]> Aalto University

Espoo 02150 Finland mohit@iki.fi

Denpel Informatique

sarikaya@ieee.org

University of Oviedo

Oviedo 33207 Spain garciadan@uniovi.es

This document provides an overview of terms that are commonly used when discussing the initial security setup of Internet of Things (IoT) devices. This document also presents a brief but illustrative survey of protocols and standards available for initial security setup of IoT devices. For each protocol, we identify the terminology used, the entities involved, the initial assumptions, the processes necessary for completetion, and the knowledge imparted to the IoT devices after the setup is complete.

Introduction Initial security setup for a device refers to any process that takes place before a device can become operational. The phrase "initial security setup" intentionally includes the term "security" as setup of devices without adequate security or with insecure processes is no longer acceptable. The initial security setup process, among other things, involves network discovery and selection, access authentication, configuration of necessary credentials and parameters. Initial security setup for IoT devices is challenging because the size of an IoT network varies from a couple of devices to tens of thousands, depending on the application. Moreover, devices in IoT networks are produced by a variety of vendors and are typically heterogeneous in terms of the constraints on their power supply, communication capability, computation capacity, and user interfaces available. This challenge of initial security setup in IoT was identified by Sethi et al. while developing a solution for smart displays. Initial security setup of devices typically also involves providing them with some sort of network connectivity. The functionality of a disconnected device is rather limited. Initial security setup of devices often assumes that some network has been setup a-priori. Setting up and maintaining a network itself is challenging. For example, users may need to configure the network name (called as Service Set Identifier (SSID) in Wi-Fi networks) and passpharse before new devices can be setup. Specifications such as the Wi-Fi Alliance Simple Configuration help users setup networks. However, this document is only focused on terminology and processes associated with initial security setup of devices and excludes any discussion on setting up networks. There are several terms that are used in the context of initial security setup of devices: Bootstrapping Provisioning Onboarding Enrollment Commissioning Initialization Configuration Registration Discovery In addition to using a variety of different terms, initial security setup mechanisms can rely on a number of entities. For example, a companion smartphone device maybe necessary for some initial security setup mechanisms. Moreover, security setup procedures have diverese initial assumptions about the device being setup. As an example, an initial security setup mechanism may assume that the device is provisioned with a pre-shared key and a list of trusted network identifiers. Finally, initial security setup mechanisms impart different information to the device after completion. For example, some mechanisms may only provide a key for use with an authorization server, while others may configure elaborate access control lists directly. The next section provides an overview of some standards and protocols for initial security setup of IoT devices. For each mechanism, the following are explicitly identified: Terminology used Entities or "players" involved Initial assumptions about the device Processes necessary for completetion Knowledge imparted to the device after completion

Standards and Protocols

Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP) The Wi-Fi Alliance Device provisioning protocol (DPP) describes itself as a standardized protocol for providing user friendly Wi-Fi setup while maintaining or increasing the security. DPP relies on a configurator, e.g. a smartphone application, for setting up all other devices, called enrollees, in the network. DPP has the following three phases/sub-protocols: Bootstrapping: The configurator obtains bootstrapping information from the enrollee using an out-of-band channel such as scanning a QR code or tapping NFC. The bootstrapping information includes the public-key of the device and metadata such as the radio channel on which the device is listening. Authentication: In DPP, either the configurator or the enrollee can initiate the authentication protocol. The side initiating the authentication protocol is called as the initiator while the other side is called the responder. The authentication sub-protocol provides authentication of the responder to an initiator. It can optionally authenticate the initiator to the responder (only if the bootstrapping information was exchange out-of-band in both directions). Configuration: Using the key established from the authentication protocol, the enrollee asks the configurator for network information such as the SSID and passphrase of the access point. DPP has the following characteristics: Terms: Bootstrapping, configuration, discovery, enrollment, provisioning. Players: Authenticator, Bootstrap Server, Client, Configurator, Device, Initiator, Manager, Manufacturer, Owner, Peer, Peer, Persona, Responder, Server, User Initial beliefs assumed in the device: Processes: Beliefs imparted to the device after protocol execution:

Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Lightweight M2M (LwM2M) The OMA LwM2M specification defines an architecture where a new device (LwM2M client) contacts a Bootstrap-server which is responsible for provisioning essential information such as credentials. After receiving this essential information, the LwM2M client device registers itself with one or more LwM2M Servers which will manage the device during its lifecycle. The current standard defines the following four bootstrapping modes: Factory Bootstrap: An IoT device in this case is configured with all the necessary bootstrap information during manufacturing and prior to its deployment. Bootstrap from Smartcard: An IoT device retrieves and processes all the necessary bootstrap data from a Smartcard. Client Initiated Bootstrap: This mode provides a mechanism for an IoT client device to retrieve the bootstrap information from a Bootstrap Server. This requires the client device to have an account at the Bootstrap Server and credentials to obtain the necessary information securely. Server Initiated Bootstrap: In this bootstrapping mode, the bootstrapping server configures all the bootstrap information on the IoT device without receiving a request from the client. This means that the bootstrap server needs to know if a client IoT Device is ready for bootstrapping before it can be configured. For example, a network may inform the bootstrap server of a new connecting IoT client device. OMA has the following characteristics: Terms: Bootstrapping, provisioning, intialization, configuration, registration. Players: Bootstrap Server, Client, Device, Manufacturer, Owner, Server, User Initial beliefs assumed in the device: Processes: Beliefs imparted to the device after protocol execution:

Open Connectivity Foundation (OCF) The Open Connectivity Foundation (OCF) defines the process before a device is operational as onboarding. The first step of this onboarding process is configuring the ownership, i.e., establishing a legitimate user that owns the device. For this, the user is supposed to use an Onboarding tool (OBT) and an Owner Transfer Method (OTM). The OBT is described as a logical entity that may be implemented on a single or multiple entities such as a home gateway, a device management tool, etc. OCF lists several optional OTMs. At the end of the execution of an OTM, the onboarding tool must have provisioned an Owner Credential onto the device. The following owner transfer methods are specified: Just works: Performs an un-authenticated Diffie-Hellman key exchange over Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS). The key exchange results in a symmetric session key which is later used for provisioning. Naturally, this mode is vulnerable to on-path attackers. Random PIN: The device generates a PIN code that is entered into the onboarding tool by the user. This pin code is used together with TLS-PSK ciphersuites for establishing a symmetric session key. OCF recommends PIN codes to have an entropy of 40 bits. Manufacturer certificate: An onboarding tool authenticates the device by verifying a manufacturer installed certificate. Similarly, the device may authenticate the onboarding tool by verifying its signature. Vendor specific: Vendors implement their own transfer method that accommodates any specific device constraints. Once the onboarding tool and the new device have authenticated and established secure communication, the onboarding tool provisions/configures the device with Owner credentials. Owner credentials may consist of certificates, shared keys, or Kerberos tickets for example. The OBT additionally configures/provisions information about the Access Management Service (AMS), the Credential Management Service (CMS), and the credentials for interacting with them. The AMS is responsible for provisioning access control entries, while the CMS provisions security credentials necessary for device operation. OCF has the following characteristics: Terms: Configuration, discovery, enrollment, onboarding, provisioning, registration, Players: Client, Device, Manager, Manufacturer, Owner, Peer, Responder, Server, User Initial beliefs assumed in the device: Processes: Beliefs imparted to the device after protocol execution:

Bluetooth Bluetooth mesh specifies a provisioning protocol. The goal of the provisioning phase is to securely incorporate a new Bluetooth mesh node, by completing two critical tasks. First, to authenticate the unprovisioned device and second, to create a secure link with said device to share information. The provisioning process is divided into five distinct stages summarize next: Beaconing for discover: The new unprovisioned device is discovered by the provisioner Negotiation: The unprovisioned device indicates to the provisioner a set of capabilities such as the security algorithms supported, the availability of its public key using an Out-of-Band (OOB) channel and the input/output interfaces supported Public-key exchange: The authentication method is selected by the provisioner and both devices exchange Elliptic-curve Diffie–Hellman (ECDH) public keys. These keys may be static or ephemeral. Their exchange can be done in two ways, either via Out-of-Band or directly through a Bluetooth link. Each device then generates a symmetric key, named ECDHSecret, by combining its own private key and the public key of the peer device. The EDCHSecret is used to protect communication between the two devices. Authentication: During this phase, the ECDH key exchange is authenticated. The authentication method can be Output OOB, Input OOB, static OOB, or No OOB. With Output OOB, the unprovisioned device chooses a random number and outputs that number in manner consistent with its capabilities. The provisioner then inputs this number. Then, a check confirmation value operation is performed. This involves a cryptographic exchange regarding (in this case) the random number to complete the authentication. With Input OOB, the roles are reversed, being the provisioner the entity that generates the random number. When neither of the previous authentication procedures are feasible, both the provisioner and unprovisioned device generate a random number and require the user supervising the setup to verify that values on the device and provisioner are the same. Distribution of provisioning data: At this point, the provisioning process can be protected. This involves the distribution of data such as a Network key, to secure the communications at network layer and a unicast address among other information. Bluetooth mesh has the following characteristics: Terms: Configuration, discovery, provisioning. Players: Client, Device, Manager, Manufacturer, Peer, Server, User Initial beliefs assumed in the device: Processes: Beliefs imparted to the device after protocol execution:

Fast IDentity Online (FIDO) alliance The Fast IDentity Online Alliance (FIDO) is currently specifying an automatic onboarding protocol for IoT devices . The goal of this protocol is to provide a new IoT device with information for interacting securely with an online IoT platform. This protocol allows owners to choose the IoT platform for their devices at a late stage in the device lifecyle. The draft specification refers to this feature as "late binding". The FIDO IoT protocol itself is composed of one Device Initialization (DI) protocol and 3 Transfer of Ownership (TO) protocols TO0, TO1, TO2. Protocol messages are encoded in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and can be transported over application layer protocols such as Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) or directly over TCP, Bluetooth etc. FIDO IoT however assumes that the device already has IP connectivity to a rendezvous server. Establishing this initial IP connectivity is explicitly stated as "out-of-scope" but the draft specification hints at the usage of Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) proxies for IP networks and other forms of tunneling for non-IP networks. The specification only provides a non-normative example of the DI protocol which must be executed in the factory during device manufacture. This protocol embeds initial ownership and manufacturing credentials into Restricted Operation Environment (ROE) on the device. The initial information embedded also includes a unique device identifier (called as GUID in the specification). After DI is executed, the manufacturer has an ownership voucher which is passed along the supply chain to the device owner. When a device is unboxed and powered on by the new owner, the device discovers a network-local or an Internet-based rendezvous server. Protocols (TO0, TO1, and TO2) between the device, the rendezvous server, and the new owner (as the owner onboarding service) ensure that the device and the new owner are able to authenticate each other. Thereafter, the new owner establishes cryptographic control of the device and provides it with credentials of the IoT platform which the device should used. FIDO has the following characteristics: Terms: Provisioning, onboarding, commissioning, initialization. Players: Device, Manager, Manufacturer, Owner, Rendezvous Server, Server, User Initial beliefs assumed in the device: Processes: Beliefs imparted to the device after protocol execution:

Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) defines a profile of Certificate Management over CMS (CMC) . EST relies on Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) for exchanging CMC messages and allows client devices to obtain client certificates and associated Certification Authority (CA) certificates. A companion specification for using EST over secure CoAP has also been standardized . EST assumes that some initial information is already distributed so that EST client and servers can perform mutual authentication before continuing with protocol. further defines "Bootstrap Distribution of CA Certificates" which allows minimally configured EST clients to obtain initial trust anchors. It relies on human users to verify information such as the CA certificate "fingerprint" received over the unauthenticated TLS connection setup. After successful completion of this bootstrapping step, clients can proceed to the enrollment step during which they obtain client certificates and associated CA certificates. EST has the following characteristics: Terms: Bootstrapping, enrollment, initialization, configuration. Players: Administrator, Client, Device, Manufacturer, Owner, Peer, Peer, Responder, Server, User Initial beliefs assumed in the device: Processes: Beliefs imparted to the device after protocol execution:

Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI) The ANIMA working group is working on a bootstrapping solution for devices that relies on 802.1AR vendor certificates called Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI) . In addition to vendor installed IEEE 802.1AR certificates, a vendor based service on the Internet is required. Before being authenticated, a new device only needs link-local connectivity, and does not require a routable address. When a vendor provides an Internet based service, devices can be forced to join only specific domains. The document highlights that the described solution is aimed in general at non-constrained (i.e. class 2+ defined in ) devices operating in a non-challenged network. It claims to scale to thousands of devices located in hostile environments, such as ISP provided CPE devices which are drop-shipped to the end user. BRSKI has the following characteristics: Terms: Bootstrapping, provisioning, enrollment, onboarding. Players: Administrator, Client, Cloud Registrar, Configurator, Device, Domain Registrar, Initiator, Join Proxy, JRC, Manufacturer, Owner, Peer, Pledge, Server, User Initial beliefs assumed in the device: Processes: Beliefs imparted to the device after protocol execution:

Secure Zero Touch Provisioning defines a bootstrapping strategy for enabling devices to securely obtain all the configuration information with no installer input, beyond the actual physical placement and connection of cables. Their goal is to enable a secure NETCONF or RESTCONF connection to the deployment specific network management system (NMS). This bootstrapping method requires the devices to be configured with trust anchors in the form of X.509 certificates. is similar to BRSKI based on . SZTP has the following characteristics: Terms: Bootstrapping, provisioning, onboarding, enrollment, configuration, discovery. Players: Administrator, Bootstrap Server, Client, Device, Manufacturer, Onboarding Server, Owner, Redirect Server, Responder, Server, User Initial beliefs assumed in the device: Processes: Beliefs imparted to the device after protocol execution:

Nimble out-of-band authentication for EAP (EAP-NOOB) EAP-NOOB defines an EAP method where the authentication is based on a user-assisted out-of-band (OOB) channel between the server and peer. It is intended as a generic bootstrapping solution for IoT devices which have no pre-configured authentication credentials and which are not yet registered on the authentication server. This method claims to be more generic than most ad-hoc bootstrapping solutions in that it supports many types of OOB channels. The exact in-band messages and OOB message contents are specified and not the OOB channel details. EAP-NOOB also supports IoT devices with only output (e.g. display) or only input (e.g. camera). It makes combined use of both secrecy and integrity of the OOB channel for more robust security than the ad-hoc solutions. EAP-NOOB has the following characteristics: Terms: Bootstrapping, configuration, registration. Players: Administrator, Authenticator, Client, Device, Manufacturer, Owner, Peer, Server, User Initial beliefs assumed in the device: Processes: Beliefs imparted to the device after protocol execution:

LPWAN Low Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN) encompasses a wide variety of technologies whose link-layer characteristics are severely constrained in comparison to other typical IoT link-layer technologies such as Bluetooth or IEEE 802.15.4. While some LPWAN technologies rely on proprietary bootstrapping solutions which are not publicly accessible, others simply ignore the challenge of bootstrapping and key distribution. In this section, we discuss the bootstrapping methods used by LPWAN technologies covered in . LoRaWAN describes its own protocol to authenticate nodes before allowing them join a LoRaWAN network. This process is called as joining and it is based on pre-shared keys (called AppKeys in the standard). The joining procedure comprises only one exchange (join-request and join-accept) between the joining node and the network server. There are several adaptations to this joining procedure that allow network servers to delegate authentication and authorization to a backend AAA infrastructure . Wi-SUN Alliance Field Area Network (FAN) uses IEEE 802.1X and EAP-TLS for network access authentication. It performs a 4-way handshake to establish a session keys after EAP-TLS authentication. NB-IoT relies on the traditional 3GPP mutual authentication scheme based on a shared-secret in the Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) of the device and the mobile operator. Sigfox security is based on unique device identifiers and cryptographic keys. As stated in , although the algorithms and keying details are not publicly available, there is sufficient information to indicate that bootstrapping in Sigfox is based on pre-established credentials between the device and the Sigfox network. From the above, it is clear that all LPWAN technologies rely on pre-provisioned credentials for authentication between a new device and the network. LPWAN has the following characteristics: Terms: Bootstrapping, provisioning, configuration, discovery. Players: Administrator, Authenticator, Border Router, Client, Device, Manager, Network Server, User Initial beliefs assumed in the device: Processes: Beliefs imparted to the device after protocol execution:

