Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Errata] [Info page]
PROPOSED STANDARD
Errata ExistInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. LearRequest for Comments: 8520 Cisco SystemsCategory: Standards Track R. DromsISSN: 2070-1721 Google D. Romascanu March 2019Manufacturer Usage Description SpecificationAbstract This memo specifies a component-based architecture for Manufacturer Usage Descriptions (MUDs). The goal of MUD is to provide a means for end devices to signal to the network what sort of access and network functionality they require to properly function. The initial focus is on access control. Later work can delve into other aspects. This memo specifies two YANG modules, IPv4 and IPv6 DHCP options, a Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) TLV, a URL, an X.509 certificate extension, and a means to sign and verify the descriptions.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 inSection 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8520.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Contents1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.1. What MUD Doesn't Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.2. A Simple Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61.4. Determining Intended Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61.5. Finding a Policy: The MUD URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71.6. Processing of the MUD URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81.7. Types of Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81.8. The Manufacturer Usage Description Architecture . . . . .101.9. Order of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122. The MUD Model and Semantic Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . .122.1. The IETF-MUD YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143. MUD Model Definitions for the Root "mud" Container . . . . .153.1. mud-version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153.2. MUD URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153.3. to-device-policy and from-device-policy Containers . . .163.4. last-update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163.5. cache-validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163.6. is-supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163.7. systeminfo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163.8. mfg-name, software-rev, model-name, and firmware-rev . .173.9. extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174. Augmentation to the ACL Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174.1. manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174.2. same-manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174.3. documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184.4. model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184.5. local-networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184.6. controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184.7. my-controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194.8. direction-initiated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 20195. Processing of the MUD File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196. What Does a MUD URL Look Like? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197. The MUD YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .208. The Domain Name Extension to the ACL Model . . . . . . . . .268.1. src-dnsname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278.2. dst-dnsname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278.3. The ietf-acldns Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .289. MUD File Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3010. The MUD URL DHCP Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3210.1. Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3310.2. Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3310.3. Relay Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 11. The Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) URL X.509 Extension 3412. The Manufacturer Usage Description LLDP Extension . . . . . .3613. The Creating and Processing of Signed MUD Files . . . . . . .3813.1. Creating a MUD File Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . .3813.2. Verifying a MUD File Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . .3814. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3915. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3916. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4017. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4317.1. YANG Module Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4317.2. URI Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4317.3. DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4317.4. PKIX Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4317.5. Media Type Registration for MUD Files . . . . . . . . .4417.6. IANA LLDP TLV Subtype Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . .4517.7. The MUD Well-Known Universal Resource Name (URNs) . . .4517.8. Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4618. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4618.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4618.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49Appendix A. Default MUD Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52Appendix B. A Sample Extension: DETNET-indicator . . . . . . . .56 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 20191. Introduction The Internet has largely been constructed for general purpose computers, those devices that may be used for a purpose that is specified by those who own the device. In [RFC1984], it was presumed that an end device would be most capable of protecting itself. This made sense when the typical device was a workstation or a mainframe, and it continues to make sense for general purpose computing devices today, including laptops, smart phones, and tablets. [RFC7452] discusses design patterns for, and poses questions about, smart objects. Let us then posit a group of objects that are specifically not intended to be used for general purpose computing tasks. These devices, which this memo refers to as Things, have a specific purpose. By definition, therefore, all other uses are not intended. If a small number of communication patterns follows from those small number of uses, the combination of these two statements can be restated as a Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) that can be applied at various points within a network. MUD primarily addresses threats to the device rather than the device as a threat. In some circumstances, however, MUD may offer some protection in the latter case, depending on how the MUD URL is communicated and how devices and their communications are authenticated. We use the notion of "manufacturer" loosely in this context to refer to the entity or organization that will state how a device is intended to be used. For example, in the context of a light bulb, this might indeed be the light bulb manufacturer. In the context of a smarter device that has a built in Linux stack, it might be an integrator of that device. The key points are that the device itself is assumed to serve a limited purpose, and that there exists an organization in the supply chain of that device that will take responsibility for informing the network about that purpose. The intent of MUD is to provide the following: o Substantially reduce the threat surface on a device to those communications intended by the manufacturer. o Provide a means to scale network policies to the ever-increasing number of types of devices in the network. o Provide a means to address at least some vulnerabilities in a way that is faster than the time it might take to update systems. This will be particularly true for systems that are no longer supported.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 o Keep the cost of implementation of such a system to the bare minimum. o Provide a means of extensibility for manufacturers to express other device capabilities or requirements. MUD consists of three architectural building blocks: o A URL that can be used to locate a description; o The description itself, including how it is interpreted; and o A means for local network management systems to retrieve the description. MUD is most effective when the network is able to identify in some way the remote endpoints that Things will talk to. In this specification, we describe each of these building blocks and how they are intended to be used together. However, they may also be used separately, independent of this specification, by local deployments for their own purposes.1.1. What MUD Doesn't Do MUD is not intended to address network authorization of general purpose computers, as their manufacturers cannot envision a specific communication pattern to describe. In addition, even those devices that have a single or small number of uses might have very broad communication patterns. MUD on its own is not for them either. Although MUD can provide network administrators with some additional protection when device vulnerabilities exist, it will never replace the need for manufacturers to patch vulnerabilities. Finally, no matter what the manufacturer specifies in a MUD file, these are not directives, but suggestions. How they are instantiated locally will depend on many factors and will be ultimately up to the local network administrator, who must decide what is appropriate in a given circumstances.1.2. A Simple Example A light bulb is intended to light a room. It may be remotely controlled through the network, and it may make use of a rendezvous service (which could be accessed by an application on a smart phone). What we can say about that light bulb, then, is that all other network access is unwanted. It will not contact a news service, norLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 speak to the refrigerator, and it has no need of a printer or other devices. It has no social networking friends. Therefore, applying an access list to it that states it will only connect to the single rendezvous service will not impede performing its function; at the same time, this will allow the network to provide the light bulb and other devices an additional layer of protection.1.3. Terminology MUD: Manufacturer Usage Description. MUD file: a file containing YANG-based JSON that describes a Thing and associated suggested specific network behavior. MUD file server: a web server that hosts a MUD file. MUD manager: the system that requests and receives the MUD file from the MUD server. After it has processed a MUD file, it may direct changes to relevant network elements. MUD controller: a synonym that has been used in the past for MUD manager. MUD URL: a URL that can be used by the MUD manager to receive the MUD file. Thing: the device emitting a MUD URL. Manufacturer: the entity that configures the Thing to emit the MUD URL and the one who asserts a recommendation in a MUD file. The manufacturer might not always be the entity that constructs a Thing. It could, for instance, be a systems integrator, or even a component provider. 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 inBCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.1.4. Determining Intended Use The notion of intended use is in itself not new. Network administrators apply access lists every day to allow for only such use. This notion of white listing was well described by Chapman and Zwicky in [FW95]. Profiling systems that make use of heuristics to identify types of systems have existed for years as well.