Internet-Draft CoAP-DTLS Extension December 2021
Bergmann, et al. Expires 5 June 2022 [Page]
Network Working Group
draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize (if approved)
Intended Status:
Standards Track
O. Bergmann
J. Preuß Mattsson
G. Selander

Extension of the ACE CoAP-DTLS Profile to TLS


This document updates the ACE CoAP-DTLS profile by specifying that the profile applies to TLS as well as DTLS.

Discussion Venues

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

Discussion of this document takes place on the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments Working Group mailing list (, which is archived at

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 June 2022.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

[I-D.ietf-ace-dtls-authorize] only specifies use of DTLS [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] but works equally well for TLS. For many constrained implementations, CoAP over UDP [RFC7252] is the first choice, but when deploying ACE in networks controlled by other entities (such as the Internet), UDP might be blocked on the path between the client and the RS, and the client might have to fall back to CoAP over TCP [RFC8323] for NAT or firewall traversal. This feature is supported by the OSCORE profile [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-profile] but is lacking from the DTLS profile.

This document updates [I-D.ietf-ace-dtls-authorize] by specifying that the profile applies to TLS as well as DTLS. The same access token is valid for both DTLS or TLS. The access rights do not depend on the transport layer security.

2. IANA Considerations

No IANA Considerations.

3. Security Considerations

The security consideration and requirements in TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] and BCP 195 [RFC7525] [RFC8996] also apply to this document.

4. References

4.1. Normative References

Gerdes, S., Bergmann, O., Bormann, C., Selander, G., and L. Seitz, "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-18, , <>.
Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-43, , <>.
Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, , <>.
Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K., Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets", RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC8323, , <>.
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <>.

4.2. Informative References

Palombini, F., Seitz, L., Selander, G., and M. Gunnarsson, "OSCORE Profile of the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-19, , <>.
Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, , <>.
Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, , <>.


Authors' Addresses

Olaf Bergmann
Universität Bremen TZI
Bremen, D-28359
John Preuß Mattsson
Ericsson AB
SE-164 80 Stockholm
Göran Selander
Ericsson AB
SE-164 80 Stockholm