Thread Thread Group commissioning introduces a two phased process i.e. Petitioning and Joining. Entities involved are leader, joiner, commissioner, joiner router, and border router. Leader is the first device in Thread network that must be commissioned using out-of-band process and is used to inject correct user generated Commissioning Credentials (can be changed later) into Thread Network. Joiner is the node that intends to get authenticated and authorized on Thread Network. Commissioner is either within the Thread Network (Native) or connected with Thread Network via a WLAN (External). Under some topologies, Joiner Router and Border Router facilitate the Joiner node to reach Native and External Commissioner, respectively. Petitioning begins before Joining process and is used to grant sole commissioning authority to a Commissioner. After an authorized Commissioner is designated, eligible thread devices can join network. Pair-wise key is shared between Commissioner and Joiner, network parameters (such as network name, security policy, etc.,) are sent out securely (using pair-wise key) by Joiner Router to Joiner for letting Joiner to join the Thread Network. Entities involved in Joining process depends on system topology i.e. location of Commissioner and Joiner. Thread networks only operate using IPv6. Thread devices can devise GUAs (Global Unicast Addresses) . Provision also exist via Border Router, for Thread device to acquire individual global address by means of DHCPv6 or using SLAAC (Stateless Address Autoconfiguration) address derived with advertised network prefix. Thread has the following characteristics: Terms: Commissioning, discovery, provisioning. Players: Administrator, Border Agent, Border Router, Commissioner, Commissioner Candidate, Configurator, Device, End Device, End Device, Endpoint Identifier, Initiator, Joiner, Joiner Router, Owner, Peer, Peer, Responder, Server, User Initial beliefs assumed in the device: Processes: Beliefs imparted to the device after protocol execution:

Comparison There are several stages before a device becomes fully operational. This typically involves establishing some initial trust after which credentials and other parameters are configured. For DPP, bootstrapping is the first step before authentication and provisioning of credentials can occur. For EST, bootstrapping happens as the first step when the client devices have no certificates available for starting enrollment. Provisioning/configuring are terms used for providing additional information to devices before they are fully operational. For example, credentials are provisioned onto the device. But before credential provisioning, a device is bootstrapped and authenticated. Some protocols may only deal with parts of the process. For example, TLS maybe used for authentication after bootstrapping. A separate device management protocol then may run over this TLS tunnel for provisioning operational information and credentials.

Comparison of terminology

Comparison of players

Comparison of initial beliefs

Comparison of processes

Comparison of knowledge imparted to the device

Security Considerations This draft does not take any posture on the security properties of the different bootstrapping protocols discussed. Specific security considerations of bootstrapping protocols are present in the respective specifications. Nonetheless, we briefly discuss some important security aspects which are not fully explored in various specifications. Firstly, an IoT system may deal with authorization for resources and services separately from initial security setup in terms of timing as well as protocols. As an example, two resource-constrained devices A and B may perform mutual authentication using credentials provided by an offline third-party X before device A obtains authorization for running a particular application on device B from an online third-party Y. In some cases, authentication and authorization maybe tightly coupled, e.g., successful authentication also means successful authorization. Secondly, initial security setup of IoT devices may be necessary several times during the device lifecycle since keys have limited lifetimes and devices may be lost or resold. Protocols and systems must have adequate provisions for revocation and fresh security setup. A rerun of the security setup mechanism must be as secure as the initial security setup regardless of whether it is done manually or automatically over the network. Lastly, some IoT networks use a common group key for multicast and broadcast traffic. As the number of devices in a network increase over time, a common group key may not be scalable and the same network may need to be split into separate groups with different keys. Bootstrapping and provisioning protocols may need appropriate mechanisms for identifying and distributing keys to the current member devices of each group.

IANA Considerations There are no IANA considerations for this document.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Tuomas Aura, Hannes Tschofenig, and Michael Richardson for providing extensive feedback as well as Rafa Marin-Lopez for his support.

