. Rules within the system
        authorization policy determine whether the access will be granted
        based on the security attributes of the subject and object.</t>

        <t> Traditionally, security labels used by Multilevel Systems
        (MLS) are comprised of a sensitivity level (or classification)
        field and a compartment (or category) field, as defined in <xref
        target="FIPS188"/> and <xref target="RFC5570"/>. As MAC systems
        evolved, other MAC models gained in popularity. For example,
        SELinux, a Flux Advanced Security Kernel (FLASK) implementation,
        has security labels represented as colon-separated ASCII strings
        composed of values for identity, role, and type. The security
        labels are often referred to as security contexts.</t>

        <t>Traffic Selector (TS) payloads specify the selection criteria
        for packets that will be forwarded over the newly set up IPsec SA as enforced
        by the Security Policy Database (SPD, see <xref target="RFC4301"/>).</t>

        <t> This document specifies a new Traffic Selector Type
        TS_SECLABEL for IKEv2 that can be used to negotiate security
        labels as additional selectors for the Security Policy Database
        (SPD) to further restrict the type of traffic allowed to be sent
        and received over the IPsec SA.</t>

      <section title="Requirements Language">
       <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only
        when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
    
      <section title="Traffic Selector clarification">
        <t>The negotiation of Traffic Selectors is specified in Section 2.9 of <xref
        target="RFC7296"/> where it defines two TS
        Types (TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE and TS_IPV6_ADDR_RANGE). The Traffic
        Selector payload format is specified in Section 3.13 of <xref target="RFC7296"/>.
        However, the term Traffic Selector is used to denote the traffic
        selector payloads and individual traffic selectors of that payload. Sometimes
        the exact meaning can only be learned from context or if the
        item is written in plural ("Traffic Selectors" or "TSs"). This
        section clarifies these terms as follows:</t>

        <t>A Traffic Selector (no acronym) is one selector for traffic
        of a specific Traffic Selector Type (TS_TYPE).  For example a
        Traffic Selector of TS_TYPE TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE for UDP traffic in
        the IP network 198.51.100.0/24 covering all ports, is denoted as
        (17, 0, 198.51.100.0-198.51.100.255)</t>

        <t>A Traffic Selector payload (TS) is a set of one or more Traffic
        Selectors of the same or different TS_TYPEs. It typically contains
        one or more of the TS_TYPE of TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE and/or TS_IPV6_ADDR_RANGE.
        For example, the above Traffic Selector by itself in a TS payload is denoted as
        TS((17, 0, 198.51.100.0-198.51.100.255))</t>

      </section>

      <section title="Security Label Traffic Selector negotiation">
        <t>The negotiation of Traffic Selectors is specified in Section 2.9 of <xref
        target="RFC7296"/> and states that the TSi/TSr payloads MUST contain at least one
        Traffic Selector type. This document adds a new TS_TYPE of TS_SECLABEL that is
        valid only with at least one other type of Traffic Selector. That is, it cannot
        be the only TS_TYPE present in a TSi or TSr payload. It MUST be used along with
        an IP address selector type such as TS_IPV4_ADDR_RANGE and/or TS_IPV6_ADDR_RANGE.</t>
      </section>

      </section>

      <section title="TS_SECLABEL Traffic Selector Type">
      <t>This document defines a new TS Type, TS_SECLABEL that contains a single new opaque Security Label.</t>

      <section title="TS_SECLABEL payload format">
        <figure align="center" anchor="tstype_seclabel" title="Labeled IPsec Traffic Selector">
            <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[

                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
   |   TS Type     |    Reserved   |       Selector Length         |
   +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
   |                                                               |
   ~                         Security Label*                       ~
   |                                                               |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
            ]]></artwork>
        </figure>

    <t>*Note: All fields other than TS Type and Selector Length depend on
   the TS Type. The fields shown is for TS Type TS_SECLABEL, the
   selector this document defines.

   <list style="symbols">
   <t>TS Type (one octet) - Set to 10 for TS_SECLABEL,</t>

   <t>Selector Length (2 octets, unsigned integer) - Specifies the
      length of this Traffic Selector substructure including the header.</t>

   <t>Security Label - An opaque byte stream of at least one octet.</t>
   </list>
   </t>
   </section>

      <section title="TS_SECLABEL properties">
      <t>The TS_SECLABEL Traffic Selector Type does not support narrowing or
      wildcards. It MUST be used as an exact match value.</t>

      <t>The TS_SECLABEL Traffic Selector Type MUST NOT be the only TS_TYPE
      present in the TS payload. If a TS payload is received with only
      TS_SECLABEL Traffic Selector types, an Error Notify message containing
      TS_UNACCEPTABLE MUST be returned.</t>

