Invalid Timestamp For The Product Allocation Assignment Definition

[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-mane...] [Tracker] [Diff1] [Diff2]

PROPOSED STANDARD

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) U. Herberg Request for Comments: 7182 Fujitsu Laboratories of America Obsoletes: 6622 T. Clausen Category: Standards Track LIX, Ecole Polytechnique ISSN: 2070-1721 C. Dearlove BAE Systems ATC April 2014 Integrity Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitionsfor Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) Abstract This document revises, extends, and replaces RFC 6622. It describes general and flexible TLVs for representing cryptographic Integrity Check Values (ICVs) and timestamps, using the generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) packet/message format defined in RFC 5444. It defines two Packet TLVs, two Message TLVs, and two Address Block TLVs for affixing ICVs and timestamps to a packet, a message, and one or more addresses, respectively. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7182. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................31.1. Differences from RFC 6622 ..................................42. Terminology .....................................................43. Applicability Statement .........................................54. Security Architecture ...........................................65. Overview and Functioning ........................................76. General ICV TLV Structure .......................................87. General Timestamp TLV Structure .................................88. Packet TLVs .....................................................98.1. ICV Packet TLV .............................................98.2. TIMESTAMP Packet TLV ......................................109. Message TLVs ...................................................109.1. ICV Message TLV ...........................................109.2. TIMESTAMP Message TLV .....................................1010. Address Block TLVs ............................................1110.1. ICV Address Block TLV ....................................1110.2. TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV ..............................1111. ICV: Basic ....................................................1112. ICV: Hash Function and Cryptographic Function .................1212.1. General ICV TLV Structure ................................1212.1.1. Rationale .........................................1412.1.2. Parameters ........................................1512.2. Considerations for Calculating the ICV ...................1512.2.1. ICV Packet TLV ....................................1512.2.2. ICV Message TLV ...................................1612.2.3. ICV Address Block TLV .............................1612.3. Example of a Message Including an ICV ....................1713. IANA Considerations ...........................................1913.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines .....................1913.2. Packet TLV Types .........................................2013.3. Message TLV Types ........................................20Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 201413.4. Address Block TLV Types ..................................2013.5. ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions ...........................2113.6. TIMESTAMP Packet TLV Type Extensions .....................2113.7. ICV Message TLV Type Extensions ..........................2213.8. TIMESTAMP Message TLV Type Extensions ....................2313.9. ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions ....................2413.10. TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV Type Extensions .............2513.11. Hash Functions ..........................................2613.12. Cryptographic Functions .................................2714. Security Considerations .......................................2815. Acknowledgements ..............................................2816. References ....................................................2916.1. Normative References .....................................2916.2. Informative References ...................................301. Introduction This document specifies a syntactical representation of security- related information for use with [RFC5444] addresses, messages, and packets. It also specifies IANA registrations of TLV types and type extension registries for these TLV types. This specification does not represent a stand-alone protocol, but it is intended for use by MANET routing protocols or security extensions thereof. Specifically, this document, which revises, extends, and replaces [RFC6622], specifies: o Two kinds of TLV: one for carrying Integrity Check Values (ICVs) and one for timestamps in packets, messages, and Address Blocks as defined by [RFC5444]. o A generic framework for use of these TLVs, accounting for specific features of Packet, Message, and Address Block TLVs. o IANA registrations for TLVs, and registries for TLV type extensions, replacing those from [RFC6622]. This document specifies IANA registries for recording code points for ICV TLVs and TIMESTAMP TLVs, as well as timestamps, hash functions, and cryptographic functions. Moreover, in Section 12, this document defines the following: o A method for generating ICVs using a combination of a cryptographic function and a hash function and for including such ICVs in the value field of a TLV. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 20141.1. Differences from RFC 6622 This document obsoletes [RFC6622], replacing that document as the specification of two TLV types, TIMESTAMP and ICV, for packets, messages and Address Blocks. For the ICV type, this document specifies a new type extension, 2 (see Section 12), in addition to including the original type extensions (0 and 1) from [RFC6622]. The TLV value of an ICV TLV with type extension = 2 has the same internal structure as an ICV TLV with type extension = 1 but is calculated also over the source address of the IP datagram carrying the packet, message, or Address Block. The rationale for adding this type extension is that some MANET protocols, such as [RFC6130], use the IP source address of the IP datagram carrying the packet, message, or Address Block, e.g., to identify links with neighbor routers. If this address is not otherwise contained in the packet, message, or Address Block payload (which is permitted, e.g., in [RFC6130]), then the address is not protected against tampering. This document also incorporates a number of editorial improvements over [RFC6622]. In particular, it makes it clear that an ICV TLV may be used to carry a truncated ICV and that a single or multivalue TIMESTAMP or ICV Address Block TLV may cover more than one address. Moreover, to be consistent with the terminology in [RFC5444], the name of the TLVs specified in this document have changed from "Packet ICV TLV" to "ICV Packet TLV" and from "Packet TIMESTAMP TLV" to "TIMESTAMP Packet TLV" (and similar for Message and Address Block TLVs). A normative requirement in Section 9.2 has changed from SHOULD to MUST in the following sentence: If a message contains one or more TIMESTAMP TLVs and one or more ICV TLVs, then the TIMESTAMP TLVs (as well as any other Message TLVs) MUST be added to the message before the ICV TLVs.... 2. Terminology 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 [RFC2119]. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 This document uses the terminology and notation defined in [RFC5444]. In particular, the following TLV fields and notation from [RFC5444] are used in this specification: <msg-hop-limit> is the hop limit of a message, as specified in Section 5.2 of [RFC5444]. <msg-hop-count> is the hop count of a message, as specified in Section 5.2 of [RFC5444]. <length> is the length of the value field in a TLV in octets, as specified in Section 5.4.1 of [RFC5444]. single-length is the length of a single value in the value field in a TLV in octets, as specified in Section 5.4.1 of [RFC5444]. (It is equal to <length> except in a multivalue Address Block TLV.) In addition to using the regular expressions defined in Section 2.1.1 of [RFC5444], this document defines the following: + - One or more occurrences of the preceding element or group. 