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 A Thing could just as easily tell the network what sort of access it requires without going into what sort of system it is. This would, in effect, be the converse of [RFC7488]. In seeking a general solution, however, we assume that a device will implement functionality necessary to fulfill its limited purpose. This is basic economic constraint. Unless the network would refuse access to such a device, its developers would have no reason to provide the network any information. To date, such an assertion has held true.1.5. Finding a Policy: The MUD URL Our work begins with the device emitting a Universal Resource Locator (URL) [RFC3986]. This URL serves both to classify the device type and to provide a means to locate a policy file. MUD URLs MUST use the "https" scheme [RFC7230]. In this memo, three means are defined to emit the MUD URL, as follows: o A DHCP option [RFC2131] [RFC8415] that the DHCP client uses to inform the DHCP server. The DHCP server may take further actions, such as acting as the MUD manager or passing the MUD URL along to the MUD manager. o An X.509 constraint. The IEEE has developed IEEE 802.1AR [IEEE8021AR] to provide a certificate-based approach to communicate device characteristics, which itself relies on [RFC5280]. The MUD URL extension is non-critical, as required by IEEE 802.1AR. Various means may be used to communicate that certificate, including the Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) [RFC7170]. o Finally, a Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) frame is defined [IEEE8021AB]. It is possible that there may be other means for a MUD URL to be learned by a network. For instance, some devices may already be fielded or have very limited ability to communicate a MUD URL, and yet they can be identified through some means, such as a serial number or a public key. In these cases, manufacturers may be able to map those identifiers to particular MUD URLs (or even the files themselves). Similarly, there may be alternative resolution mechanisms available for situations where Internet connectivity is limited or does not exist. Such mechanisms are not described in this memo, but they are possible. Implementors are encouraged to allow for the flexibility of how MUD URLs may be learned.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 20191.6. Processing of the MUD URL MUD managers that are able to do so SHOULD retrieve MUD URLs and signature files as per [RFC7230], using the GET method [RFC7231]. They MUST validate the certificate using the rules in[RFC2818], Section 3.1. Requests for MUD URLs SHOULD include an "Accept" header field ([RFC7231], Section 5.3.2) containing "application/mud+json", an "Accept-Language" header field ([RFC7231], Section 5.3.5), and a "User-Agent" header field ([RFC7231], Section 5.5.3). MUD managers SHOULD automatically process 3xx response status codes. If a MUD manager is not able to fetch a MUD URL, other means MAY be used to import MUD files and associated signature files. So long as the signature of the file can be validated, the file can be used. In such environments, controllers SHOULD warn administrators when cache- validity expiry is approaching so that they may check for new files. It may not be possible for a MUD manager to retrieve a MUD file at any given time. Should a MUD manager fail to retrieve a MUD file, it SHOULD consider the existing one safe to use, at least for a time. After some period, it SHOULD log that it has been unable to retrieve the file. There may be very good reasons for such failures, including the possibility that the MUD manager is in an offline environment, the local Internet connection has failed, or the remote Internet connection has failed. It is also possible that an attacker is attempting to interfere with the deployment of a device. How to handle such circumstances is a local decision.1.7. Types of Policies When the MUD URL is resolved, the MUD manager retrieves a file that describes what sort of communications a device is designed to have. The manufacturer may specify either specific hosts for cloud-based services or certain classes for access within an operational network. An example of a class might be "devices of a specified manufacturer type", where the manufacturer type itself is indicated simply by the authority component (e.g., the domain name) of the MUD URL. Another example might be to allow or disallow local access. Just like other policies, these may be combined. For example: o Allow access to devices of the same manufacturer o Allow access to and from controllers via the Constrained Application Protocol (COAP) [RFC7252]Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 o Allow access to local DNS/NTP o Deny all other access A printer might have a description that states: o Allow access for port IPP or port LPD o Allow local access for port HTTP o Deny all other access In this way, anyone can print to the printer, but local access would be required for the management interface. The files that are retrieved are intended to be closely aligned to existing network architectures so that they are easy to deploy. We make use of YANG [RFC7950] because it provides accurate and adequate models for use by network devices. JSON [RFC8259] is used as a serialization format for compactness and readability, relative to XML. Other formats may be chosen with later versions of MUD. While the policy examples given here focus on access control, this is not intended to be the sole focus. By structuring the model described in this document with clear extension points, other descriptions could be included. One that often comes to mind is quality of service. The YANG modules specified here are extensions of [RFC8519]. The extensions to this model allow for a manufacturer to express classes of systems that a manufacturer would find necessary for the proper function of the device. Two modules are specified. The first module specifies a means for domain names to be used in Access Control Lists (ACLs) so that devices that have their controllers in the cloud may be appropriately authorized with domain names, where the mapping of those names to addresses may rapidly change. The other module abstracts away IP addresses into certain classes that are instantiated into actual IP addresses through local processing. Through these classes, manufacturers can specify how the device is designed to communicate, so that network elements can be configured by local systems that have local topological knowledge. That is, the deployment populates the classes that the manufacturer specifies. The abstractions below map to zero or more hosts, as follows: Manufacturer: A device made by a particular manufacturer, as identified by the authority component of its MUD URL.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 same-manufacturer: Devices that have the same authority component of their MUD URL. controller: Devices that the local network administrator admits to the particular class. my-controller: Devices intended to serve as controllers for the MUD URL that the Thing emitted. local: The class of IP addresses that are scoped within some administrative boundary. By default, it is suggested that this be the local subnet. The "manufacturer" classes can be easily specified by the manufacturer, whereas controller classes are initially envisioned to be specified by the administrator. Because manufacturers do not know who will be using their devices, it is important for functionality referenced in usage descriptions to be relatively ubiquitous and mature. For these reasons, the YANG-based configuration in a MUD file is limited to the modules either specified or referenced in this document, or specified in documented extensions.1.8. The Manufacturer Usage Description Architecture With these components laid out, we now have the basis for an architecture. This leads us to ASCII art. ....................................... . ____________ . _____________ . | | . | | . | MUD |-->get URL-->| MUD | . | Manager | .(https) | File Server | . End system network |____________|<-MUD file<-<|_____________| . . . . . . . _______ _________ . .| | (DHCP et al.) | router | . .| Thing |---->MUD URL-->| or | . .|_______| | switch | . . |_________| . ....................................... Figure 1: MUD ArchitectureLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 In the above diagram, the switch or router collects MUD URLs and forwards them to the MUD manager (a network management system) for processing. This happens in different ways, depending on how the URL is communicated. For instance, in the case of DHCP, the DHCP server might receive the URL and then process it. In the case of IEEE 802.1X [IEEE8021X], the switch would carry the URL via a certificate to the authentication server via the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) over Radius [RFC3748], which would then process it. One method to do this is TEAP, as described in [RFC7170]. The certificate extension is described below. The information returned by the MUD file server is valid for as long as the Thing is connected. There is no expiry. However, if the MUD manager has detected that the MUD file for a Thing has changed, it SHOULD update the policy expeditiously, taking into account whatever approval flow is required in a deployment. In this way, new recommendations from the manufacturer can be processed in a timely fashion. The information returned by the MUD file server (a web server) is valid for the duration of the Thing's connection, or as specified in the description. Thus, if the Thing is disconnected, any associated configuration in the switch can be removed. Similarly, from time to time the description may be refreshed, based on new capabilities or communication patterns or vulnerabilities. The web server is typically run by or on behalf of the manufacturer. Its domain name is that of the authority found in the MUD URL. For legacy cases where Things cannot emit a URL, if the switch is able to determine the appropriate URL, it may proxy it. In a trivial case, it may hardcode a MUD URL on a switch port or a map from some available identifier such as an L2 address or certificate hash to a MUD URL. The role of the MUD manager in this environment is to do the following: o receive MUD URLs, o fetch MUD files, o translate abstractions in the MUD files to specific network element configuration, o maintain and update any required mappings of the abstractions, and o update network elements with appropriate configuration.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 A MUD manager may be a component of an Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) system or a network management system. Communication within those systems and from those systems to network elements is beyond the scope of this memo.1.9. Order of Operations As mentioned above, MUD contains architectural building blocks, so the order of operation may vary. However, here is one clear intended example: 1. Thing emits a URL. 2. That URL is forwarded to a MUD manager by the nearest switch (how this happens depends on the way in which the MUD URL is emitted). 