In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This memo serves as the base requirements for Authorization of Internet Resources and Services (AIRS). It presents an architectural framework for understanding the authorization of Internet resources and services and derives requirements for authorization protocols. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP Version 6 (IPv6) protocol. The document includes the IPv6 addressing model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6 unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an IPv6 node's required addresses.This document obsoletes RFC 3513, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture". [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document defines the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), an authentication framework which supports multiple authentication methods. EAP typically runs directly over data link layers such as Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) or IEEE 802, without requiring IP. EAP provides its own support for duplicate elimination and retransmission, but is reliant on lower layer ordering guarantees. Fragmentation is not supported within EAP itself; however, individual EAP methods may support this. This document obsoletes RFC 2284. A summary of the changes between this document and RFC 2284 is available in Appendix A. [STANDARDS-TRACK] IPv6 nodes use the Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) to discover other nodes on the link, to determine their link-layer addresses to find routers, and to maintain reachability information about the paths to active neighbors. If not secured, NDP is vulnerable to various attacks. This document specifies security mechanisms for NDP. Unlike those in the original NDP specifications, these mechanisms do not use IPsec. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document describes a method for binding a public signature key to an IPv6 address in the Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) protocol. Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) are IPv6 addresses for which the interface identifier is generated by computing a cryptographic one-way hash function from a public key and auxiliary parameters. The binding between the public key and the address can be verified by re-computing the hash value and by comparing the hash with the interface identifier. Messages sent from an IPv6 address can be protected by attaching the public key and auxiliary parameters and by signing the message with the corresponding private key. The protection works without a certification authority or any security infrastructure. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document provides an overview and specification of Version 5 of the Kerberos protocol, and it obsoletes RFC 1510 to clarify aspects of the protocol and its intended use that require more detailed or clearer explanation than was provided in RFC 1510. This document is intended to provide a detailed description of the protocol, suitable for implementation, together with descriptions of the appropriate use of protocol messages and fields within those messages. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Secure Shell (SSH) is a protocol for secure remote login and other secure network services over an insecure network.This document describes the SSH transport layer protocol, which typically runs on top of TCP/IP. The protocol can be used as a basis for a number of secure network services. It provides strong encryption, server authentication, and integrity protection. It may also provide compression.Key exchange method, public key algorithm, symmetric encryption algorithm, message authentication algorithm, and hash algorithm are all negotiated.This document also describes the Diffie-Hellman key exchange method and the minimal set of algorithms that are needed to implement the SSH transport layer protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document specifies EAP-PSK, an Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) method for mutual authentication and session key derivation using a Pre-Shared Key (PSK). EAP-PSK provides a protected communication channel when mutual authentication is successful for both parties to communicate over. This document describes the use of this channel only for protected exchange of result indications, but future EAP-PSK extensions may use the channel for other purposes. EAP-PSK is designed for authentication over insecure networks such as IEEE 802.11. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document defines the Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA), a network-layer transport for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) to enable network access authentication between clients and access networks. In EAP terms, PANA is a UDP-based EAP lower layer that runs between the EAP peer and the EAP authenticator. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document defines the base syntax for CMC, a Certificate Management protocol using the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS). This protocol addresses two immediate needs within the Internet Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) community:1. The need for an interface to public key certification products and services based on CMS and PKCS #10 (Public Key Cryptography Standard), and2. The need for a PKI enrollment protocol for encryption only keys due to algorithm or hardware design.CMC also requires the use of the transport document and the requirements usage document along with this document for a full definition. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) defined in this document provides mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices. It uses an Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based data encoding for the configuration data as well as the protocol messages. The NETCONF protocol operations are realized as remote procedure calls (RPCs). This document obsoletes RFC 4741. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document profiles certificate enrollment for clients using Certificate Management over CMS (CMC) messages over a secure transport. This profile, called Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST), describes a simple, yet functional, certificate management protocol targeting Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) clients that need to acquire client certificates and associated Certification Authority (CA) certificates. It also supports client-generated public/private key pairs as well as key pairs generated by the CA. The Internet Protocol Suite is increasingly used on small devices with severe constraints on power, memory, and processing resources, creating constrained-node networks. This document provides a number of basic terms that have been useful in the standardization work for constrained-node networks. This document specifies a new certificate type and two TLS extensions for exchanging raw public keys in Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS). The new certificate type allows raw public keys to be used for authentication. The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a specialized web transfer protocol for use with constrained nodes and constrained (e.g., low-power, lossy) networks. The nodes often have 8-bit microcontrollers with small amounts of ROM and RAM, while constrained networks such as IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs) often have high packet error rates and a typical throughput of 10s of kbit/s. The protocol is designed for machine- to-machine (M2M) applications such