      <t>The Security Label contents are opaque to the IKE implementation.
      That is, the IKE implementation might not have any knowledge of the
      meaning of this selector, other than as a type and opaque value to pass
      to the SPD.</t>

      <t>A zero length Security Label MUST NOT be used. If a received
      TS payload contains a TS_TYPE of TS_SECLABEL with a zero length
      Security Label, that specific Traffic Selector MUST be ignored. If
      no other Traffic Selector of TS_TYPE TS_SECLABEL can be selected,
      a TS_UNACCEPTABLE Error Notify message MUST be returned. A zero
      length Security Label MUST NOT be interpreted as a wildcard
      security label.</t>
   
      <t>If multiple Security Labels are allowed for a given IP protocol,
      start and end address/port match, the initiator includes all of the
      acceptable TS_SECLABEL's and the responder MUST select one of them.</t>
  
      <t>A responder that selected a TS with TS_SECLABEL MUST use the Security
      Label for all selector operations on the resulting TS. It MUST
      NOT select a TS_SECLABEL without using the specified Security Label,
      even if it deems the Security Label optional, as the initiator has
      indicated (and expects) that Security Label will be set for all 
      traffic matching the negotiated TS.</t>

   </section>
   </section>

    
   <section title="Traffic Selector negotiation">

      <t>TS_SECLABEL MUST NOT be used without another TS_TYPE in
      a Traffic Selector Payload, as it does not specify a complete
      set of traffic selectors on its own. TS_SECLABEL is complimentary
      to another type of Traffic Selector. There MUST be an IP address
      Traffic Selector type in addtion to the TS_SECLABEL Traffic Selector
      type in the Traffic Selector Payload.</t>

     <t>If the TSi Payload contains a traffic selector for TS_TYPE of
     TS_SECLABEL (along with another TS_TYPE), the responder MUST create
     each TS response for the other TS_TYPEs using its normal rules
     specifed for each of those TS_TYPE, such as narrowing them following
     the rules specified for that TS_TYPE, and then add exactly one for the
     TS_TYPE of TS_SECLABEL to the TS Payload(s). If this is not possible,
     it MUST return a TS_UNACCEPTABLE Error Notify payload.</t>

      <t>If the Security Label traffic selector is optional from a
      configuration point of view, an initiator will add the
      TS_SECLABEL to the TSi/TSr Payloads. If the responder replies with
      TSi/TSr Payloads that include the TS_SECLABEL, than the Child SA
      MUST be created including the negotiated Security Label. If the
      responder did not include a TS_SECLABEL in its response, then the
      initiator (which deemed the Security Label optional) will install
      the Child SA without including any Security Label. If the initiator
      required the TS_SECLABEL, it MUST NOT install the Child SA and it MUST
      send a Delete notification for the Child SA so the responder can
      uninstall its Child SA.</t>


   <section title="Example TS negotiation">

      <t>An initiator could send:</t>

        <figure align="center" anchor="tstype_example_i" title="initiator TS payloads example">
            <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[

      TSi = ((17,24233,198.51.100.12-198.51.100.12),
             (0,0,198.51.100.0-198.51.100.255),
             (0,0,192.0.2.0-192.0.2.255),
             TS_SECLABEL1, TS_SECLABEL2)
            
      TSr = ((17,53,203.0.113.1-203.0.113.1),
             (0,0,203.0.113.0-203.0.113.255),
             TS_SECLABEL1, TS_SECLABEL2)

            ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
       <t>The responder could answer with the following  example:</t>
        
        <figure align="center" anchor="tstype_example_r" title="responder TS payloads example">
            <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[

      TSi = ((0,0,198.51.100.0-198.51.100.255),
             TS_SECLABEL1)
            
      TSr = (((0,0,203.0.113.0-203.0.113.255),
             TS_SECLABEL1)

            ]]></artwork>
        </figure>

   </section>

   <section title="Considerations for using multiple TS_TYPEs in a TS">
     <t>It would be unlikely that the traffic for TSi and TSr would have
     a different Security Label, but this specification does allow this to
     be specified. If the initiator does not support this, and wants
     to prevent the responder from picking different labels for the
     TSi / TSr payloads, it should attempt a Child SA negotiation
     with only the first Security Label first, and upon failure retry a new
     Child SA negotiation with only the second Security Label.</t>

     <t>If different IP ranges can only use different specific Security
     Labels, than these should be negotiated in two different Child SA
     negotiations. If in the example above, the initiator only allows
     192.0.2.0/24 with TS_SECLABEL1, and 198.51.0/24 with TS_SECLABEL2,
     than it MUST NOT combine these two ranges and security labels
     into one Child SA negotiation.</t>
     </section>