3. The MUD manager retrieves the MUD file and signature from the MUD file server, assuming it doesn't already have copies. After validating the signature, it may test the URL against a web or domain reputation service, and it may test any hosts within the file against those reputation services, as it deems fit. 4. The MUD manager may query the administrator for permission to add the Thing and associated policy. If the Thing is known or the Thing type is known, it may skip this step. 5. The MUD manager instantiates local configuration based on the abstractions defined in this document. 6. The MUD manager configures the switch nearest the Thing. Other systems may be configured as well. 7. When the Thing disconnects, policy is removed.2. The MUD Model and Semantic Meaning A MUD file consists of a YANG model instance that has been serialized in JSON [RFC7951]. For purposes of MUD, the nodes that can be modified are access lists as augmented by this model. The MUD file is limited to the serialization of only the following YANG schema: o ietf-access-control-list [RFC8519] o ietf-mud (RFC 8520) o ietf-acldns (RFC 8520)Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 Extensions may be used to add additional schema. This is described further on. To provide the widest possible deployment, publishers of MUD files SHOULD make use of the abstractions in this memo and avoid the use of IP addresses. A MUD manager SHOULD NOT automatically implement any MUD file that contains IP addresses, especially those that might have local significance. The addressing of one side of an access list is implicit, based on whether it is applied as to-device-policy or from-device-policy. With the exceptions of the "name" of the ACL, "type", "name" of the Access Control Entry (ACE), and TCP and UDP source and destination port information, publishers of MUD files SHOULD limit the use of ACL model leaf nodes expressed to those found in this specification. Absent any extensions, MUD files are assumed to implement only the following ACL model features: o match-on-ipv4, match-on-ipv6, match-on-tcp, match-on-udp, match-on-icmp Furthermore, only "accept" or "drop" actions SHOULD be included. A MUD manager MAY choose to interpret "reject" as "drop". A MUD manager SHOULD ignore all other actions. This is because manufacturers do not have sufficient context within a local deployment to know whether reject is appropriate. That is a decision that should be left to a network administrator. Given that MUD does not deal with interfaces, the support of the "ietf-interfaces" module [RFC8343] is not required. Specifically, the support of interface-related features and branches (e.g., interface-attachment and interface-stats) of the ACL YANG module is not required. In fact, MUD managers MAY ignore any particular component of a description or MAY ignore the description in its entirety, and they SHOULD carefully inspect all MUD descriptions. Publishers of MUD files MUST NOT include other nodes except as described inSection 3.9. See that section for more information.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 20192.1. The IETF-MUD YANG Module This module is structured into three parts: o The first component, the "mud" container, holds information that is relevant to retrieval and validity of the MUD file itself, as well as policy intended to and from the Thing. o The second component augments the matching container of the ACL model to add several nodes that are relevant to the MUD URL, or they are otherwise abstracted for use within a local environment. o The third component augments the tcp-acl container of the ACL model to add the ability to match on the direction of initiation of a TCP connection. A valid MUD file will contain two root objects: a "mud" container and an "acls" container. Extensions may add additional root objects as required. As a reminder, when parsing acls, elements within a "match" block are logically ANDed. In general, a single abstraction in a match statement should be used. For instance, it makes little sense to match both "my-controller" and "controller" with an argument, since they are highly unlikely to be the same value. A simplified graphical representation of the data models is used in this document. The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is explained in [RFC8340].Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 module: ietf-mud +--rw mud! +--rw mud-version uint8 +--rw mud-url inet:uri +--rw last-update yang:date-and-time +--rw mud-signature? inet:uri +--rw cache-validity? uint8 +--rw is-supported boolean +--rw systeminfo? string +--rw mfg-name? string +--rw model-name? string +--rw firmware-rev? string +--rw software-rev? string +--rw documentation? inet:uri +--rw extensions* string +--rw from-device-policy | +--rw acls | +--rw access-list* [name] | +--rw name -> /acl:acls/acl/name +--rw to-device-policy +--rw acls +--rw access-list* [name] +--rw name -> /acl:acls/acl/name augment /acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches: +--rw mud +--rw manufacturer? inet:host +--rw same-manufacturer? empty +--rw model? inet:uri +--rw local-networks? empty +--rw controller? inet:uri +--rw my-controller? empty augment /acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches /acl:l4/acl:tcp/acl:tcp: +--rw direction-initiated? direction3. MUD Model Definitions for the Root "mud" Container3.1. mud-version This node specifies the integer version of the MUD specification. This memo specifies version 1.3.2. MUD URL This URL identifies the MUD file. This is useful when the file and associated signature are manually uploaded, say, in an offline mode.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 20193.3. to-device-policy and from-device-policy Containers [RFC8519] describes access lists. In the case of MUD, a MUD file must be explicit in describing the communication pattern of a Thing, and that includes indicating what is to be permitted or denied in either direction of communication. Hence, each of these containers indicates the appropriate direction of a flow in association with a particular Thing. They contain references to specific access lists.3.4. last-update This is a date-and-time value of when the MUD file was generated. This is akin to a version number. Its form is taken from [RFC6991].3.5. cache-validity This uint8 is the period of time in hours that a network management station MUST wait since its last retrieval before checking for an update. It is RECOMMENDED that this value be no less than 24, and it MUST NOT be more than 168 for any Thing that is supported. This period SHOULD be no shorter than any period determined through HTTP caching directives (e.g., "cache-control" or "Expires"). N.B., the expiring of this timer does not require the MUD manager to discard the MUD file, nor terminate access to a Thing. SeeSection 16 for more information.3.6. is-supported This boolean is an indication from the manufacturer to the network administrator as to whether or not the Thing is supported. In this context, a Thing is said to not be supported if the manufacturer intends never to issue a firmware or software update to the Thing or never to update the MUD file. A MUD manager MAY still periodically check for updates.3.7. systeminfo This is a textual UTF-8 description of the Thing to be connected. The intent is for administrators to be able to see a brief displayable description of the Thing. It SHOULD NOT exceed 60 characters worth of display space.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 20193.8. mfg-name, software-rev, model-name, and firmware-rev These optional fields are filled in as specified by [RFC8348]. Note that firmware-rev and software-rev MUST NOT be populated in a MUD file if the device can be upgraded but the MUD URL cannot be. This would be the case, for instance, with MUD URLs that are contained in 802.1AR certificates.3.9. extensions This optional leaf-list names MUD extensions that are used in the MUD file. Note that MUD extensions MUST NOT be used in a MUD file without the extensions being declared. Implementations MUST ignore any node in this file that they do not understand. Note that extensions can either extend the MUD file as described in the previous paragraph or reference other work. An extension example can be found inAppendix B.4. Augmentation to the ACL Model Note that in this section, when we use the term "match", we are referring to the ACL model "matches" node.4.1. manufacturer This node consists of a hostname that would be matched against the authority component of another Thing's MUD URL. In its simplest form, "manufacturer" and "same-manufacturer" may be implemented as access lists. In more complex forms, additional network capabilities may be used. For example, if one saw the line "manufacturer" : "flobbidy.example.com", then all Things that registered with a MUD URL that contained flobbity.example.com in its authority section would match.4.2. same-manufacturer This null-valued node is an equivalent for when the manufacturer element is used to indicate that the authority found in another Thing's MUD URL matches that of the authority found in this Thing's MUD URL. For example, if the Thing's MUD URL were "https://b1.example.com/ThingV1", then all devices that had a MUD URL with an authority section of b1.example.com would match.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 20194.3. documentation This URI consists of a URL that points to documentation relating to the device and the MUD file. This can prove particularly useful when the "controller" class is used, so that its use can be explained.4.4. model This string matches the entire MUD URL, thus covering the model that is unique within the context of the authority. It may contain not only model information, but versioning information as well, and any other information that the manufacturer wishes to add. The intended use is for devices of this precise class to match, to permit or deny communication between one another.4.5. local-networks This null-valued node expands to include local networks. Its default expansion is that packets must not traverse toward a default route that is received from the router. However, administrators may expand the expression as is appropriate in their deployments.4.6. controller This URI specifies a value that a controller will register with the MUD manager. The node then is expanded to the set of hosts that are so registered. This node may also be a URN. In this case, the URN describes a well-known service, such as DNS or NTP, that has been standardized. Both of those URNs may be found inSection 17.7. When "my-controller" is used, it is possible that the administrator will be prompted to populate that class for each and every model. Use of "controller" with a named class allows the user to populate that class only once for many different models that a manufacturer may produce. Controller URIs MAY take the form of a URL (e.g., "http[s]://"). However, MUD managers MUST NOT resolve and retrieve such files, and it is RECOMMENDED that there be no such file at this time, as their form and function may be defined at a point in the future. For now, URLs should serve simply as class names and may be populated by the local deployment administrator. Great care should be taken by MUD managers when invoking the controller class in the form of URLs. For one thing, it requires some understanding by the administrator as to when it is appropriate.