HIP Working Group Gyu Myoung Lee Internet Draft Jun Kyun Choi Intended status: Informational ICU Expires: January 2009 Taesoo Chung ETRI July 7, 2008 HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications draft-lee-hip-object-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 1] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 Abstract This document explains the concept of object to object communications and specifies naming and addressing issues for object identification. In order to use Host Identity Protocol (HIP) for object to object communications, this document provides the extended architecture of HIP according to mapping relationships between host and object(s). In addition, packet formats and considerations for HIP extensions concerning object are specified. Conventions used in this document 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. Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 2] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................4 2. Object to Object Communications..............................4 3. Object Identification........................................5 3.1. Classification of network entities to be identified......5 3.2. Identification codes....................................5 3.3. Examples of service IDs for objects.....................6 3.3.1. RFID..............................................6 3.3.2. Content ID.........................................6 3.4. Requirements for naming and addressing using object identification..............................................6 4. HIP Architecture for Object to Object Communications..........7 4.1. The mapping relationships between host and object(s).....7 4.1.1. Host = Object (one to one mapping).................7 4.1.2. Host =! Object (one to many mapping)...............8 4.2. The stack architecture..................................8 5. HIP Extensions.............................................11 5.1. Case #1: Objects in a host.............................11 5.2. Case #2: Remote objects................................11 5.3. Packet format.........................................11 6. Considerations for HIP Extensions...........................13 6.1. Support of DNS, and HIP rendezvous server..............13 6.2. Protocol overhead......................................13 6.3. Considerations for specific user cases.................13 6.4. Services using extended HIP............................14 7. Security Considerations.....................................14 8. IANA Considerations........................................14 9. References.................................................14 9.1. Normative References...................................14 9.2. Informative References.................................15 Author's Addresses............................................15 Intellectual Property Statement................................16 Disclaimer of Validity........................................16 Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 3] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 1. Introduction The role of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) is the separation between the location and identity information by introducing a new cryptographic name space which is called Host Identity (HI). It provides enhanced network security as well as easy management of mobility and multi-homing [RFC4423]. The one of new capabilities for future network will be the ubiquitous networking such as the Internet of things. This networking capability requires "Any Services, Any Time, Any Where and Any Devices" operation. In order to connect objects (e.g., devices and/or machines) to large databases and networks, a simple, unobtrusive and cost-effective system of item identification is crucial. The concept of host should be extended to support all of objects. However, there is no consideration for new type of objects (e.g., contents, RFID tags, sensors, etc) as end points. This document explains object to object communications. For identification of network entities, we consider new type of identifiers (e.g., RFID code, content, ID etc) for object and describe specific requirements for object identification in naming and addressing point of view. In order to use HIP for object to object communication, this document provides the extended architecture of HIP according to mapping relationship between host and object(s). In addition, packet formats and considerations for HIP extensions are specified. 2. Object to Object Communications For ubiquitous networking, future network will require the extensions of networking functionalities to all objects. New networking concept will be considered for networking capabilities to support various classes of applications/services which require "Any Services, Any Time, Any Where and Any Devices" operation using Internet. This networking capability should support human-to-human, human-to-object (e.g., device and/or machine) and object-to-object communications. There are many different kinds of devices connecting to the network supported for ubiquitous networking in Internet. RFID tag, sensors, smart cards, medical devices, navigation devices, vehicles as well as the existing personal devices such as PC, Personal Digital Assistant Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 4] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 (PDA), etc., are examples of these. This document considers that the end points which are not always humans but may be objects such as devices /machines, and then expanding to small objects and parts of objects. Thus, object to object communications will be provided using the new concept of end points considering object. This document focuses on how to support object to object communications using extensions of existing HIP. 3. Object Identification 3.1. Classification of network entities to be identified There are several network entities to be identified in the network. These network entities have a layered architecture and are used for naming, addressing and routing. o Services (i.e., information related to applications/services) o End points (i.e., global unique identifier) o Location (i.e., IP address) o Path (i.e., routing) In particular, for object to object communications, information for several kinds of object on top of end points should be identified in the network. 3.2. Identification codes Identification of all objects for providing end-to-end connectivity in ubiquitous networking environment is crucial. Identifier is capable of identifying all objects and facilitates objects-to-objects communications. In particular, the globally unique identifier enables a lot of applications including item tracking, access control, and protection, etc [1]. There are other kinds of identifiers such as E.164 number code, Extended Unique Identifier (EUI)-64, Media Access Control (MAC) address, Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)/ Uniform Resource Locator (URL), etc. These identification codes can be classified as follows. Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 5] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 o Service IDs: include RFID, Content ID, telephone number, URL/URI, etc o Communication IDs: include session/protocol ID, IP address, MAC address, etc 3.3. Examples of service IDs for objects 3.3.1. RFID The identification codes, so-called Electronic Product Code (EPC), for RFID/sensors are very important in ubiquitous networking environment. An EPC is simply a number assigned to an RFID tag representative of an actual electronic product code. Their value is that they have been carefully characterized and categorized to embed certain meanings within their structure. Each number is encoded with a header, identifying the particular EPC version used for coding the entire EPC number. An EPC manager number is defined, allowing individual companies or organizations to be uniquely identified; an object class number is present, identifying objects used within this organization, such as product types. Finally, a serial number is characterized, allowing the unique identification of each individual object tagged by the organization [2]. 3.3.2. Content ID The Content ID is a unique identifier that can specify and distinguish any kind of digital content that is distributed. As a unique code attached to a content object, the Content ID serves well enough as an identifier, but actually it is much more than just that. It is also the key to a complete set of attribute information about a content object stored as metadata including the nature of the contents, rights-related information, information about distribution, and more. The Content ID provides the key enabling metadata to be uniquely associated with a particular digital object [3]. 3.4. Requirements for naming and addressing using object identification The layered architecture of naming and addressing requires specific processing capabilities at each layer. Each user/object in service layer identifies by identity like name with a set of attributes of an entity. An attribute can be thought of as metadata that belongs to a specific entity in a specific context, some of which could to be highly private or sensitive. The identity should be associated with service IDs (RFID, content ID, telephone number, URI/URL, etc) through identification and authorization. Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 6] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 As shown in Figure 1, each service ID should be associated with communication IDs (session/protocol ID, IP address, MAC address, etc) through mapping/binding. +-----------------+ | Service IDs | +-----------------+ | |mapping/binding | +-----------------+ |Communication IDs| +-----------------+ Figure 1 Mapping/binding for naming and addressing An ID resolution server such as Domain Name System (DNS), can provide a function to translate the identifier of object into service /communication ID to access networking services provided by database/application servers. How to map/bind IP address (i.e., communications IDs) with other identifiers (i.e., service IDs) for providing end-to-end IP connectivity is challenging issue. Identity protocol for object, i.e., HIP extensions, can perform this capability. Additionally, the following features should be provided using naming and addressing capability through object identification. o Protection of object (including right management) o Connecting to anything using object identification o Service and location discovery 4. HIP Architecture for Object to Object Communications 4.1. The mapping relationships between host and object(s) 4.1.1. Host = Object (one to one mapping) In case of a host is equal to an object, there is one to one mapping relationship between host and object. Most of information devices such as PC, etc are included in this case. Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 7] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 For example, if you use a telephone device, the device as host can be allocated a telephone number as service ID and be treated the same object. 4.1.2. Host =! Object (one to many mapping) In case of a host is not equal to an object, there is one to many mapping relationship between host and object(s). Content server, RFID tags/Reader, etc are included in this case. There are two kinds of one to many mapping as follows (see Figure 2): o As shown in Figure 2 (a), host including objects such as content server, a host includes many objects and these objects should be identified using content ID, etc. o As shown in Figure 2 (b), host with remote objects such as RFID tags, a host has many remote objects and these objects should be identified using RFID code, etc. In this case, each object might be non IP. 4.2. The stack architecture The original stack architecture of HIP can be extended according to the mapping relationships between host and object(s). o As shown in Figure 3 (a), objects in a host (case #1), the end point is the same with current HIP architecture. However, each object in service layer should be identified by a host using mapping protocol for object. o As shown in Figure 3 (b), remote objects (case #2), the end point will be each object. This means that host location is different from end point(s). Thus, current HIP should be extended to support several end points with a host. From object information in service layer, each object identity should be defined. Detailed protocol extension will be specified in Section 5. Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 8] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 +--------------------------+ | | | +--------+ | | | Object | | | +--------+ | | | | +--------+ | | | Object | | | +--------+ | | . | | . | | . | | | | +--------+ | | | Object | | | +--------+ | | | | Host | | | +--------------------------+ (a) Host including objects(e.g., content server) +-------+ -----------------| Object | / +--------+ / . / . +------+ +--------+ | Host | ------------------ | Object | +------+ +--------+ \ . \ . \ +--------+ ----------------| Object | +-------+ Remote objects (non IP) (b) Host with remote objects(e.g., RFID tags/Reader) Figure 2 Mapping between host and objects (one to many mapping) Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 9] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 +---------------------------+ | Objects (Service IDs) | +---------------------------+ \ | / \ | / --------- Service(s) \ | / +-------------+ | Socket | +-------------+ | | | +-------------+ |Host identity| ----------------- End point +-------------+ | | | +-------------+ | IP address | ----------------- Host location +-------------+ (a) Case #1: Objects in a host +---------------------------+ | Objects (Service IDs) | +---------------------------+ | | | | | | -------- Service(s) | | | +---------------------------+ | Sockets | +---------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | +---------------------------+ | Objects identities | -------- End points +---------------------------+ \ | / \ | / \ | / +-------------+ | IP address | ----------------- Host location +-------------+ (b) Case #2: Remote objects Figure 3 Extension of stack architecture Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 10] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 The proposed address and identifier mapping structure has the following advantages. o Perform two functions together - Routing using network prefix information and identification code using service IDs o Provide the connectivity to end device without additional equipment such as Network Address Translator o Scalability - enough name space for supporting objects-to-objects communications o Security - security solution using HIP hash function, etc 5. HIP Extensions 5.1. Case #1: Objects in a host In case of Figure 3 (a), several object identifiers as well as host identity should be delivered to each host for mapping information between host identity and object identities. In order to deliver object information, this document newly defines a new TLV, i.e., Object_ID (see Section 5.3.). 5.2. Case #2: Remote objects As case of Figure 3 (b), Object Identity (OI) information instead of host identity should be delivered to each host for mapping information between IP address and object identities Thus, this document newly specifies Object Identity Tag (OIT) in HIP message. Each OIT typically identifies a service and can also identify end point. 5.3. Packet format To support the previous extended architecture for object, the current HIP packet should be extended as follows. Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 11] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 o HIP header (include OIT) 0 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Next Header | Header Length |0| Packet Type | VER. | RES.|1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Checksum | Controls | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender's Host/Object Identity Tag (HIT/OIT) | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Receiver's Host/Object Identity Tag (HIT/OIT) | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | / HIP Parameters / / / | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The information for object should be included HIP header according to specific cases as described in Figure 3. o Object_ID (newly defined from HOST_ID of HIP) 0 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OI Length |DI-type| DI Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Object Identity / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / | Domain Identifier / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / | Padding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 12] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 Type TBD Length length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding OI Length length of the Object Identity in octets DI-type type of the following Domain Identifier field DI Length length of the FQDN or NAI in octets Object Identity actual Object Identity Domain Identifier the identifier of the sender The Object Identity is generated from Service IDs defined for specific applications/services. The detailed algorithms and formats follow the concept of the existing HIP specified in [RFC5201]. Other packet formats are subject to change according to HIP. 6. Considerations for HIP Extensions 6.1. Support of DNS, and HIP rendezvous server In order to support from existing infrastructure, including DNS, and HIP rendezvous server, it is required to define DNS resource records. The newly defined DNS resource records should include information on object identifiers and object identity tags (OITs) 6.2. Protocol overhead Real time communications and some limitation of power and packet size, lightweight identity handshake for datagram transactions is critical. 6.3. Considerations for specific user cases HIP for object can use original advantages of HIP for specific user cases. Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 13] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 o Identity-based roaming and mobility o Hierarchical routing o Addressing and location management o Multi-homing 6.4. Services using extended HIP The proposed extended HIP can provide an integrated solution for personal location and management through identification /naming /addressing including ID registration, location tracking, dynamic mobility control, and security using the following networking services: o Identity management (IdM) services for the management of the identity life cycle of objects including managing unique IDs, attributes, credentials, entitlements to consistently enforce business and security policies. o Location management services for real-time location tracking, monitoring, and information processing of moving objects similar with Supply Chain Management. o Networked ID (N-ID) services for providing communication service which is triggered by an identification process started via reading an identifier from identifier storage such as RFID tag, barcode label, smartcard, etc. 7. Security Considerations TBD 8. IANA Considerations This document has no actions for IANA. 9. References 9.1. Normative References None Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 14] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 9.2. Informative References [RFC4423] R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture", RFC 4423, May 2006. [RFC5201] R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander, P. Jokela, T. Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol", RFC 5201, April 2008. [1] Gyu Myoung Lee, Jun Kyun Choi, Taesoo Chung, Doug Montgomery, "Standardization for ubiquitous networking in IPv6-based NGN", ITU-T Kaleidoscope Event - Innovations in NGN, pp.351-357, May 2008. [2] EPCglobal, "EPCglobal Object Name Service (ONS) 1.0.1", May 2008. [3] Content ID Forum (cIDf), "cIDf Specification 2.0", April 2007. Author's Addresses Gyu Myoung Lee Information and Communications University (ICU) 119 Munjiro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-732, KOREA Phone: +82-42-866-6828 Email: gmlee@icu.ac.kr Jun Kyun Choi Information and Communications University (ICU) 119 Munjiro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-732, KOREA Phone: +82-42-866-6226 Email: jkchoi@icu.ac.kr Taesoo Chung Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) 138 Gajeongno, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-700, KOREA Phone: +82-42-860-6111 Email: tsjeong@etri.re.kr Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 15] HIP Extension for Object to Object Communications July 2008 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Lee Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 16]