3. Applicability Statement MANET routing protocols using the format defined in [RFC5444] are accorded the ability to carry additional information in control messages and packets through the inclusion of TLVs. Information so included MAY be used by a MANET routing protocol, or by an extension of a MANET routing protocol, according to its specification. This document specifies how to include an ICV for a packet, a message, and addresses in an Address Block within a message, using such TLVs. This document also specifies how to treat an empty Packet TLV Block, and "mutable" fields, specifically the <msg-hop-count> and <msg-hop-limit> fields, if present in the Message Header when calculating ICVs, such that the resulting ICV can be correctly verified by any recipient. This document describes a generic framework for creating ICVs, and how to include these ICVs in TLVs. In Section 12, an example method for calculating such ICVs is given, using a cryptographic function and a hash function, for which two TLV type extensions are allocated. This document does not specify a protocol. Protocol specifications that make use of the framework, specified in this document, will reference this document in a normative way, and they may require the implementation of some or all of the algorithms described in this document. As this document does not specify a protocol itself, key Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 management and key exchange mechanisms are out of scope and may be specified in the protocol or protocol extension using this specification. 4. Security Architecture MANET routing protocol specifications may have a clause allowing a control message to be rejected as "badly formed" or "insecure" prior to the message being processed or forwarded. In particular, MANET routing protocols such as the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) [RFC6130] and the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 [RFC7181] recognize external reasons (such as failure to verify an ICV) for rejecting a message that would be considered "invalid for processing". This architecture is a result of the observation that with respect to security in MANETs, "one size rarely fits all" and that MANET routing protocol deployment domains have varying security requirements ranging from "unbreakable" to "virtually none". The virtue of this approach is that MANET routing protocol specifications (and implementations) can remain "generic", with extensions providing proper security mechanisms specific to a deployment domain. The MANET routing protocol "security architecture", in which this specification situates itself, can therefore be summarized as follows: o MANET routing protocol specifications, each with a clause allowing an extension to reject a message (prior to processing/forwarding) as "badly formed" or "insecure". o MANET routing protocol security extensions, each rejecting messages as "badly formed" or "insecure", as appropriate for a given security requirement specific to a deployment domain. o Code points and an exchange format for information, necessary for specification of such MANET routing protocol security extensions. This document addresses the last of the points above, by specifying a common exchange format for cryptographic ICVs and timestamps, making reservations from within the Packet TLV, Message TLV, and Address Block TLV registries of [RFC5444], to be used by (and shared among) MANET routing protocol security extensions. For the specific decomposition of an ICV using a cryptographic function and a hash function (specified in Section 12), this document specifies two IANA registries (see Section 13) for code points for hash functions and cryptographic functions. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 With respect to [RFC5444], this document is: o Intended to be used in the non-normative, but intended, mode of use described in Appendix B of [RFC5444]. o A specific example of the Security Considerations section of [RFC5444] (the authentication part). 5. Overview and Functioning This document specifies a syntactical representation of security- related information for use with [RFC5444] addresses, messages, and packets, and also specifies IANA registrations (see Section 13) of TLV types and type extension registries for these TLV types. Moreover, this document provides guidelines for how MANET routing protocols, and MANET routing protocol extensions using this specification, should treat ICV and Timestamp TLVs, and mutable fields in messages. This specification does not represent a stand- alone protocol. MANET routing protocols, and MANET routing protocol extensions using this specification, MUST provide instructions as to how to handle packets, messages, and addresses with security information, associated as specified in this document. This document specifies TLV type assignments (see Section 13) from the registries defined for Packet, Message, and Address Block TLVs in [RFC5444]. When a TLV type is assigned from one of these registries, a registry for type extensions for that TLV type is created by IANA. This document specifies these type extension registries, in order to specify internal structure (and accompanying processing) of the <value> field of a TLV. For example, and as specified in this document, an ICV TLV with type extension = 0 specifies that the <value> field has no predefined internal structure, but is simply a sequence of octets. An ICV TLV with type extension = 1 specifies that the <value> field has a predefined internal structure and defines its interpretation. An ICV TLV with type extension = 2 (added in this document) is the same as an ICV TLV with type extension = 1, except that the integrity protection also covers the source address of the IP datagram carrying the packet, message, or Address Block. Specifically, with type extension = 1 or type extension = 2, the <value> field contains the result of combining a cryptographic function and a hash function, calculated over the contents of the packet, message, or Address Block. The <value> field contains sub- fields indicating which hash function and cryptographic function have been used, as specified in Section 12. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 Other documents can request assignments for other type extensions; if they do so, they MUST specify their internal structure (if any) and interpretation. 6. General ICV TLV Structure The value of the ICV TLV is: <value> := <ICV-value>+ where: <ICV-value> is a field, of length <length> octets (except in a multivalue Address Block TLV, where each <ICV-value> is of length single-length octets) that contains the information to be interpreted by the ICV verification process, as specified by the type extension. Note that this does not specify how to calculate the <ICV-value> nor the internal structure thereof, if any; such information MUST be specified by the type extension for the ICV TLV type; see Section 13. This document specifies three such type extensions: one for ICVs without predefined structures and two for ICVs constructed combining a cryptographic function and a hash function. 7. General Timestamp TLV Structure The value of the Timestamp TLV is: <value> := <time-value>+ where: <time-value> is a field, of length <length> octets (except in a multivalue Address Block TLV, where each <time-value> is of length single-length octets) that contains the timestamp. Note that this does not specify how to calculate the <time-value> nor the internal structure thereof, if any; such information MUST be specified by the type extension for the TIMESTAMP TLV type; see Section 13. A timestamp is essentially "freshness information". As such, its setting and interpretation are to be determined by the MANET routing protocol, or MANET routing protocol extension, that uses the timestamp and can, for example, correspond to a POSIX timestamp, GPS timestamp, or a simple sequence number. Note that ensuring time synchronization in a MANET may be difficult because of the Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 decentralized architecture as well as highly dynamic topology due to mobility or other factors. It is out of scope for this document to specify a time synchronization mechanism. 8. Packet TLVs Two Packet TLVs are defined: one for including the cryptographic ICV of a packet and one for including the timestamp indicating the time at which the cryptographic ICV was calculated. 8.1. ICV Packet TLV An ICV Packet TLV is an example of an ICV TLV as described in Section 6. When determining the <ICV-value> for a packet, and adding an ICV Packet TLV to a packet, the following considerations MUST be applied: o Because packets as defined in [RFC5444] are never forwarded by routers, no special considerations are required regarding mutable fields (i.e., <msg-hop-count> and <msg-hop-limit>), if present within any messages in the packet, when calculating the ICV. o Any ICV Packet TLVs already present in the Packet TLV Block MUST be removed before calculating the ICV, and the Packet TLV Block size MUST be recalculated accordingly. o If the Packet TLV Block now contains no Packet TLVs, the Packet TLV Block MUST be removed, and the phastlv bit in the <pkt-flags> field in the Packet Header MUST be cleared ('0'). o Any removed ICV Packet TLVs MUST be restored after having calculated the ICV, and the Packet TLV Block size MUST be recalculated accordingly. o When any removed ICV Packet TLVs, and the newly calculated ICV Packet TLV, are added to the packet, if there is no Packet TLV Block, then one MUST be added, including setting ('1') the phastlv bit in the <pkt-flags> field in the Packet Header. The rationale for removing any ICV Packet TLVs already present prior to calculating the ICV is that several ICV TLVs may be added to the same packet, e.g., using different ICV cryptographic and/or hash functions. The rationale for removing an empty Packet TLV Block is because the receiver of the packet cannot tell the difference between what was an absent Packet TLV Block, and what was an empty Packet TLV Block when removing and verifying the ICV Packet TLV if no other Packet TLVs are present. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 20148.2. TIMESTAMP Packet TLV A TIMESTAMP Packet TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as described in Section 7. If a packet contains one or more TIMESTAMP TLVs and one or more ICV TLVs, then the TIMESTAMP TLVs (as well as any other Packet TLVs) MUST be added to the packet before the ICV TLVs, in order to include the timestamps and other TLVs in the calculation of the ICVs. 9. Message TLVs Two Message TLVs are defined: one for including the cryptographic ICV of a message and one for including the timestamp indicating the time at which the cryptographic ICV was calculated. 9.1. ICV Message TLV An ICV Message TLV is an example of an ICV TLV as described in Section 6. When determining the <ICV-value> for a message, the following considerations MUST be applied: o The fields <msg-hop-limit> and <msg-hop-count>, if present in the Message Header, MUST both be assumed to have the value 0 (zero) when calculating the ICV. o Any ICV Message TLVs already present in the Message TLV Block MUST be removed before calculating the ICV, and the message size as well as the Message TLV Block size MUST be recalculated accordingly. Also, all relevant TLVs other than ICV TLVs MUST be added prior to ICV value calculation. o Any removed ICV Message TLVs MUST be restored after having calculated the ICV, and the message size as well as the Message TLV Block size MUST be recalculated accordingly. The rationale for removing any ICV Message TLVs already present prior to calculating the ICV is that several ICV TLVs may be added to the same message, e.g., using different ICV cryptographic and/or hash functions. 9.2. TIMESTAMP Message TLV A TIMESTAMP Message TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as described in Section 7. If a message contains one or more TIMESTAMP TLVs and one or more ICV TLVs, then the TIMESTAMP TLVs (as well as any other Message TLVs) MUST be added to the message before the ICV TLVs, in order to include the timestamps and other Message TLVs in the calculation of the ICV. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 201410. Address Block TLVs Two Address Block TLVs are defined: one for associating a cryptographic ICV to one or more addresses and their associated information and one for including the timestamp indicating the time at which the cryptographic ICV was calculated. 10.1. ICV Address Block TLV An ICV Address Block TLV is an example of an ICV TLV as described in Section 6. The ICV is calculated over one or more addresses, concatenated with any other values -- for example, other Address Block TLV <value> fields -- associated with those addresses. A MANET routing protocol, or MANET routing protocol extension, using ICV Address Block TLVs MUST specify how to include any such concatenated attributes of the addresses in the calculation and verification processes for the ICV. When determining an <ICV-value> for one or more addresses, the following consideration MUST be applied: o If other TLV values are concatenated with the addresses for calculating the ICV, the corresponding TLVs MUST NOT be ICV Address Block TLVs already associated with any of the addresses. The rationale for not concatenating the addresses with any ICV TLV values already associated with the addresses when calculating the ICV is that several ICVs may be added to the same address or addresses, e.g., using different ICV cryptographic and/or hash functions, and the order of addition is not known to the recipient. 10.2. TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV A TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV is an example of a Timestamp TLV as described in Section 7. If one or more TIMESTAMP TLVs and one or more ICV TLVs are associated with an address, the relevant TIMESTAMP TLV <time-value>(s) MUST be included before calculating the value of the ICV to be contained in the ICV TLV value (i.e., concatenated with the associated addresses and any other values as described in Section 10.1). 11. ICV: Basic The basic ICV, represented by way of an ICV TLV with type extension = 0, has as TLV value a simple bit-field without specified structure (i.e, without explicitly included hash function, crypto function, key ID or other parameters). Moreover, it is not specified how to calculate the <ICV-value>. It is assumed that the mechanism specifying how ICVs are calculated and verified, as well as which parameters (if any) need to be exchanged prior to using the TLV with Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 type extension = 0, is established outside of this specification, e.g., by administrative configuration or external out-of-band signaling. The <ICV-value>, when using type extension = 0, is: <ICV-value> := <ICV-data> where: <ICV-data> is a field, of length <length> octets (or single-length octets in a multivalue Address Block TLV) that contains the cryptographic ICV. 12. ICV: Hash Function and Cryptographic Function One common way of calculating an ICV is combining a cryptographic function and a hash function applied to the content. This decomposition is specified in this section, using either type extension = 1 or type extension = 2, in the ICV TLVs. 12.1. General ICV TLV Structure The following data structure allows representation of a cryptographic ICV, including specification of the appropriate hash function and cryptographic function used for calculating the ICV: <ICV-value> := <hash-function> <cryptographic-function> <key-id-length> <key-id>? <ICV-data> where: <hash-function> is a one-octet unsigned integer field specifying the hash function. <cryptographic-function> is a one-octet unsigned integer field specifying the cryptographic function. <key-id-length> is a one-octet unsigned integer field specifying the length of the <key-id> field as a number of octets. The value zero (0x00) is reserved for using a single pre-installed, shared key. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 <key-id> is a field specifying the key identifier of the key that was used to calculate the ICV of the message, which allows unique identification of different keys with the same originator. It is the responsibility of each key originator to make sure that actively used keys that it issues have distinct key identifiers. If <key-id-length> equals zero (0x00), the <key-id> field is not contained in the TLV, and a single pre-installed, shared key is used. <ICV-data> is a field with length <length> - 3 - <key-id-length> octets (except in a multivalue Address Block TLV, in which it is single-length - 3 - <key-id-length> octets) and that contains the cryptographic ICV. The version of this TLV, specified in this section, assumes that, unless otherwise specified, calculating the ICV can be decomposed into: ICV-value = cryptographic-function(hash-function(content)) In some cases, a different combination of cryptographic function and hash function may be specified. This is the case for the Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) function, which is specified as defined in Section 13.12, using the hash function twice. Using cryptographic-function "none" is provided for symmetry and possible future use, but it SHOULD NOT be used with any currently specified hash function. The difference between the two type extensions is that in addition to the information covered by the ICV using type extension = 1 (which is detailed in the following sections), the ICV using type extension = 2 also MUST cover the source address of the IP datagram carrying the corresponding packet, message, or Address Block. The <ICV-data> field MAY be truncated after being calculated, this is indicated by its length, calculated as described above. The truncation MUST be as specified for the relevant cryptographic function (and, if appropriate, hash function). o When using truncation, the guidelines for minimal ICV length set out in [NIST-SP-800-107] MUST be followed. In particular the <ICV-data> field when using HMAC MUST NOT be truncated below 4 octets. o The truncated ICV length MUST be so large that the probability of success of a dictionary attack is acceptably small. Such a success will arise if the ICV of a spoofed packet or message is verified. The probability of success is a function of (a) how Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 many routers can be attacked, (b) how fast a router can receive packets or messages and attempt to verify their ICV, (c) the truncated ICV length, and (d) the lifetime of the network. If the truncated ICV length in bits is L, then 2^L packets or messages are required to attack with certainty of success. With a verification rate of R packets/messages per second, applied to N routers over an available time of T, the probability of success is given by NRT/2^L. If this is not to exceed a probability of P, then L > log2(NRT/P). For example, if N is 32, R is 1000, T is 86400 (I day) and P is 10^-6, then L must be at least 52 bits. Some of the cryptographic and hash functions listed in Section 13 require the length of the content to be digitally signed to be a multiple of a certain number of octets. As a consequence, they specify padding mechanisms, e.g., AES-CMAC [RFC4493] specifies a padding mechanism for message lengths that are not equal to a multiple of 16 octets. Implementations of the framework in this document MUST support appropriate padding mechanisms, as specified in the cryptographic or hash function specifications. The hash function and the cryptographic function correspond to the entries in two IANA registries, which are described in Section 13. 