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 Pre-registration in such classes by controllers with the MUD server is encouraged. The mechanism to do that is beyond the scope of this work.4.7. my-controller This null-valued node signals to the MUD manager to use whatever mapping it has for this MUD URL to a particular group of hosts. This may require prompting the administrator for class members. Future work should seek to automate membership management.4.8. direction-initiated This MUST only be applied to TCP. This matches the direction in which a TCP connection is initiated. When the direction initiated is "from-device", packets that are transmitted in the direction of a Thing MUST be dropped unless the Thing has first initiated a TCP connection. By way of example, this node may be implemented in its simplest form by looking at naked SYN bits, but it may also be implemented through more stateful mechanisms. When applied, this matches packets when the flow was initiated in the corresponding direction. [RFC6092] specifies IPv6 guidance best practices. While that document is scoped specifically to IPv6, its contents are applicable for IPv4 as well.5. Processing of the MUD File To keep things relatively simple in addition to whatever definitions exist, we also apply two additional default behaviors: o Anything not explicitly permitted is denied. o Local DNS and NTP are, by default, permitted to and from the Thing. An explicit description of the defaults can be found inAppendix A. These are applied AFTER all other explicit rules. Thus, a default behavior can be changed with a "drop" action.6. What Does a MUD URL Look Like? MUD URLs are required to use the "https" scheme, in order to establish the MUD file server's identity and assure integrity of the MUD file.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 Any "https://" URL can be a MUD URL. For example: https://things.example.org/product_abc123/v5 https://www.example.net/mudfiles/temperature_sensor/ https://example.com/lightbulbs/colour/v1 A manufacturer may construct a MUD URL in any way, so long as it makes use of the "https" scheme.7. The MUD YANG Model <CODE BEGINS>file "ietf-mud@2019-01-28.yang" module ietf-mud { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mud"; prefix ietf-mud; import ietf-access-control-list { prefix acl; } import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; } import ietf-inet-types { prefix inet; } organization "IETF OPSAWG (Operations and Management Area Working Group)"; contact "WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/> WG List: opsawg@ietf.org Author: Eliot Lear lear@cisco.com Author: Ralph Droms rdroms@gmail.com Author: Dan Romascanu dromasca@gmail.com "; description "This YANG module defines a component that augments the IETF description of an access list. This specific module focuses on additional filters that include local, model, and same-manufacturer.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 This module is intended to be serialized via JSON and stored as a file, as described inRFC 8520. 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 inBCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth inSection 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). This version of this YANG module is part ofRFC 8520; see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; revision 2019-01-28 { description "Initial proposed standard."; reference "RFC 8520: Manufacturer Usage Description Specification"; } typedef direction { type enumeration { enum to-device { description "packets or flows destined to the target Thing."; } enum from-device { description "packets or flows destined from the target Thing."; } } description "Which way are we talking about?"; } container mud {Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 presence "Enabled for this particular MUD URL"; description "MUD-related information, as specified byRFC 8520."; uses mud-grouping; } grouping mud-grouping { description "Information about when support ends (or ended) and when to refresh."; leaf mud-version { type uint8; mandatory true; description "This is the version of the MUD specification. This memo specifies version 1."; } leaf mud-url { type inet:uri; mandatory true; description "This is the MUD URL associated with the entry found in a MUD file."; } leaf last-update { type yang:date-and-time; mandatory true; description "This is intended to be when the current MUD file was generated. MUD managers SHOULD NOT check for updates between this time plus cache validity."; } leaf mud-signature { type inet:uri; description "A URI that resolves to a signature as described in this specification."; } leaf cache-validity { type uint8 { range "1..168"; } units "hours"; default "48"; description "The information retrieved from the MUD server is valid for these many hours, after which it shouldLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 be refreshed. N.B., MUD manager implementations need not discard MUD files beyond this period."; } leaf is-supported { type boolean; mandatory true; description "This boolean indicates whether or not the Thing is currently supported by the manufacturer."; } leaf systeminfo { type string; description "A UTF-8 description of this Thing. This should be a brief description that may be displayed to the user to determine whether to allow the Thing on the network."; } leaf mfg-name { type string; description "Manufacturer name, as described in the ietf-hardware YANG module."; } leaf model-name { type string; description "Model name, as described in the ietf-hardware YANG module."; } leaf firmware-rev { type string; description "firmware-rev, as described in the ietf-hardware YANG module. Note that this field MUST NOT be included when the device can be updated but the MUD URL cannot."; } leaf software-rev { type string; description "software-rev, as described in the ietf-hardware YANG module. Note that this field MUST NOT be included when the device can be updated but the MUD URL cannot."; } leaf documentation {Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 type inet:uri; description "This URL points to documentation that relates to this device and any classes that it uses in its MUD file. A caution: MUD managers need not resolve this URL on their own but rather simply provide it to the administrator. Parsing HTML is not an intended function of a MUD manager."; } leaf-list extensions { type string { length "1..40"; } description "A list of extension names that are used in this MUD file. Each name is registered with the IANA and described in an RFC."; } container from-device-policy { description "The policies that should be enforced on traffic coming from the device. These policies are not necessarily intended to be enforced at a single point but may be rendered by the controller to any relevant enforcement points in the network or elsewhere."; uses access-lists; } container to-device-policy { description "The policies that should be enforced on traffic going to the device. These policies are not necessarily intended to be enforced at a single point but may be rendered by the controller to any relevant enforcement points in the network or elsewhere."; uses access-lists; } } grouping access-lists { description "A grouping for access lists in the context of device policy."; container access-lists { description "The access lists that should be applied to traffic to or from the device.";Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 list access-list { key "name"; description "Each entry on this list refers to an ACL that should be present in the overall access list data model. Each ACL is identified by name and type."; leaf name { type leafref { path "/acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:name"; } description "The name of the ACL for this entry."; } } } } augment "/acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches" { description "adding abstractions to avoid the need of IP addresses."; container mud { description "MUD-specific matches."; leaf manufacturer { type inet:host; description "A domain that is intended to match the authority section of the MUD URL. This node is used to specify one or more manufacturers a device should be authorized to access."; } leaf same-manufacturer { type empty; description "This node matches the authority section of the MUD URL of a Thing. It is intended to grant access to all devices with the same authority section."; } leaf model { type inet:uri; description "Devices of the specified model type will match if they have an identical MUD URL."; } leaf local-networks { type empty; descriptionLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 "IP addresses will match this node if they are considered local addresses. A local address may be a list of locally defined prefixes and masks that indicate a particular administrative scope."; } leaf controller { type inet:uri; description "This node names a class that has associated with it zero or more IP addresses to match against. These may be scoped to a manufacturer or via a standard URN."; } leaf my-controller { type empty; description "This node matches one or more network elements that have been configured to be the controller for this Thing, based on its MUD URL."; } } } augment "/acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches" + "/acl:l4/acl:tcp/acl:tcp" { description "add direction-initiated"; leaf direction-initiated { type direction; description "This node matches based on which direction a connection was initiated. The means by which that is determined is discussed in this document."; } } } <CODE ENDS>8. The Domain Name Extension to the ACL Model This module specifies an extension to the IETF-ACL model such that domain names may be referenced by augmenting the "matches" node. Different implementations may deploy differing methods to maintain the mapping between the IP address and domain name, if indeed any are needed. However, the intent is that resources that are referred to using a name should be authorized (or not) within an access list.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 The structure of the change is as follows: module: ietf-acldns augment /acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/ acl:matches/acl:l3/acl:ipv4/acl:ipv4: +--rw src-dnsname? inet:host +--rw dst-dnsname? inet:host augment /acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/ acl:matches/acl:l3/acl:ipv6/acl:ipv6: +--rw src-dnsname? inet:host +--rw dst-dnsname? inet:host The choice of these particular points in the access control list model is based on the assumption that we are in some way referring to IP-related resources, as that is what the DNS returns. A domain name in our context is defined in [RFC6991]. The augmentations are replicated across IPv4 and IPv6 to allow MUD file authors the ability to control the IP version that the Thing may utilize. The following nodes are defined.8.1. src-dnsname The argument corresponds to a domain name of a source as specified by inet:host. A number of means may be used to resolve hosts. What is important is that such resolutions be consistent with ACLs that are required by Things to properly operate.8.2. dst-dnsname The argument corresponds to a domain name of a destination as specified by inet:host. See the previous section (Section 8.1) relating to resolution. Note that when using either of these with a MUD file, because access is associated with a particular Thing, MUD files MUST NOT contain either a src-dnsname in an ACL associated with from-device-policy or a dst-dnsname associated with to-device-policy.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 20198.3. The ietf-acldns Model <CODE BEGINS>file "ietf-acldns@2019-01-28.yang" module ietf-acldns { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-acldns"; prefix ietf-acldns; import ietf-access-control-list { prefix acl; } import ietf-inet-types { prefix inet; } organization "IETF OPSAWG (Operations and Management Area Working Group)"; contact "WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/> WG List: opsawg@ietf.org Author: Eliot Lear lear@cisco.com Author: Ralph Droms rdroms@gmail.com Author: Dan Romascanu dromasca@gmail.com "; description "This YANG module defines a component that augments the IETF description of an access list to allow DNS names as matching criteria. Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth inSection 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)."; revision 2019-01-28 { description "Base version of dnsname extension of the ACL model.";Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 reference "RFC 8520: Manufacturer Usage Description Specification"; } grouping dns-matches { description "Domain names for matching."; leaf src-dnsname { type inet:host; description "domain name to be matched against."; } leaf dst-dnsname { type inet:host; description "domain name to be matched against."; } } augment "/acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches" + "/acl:l3/acl:ipv4/acl:ipv4" { description "Adding domain names to matching."; uses dns-matches; } augment "/acl:acls/acl:acl/acl:aces/acl:ace/acl:matches" + "/acl:l3/acl:ipv6/acl:ipv6" { description "Adding domain names to matching."; uses dns-matches; } } <CODE ENDS>Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 20199. MUD File Example This example contains two access lists that are intended to provide outbound access to a cloud service on TCP port 443. { "ietf-mud:mud": { "mud-version": 1, "mud-url": "https://lighting.example.com/lightbulb2000", "last-update": "2019-01-28T11:20:51+01:00", "cache-validity": 48, "is-supported": true, "systeminfo": "The BMS Example Light Bulb", "from-device-policy": { "access-lists": { "access-list": [ { "name": "mud-76100-v6fr" } ] } }, "to-device-policy": { "access-lists": { "access-list": [ { "name": "mud-76100-v6to" } ] } } }, "ietf-access-control-list:acls": { "acl": [ { "name": "mud-76100-v6to", "type": "ipv6-acl-type", "aces": { "ace": [ { "name": "cl0-todev", "matches": { "ipv6": { "ietf-acldns:src-dnsname": "test.example.com", "protocol": 6 }, "tcp": { "ietf-mud:direction-initiated": "from-device",Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 "source-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 443 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } }, { "name": "mud-76100-v6fr", "type": "ipv6-acl-type", "aces": { "ace": [ { "name": "cl0-frdev", "matches": { "ipv6": { "ietf-acldns:dst-dnsname": "test.example.com", "protocol": 6 }, "tcp": { "ietf-mud:direction-initiated": "from-device", "destination-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 443 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } } ] } } In this example, two policies are declared: one from the Thing and the other to the Thing. Each policy names an access list that applies to the Thing and one that applies from the Thing. Within each access list, access is permitted to packets flowing to or fromLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 the Thing that can be mapped to the domain name of "service.bms.example.com". For each access list, the enforcement point should expect that the Thing initiated the connection.10. The MUD URL DHCP Option The IPv4 MUD URL client option has the following format: +------+-----+------------------------------ | code | len | MUDstring +------+-----+------------------------------ Code OPTION_MUD_URL_V4 (161) has been assigned by IANA. len is a single octet that indicates the length of the MUD string in octets. The MUDstring is defined as follows: MUDstring = mudurl [ " " reserved ] mudurl = URI; a URL [RFC3986] that uses the "https" scheme [RFC7230] reserved = 1*( OCTET ) ; from [RFC5234] The entire option MUST NOT exceed 255 octets. If a space follows the MUD URL, a reserved string that will be defined in future specifications follows. MUD managers that do not understand this field MUST ignore it. The IPv6 MUD URL client option has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OPTION_MUD_URL_V6 | option-length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MUDstring | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ OPTION_MUD_URL_V6 (112). option-length contains the length of the MUDstring, as defined above, in octets. The intent of this option is to provide both a new Thing classifier to the network as well as some recommended configuration to the routers that implement the policy. However, it is entirely the purview of the network system as managed by the network administrator to decide what to do with this information. The key function of thisLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 option is simply to identify the type of Thing to the network in a structured way such that the policy can be easily found with existing toolsets.10.1. Client Behavior A DHCPv4 client MAY emit a DHCPv4 option, and a DHCPv6 client MAY emit a DHCPv6 option. These options are singletons, as specified in [RFC7227]. Because clients are intended to have at most one MUD URL associated with them, they may emit at most one MUD URL option via DHCPv4 and one MUD URL option via DHCPv6. In the case where both v4 and v6 DHCP options are emitted, the same URL MUST be used.10.2. Server Behavior A DHCP server may ignore these options or take action based on receipt of these options. When a server consumes this option, it will either forward the URL and relevant client information (such as the gateway address or giaddr and requested IP address, and lease length) to a network management system or retrieve the usage description itself by resolving the URL. DHCP servers may implement MUD functionality themselves or they may pass along appropriate information to a network management system or MUD manager. A DHCP server that does process the MUD URL MUST adhere to the process specified in [RFC2818] and [RFC5280] to validate the TLS certificate of the web server hosting the MUD file. Those servers will retrieve the file, process it, and create and install the necessary configuration on the relevant network element. Servers SHOULD monitor the gateway for state changes on a given interface. A DHCP server that does not provide MUD functionality and has forwarded a MUD URL to a MUD manager MUST notify the MUD manager of any corresponding change to the DHCP state of the client (such as expiration or explicit release of a network address lease). Should the DHCP server fail, in the case when it implements the MUD manager functionality, any backup mechanisms SHOULD include the MUD state, and the server SHOULD resolve the status of clients upon its restart, similar to what it would do absent MUD manager functionality. In the case where the DHCP server forwards information to the MUD manager, the MUD manager will either make use of redundant DHCP servers for information or clear state based on other network information, such as monitoring port status on a switch via SNMP, Radius accounting, or similar mechanisms.10.3. Relay Requirements There are no additional requirements for relays.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 201911. The Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) URL X.509 Extension This section defines an X.509 non-critical certificate extension that contains a single URL that points to an online Manufacturer Usage Description concerning the certificate subject. The URI must be represented as described inSection 7.4 of [RFC5280]. Any Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) MUST be mapped to URIs as specified inSection 3.1 of [RFC3987] before they are placed in the certificate extension. The semantics of the URL are definedSection 6 of this document. The choice of id-pe is based on guidance found inSection 4.2.2 of [RFC5280]: These extensions may be used to direct applications to on-line information about the issuer or the subject. The MUD URL is precisely that: online information about the particular subject. In addition, a separate new extension is defined as id-pe-mudsigner. This contains the subject field of the signing certificate of the MUD file. Processing of this field is specified inSection 13.2. The purpose of this signature is to make a claim that the MUD file found on the server is valid for a given device, independent of any other factors. There are several security considerations below inSection 16. A new content-type id-ct-mud is also defined. While signatures are detached today, should a MUD file be transmitted as part of a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) message, this content-type SHOULD be used.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 This module imports from [RFC5912] and [RFC6268]. The new extension is identified as follows: <CODE BEGINS> MUDURLExtnModule-2016 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-mudURLExtn2016(88) } DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN -- EXPORTS ALL -- IMPORTS --RFC 5912 EXTENSION FROM PKIX-CommonTypes-2009 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkixCommon-02(57) } --RFC 5912 id-ct FROM PKIXCRMF-2009 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-crmf2005-02(55) } --RFC 6268 CONTENT-TYPE FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax-2010 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-cms-2009(58) } --RFC 5912 id-pe, Name FROM PKIX1Explicit-2009 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkix1-explicit-02(51) } ; -- -- Certificate Extensions -- MUDCertExtensions EXTENSION ::= { ext-MUDURL | ext-MUDsigner, ... } ext-MUDURL EXTENSION ::=Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 { SYNTAX MUDURLSyntax IDENTIFIED BY id-pe-mud-url } id-pe-mud-url OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 25 } MUDURLSyntax ::= IA5String ext-MUDsigner EXTENSION ::= { SYNTAX MUDsignerSyntax IDENTIFIED BY id-pe-mudsigner } id-pe-mudsigner OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 30 } MUDsignerSyntax ::= Name -- -- CMS Content Types -- MUDContentTypes CONTENT-TYPE ::= { ct-mud, ... } ct-mud CONTENT-TYPE ::= { -- directly include the content IDENTIFIED BY id-ct-mudtype } -- The binary data that is in the form -- "application/mud+json" is directly encoded as the -- signed data. No additional ASN.1 encoding is added. id-ct-mudtype OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ct 41 } END <CODE ENDS> While this extension can appear in either an 802.AR manufacturer certificate (IDevID) or a deployment certificate (LDevID), of course it is not guaranteed in either, nor is it guaranteed to be carried over. It is RECOMMENDED that MUD manager implementations maintain a table that maps a Thing to its MUD URL based on IDevIDs.12. The Manufacturer Usage Description LLDP Extension The IEEE802.1AB Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) is a one-hop, vendor-neutral link-layer protocol used by end host network Things for advertising their identity, capabilities, and neighbors on an IEEE 802 local area network. Its Type-Length-Value (TLV) design allows for "vendor-specific" extensions to be defined. IANA has a registered IEEE 802 organizationally unique identifier (OUI) defined as documented in [RFC7042]. The MUD LLDP extension uses a subtype defined in this document to carry the MUD URL.