     </section>

   <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>It is assumed that the Security Label can be matched by the IKE
       implementation to its own configured value, even if the IKE
       implementation itself cannot interpret the Security Label value.</t>
      <t>A packet that matches an SPD entry for all components except the
       Security Label would be treated as "not matching". If no other SPD
       entries match, the (mis-labeled) traffic might end up being transmitted
       in the clear. It is presumed that other Mandatory Access Control methods
       are in place to prevent mis-labeled traffic from reaching the IPsec
       subsystem, or that the IPsec subsystem itself would install a REJECT/DISCARD
       rule in the SPD to prevent unlabeled traffic otherwise matching
       a labeled security SPD rule from being transmitted without IPsec protection.
      </t>
   </section>
   
       <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
        <t>This document defines one new entry in the IKEv2 Traffic Selector Types registry:</t>
        <t>[Note to RFC Editor (please remove before publication): This value has already bee added
           via Early Allocation.</t>

           <figure align="center" anchor="iana_requests">
               <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
   Value   TS Type                      Reference
   -----   ---------------------------  -----------------
   10     TS_SECLABEL   [this document]
               ]]></artwork>
           </figure>
       </section>
  

    <section title="Implementation Status" anchor="impl_status">
     <t>
      [Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
      <xref target="RFC7942"/> before publication.]
     </t>
     <t>
      This section records the status of known implementations of the
      protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of
      this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in
      <xref target="RFC7942"/>. The description of implementations in this
      section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes
      in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of
      any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement
      by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the
      information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.
      This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog
      of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised
      to note that other implementations may exist.
     </t>
     <t>
      According to <xref target="RFC7942"/>, "this will allow reviewers
      and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that
      have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of
      valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented
      protocols more mature.  It is up to the individual working groups
      to use this information as they see fit".
     </t>
     <t>
      Authors are requested to add a note to the RFC Editor at the
      top of this section, advising the Editor to remove the entire
      section before publication, as well as the reference to <xref
      target="RFC7942"/>.
     </t>

     <section anchor="section.impl-status.libreswan" title="Libreswan">
      <t>
       <list style="hanging">
        <t hangText="Organization: ">The Libreswan Project</t>
        <t hangText="Name: "> https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev/</t>
        <t hangText="Description: ">
           Implementation was introduced in 4.4, but 4.6 or newer should be used </t>
        <t hangText="Level of maturity: ">beta</t>
        <t hangText="Coverage: ">
            Implements the entire draft using SElinux based labels</t>
        <t hangText="Licensing: ">GPLv2</t>
        <t hangText="Implementation experience: ">No interop testing has been done yet. The code
           works including different labeled on-demand kernel ACQUIRES.</t>
        <t hangText="Contact: ">Libreswan Development: swan-dev@libreswan.org</t>
       </list>
      </t>
     </section>
     </section>


 
   <section title="Acknowledgements" anchor="acknowledgements">
   <t>A large part of the introduction text was taken verbatim from
   <xref target="draft-jml-ipsec-ikev2-security-label"/> whose authors
   are J Latten, D. Quigley and J. Lu. Valery Smyslov provided valuable
   input regarding IKEv2 Traffic Selector semantics.</t>
   </section>
   
  </middle>

  <back>

    <references title="Normative References">
     &RFC2119;
     &RFC7296;
     &RFC8174;
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      &RFC4301;
      &RFC5570;
      &RFC7942;

     <reference anchor="FIPS188">
        <front>
          <title>National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Standard Security Label for Information Transfer"
          </title>
          <author initials="" surname="" fullname="National Institute of Standards and Technology">
            <organization>NIST</organization>
          </author>

          <date year="1994" month="September"/>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)" value="Publication 188"/>
        <format type="HTML" target="https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/fips/188/archive/1994-09-06"/>
      </reference>

   <reference anchor='draft-jml-ipsec-ikev2-security-label'>
      <front>
      <title>Security Label Extension to IKE</title>
      <author initials='J' surname='Latten' fullname='J. Latten'>
      <organization>IBM</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials='D' surname='Quigley' fullname='D. Quigley'>
      </author>
      <author initials='J' surname='Lu' fullname='J.Lu'>
      <organization>Oracle</organization>
      </author>
      <date month='January' day='28' year='2011' />
      <abstract><t>
       This document describes extensions to the Internet Key Exchange
       Protocol Version 2 RFC5996 to support Mandatory Access Control
       (MAC) security labels used on deployed systems.
       </t></abstract>
      </front>
   </reference>

    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