12.1.1. Rationale The rationale for separating the hash function and the cryptographic function into two octets instead of having all combinations in a single octet -- possibly as a TLV type extension -- is that adding further hash functions or cryptographic functions in the future may lead to a non-contiguous number space as well as a smaller overall space. The rationale for not including a field that lists parameters of the cryptographic ICV in the TLV is that, before being able to validate a cryptographic ICV, routers have to exchange or acquire keys. Any additional parameters can be provided together with the keys in that bootstrap process. Therefore, it is not necessary, and would even entail an extra overhead, to transmit the parameters within every message. The rationale for the addition of type extension = 2 is that the source address is used in some cases, such as when processing HELLO messages in [RFC6130]. This is applicable only to packets (which only ever travel one hop) and messages (and their Address Blocks) that only travel one hop. It is not applicable to messages that may be forwarded more than one hop, such as Topology Control (TC) messages in [RFC7181]. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 201412.1.2. Parameters As described in Section 12.1.1, parameters are selected administratively on each router before using this framework in a MANET, in addition to exchanging the keys between MANET routers. This was a design decision in [RFC6622] and is kept in this specification for reasons of backwards compatibility. The following parameters are RECOMMENDED and SHOULD be those chosen administratively, unless there are good reasons otherwise: o For crypto function RSA: * Signature scheme: RSASSA-PSS with the default parameters: rSASSA-PSS-Default-Identifier (as defined in [RFC3447]) * Common exponent: 65537 o For crypto function ECDSA: * Curve name: exchanged as part of key distribution * Hash function: The hash function MUST be pinned to the curve, i.e., use SHA-256 for the p-256 curve, SHA-384 for p-384, etc. o For crypto function AES: * Authentication algorithm: Cipher-Based Message Authentication Code (CMAC) (as defined in [RFC4493]) * Hash function: None 12.2. Considerations for Calculating the ICV The considerations listed in the following subsections MUST be applied when calculating the ICV for Packet, Message, and Address Block TLVs, respectively. 12.2.1. ICV Packet TLV When determining the <ICV-data> for a packet, with type extension = 1: o The ICV is calculated over the fields <hash-function>, <cryptographic-function>, <key-id-length>, and -- if present -- <key-id> (in that order), followed by the entire packet, including Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 the Packet Header, including all Packet TLVs (other than ICV Packet TLVs), and all included messages. The considerations of Section 8.1 MUST be applied. When determining the <ICV-data> for a packet, with type extension = 2: o The same procedure as for type extension = 1 is used, except that the data used consists of a representation of the source address of the IP datagram carrying the packet, followed by the remaining data (as for type extension = 1). The representation of the source address consists of a single octet containing the address length, in octets, followed by that many octets containing the address in network byte order. 12.2.2. ICV Message TLV When determining the <ICV-data> for a message, with type extension = 1: o The ICV is calculated over the fields <hash-function>, <cryptographic-function>, <key-id-length>, and -- if present -- <key-id> (in that order), followed by the entire message. The considerations in Section 9.1 MUST be applied. When determining the <ICV-data> for a message, with type extension = 2: o The same procedure as for type extension = 1 is used, except that the data used consists of a representation of the source address of the IP datagram carrying the message, followed by the remaining data (as for type extension = 1). The representation of the source address consists of a single octet containing the address length, in octets, followed by that many octets containing the address in network byte order. 12.2.3. ICV Address Block TLV When determining the <ICV-data> for one or more addresses, with type extension = 1: o The ICV is calculated over the fields <hash-function>, <cryptographic-function>, <key-id-length>, and -- if present -- <key-id> (in that order), followed by the addresses, and followed by any other values -- for example, other Address Block TLV <value>s that are associated with those addresses. A MANET routing protocol, or MANET routing protocol extension, using ICV Address Block TLVs MUST specify how to include any such Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 concatenated attribute of the addresses in the verification process of the ICV. The consideration in Section 10.1 MUST be applied. When determining the <ICV-data> for one or more addresses, with type extension = 2: o The same procedure as for type extension = 1 is used, except that the data used consists of a representation of the source address of the IP datagram carrying the Address Block, followed by the remaining data (as for type extension = 1). The representation of the source address consists of a single octet containing the address length, in octets, followed by that many octets containing the address in network byte order. 12.3. Example of a Message Including an ICV The sample message depicted in Figure 1 is derived from Appendix E of [RFC5444]. The message contains an ICV Message TLV, with the value representing an ICV that is 16 octets long and a key identifier that is 4 octets long. The type extension of the Message TLV is 1, for the specific decomposition of an ICV using a cryptographic function and a hash function, as specified in Section 12. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message Type | MF=15 | MAL=3 | Message Length = 82 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message Originator Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Hop Limit | Hop Count | Message Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message TLV Block Length = 36 | TLV Type | MTLVF = 16 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value Len = 6 | Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value (cont) |TLV Type = ICV | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MTLVF = 144 | MTLVExt = 1 |Value Len = 23 | Hash Func | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Crypto Func | KeyID Len = 4 | Key Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Key Identifier (cont) | ICV Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ICV Value (cont) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ICV Value (cont) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ICV Value (cont) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ICV Value (cont) | Num Addr = 2 | ABF = 48 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Tail Len = 2 | Mid 0 | Mid 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mid 1 (cont) | Prefix Length | ABTLV Block Length = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Num Addr = 3 | ABF = 128 | Head Len = 2 | Head | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Head (cont) | Mid 0 | Mid 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mid 1 (cont) | Mid 2 |ABTLV Block ...| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |... Length = 9 | TLV Type | ABTLVF = 16 | Value Len = 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value | TLV Type | ABTLVF = 32 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Index Start | Index Stop | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Example Message with ICV Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 MF: Message Flags, see Section 5.2 of [RFC5444]. MAL: Message Address Length, see Section 5.2 of [RFC5444]. MTLVF: Message TLV Flags, see Section 5.4.1 of [RFC5444]. MTLVExt: Message TLV Type Extension, see Section 5.4.1 of [RFC5444]. AF: Address Block Flags, see Section 5.3 of [RFC5444]. ABTLV: Address Block TLV, see Section 5.4 of [RFC5444]. ABTLVF: Address Block TLV Flags, see Section 5.4.1 of [RFC5444]. Example Message with ICV - Legend 13. IANA Considerations The IANA registrations for TLV Types and the TLV type extension registries given in this specification replace the identical registrations and registries from [RFC6622]. This specification defines the following TLV Types, replacing the original specifications in [RFC6622]: o Two Packet TLV Types, which have been allocated from the 0-223 range of the "Packet TLV Types" repository of [RFC5444], as specified in Table 1. o Two Message TLV Types, which have been allocated from the 0-127 range of the "Message TLV Types" repository of [RFC5444], as specified in Table 2. o Two Address Block TLV Types, which have been allocated from the 0-127 range of the "Address Block TLV Types" repository of [RFC5444], as specified in Table 3. This specification updates the following registries that were created in [RFC6622]: o A type extension registry for each of these TLV types with values as listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The following terms are used as defined in [BCP26]: "Namespace", "Registration", and "Designated Expert". The following policy is used as defined in [BCP26]: "Expert Review". 13.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines For TLV type extensions registries where an Expert Review is required, the Designated Expert SHOULD take the same general recommendations into consideration as those specified by [RFC5444]. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 For both TIMESTAMP and ICV TLVs, functionally similar extensions for Packet, Message, and Address Block TLVs SHOULD be numbered identically. 13.2. Packet TLV Types IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "Packet TLV Types" namespace of [RFC5444] for the Packet TLVs specified in Table 1. IANA has modified this allocation as indicated. +------+-------------+-----------+ | Type | Description | Reference | +------+-------------+-----------+ | 5 | ICV | RFC 7182 | | 6 | TIMESTAMP | RFC 7182 | +------+-------------+-----------+ Table 1: Packet TLV Types 13.3. Message TLV Types IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "Message TLV Types" namespace of [RFC5444] for the Message TLVs specified in Table 2. IANA has modified this allocation as indicated. +------+-------------+-----------+ | Type | Description | Reference | +------+-------------+-----------+ | 5 | ICV | RFC 7182 | | 6 | TIMESTAMP | RFC 7182 | +------+-------------+-----------+ Table 2: Message TLV Types 13.4. Address Block TLV Types IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "Address Block TLV Types" namespace of [RFC5444] for the Packet TLVs specified in Table 3. IANA has modified this allocation as indicated. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 +------+-------------+-----------+ | Type | Description | Reference | +------+-------------+-----------+ | 5 | ICV | RFC 7182 | | 6 | TIMESTAMP | RFC 7182 | +------+-------------+-----------+ Table 3: Address Block TLV Types 13.5. ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Packet TLVs specified in Table 4. IANA has modified this allocation (including defining type extension = 2) as indicated. +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Type | Description | Reference | | Extension | | | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | 0 | ICV of a packet | RFC 7182 | | 1 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a | RFC 7182 | | | hash function, as specified in Section 12 | | | | of this document | | | 2 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a | RFC 7182 | | | hash function, and including the IP | | | | datagram source address, as specified in | | | | Section 12 of this document | | | 3-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | | | 252-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | RFC 7182 | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ Table 4: ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions More than one ICV Packet TLV with the same type extension MAY be included in a packet if these represent different ICV calculations (e.g., with type extension 1 or 2 and different cryptographic function and/or hash function or with a different key identifier). ICV Packet TLVs that carry what is declared to be the same information MUST NOT be included in the same packet. 13.6. TIMESTAMP Packet TLV Type Extensions IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "TIMESTAMP Packet TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Packet TLVs specified in Table 5. IANA has modified this allocation as indicated. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Type | Description | Reference | | Extension | | | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary length, | RFC 7182 | | | given by the TLV Length field. The MANET | | | | routing protocol has to define how to | | | | interpret this timestamp | | | 1 | Unsigned 32-bit timestamp, as specified | RFC 7182 | | | in [IEEE1003.1-2008] | | | 2 | NTP timestamp format, as specified in | RFC 7182 | | | [RFC5905] | | | 3 | Signed timestamp of arbitrary length with | RFC 7182 | | | no constraints such as monotonicity. In | | | | particular, it may represent any random | | | | value | | | 4-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | | | 252-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | RFC 7182 | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ Table 5: TIMESTAMP Packet TLV Type Extensions More than one TIMESTAMP Packet TLV with the same type extension MUST NOT be included in a packet. 13.7. ICV Message TLV Type Extensions IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "ICV Message TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Message TLVs specified in Table 6. IANA has modified this allocation (including defining type extension = 2) as indicated. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Type | Description | Reference | | Extension | | | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | 0 | ICV of a message | RFC 7182 | | 1 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a | RFC 7182 | | | hash function, as specified in Section 12 | | | | of this document | | | 2 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a | RFC 7182 | | | hash function, and including the IP | | | | datagram source address, as specified in | | | | Section 12 of this document | | | 3-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | | | 252-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | RFC 7182 | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ Table 6: ICV Message TLV Type Extensions More than one ICV Message TLV with the same type extension MAY be included in a message if these represent different ICV calculations (e.g., with type extension 1 or 2 and different cryptographic function and/or hash function or with a different key identifier). ICV Message TLVs that carry what is declared to be the same information MUST NOT be included in the same message. 13.8. TIMESTAMP Message TLV Type Extensions IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "TIMESTAMP Message TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Message TLVs specified in Table 7. IANA has modified this allocation as indicated. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Type | Description | Reference | | Extension | | | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary length, | RFC 7182 | | | given by the TLV Length field. The MANET | | | | routing protocol has to define how to | | | | interpret this timestamp | | | 1 | Unsigned 32-bit timestamp, as specified | RFC 7182 | | | in POSIX [IEEE1003.1-2008] | | | 2 | NTP timestamp format, as specified in | RFC 7182 | | | [RFC5905] | | | 3 | Signed timestamp of arbitrary length with | RFC 7182 | | | no constraints such as monotonicity. In | | | | particular, it may represent any random | | | | value | | | 4-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | | | 252-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | RFC 7182 | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ Table 7: TIMESTAMP Message TLV Type Extensions More than one TIMESTAMP Message TLV with the same type extension MUST NOT be included in a message. 13.9. ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Address Block TLVs specified in Table 8. IANA has modified this allocation (including defining type extension = 2) as indicated. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Type | Description | Reference | | Extension | | | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | 0 | ICV of an object (e.g., an address) | RFC 7182 | | 1 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a | RFC 7182 | | | hash function, as specified in Section 12 | | | | of this document | | | 2 | ICV, using a cryptographic function and a | RFC 7182 | | | hash function, and including the IP | | | | datagram source address, as specified in | | | | Section 12 of this document | | | 3-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | | | 252-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | RFC 7182 | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ Table 8: ICV Address Block TLV Type Extensions More than one ICV Address Block TLV with the same type extension MAY be associated with an address if these represent different ICV calculations (e.g., with type extension = 1 or type extension = 2 and different cryptographic function and/or hash function or with a different key identifier). ICV Address Block TLVs that carry what is declared to be the same information MUST NOT be associated with the same address. 13.10. TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV Type Extensions IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], made allocations from the "TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV Type Extensions" namespace of [RFC6622] for the Address Block TLVs specified in Table 9. IANA has modified this allocation as indicated. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Type | Description | Reference | | Extension | | | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ | 0 | Unsigned timestamp of arbitrary length, | RFC 7182 | | | given by the TLV Length field. The MANET | | | | routing protocol has to define how to | | | | interpret this timestamp | | | 1 | Unsigned 32-bit timestamp, as specified | RFC 7182 | | | in POSIX [IEEE1003.1-2008] | | | 2 | NTP timestamp format, as specified in | RFC 7182 | | | [RFC5905] | | | 3 | Signed timestamp of arbitrary length with | RFC 7182 | | | no constraints such as monotonicity. In | | | | particular, it may represent any random | | | | value | | | 4-251 | Unassigned; Expert Review | | | 252-255 | Reserved for Experimental Use | RFC 7182 | +-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+ Table 9: TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV Type Extensions More than one TIMESTAMP Address Block TLV with the same type extension MUST NOT be associated with any address. 13.11. Hash Functions IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], created a registry for hash functions that can be used when creating an ICV, as specified in Section 12 of this document. The initial assignments and allocation policies are specified in Table 10. IANA has modified this allocation as indicated. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 +---------+-----------+---------------------------------+-----------+ | Value | Algorithm | Description | Reference | +---------+-----------+---------------------------------+-----------+ | 0 | none | The "identity function": The | RFC 7182 | | | | hash value of an object is the | | | | | object itself | | | 1 | SHA-1 | [NIST-FIPS-180-4] | RFC 7182 | | 2 | SHA-224 | [NIST-FIPS-180-4] | RFC 7182 | | 3 | SHA-256 | [NIST-FIPS-180-4] | RFC 7182 | | 4 | SHA-384 | [NIST-FIPS-180-4] | RFC 7182 | | 5 | SHA-512 | [NIST-FIPS-180-4] | RFC 7182 | | 6-251 | | Unassigned; Expert Review | | | 252-255 | | Reserved for Experimental Use | RFC 7182 | +---------+-----------+---------------------------------+-----------+ Table 10: Hash Function Registry 13.12. Cryptographic Functions IANA has, in accordance with [RFC6622], created a registry for the cryptographic functions, as specified in Section 12 of this document. Initial assignments and allocation policies are specified in Table 11. IANA has modified this allocation as indicated. +---------+-----------+---------------------------------+-----------+ | Value | Algorithm | Description | Reference | +---------+-----------+---------------------------------+-----------+ | 0 | none | The "identity function": The | RFC 7182 | | | | value of an encrypted hash is | | | | | the hash itself | | | 1 | RSA | [RFC3447] | RFC 7182 | | 2 | DSA | [NIST-FIPS-186-4] | RFC 7182 | | 3 | HMAC | [RFC2104] | RFC 7182 | | 4 | 3DES | [NIST-SP-800-67] | RFC 7182 | | 5 | AES | [NIST-FIPS-197] | RFC 7182 | | 6 | ECDSA | [RFC6090] | RFC 7182 | | 7-251 | | Unassigned; Expert Review | | | 252-255 | | Reserved for Experimental Use | RFC 7182 | +---------+-----------+---------------------------------+-----------+ Table 11: Cryptographic Function Registry Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 201414. Security Considerations This document does not specify a protocol. It provides a syntactical component for cryptographic ICVs of messages and packets, as defined in [RFC5444]. It can be used to address security issues of a MANET routing protocol or MANET routing protocol extension. As such, it has the same security considerations as [RFC5444]. In addition, a MANET routing protocol or MANET routing protocol extension that uses this specification MUST specify how to use the framework and the TLVs presented in this document. In addition, the protection that the MANET routing protocol or MANET routing protocol extensions attain by using this framework MUST be described. As an example, a MANET routing protocol that uses this component to reject "badly formed" or "insecure" messages if a control message does not contain a valid ICV SHOULD indicate the security assumption that if the ICV is valid, the message is considered valid. It also SHOULD indicate the security issues that are counteracted by this measure (e.g., link or identity spoofing) as well as the issues that are not counteracted (e.g., compromised keys). 15. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Bo Berry (Cisco), Alan Cullen (BAE Systems), Justin Dean (NRL), Paul Lambert (Marvell), Jerome Milan (Ecole Polytechnique), and Henning Rogge (FGAN) for their constructive comments on [RFC6622]. The authors also appreciate the detailed reviews of [RFC6622] from the Area Directors, in particular Stewart Bryant (Cisco), Stephen Farrell (Trinity College Dublin), and Robert Sparks (Tekelec), as well as Donald Eastlake (Huawei) from the Security Directorate. The authors would like to thank Justin Dean (NRL) and Henning Rogge (FGAN) for their constructive comments on this specification. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 201416. References16.1. Normative References [BCP26] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [IEEE1003.1-2008] IEEE, "Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX)", IEEE 1003.1-2008, Base Specifications, Issue 7, December 2008. [NIST-FIPS-180-4] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure Hash Standard (SHS)", FIPS 180-4, March 2012. [NIST-FIPS-186-4] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", FIPS 186-4, July 2013. [NIST-FIPS-197] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Specification for the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)", FIPS 197, November 2001. [NIST-SP-800-107] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Recommendation for Applications Using Approved Hash Algorithms", SP 800-107, Revision 1, August 2012. [NIST-SP-800-67] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Recommendation for the Triple Data Encryption Algorithm (TDEA) Block Cipher", Special Publication 800-67, Revision 1, January 2012. [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3447] Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1", RFC 3447, February 2003. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 [RFC4493] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., Lee, J., and T. Iwata, "The AES-CMAC Algorithm", RFC 4493, June 2006. [RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih, "Generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444, February 2009. [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010. [RFC6090] McGrew, D., Igoe, K., and M. Salter, "Fundamental Elliptic Curve Cryptography Algorithms", RFC 6090, February 2011. 16.2. Informative References [RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 6130, April 2011. [RFC6622] Herberg, U. and T. Clausen, "Integrity Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 6622, May 2012. [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2", RFC7181, April 2014. Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 7182 ICV and Timestamp TLVs for MANETs April 2014 Authors' Addresses Ulrich Herberg Fujitsu Laboratories of America 1240 E. Arques Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94085 USA EMail: ulrich@herberg.name URI: http://www.herberg.name/ Thomas Heide Clausen LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 91128 Palaiseau Cedex France Phone: +33 6 6058 9349 EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org URI: http://www.thomasclausen.org/ Christopher Dearlove BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road Great Baddow, Chelmsford United Kingdom Phone: +44 1245 242194 EMail: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com URI: http://www.baesystems.com/ Herberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/