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 The LLDP vendor-specific frame has the following format: +--------+--------+----------+---------+-------------- |TLV Type| len | OUI |subtype | MUDString | =127 | |= 00 00 5E| = 1 | |(7 bits)|(9 bits)|(3 octets)|(1 octet)|(1-255 octets) +--------+--------+----------+---------+-------------- where: o TLV Type = 127 indicates a vendor-specific TLV o len = indicates the TLV string length o OUI = 00 00 5E is the organizationally unique identifier of IANA o subtype = 1 (as assigned by IANA for the MUDstring) o MUDstring = the length MUST NOT exceed 255 octets The intent of this extension is to provide both a new Thing classifier to the network as well as some recommended configuration to the routers that implement the policy. However, it is entirely the purview of the network system as managed by the network administrator to decide what to do with this information. The key function of this extension is simply to identify the type of Thing to the network in a structured way such that the policy can be easily found with existing toolsets. Hosts, routers, or other network elements that implement this option are intended to have at most one MUD URL associated with them, so they may transmit at most one MUD URL value. Hosts, routers, or other network elements that implement this option may ignore these options or take action based on receipt of these options. For example, they may fill in information in the respective extensions of the LLDP Management Information Base (MIB). LLDP operates in a one-way direction. Link Layer Discovery Protocol Data Units (LLDPDUs) are not exchanged as information requests by one Thing and responses sent by another Thing. The other Things do not acknowledge LLDP information received from a Thing. No specific network behavior is guaranteed. When a Thing consumes this extension, it may either forward the URL and relevant remote Thing information to a MUD manager or retrieve the usage description by resolving the URL in accordance with normal HTTP semantics.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 201913. The Creating and Processing of Signed MUD Files Because MUD files contain information that may be used to configure network access lists, they are sensitive. To ensure that they have not been tampered with, it is important that they be signed. We make use of DER-encoded Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] for this purpose.13.1. Creating a MUD File Signature A MUD file MUST be signed using CMS as an opaque binary object. In order to make successful verification more likely, intermediate certificates SHOULD be included. The signature is stored at the location specified in the MUD file. Signatures are transferred using content-type "application/pkcs7-signature". For example: % openssl cms -sign -signer mancertfile -inkey mankey \ -in mudfile -binary -outform DER -binary \ -certfile intermediatecert -out mudfile.p7s Note: A MUD file may need to be re-signed if the signature expires.13.2. Verifying a MUD File Signature Prior to processing the rest of a MUD file, the MUD manager MUST retrieve the MUD signature file by retrieving the value of "mud- signature" and validating the signature across the MUD file. The Key Usage Extension in the signing certificate MUST be present and have the bit digitalSignature(0) set. When the id-pe-mudsigner extension is present in a device's X.509 certificate, the MUD signature file MUST have been generated by a certificate whose subject matches the contents of that id-pe-mudsigner extension. If these conditions are not met, or if it cannot validate the chain of trust to a known trust anchor, the MUD manager MUST cease processing the MUD file until an administrator has given approval. The purpose of the signature on the file is to assign accountability to an entity, whose reputation can be used to guide administrators on whether or not to accept a given MUD file. It is already common place to check web reputation on the location of a server on which a file resides. While it is likely that the manufacturer will be the signer of the file, this is not strictly necessary, and it may not be desirable. For one thing, in some environments, integrators may install their own certificates. For another, what is more important is the accountability of the recommendation, and not just the relationship between the Thing and the file.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 An example: % openssl cms -verify -in mudfile.p7s -inform DER -content mudfile Note the additional step of verifying the common trust root.14. Extensibility One of our design goals is to see that MUD files are able to be understood by as broad a cross-section of systems as is possible. Coupled with the fact that we have also chosen to leverage existing mechanisms, we are left with no ability to negotiate extensions and a limited desire for those extensions in any event. As such, a two- tier extensibility framework is employed, as follows: 1. At a coarse grain, a protocol version is included in a MUD URL. This memo specifies MUD version 1. Any and all changes are entertained when this version is bumped. Transition approaches between versions would be a matter for discussion in future versions. 2. At a finer grain, only extensions that would not incur additional risk to the Thing are permitted. Specifically, adding nodes to the mud container is permitted with the understanding that such additions will be ignored by unaware implementations. Any such extensions SHALL be standardized through the IETF process and MUST be named in the "extensions" list. MUD managers MUST ignore YANG nodes they do not understand and SHOULD create an exception to be resolved by an administrator, so as to avoid any policy inconsistencies.15. Deployment Considerations Because MUD consists of a number of architectural building blocks, it is possible to assemble different deployment scenarios. One key aspect is where to place policy enforcement. In order to protect the Thing from other Things within a local deployment, policy can be enforced on the nearest switch or access point. In order to limit unwanted traffic within a network, it may also be advisable to enforce policy as close to the Internet as possible. In some circumstances, policy enforcement may not be available at the closest hop. At that point, the risk of lateral infection (infection of devices that reside near one another) is increased to the number of Things that are able to communicate without protection. A caution about some of the classes: admission of a Thing into the "manufacturer" and "same-manufacturer" class may have impact on the access of other Things. Put another way, the admission may grow theLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 access list on switches connected to other Things, depending on how access is managed. Some care should be given on managing that access list growth. Alternative methods such as additional network segmentation can be used to keep that growth within reason. Because as of this writing MUD is a new concept, one can expect a great many devices to not have implemented it. It remains a local deployment decision as to whether a device that is first connected should be allowed broad or limited access. Furthermore, as mentioned in the introduction, a deployment may choose to ignore a MUD policy in its entirety and simply take into account the MUD URL as a classifier to be used as part of a local policy decision. Finally, please see directly below information regarding device lifetimes and use of domain names.16. Security Considerations Based on how a MUD URL is emitted, a Thing may be able to lie about what it is, thus gaining additional network access. This can happen in a number of ways when a device emits a MUD URL using DHCP or LLDP, such as being inappropriately admitted to a class such as "same-manufacturer", being given access to a device such as "my-controller", or being permitted access to an Internet resource, where such access would otherwise be disallowed. Whether that is the case will depend on the deployment. Implementations SHOULD be configurable to disallow additive access for devices using MUD URLs that are not emitted in a secure fashion such as in a certificate. Similarly, implementations SHOULD NOT grant elevated permissions (beyond those of devices presenting no MUD policy) to devices that do not strongly bind their identity to their L2/L3 transmissions. When insecure methods are used by the MUD manager, the classes SHOULD NOT contain devices that use both insecure and secure methods, in order to prevent privilege escalation attacks, and MUST NOT contain devices with the same MUD URL that are derived from both strong and weak authentication methods. Devices may forge source (L2/L3) information. Deployments should apply appropriate protections to bind communications to the authentication that has taken place. For 802.1X authentication, IEEE 802.1AE (MACsec) [IEEE8021AE] is one means by which this may happen. A similar approach can be used with 802.11i (Wi-Fi Protected Access 2 (WPA2)) [IEEE80211i]. Other means are available with other lower- layer technologies. Implementations using session-oriented access that is not cryptographically bound should take care to remove state when any form of break in the session is detected.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 A rogue certification authority (CA) may sign a certificate that contains the same subject name as is listed in the MUDsigner field in the manufacturer certificate, thus seemingly permitting a substitute MUD file for a device. There are two mitigations available: First, if the signer changes, this may be flagged as an exception by the MUD manager. Second, if the MUD file also changes, the MUD manager SHOULD seek administrator approval (it should do this in any case). In all circumstances, the MUD manager MUST maintain a cache of trusted CAs for this purpose. When such a rogue is discovered, it SHOULD be removed. Additional mitigations are described below. When certificates are not present, Things claiming to be of a certain manufacturer SHOULD NOT be included in that manufacturer grouping without additional validation of some form. This will be relevant when the MUD manager makes use of primitives such as "manufacturer" for the purpose of accessing Things of a particular type. Similarly, network management systems may be able to fingerprint the Thing. In such cases, the MUD URL can act as a classifier that can be proven or disproven. Fingerprinting may have other advantages as well: when 802.1AR certificates are used, because they themselves cannot change, fingerprinting offers the opportunity to add artifacts to the MUD string in the form of the reserved field discussed inSection 10. The meaning of such artifacts is left as future work. MUD managers SHOULD NOT accept a usage description for a Thing with the same Media Access Control (MAC) address that has indicated a change of the URL authority without some additional validation (such as review by a network administrator). New Things that present some form of unauthenticated MUD URL SHOULD be validated by some external means when they would be given increased network access. It may be possible for a rogue manufacturer to inappropriately exercise the MUD file parser, in order to exploit a vulnerability. There are two recommended approaches to address this threat. The first is to validate that the