as smart energy and building automation.CoAP provides a request/response interaction model between application endpoints, supports built-in discovery of services and resources, and includes key concepts of the Web such as URIs and Internet media types. CoAP is designed to easily interface with HTTP for integration with the Web while meeting specialized requirements such as multicast support, very low overhead, and simplicity for constrained environments. The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document provides an overview of HTTP architecture and its associated terminology, defines the "http" and "https" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes, defines the HTTP/1.1 message syntax and parsing requirements, and describes related security concerns for implementations. This document describes the architecture of the eduroam service for federated (wireless) network access in academia. The combination of IEEE 802.1X, the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), and RADIUS that is used in eduroam provides a secure, scalable, and deployable service for roaming network access. The successful deployment of eduroam over the last decade in the educational sector may serve as an example for other sectors, hence this document. In particular, the initial architectural choices and selection of standards are described, along with the changes that were prompted by operational experience. This document describes an HTTP-based protocol that provides a programmatic interface for accessing data defined in YANG, using the datastore concepts defined in the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF). RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. This document defines a strategy to securely assign a pledge to an owner using an artifact signed, directly or indirectly, by the pledge's manufacturer. This artifact is known as a "voucher".This document defines an artifact format as a YANG-defined JSON document that has been signed using a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) structure. Other YANG-derived formats are possible. The voucher artifact is normally generated by the pledge's manufacturer (i.e., the Manufacturer Authorized Signing Authority (MASA)).This document only defines the voucher artifact, leaving it to other documents to describe specialized protocols for accessing it. Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs) are wireless technologies with characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibly very small packet and application-layer data sizes, and long battery life operation. This memo is an informational overview of the set of LPWAN technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of running IP in LPWANs. This document presents a technique to securely provision a networking device when it is booting in a factory-default state. Variations in the solution enable it to be used on both public and private networks. The provisioning steps are able to update the boot image, commit an initial configuration, and execute arbitrary scripts to address auxiliary needs. The updated device is subsequently able to establish secure connections with other systems. For instance, a device may establish NETCONF (RFC 6241) and/or RESTCONF (RFC 8040) connections with deployment-specific network management systems. The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the need for version negotiation. These design goals make it different from earlier binary serializations such as ASN.1 and MessagePack.This document obsoletes RFC 7049, providing editorial improvements, new details, and errata fixes while keeping full compatibility with the interchange format of RFC 7049. It does not create a new version of the format. This document specifies automated bootstrapping of an Autonomic Control Plane. To do this, a Secure Key Infrastructure is bootstrapped. This is done using manufacturer-installed X.509 certificates, in combination with a manufacturer's authorizing service, both online and offline. We call this process the Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) protocol. Bootstrapping a new device can occur when using a routable address and a cloud service, only link-local connectivity, or limited/disconnected networks. Support for deployment models with less stringent security requirements is included. Bootstrapping is complete when the cryptographic identity of the new key infrastructure is successfully deployed to the device. The established secure connection can be used to deploy a locally issued certificate to the device as well. University of Murcia University of Oviedo This document specifies an authentication service that uses the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) transported employing Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) messages. As such, it defines an EAP lower layer based on CoAP called CoAP-EAP. One of the main goals is to authenticate a CoAP-enabled IoT device (EAP peer) that intends to join a security domain managed by a Controller (EAP authenticator). Secondly, it allows deriving key material to protect CoAP messages exchanged between them based on Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE), enabling the establishment of a security association between them. The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) provides support for multiple authentication methods. This document defines the EAP-NOOB authentication method for nimble out-of-band (OOB) authentication and key derivation. The EAP method is intended for bootstrapping all kinds of Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices that have no preconfigured authentication credentials. The method makes use of a user-assisted, one-directional, out-of-band (OOB) message between the peer device and authentication server to authenticate the in-band key exchange. The device must have a nonnetwork input or output interface, such as a display, microphone, speaker, or blinking light, that can send or receive dynamically generated messages of tens of bytes in length. The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748, provides a standard mechanism for support of multiple authentication methods. This document specifies the use of EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3 while remaining backwards compatible with existing implementations of EAP-TLS. TLS 1.3 provides significantly improved security and privacy, and reduced latency when compared to earlier versions of TLS. EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3 (EAP-TLS 1.3) further improves security and privacy by always providing forward secrecy, never disclosing the peer identity, and by mandating use of revocation checking when compared to EAP-TLS with earlier versions of TLS. This document also provides guidance on authentication, authorization, and resumption for EAP-TLS in general (regardless of the underlying TLS version used). This document updates RFC 5216. Consultant Cisco Systems Sandelman Software Works RISE SICS Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) is used as a certificate provisioning protocol over HTTPS. Low-resource devices often use the lightweight Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) for message exchanges. This document defines how to transport EST payloads over secure CoAP (EST-coaps), which allows constrained devices to use existing EST functionality for provisioning certificates. Wi-Fi Alliance Ericsson Aalto University Aalto University Aalto University Wi-Fi Alliance IEEE LoRa Alliance IEEE std. 802.1ar-2009 Open Mobile Alliance Open Connectivity Foundation Thread Group Fast Identity Online Alliance