Have mentioned some examples from SAP as well in to one Document.

PRODUCT ALLOCATION

In SPRO

  1. Maintain Field Catalog

Note: Field Catalog contains the field that can be used for Rules based Availability check and Product allocations

Example

Fields from the field catalog and values from the sales order

Procedure:

  1. You maintain a field catalog in Customizing for the Advanced Planning and Optimization by choosing Global ATP – Product Allocations –
    Maintain Field Catalog.
  2. Choose new entries.
  3. Generate the selection list using the input help (F4) and choose the fields that you want to use as parameters by double-clicking.

At runtime, these fields are filled with data from the OLTP system
(for example, with data from the sales order). You can also enter the data
manually, if you want to carry out a simulation in APO.

The following fields are exceptions:

  • MATNR
  • WERKS
  • RULE_MATNR
  • RULE_WERKS
  • LOCFR
  • LOCTO

They are, in part, dynamically filled at runtime (see SAP Note 655833).

4. Choose Save – You created a field catalog.

Including Additional Fields in the Field Catalog

Use

You want to use the customer-specific fields that are not contained
in the field catalog. To include customer-specific fields in the field catalog,
proceed as follows:

· Create a data element (data type) to receive unique text
information for the customer-specific field in the field catalog.

· Add the customer-specific field to the structure /SAPAPO/KOMGOZ

· Add the customer-specific field to the field catalog.

· On the R/3 side, copy the source code to the Include.

Procedure

1. From the SAP APO main screen, choose Tools ® ABAP/4 Workbench ® Development ® Dictionary.

2. Select the data type in the initial screen, enter the name of the customer-specific data element, and choose Enter. Use the namespace “Z” to designate  that you are using a customer-specific data element. A dialog box appears when the data element has been selected.

3. Choose Continue – A message indicating that the object is in the customer namespace appears. Continue creating the data element.

4. Enter a short text in the Short description field and enter “CHAR40“in the Domains field. Maintain the text information on the field name tab. This text information is used to display the fields in the field catalog that refer to this data element (Z_WERK, for example).

5. Save the data element.

6. Activate the data element.

7. Return to the initial screen of the ABAP Dictionary, select Structure, enter /SAPAPO/KOMGOZ, and choose Change.

8. Specify the name for the component and the data element for the component type. Save and activate the structure.

9. In Customizing for Advanced Planning and Optimization choose Global ATP – Product Allocations – Maintain Field Catalog – New Entries.

10. Using the input help (F4), choose the customer-specific field and then save.

To make the corresponding changes in the SAP R/3 system, read Note 174969.

2. Maintain Product allocation object

Transaction: SPRO

You assign the product allocation object to a product allocation procedure in the product allocations control. This assignment is a prerequisite for product allocations.

Click on ‘New Entries’ enter the Product allocation object name and description and save.

3. Maintain Product allocation Group

Click on New Entries.


Enter the Product Allocation group name and other details

Double click on “Characteristics “on the left Dialog Structure.

Enter the characteristics you want to use for Product allocation and save.

Note: The Characteristic- KONOB (Product allocation object) is present by default.

Note: The product allocation object (KONOB) must always be the first characteristic.

Double click on the “Consumption” period on the left Dialog Structure. Click on New Entries and     enter the Prod allocation group name along with other details for consumption, such as backward and forward consumption periods etc. and save

Structure

  1. Communication structure

The communication structure determines the
hierarchy level of the sales order (header, item or schedule line), from which
the checking date is taken for product allocations. Only the schedule line
level is currently supported

   b.  Check date

The check date is the date on which the
product allocations check is carried out. Possible check dates include the product availability
date, the goods issue date and the delivery date. The check date is used
to select periods with the product allocation quantities. The check date is the
start of the consumption period. The consumption period situation is determined
anew for each product allocations step of the product allocations procedure and
for the schedule line of the sales order.

  c. Time buckets profile

Indicator that specifies into which periods the key figures (quantities, product allocation quantities or capacities) is copied (for example, daily, weekly, monthly, posting periods).

  d. Characteristics

The product allocation is chosen by a characteristics combination. The values of the characteristics combination are copied from the sales order to the availability check. If the characteristics combination does not exist in the characteristics directory, the system searches for a collective product allocation using the masking indicator. The structure /SAPAPO/KOMGO contains the largest number of allowed characteristics that can be used for the rules-based availability check and for product allocations. The field catalog includes the characteristics used.

The majority of characteristic values are copied from the calling system. Via a User exit in the calling system, special characteristics must be determined from the sales order and the master data and added to the list. Characteristic values from customer-specific characteristics must be supplemented by a user exit.

e. Characteristics sequence

The item determines the characteristics sequence in the product allocation group. The sequence is used for displaying characteristics and for searching for collective product allocations.

Characteristics are displayed by item in ascending order. Characteristics without items are displayed at the end inalphabetical order. When searching for collective product allocations, the system fills the characteristics by item in the opposite order using the masking indicator.

Characteristics without items are not taken into account by the system when searching for collective product allocations.
The product allocations object must be the first characteristic in the product allocation group. The product allocations object is not taken into account by
the system when searching for collective product allocations.

f. Consumption periods

Consumption periods consist of the number of past (backward consumption period) and future (forward consumption period)
periods:

  • Backward consumption period

The numbers of periods before the product
allocations check date from the sales order that can be used to calculate the
current product allocation quantity. Unused product allocation quantities in
these periods are cumulated before checking product allocations for the current
period.

  • Forward consumption period

The numbers of periods after the product
allocations check date from the sales order that can be used for the current
consumption period. The schedule lines, together with the confirmed quantities,
are postponed by product allocations at the latest until the specified period.

The period type (day, week, month and
posting period) is defined in the settings for the product allocation group. If
you have set the without past periods indicator, product allocations from past
periods (before today) are not used – even if they lie in the consumption
period.

You can use the consumption periods as follows

The check date and consumption period are
determined per product allocation group. You can use the product allocation
group in different product allocations procedures. The product allocation group
always has the same consumption settings.

  g. Characteristics during Product allocation while using RBA:

If product allocation should be carried out for the product substitution or in location determination within a rules-based availability check, then you
should have included the characteristics from the enhanced field catalog (via product allocations: search help field catalog enhancement) in the product
allocation group.

Example

If product allocation should be carried out in location determination,
the field RULE_WERKSshould be used
instead of WERKS in the product allocation group. In the case of product
allocation for product
substitution, you should have included the field RULE_MATNR instead
of MATNR in the product allocation group; otherwise, product allocation
is carried out for the requested product.

4.   Maintain Product allocation Procedure – The Product allocation procedure determines how products are allocated.

The Product allocation Procedure needs to be entered in the location-specific product master (Location – Dependent and location – Independent sequences) – Covered in the later part.

Click on New Entries.

Enter the Procedure details and save.

Select the procedure and double click on Step Sequence on the left dialog procedure. Enter the steps to be included in
the Procedure.

Select the Step and double click ‘Control’ on the left Dialog Structure.

Click on new entries and enter the details i.e. the product allocation objects and their validity period.

In product allocations, you can use two different methods to consume the order quantity against the product allocation quantity. You determine which method is used using the indicator for the product allocations method (cumulated). Multilevel steps of product allocation groups can be combined into product allocations procedures.

If an order is checked, every step (product allocation group) in the sequence is evaluated. The result of previous steps is copied to subsequent steps. In the product allocations procedure, the final result of product allocations is calculated from a logical “And” combination, which is provided by each product allocation group.

METHODS:

  1. Discrete check

If you have not set the cumulated indicator, is used for product allocations (discrete product availability check).

             Using this method, the quantity from the sales document is consumed against the product allocation quantity. This is carried out on the basis of the              product allocation quantities for current and future periods only (unused product allocation quantities from past periods are not taken into account).

Product allocation quantities

If an order is placed for 150 pieces on 03.01., the product allocations check proposes 50 pieces for March, 50 pieces for April and 50 pieces for May. The quantities still available in January and February are not taken into account.

If you use this method, the product allocations counter, with which you can define several product allocations steps using different product allocation groups, is not available. The only hierarchy step value allowed is 1.

  1. Cumulated check

If you have set the cumulated indicator, which implements a checking logic of the cumulated product availability, is used. Using this checking logic, the quantity is consumed against the product allocation quantities still available. Unused product allocation quantities from past periods are included in the calculation of the available product allocation quantity for the current period.