signer of the MUD file is known to and trusted by the MUD manager. The second is to have a system do a primary scan of the file to ensure that it is both parseable and believable at some level. MUD files will likely be relatively small, to start with. The number of ACEs used by any given Thing should be relatively small as well. It may also be useful to limit retrieval of MUD URLs to only those sites that are known to have decent web or domain reputations. Use of a URL necessitates the use of domain names. If a domain name changes ownership, the new owner of that domain may be able to provide MUD files that MUD managers would consider valid. MUDLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 managers SHOULD cache certificates used by the MUD file server. When a new certificate is retrieved for whatever reason, the MUD manager should check to see if ownership of the domain has changed. A fair programmatic approximation of this is when the name servers for the domain have changed. If the actual MUD file has changed, the MUD manager MAY check the WHOIS database to see if registration ownership of a domain has changed. If a change has occurred, or if for some reason it is not possible to determine whether ownership has changed, further review may be warranted. Note, this remediation does not take into account the case of a Thing that was produced long ago and only recently fielded, or the case where a new MUD manager has been installed. The release of a MUD URL by a Thing reveals what the Thing is and provides an attacker with guidance on what vulnerabilities may be present. While the MUD URL itself is not intended to be unique to a specific Thing, the release of the URL may aid an observer in identifying individuals when combined with other information. This is a privacy consideration. In addressing both of these concerns, implementors should take into account what other information they are advertising through mechanisms such as Multicast DNS (mDNS) [RFC6872]; how a Thing might otherwise be identified, perhaps through how it behaves when it is connected to the network; and whether a Thing is intended to be used by individuals or carry personal identifying information, and then apply appropriate data minimization techniques. One approach is to make use of TEAP [RFC7170] as the means to share information with authorized components in the network. Network elements may also assist in limiting access to the MUD URL through the use of mechanisms such as DHCPv6-Shield [RFC7610]. There is the risk of the MUD manager itself being spied on to determine what things are connected to the network. To address this risk, MUD managers may choose to make use of TLS proxies that they trust that would aggregate other information. Please note that the security considerations mentioned inSection 3.7 of [RFC8407] are not applicable in this case because the YANG serialization is not intended to be accessed via NETCONF. However, for those who try to instantiate this model in a network element via the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), all objects in each model in this document exhibit similar security characteristics as [RFC8519]. The basic purpose of MUD is to configure access, so by its very nature, it can be disruptive if used by unauthorized parties.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 201917. IANA Considerations17.1. YANG Module Registrations The following YANG modules have been registered in the "YANG Module Names" registry: Name: ietf-mud URN: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mud Prefix: ietf-mud Registrant contact: The IESG Reference:RFC 8520 Name: ietf-acldns URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-acldns Prefix: ietf-acldns Registrant contact: The IESG Reference:RFC 852017.2. URI Registrations IANA has added the following entries to the "IETF XML registry": URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-acldns Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A. The requested URI is an XML namespace. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mud Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A. The requested URI is an XML namespace.17.3. DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Options The IANA has allocated OPTION_MUD_URL_V4 (161) in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry, and OPTION_MUD_URL_V6 (112) in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" registry, as described inSection 10.17.4. PKIX Extensions IANA has made the following assignments for: o The MUDURLExtnModule-2016 ASN.1 module (88) in the "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier" registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0). o id-pe-mud-url object identifier (25) from the "SMI Security for PKIX Certificate Extension" registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.1).Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 o id-pe-mudsigner object identifier (30) from the "SMI Security for PKIX Certificate Extension" registry. o id-ct-mudtype object identifier (41) from the "SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type" registry. o The use of these values is specified inSection 11.17.5. Media Type Registration for MUD Files The following media type is defined for the transfer of MUD files: o Type name: application o Subtype name: mud+json o Required parameters: N/A o Optional parameters: N/A o Encoding considerations: 8bit; "application/mud+json" values are represented as JSON objects; UTF-8 encoding MUST be employed [RFC3629]. o Security considerations: See Security Considerations ofRFC 8520 andSection 12 of [RFC8259]. o Interoperability considerations: N/A o Published specification:RFC 8520 o Applications that use this media type: MUD managers as specified byRFC 8520. o Fragment identifier considerations: N/A o Additional information: Magic number(s): N/A File extension(s): N/A Macintosh file type code(s): N/A o Person & email address to contact for further information: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@gmail.com>, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> o Intended usage: COMMON o Restrictions on usage: noneLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 o Author: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Ralph Droms <rdroms@gmail.com> Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> o Change controller: IESG o Provisional registration? (standards tree only): No.17.6. IANA LLDP TLV Subtype Registry IANA has created a new registry titled "IANA Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) TLV Subtypes" under "IEEE 802 Numbers". The policy for this registry is Expert Review [RFC8126]. The maximum number of entries in the registry is 256. IANA has populated the initial registry as follows: LLDP subtype value: 1 (All the other 255 values are initially marked as "Unassigned".) Description: the Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) Uniform Resource Locator (URL) Reference:RFC 852017.7. The MUD Well-Known Universal Resource Name (URNs) The following parameter registry has been added in accordance with [RFC3553]. Registry name: MUD Well-Known Universal Resource Name (URN) Specification:RFC 8520 Repository:https://www.iana.org/assignments/mud Index value: Encoded identically to a TCP/UDP port service name, as specified inSection 5.1 of [RFC6335] The following entries have been added to the "MUD Well-Known Universal Resource Name (URN)" registry: "urn:ietf:params:mud:dns" refers to the service specified by [RFC1123]. "urn:ietf:params:mud:ntp" refers to the service specified by [RFC5905].Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 201917.8. Extensions Registry The IANA has established a registry of extensions as follows: Registry name: MUD Extensions Registry policy: Standards Action Reference:RFC 8520 Extension name: UTF-8-encoded string, not to exceed 40 characters. Each extension MUST follow the rules specified in this specification. As is usual, the IANA issues early allocations in accordance with [RFC7120].18. References18.1. Normative References [IEEE8021AB] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks-- Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery", IEEE 802.1AB. [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3,RFC 1123, DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1123>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>. [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS",RFC 2818, DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>. [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63,RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>. [RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H. Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)",RFC 3748, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748>.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. [RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)",RFC 3987, DOI 10.17487/RFC3987, January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987>. [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68,RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>. [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile",RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>. [RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>. [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification",RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>. [RFC5912] Hoffman, P. and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)",RFC 5912, DOI 10.17487/RFC5912, June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5912>. [RFC6268] Schaad, J. and S. Turner, "Additional New ASN.1 Modules for the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)",RFC 6268, DOI 10.17487/RFC6268, July 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6268>. [RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S. Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry",BCP 165,RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>. [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points",BCP 100,RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>. [RFC7227] Hankins, D., Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Jiang, S., and S. Krishnan, "Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options",BCP 187,RFC 7227, DOI 10.17487/RFC7227, May 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7227>. [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>. [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content",RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>. [RFC7610] Gont, F., Liu, W., and G. Van de Velde, "DHCPv6-Shield: Protecting against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers",BCP 199,RFC 7610, DOI 10.17487/RFC7610, August 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7610>. [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>. [RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase inRFC2119 Key Words",BCP 14,RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. [RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90,RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>. [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",BCP 215,RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 [RFC8348] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Dong, J., and D. Romascanu, "A YANG Data Model for Hardware Management",RFC 8348, DOI 10.17487/RFC8348, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8348>. [RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A., Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>. [RFC8519] Jethanandani, M., Agarwal, S., Huang, L., and D. Blair, "YANG Data Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs)",RFC 8519, DOI 10.17487/RFC8519, March 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8519>.18.2. Informative References [FW95] Chapman, D. and E. Zwicky, "Building Internet Firewalls", First Edition, November 1995. [IEEE80211i] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for information technology- Telecommunications and information exchange between systems-Local and metropolitan area networks-Specific requirements-Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Amendment 6: Medium Access Control (MAC) Security Enhancements", IEEE 802.11i. [IEEE8021AE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks-Media Access Control (MAC) Security", IEEE 802.1AE. [IEEE8021AR] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Secure Device Identity", IEEE 802.1AR. [IEEE8021X] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--Port-Based Network Access Control", IEEE 802.1X. [RFC1984] IAB and IESG, "IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet",BCP 200,RFC 1984, DOI 10.17487/RFC1984, August 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1984>.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 [RFC3553] Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameters",BCP 73,RFC 3553, DOI 10.17487/RFC3553, June 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3553>. [RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service",RFC 6092, DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>. [RFC6872] Gurbani, V., Ed., Burger, E., Ed., Anjali, T., Abdelnur, H., and O. Festor, "The Common Log Format (CLF) for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Framework and Information Model",RFC 6872, DOI 10.17487/RFC6872, February 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6872>. [RFC7042] Eastlake 3rd, D. and J. Abley, "IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters",BCP 141,RFC 7042, DOI 10.17487/RFC7042, October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7042>. [RFC7170] Zhou, H., Cam-Winget, N., Salowey, J., and S. Hanna, "Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1",RFC 7170, DOI 10.17487/RFC7170, May 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7170>. [RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)",RFC 7252, DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>. [RFC7452] Tschofenig, H., Arkko, J., Thaler, D., and D. McPherson, "Architectural Considerations in Smart Object Networking",RFC 7452, DOI 10.17487/RFC7452, March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7452>. [RFC7488] Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., Patil, P., and T. Reddy, "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Server Selection",RFC 7488, DOI 10.17487/RFC7488, March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7488>. [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface Management",RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>. [RFC8407] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models",BCP 216,RFC 8407, DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, October 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8407>.Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019Appendix A. Default MUD Nodes What follows is the portion of a MUD file that permits DNS traffic to a controller that is registered with the URN "urn:ietf:params:mud:dns" and traffic NTP to a controller that is registered with "urn:ietf:params:mud:ntp". This is considered the default behavior, and the ACEs are in effect appended to whatever other "ace" entries that a MUD file contains. To block DNS or NTP, one repeats the matching statement but replaces the "forwarding" action "accept" with "drop". Because ACEs are processed in the order they are received, the defaults would not be reached. A MUD manager might further decide to optimize to simply not include the defaults when they are overridden. Four "acl" list entries that implement default MUD nodes are listed below. Two are for IPv4 and two are for IPv6 (one in each direction for both versions of IP). Note that neither the access list name nor the ace name need be retained or used in any way by local implementations; they are simply there for the sake of completeness. "ietf-access-control-list:acls": { "acl": [ { "name": "mud-59776-v4to", "type": "ipv4-acl-type", "aces": { "ace": [ { "name": "ent0-todev", "matches": { "ietf-mud:mud": { "controller": "urn:ietf:params:mud:dns" }, "ipv4": { "protocol": 17 }, "udp": { "source-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 53 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } }, {Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 "name": "ent1-todev", "matches": { "ietf-mud:mud": { "controller": "urn:ietf:params:mud:ntp" }, "ipv4": { "protocol": 17 }, "udp": { "source-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 123 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } }, { "name": "mud-59776-v4fr", "type": "ipv4-acl-type", "aces": { "ace": [ { "name": "ent0-frdev", "matches": { "ietf-mud:mud": { "controller": "urn:ietf:params:mud:dns" }, "ipv4": { "protocol": 17 }, "udp": { "destination-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 53 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } }, {Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 "name": "ent1-frdev", "matches": { "ietf-mud:mud": { "controller": "urn:ietf:params:mud:ntp" }, "ipv4": { "protocol": 17 }, "udp": { "destination-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 123 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } }, { "name": "mud-59776-v6to", "type": "ipv6-acl-type", "aces": { "ace": [ { "name": "ent0-todev", "matches": { "ietf-mud:mud": { "controller": "urn:ietf:params:mud:dns" }, "ipv6": { "protocol": 17 }, "udp": { "source-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 53 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } }, {Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 "name": "ent1-todev", "matches": { "ietf-mud:mud": { "controller": "urn:ietf:params:mud:ntp" }, "ipv6": { "protocol": 17 }, "udp": { "source-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 123 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } }, { "name": "mud-59776-v6fr", "type": "ipv6-acl-type", "aces": { "ace": [ { "name": "ent0-frdev", "matches": { "ietf-mud:mud": { "controller": "urn:ietf:params:mud:dns" }, "ipv6": { "protocol": 17 }, "udp": { "destination-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 53 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } }, {Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 "name": "ent1-frdev", "matches": { "ietf-mud:mud": { "controller": "urn:ietf:params:mud:ntp" }, "ipv6": { "protocol": 17 }, "udp": { "destination-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 123 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } } ] }Appendix B. A Sample Extension: DETNET-indicator In this sample extension, we augment the core MUD model to indicate whether the device implements DETNET. If a device claims not to use DETNET, but then later attempts to do so, a notification or exception might be generated. Note that this example is intended only for illustrative purposes. Extension Name: "Example-Extension" (to be used in the extensions list) Standard:RFC 8520 (but do not register the example) This extension augments the MUD model to include a single node, using the following sample module that has the following tree structure: module: ietf-mud-detext-example augment /ietf-mud:mud: +--rw is-detnet-required? booleanLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 The model is defined as follows: <CODE BEGINS>file "ietf-mud-detext-example@2019-01-28.yang" module ietf-mud-detext-example { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mud-detext-example"; prefix ietf-mud-detext-example; import ietf-mud { prefix ietf-mud; } organization "IETF OPSAWG (Operations and Management Area Working Group)"; contact "WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/> WG List: opsawg@ietf.org Author: Eliot Lear lear@cisco.com Author: Ralph Droms rdroms@gmail.com Author: Dan Romascanu dromasca@gmail.com "; description "Sample extension to a MUD module to indicate a need for DETNET support."; revision 2019-01-28 { description "Initial revision."; reference "RFC 8520: Manufacturer Usage Description Specification"; } augment "/ietf-mud:mud" { description "This adds a simple extension for a manufacturer to indicate whether DETNET is required by a device."; leaf is-detnet-required { type boolean; description "This value will equal 'true' if a device requiresLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 DETNET to properly function."; } } } <CODE ENDS> Using the previous example, we now show how the extension would be expressed: { "ietf-mud:mud": { "mud-version": 1, "mud-url": "https://lighting.example.com/lightbulb2000", "last-update": "2019-01-28T11:20:51+01:00", "cache-validity": 48, "extensions": [ "ietf-mud-detext-example" ], "ietf-mud-detext-example:is-detnet-required": "false", "is-supported": true, "systeminfo": "The BMS Example Light Bulb", "from-device-policy": { "access-lists": { "access-list": [ { "name": "mud-76100-v6fr" } ] } }, "to-device-policy": { "access-lists": { "access-list": [ { "name": "mud-76100-v6to" } ] } } }, "ietf-access-control-list:acls": { "acl": [ { "name": "mud-76100-v6to", "type": "ipv6-acl-type", "aces": { "ace": [ {Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 "name": "cl0-todev", "matches": { "ipv6": { "ietf-acldns:src-dnsname": "test.example.com", "protocol": 6 }, "tcp": { "ietf-mud:direction-initiated": "from-device", "source-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 443 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } }, { "name": "mud-76100-v6fr", "type": "ipv6-acl-type", "aces": { "ace": [ { "name": "cl0-frdev", "matches": { "ipv6": { "ietf-acldns:dst-dnsname": "test.example.com", "protocol": 6 }, "tcp": { "ietf-mud:direction-initiated": "from-device", "destination-port": { "operator": "eq", "port": 443 } } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } }Lear, et al. Standards Track [Page 59]
RFC 8520 Manufacturer Usage Descriptions March 2019 ] } }Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Einar Nilsen-Nygaard, who singlehandedly updated the model to match the updated ACL model, Bernie Volz, Tom Gindin, Brian Weis, Sandeep Kumar, Thorsten Dahm, John Bashinski, Steve Rich, Jim Bieda, Dan Wing, Joe Clarke, Henk Birkholz, Adam Montville, Jim Schaad, and Robert Sparks for their valuable advice and reviews. Russ Housley entirely rewroteSection 11 to be a complete module. Adrian Farrel provided the basis for the privacy considerations text. Kent Watsen provided a thorough review of the architecture and the YANG model. The remaining errors in this work are entirely the responsibility of the authors.Authors' Addresses Eliot Lear Cisco Systems Richtistrasse 7 Wallisellen CH-8304 Switzerland Phone: +41 44 878 9200 Email: lear@cisco.com Ralph Droms Google 355 Main St., 5th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 United States of America Phone: +1 978 376 3731 Email: rdroms@gmail.com Dan Romascanu Phone: +972 54 5555347 Email: dromasca@gmail.comLear, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]
[8]ページ先頭