Example

If a customer places an order for 150 pieces on 03.01, the unused product allocation quantities from past periods (50 pieces for January + 50 pieces for February) are cumulated and then 150 pcs of the available product allocation quantity are determined in the product allocations check. A total available product allocation quantity of 150 pieces is confirmed
for the date.

Product allocations counter

You can define several product allocations steps using different criteria. The final confirmed quantity is the minimum quantity confirmed of the individual product allocations steps. You can carry out the following checks using this function:

  1. Step: Check order
    quantity against the plant capacity for the relevant periods
  2. Step: Check order quantity against the product allocation
    quantities allowed for the customer

    

Consumption period

The consumption period defines the number of periods before and after the check period. A product allocation group, which determines the criteria for selecting the product allocation time series, is assigned to the product allocations step in the sequence of product allocation
procedures.

A product allocation group can be used for several product allocations procedures. All procedures, which have been assigned to a product allocation group, must have the same product allocations method. This means that a product allocation group supports either a discrete
or a cumulated check. In addition, a product allocation group can only be used once in a procedure.

Masking indicator

You can specify a masking indicator for each product allocation group. The key for the general entries (= collective product allocations) is created from the masking indicator. Using the characteristics of collective product allocations function, you add general entries to the characteristics directory. A default entry is thereby created for each node in the hierarchy (determined by the sequence).

You must use the same masking indicator per product allocation group even if the product allocation group has been assigned to different procedures. For multiple assignments of a product allocation group, you can decide if a masking indicator should be used or not. However, differing masking indicators are not allowed for the same product allocation group.

Several objects with different validity periods can be assigned to the product allocations step. The validity periods do not overlap.

The relevant product allocations object is determined using the check date from the order as a basis.

The characteristics combination with the saved product allocations is determined using the product allocations object. Product allocations are not
carried out in inactive validity periods. Nevertheless, for technical reasons involving the database, a product allocations object must be assigned in such instances even though it will not be taken into account.

5.     Maintain Sequence of Product allocation Procedures (Optional) – If  there is more than one PAP Determines the allocation Qty.


When more than one product allocation procedure determines the allocation quantity, they can be combined in a sequence of product allocation procedures. The sequence defines the order of combination of the product allocation procedures.

The sequence of product allocation procedures is maintained in the material master, either location-dependently or cross-location-dependently.

To demonstrate the functionality we define a sequence with only one product allocation procedure.

  1. Choose New entries
  2. Enter Procedure sequence
  3. Select the procedure list
    – new entries ( you can enter multiple procedure list)

6. Create Planning object structure.

Go to transaction: /SAPAPO/MSDP_ADMIN


Enter the name for Planning object structure and click OK.

Select the characteristics and add them to the Planning object structure and activate.

7. Create Characteristic combinations.

Go to transaction: /SAPAPO/MC62

Enter the name of the created Planning object sructure and click ‘Create characteristic combination’



Enter the haracteristic combinations. Then Select the combinations and click on ‘Generate’ button (Red & white button)

The Characteristic combinations are generated.

8. Create Planning Area.

Go to transaction: /SAPAPO/MSDP_ADMIN



Enter the details for Planning area and click ‘OK’.

Go to ’Key Figs’ tab. Select the Key figures in the Planning area.  Save


Go back to (:/SAPAPO/MSDP_ADMIN)

Right click the created Planning area and select ‘Generate time series objects’.


Enter the details and click “Execute”.

The Planning area is initialized (status turns Green)

9.  Maintain connection
     between Planning area and Product Allocation Group. ( SPRO)


Click on ‘New Entries’, Fill in the entries, assigning Product alloc group to Planning Area.

Select the assignment row and double click/Select ‘Characteristics’ on the left dialog Structure.

Click on New entries; enter the characteristics mapping the ones in the planning area to the characteristics of
the product allocation group.



Select/ double click ‘Key Figure’ on the left Dialog Structure.

Click on New entries; enter the key figures, mapping the ones in the planning area to the key figures of the product allocation group.


Only 2 Key figures can be mapped between Product allocation group and planning area

KCQTY = Product allocation Qty

AEMENGE = Incoming Order Qty

10.  Transfer characteristic combinations from planning area to the Product allocation group.

Transaction: /SAPAPO/ATPQ_PAREA_K


Click Execute.

The characteristic combinations are transferred/ adopted from the planning area.

11.   Copying characteristic combinations in to a planning area

Transaction: /SAPAPO/ATPQ_PAREA_C

In this step, you copy the characteristics combinations to the master data of a planning area.
This step is required in order to execute planning.


12.   Transfer of Incoming Order quantity to planning Area.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Transaction code:/SAPAPO/ATPQ_PAREA_W


(Set the flag ‘Transf.incom.ord.qty’)

A Key figure to represent the SO Quantity in the planning area and mapped it to the product allocation group

13.   Check Product allocation settings:

This is to check the product allocation customizing



The Output will give an overview of the PAG, PAP, Generated Objects, Characteristic combination, Control.

14.   Create Planning Book.


Go to transaction: /SAPAPO/SDP8B

Enter the Name of the Planning Book and click ‘Create’.

Select Key figures from Planning Area to the planning book.  Continue.



Select characteristics into the Planning book and Continue

Enter the name and description for the Data view along with other details and continue.


Select Key figures from planning book to the Data view.  Click ‘Complete’


NOTE: You can go to the Planning book again and change the text of the key figures in the ‘Key fig.
Attributes’ tab, to something meaningful such as Incoming quantities and allocated quantities etc.

15.    Entering Product allocation values in the Data view.

Go to transaction: /SAPAPO/SDP94

Expand your planning book to see the data view and double click on the data view.


Click on the selection window button on the top.

Enter the selection details and click ‘Ok’

The characteristic values appear on the left.

Select (Double click) any characteristic and allocate quantities to it on the right side and Save.

16.     Copy Product allocation Data from planning area to Product allocation Group


Transaction Code:/SAPAPO/ATPQ_PAREA_R

In this activity, the product allocation data is copied from the planning area to the product allocation group. According to the system settings, the system
checks the product allocation assignment in the allocation group during the availability check. As soon as the data is copied to the product allocation
group, the allocation data can be considered during check against product allocation.

17.    Assign Product allocation procedure to the Material master.

Transaction: /SAPAPO/MAT1

Go to ‘ATP’ tab of the material master

18.   Run a simulation.

Transaction: /SAPAPO/AC04

Enter the details and execute.


19. Some Enhancements.

Enhancements:

Enhancements for product allocation are

APOQT001 – Enhancement for initialization

APOQT010 – copy parameters

APOQT012 – product allocations control

APOQT021 – product allocations

APOQT022 – consumption at beginning situation

APOQT023 – order consumption

APOQT032 – results control

APOQT033 –  sequenceof product allocation procedures

APOQT007 – product allocation assignment of partial deliveries

APOQT018 – adjusting field catalog

0 Replies to “Invalid Timestamp For The Product Allocation Assignment Definition”

Lascia un Commento

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *