<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
     which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
     There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced. 
     An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), 
     please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space 
     (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-15" ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="SeDHCPv6">Secure DHCPv6</title>

    <author fullname="Sheng Jiang" initials="S." surname="Jiang">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Q14, Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Road</street>

          <city>Hai-Dian District, Beijing, 100095</city>

          <country>CN</country>
        </postal>

        <email>jiangsheng@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Lishan Li" initials="L." surname="Li">
      <organization>Tsinghua University</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <code>100084</code>

          <country>P.R.China</country>
        </postal>

        <phone>+86-15201441862</phone>

        <email>lilishan48@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Yong Cui" initials="Y." surname="Cui">
      <organization>Tsinghua University</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <code>100084</code>

          <country>P.R.China</country>
        </postal>

        <phone>+86-10-6260-3059</phone>

        <email>yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Tatuya Jinmei" initials="T." surname="Jinmei">
      <organization>Infoblox Inc.</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>3111 Coronado Drive</street>

          <city>Santa Clara</city>

          <region>CA</region>

          <country>US</country>
        </postal>

        <email>jinmei@wide.ad.jp</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Ted Lemon" initials="T." surname="Lemon">
      <organization>Nominum, Inc.</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>2000 Seaport Blvd</street>

          <city>Redwood City, CA</city>

          <code>94063</code>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <phone>+1-650-381-6000</phone>

        <email>Ted.Lemon@nominum.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Dacheng Zhang" initials="D." surname="Zhang">
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <country>CN</country>
        </postal>

        <email>dacheng.zhang@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date month="" year="2016" />

    <area>Internet Area</area>

    <workgroup>DHC Working Group</workgroup>

    <keyword>Secure</keyword>

    <keyword>DHCPv6</keyword>

    <keyword>Public Key</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>DHCPv6 includes no deployable security mechanism that can protect 
      end-to-end communication between DHCP clients and servers. This 
      document describes a mechanism for using public key cryptography to
      provide such security. The mechanism provides encryption in all
      cases, and can be used for authentication based on pre-sharing 
      of authorized certificates.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6, <xref
      target="RFC3315"></xref>) allows DHCPv6 servers to flexibly provide 
      addressing and other configuration information relating to local 
      network infrastructure to DHCP clients. The protocol provides no 
      deployable security mechanism, and consequently is vulnerable to 
      various attacks.</t>

      <t>This document provides a brief summary of the security vulnerabilities
      of the DHCPv6 protocol and then describes a new extension to the 
      protocol that provides two additional types of security:<list style="symbols">
          <t>authentication of the DHCPv6 client and the DHCPv6 server to
          defend against active attacks, such as spoofing.</t>

          <t>encryption between the DHCPv6 client and the DHCPv6 server in
          order to protect the DHCPv6 communication from pervasive monitoring.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>The extension specified in this document applies only to end-to-end
      communication between DHCP servers and clients. Options added by 
      relay agents in Relay-Forward messages, and options other than 
      the client message in Relay-Reply messages sent by DHCP servers, 
      are not protected. Such communications are already protected 
      using the mechanism described in section 21.1 in <xref target="RFC3315"></xref>.</t>

      <t>This extension introduces two new DHCPv6 messages: the Encrypted-
      Query and the Encrypted-Response messages. It defines four
      new DHCPv6 options: the Certificate, the Signature,
      the Increasing-number, and the Encrypted-message options.
      The Certificate, Signature, and Increasing-number options
      are used for authentication. The Encryption-Query message,
      Encryption-Response message and Encrypted-message option are used
      for encryption.</t>
      <!--  
      <t>The security mechanism specified in this document is based on DHCPv6 
      client/server's certificates with associated private keys. It also 
      integrates message signatures for the integrity
      and timestamps for anti-replay. The sender authentication procedure
      using certificates defined in this document depends on deployed Public
      Key Infrastructure (PKI, <xref target="RFC5280"></xref>). However, the
      deployment of PKI is out of the scope of this document.</t>
      -->
    </section>

    <section title="Requirements Language and Terminology">
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
      document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
      target="RFC2119"></xref> when they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words
      are not in ALL CAPS (such as "should" or "Should"), they have their
      usual English meanings, and are not to be interpreted as <xref
      target="RFC2119"></xref> key words.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Terminology">
      <t>This section defines terminology specific to secure DHCPv6 used in
      this document.</t>

      <t><list hangIndent="16" style="hanging">
          <t hangText="secure DHCPv6 client:">A node that initiates a DHCPv6 request on a
          link to obtain DHCPv6 configuration parameters
          from one or more DHCPv6 servers using the
          encryption and optional authentication mechanisms
          defined in this document.</t>

          <t hangText="secure DHCPv6 server:">A DHCPv6 server that implements 
          the authentication and encryption mechanisms
          defined in this document, and is configured
          to use them.</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Issues of DHCPv6">
      <t><xref target="RFC3315"></xref> defines an authentication mechanism 
      with integrity protection. This mechanism uses a symmetric key that is 
      shared by the client and server for authentication. It does not provide 
      any key distribution mechanism.</t>

      <t>For this approach, operators can set up a key database for both
      servers and clients from which the client obtains a key before
      running DHCPv6. However, manual key distribution runs counter to
      the goal of minimizing the configuration data needed at each host.
      Consequently, there are no known deployments of this security
      mechanism.</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC3315"></xref> provides an additional mechanism for 
      preventing off-network timing attacks using the Reconfigure message: 
      the Reconfigure Key authentication method. However, this method protects 
      only the Reconfigure message. The key is transmitted in plaintext to 
      the client in earlier exchanges and so this method is vulnerable to
      on-path active attacks.</t>

      <t>Anonymity Profile for DHCP Clients <xref target="RFC7844"></xref> 
      explains how to generate DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 requests that minimize the
      disclosure of identifying information. However, the anonymity profile
      limits the use of the certain options. It also cannot anticipate
      new options that may contain private information is defined. In
      addition, the anonymity profile does not work in cases where
      the client wants to maintain anonymity from eavesdroppers
      but must identify itself to the DHCP server with which it
      intends to communicate.</t>

      <t>Privacy consideration for DHCPv6 <xref target="RFC7824"></xref> 
      presents an analysis of the privacy issues associated with the use 
      of DHCPv6 by Internet users. No solutions are presented.</t>

      <t>Current DHCPv6 messages are still transmitted in cleartext and the
      privacy information within the DHCPv6 message is not protected from
      passive attack, such as pervasive monitoring <xref target="RFC7258"></xref>.
      The privacy information of the IPv6 host, such as DUID, may be 
      gleaned to find location information, previous visited networks
      and so on. <xref target="RFC7258"></xref> claims that pervasive 
      monitoring should be mitigated in the design of IETF protocol, 
      where possible.</t>

      <t>To better address the problem of passive monitoring and to
      achieve authentication without requiring a symmetric key
      distribution solution for DHCP, this document defines an
      asymmetric key authentication and encryption mechanism.
      This protects against both active attacks, such as spoofing,
      and passive attacks, such as pervasive monitoring.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Secure DHCPv6 Overview">
      <section title="Solution Overview">
        <t>The following figure illustrated secure DHCPv6 procedure. 
        Briefly, this extension establishes the server's identity with an
        anonymous Information-Request exchange. Once the server's identity
        has been established, the client may either choose to communicate
        with the server or not. Not communicating with an unknown server
        avoids revealing private information, but if there is no known
        server on a particular link, the client will be unable to communicate
        with a DHCP server.</t>

        <t>If the client chooses to communicate with a server, it uses the
        Encrypted-Query message to encapsulate its communications to the
        DHCP server. The server responds with Encrypted-Response messages.
        Normal DHCP messages are encapsulated in these two new messages
        using the new defined Encrypted-message option. Besides the 
        Encrypted-message option, the Signature option is defined to verify
        the integrity of the DHCPv6 messages and then authentication of 
        client and server. The Increasing number option is defined to detect 
        replay attack.</t>

        <figure align="center" title="Secure DHCPv6 Procedure">
          <artwork><![CDATA[
        +-------------+                           +-------------+
        |DHCPv6 Client|                           |DHCPv6 Server|
        +-------------+                           +-------------+
               |            Information-request           |                            
               |----------------------------------------->|
               |           Option Request option          |
               |                                          |
               |                    Reply                 |
               |<-----------------------------------------|
               |             Certificate option           |
               |             Signature option             |
               |          Increasing-number option        |
               |         Server Identifier option         |
               |                                          |
               |            Encryption-Query              |                            
               |----------------------------------------->|
               |          Encrypted-message option        |
               |          Server Identifier option        |
               |                                          |
               |            Encryption-Response           |                            
               |<-----------------------------------------|
               |          Encrypted-message option        |
               |                                          |
      ]]></artwork>
        </figure>

		<!--
        <t>It is worth noticing that the signature on a Secure DHCPv6 message
        can be expected to significantly increase the size of the message. One
        example is normal DHCPv6 message length plus 1 KB for a X.509
        certificate and signature and 256 byte for a signature. IPv6 fragments
        <xref target="RFC2460"></xref> are highly possible. Hence, deployment of
        Secure DHCPv6 should also consider the issues of IP fragment, PMTU,
        etc. Also, if there are firewalls and relays between secure DHCPv6 clients 
		and secure DHCPv6 servers, it is RECOMMENDED that the firewalls and 
		relays are configured to pass ICMP Packet Too Big messages <xref target="RFC4443"></xref>.</t>
		-->
      </section>

      <section title="New Components">
        <t>The new components of the mechanism specified in this document are
        as follows:</t>

        <t><list style="symbols">
           <t>Servers and clients that use certificates first generate a
           public/private key pair and then obtain a certificate that signs 
			     the public key. The Certificate option is defined to carry the 
			     certificate of the sender.</t>

			     <t>A signature is generated using the private key to verify the 
           integrity of the DHCPv6 messages. The Signature option is defined 
           to carry the signature.</t>
			
           <t>A Increasing-number is used to detect replayed packet. The 
			     Timestamp is one of the possible implementation choices. The 
           Increasing-number option is defined to carry a strictly-increasing 
           serial number. </t>

            <t>The Encrypted-message option contains the encrypted DHCPv6
            message.</t>

            <t>The Encrypted-Query message is sent from the secure DHCPv6 
			      client to the secure DHCPv6 server. The Encrypted-Query message 
			      MUST contain the Encrypted-message option. In addition, the Server 
            Identifier option MUST be contained if it is contained in the 
            original DHCPv6 message. The Encrypted-Query message MUST NOT
            contain other options except the above options.</t>

            <t>The Encrypted-Response message is sent from the secure DHCPv6
			      server to the secure DHCPv6 client. The Encrypted-Response message 
			      MUST contain the Encrypted-message option. The Encrypted-Response 
            message MUST NOT contain any other options except it.</t>
          </list></t>
      </section>
 
      <section title="Support for Algorithm Agility">
        <t>In order to provide a means of addressing problems that may emerge 
		    with existing hash algorithms, signature algorithm and encryption 
        algorithms in the future, this document provides a mechanism 
		    to support algorithm agility. The support for algorithm agility 
        in this document is mainly a algorithm notification mechanism between
        the client and the server. The same client and server SHOULD use 
        the same algorithm in a single communication session. The sender 
        can offer a set of algorithms, and then the receiver selects one 
        algorithm for the future communication.</t>

        <!--
        In some scenario, the hash and signature 
        algorithms cannot be separated, with e.g. eddsa that goes away as 
        the hash is fixed for the curve. In this scenario, the signature 
        algorithm field is set to the corresponding value and the hash 
        algorithm field is set to zero.</t>
      -->

        <t>If the server does not support the algorithm used by the client,
        the server SHOULD reply with an AlgorithmNotSupported status code 
		    (defined in <xref target="StatusCodes"></xref>) to the client.
		    Upon receiving this status code, the client MAY resend the message 
		    protected with the mandatory algorithm.</t>
      </section>
	  
      <section title="Caused change to RFC3315">
        <t>This protocol changes DHCPv6 message exchanges quite substantially:
        previously, the client first sends a Solicit message, gets possibly
        multiple Advertise messages, chooses the server (= sender of one of
        the Advertises) that would be best for the client, and then sends a
        Request to that chosen server. Now the server selection is done at
        the key exchange phase (the initial Information-request and Reply
        exchange). In addition, the Solicit and Rebind messages can be sent 
        only to a single server.  If the client doesn't like the Advertise 
        it could restart the whole process, but it will be more expensive, 
        and there's no guarantee that other servers can provide a better 
        Advertise. For the privacy consideration, we have to give up 
        the previous server selection feature.</t>

        <t><xref target="RFC3315"></xref> provides an additional mechanism for 
        preventing off-network timing attacks using the Reconfigure message: 
        the Reconfigure Key authentication method. Secure DHCPv6 can protect
        the Reconfigure message using the encryption method. So the Reconfigure
        Key authentication method SHOULD NOT be used if Secure DHCPv6 is
        applied.</t>
      </section>
      <!--
      <section title="Support for Algorithm Agility">
        <t>Hash functions are used to provide message integrity checks. In
        order to provide a means of addressing problems that may emerge in the
        future with existing hash algorithms, as recommended in <xref
        target="RFC4270"></xref>, this document provides a mechanism for
        negotiating the use of more secure hashes in the future.</t>

        <t>In addition to hash algorithm agility, this document also provides
        a mechanism for signature algorithm agility.</t>

        <t>The support for algorithm agility in this document is a unilateral 
		notification mechanism from a server to a client through the Reply 
		message. A client MAY support various algorithms among different servers 
		simultaneously. It is NOT RECOMMENDED that the same client and server use 
		various algorithms in a single communication session.</t>

        <t>If the client does not support the hash and signature algorithms used by
		the server, the Reply message SHOULD be dropped. If both hash and signature
		algorithms are supported, the client then checks the authority of this
		server. The client SHOULD also use the same algorithms in the subsequent
		messages.</t>
		depending on the local policy on the client, the client can choose 
		to drop the message, or skip the check;
      </section>

      <section title="Imposed Additional Constraints">
        <t>The client/server that supports identity verification MAY
        impose additional constraints for verification. For example, it
        may impose limits on minimum and maximum key lengths.</t>

        <t><list style="hanging">
            <t hangText="Minbits">The minimum acceptable key length for public
            keys. An upper limit MAY also be set for the amount of computation
            needed when verifying packets that use these security
            associations. The appropriate lengths SHOULD be set according to
            the signature algorithm and also following prudent cryptographic
            practice. For example, minimum length 1024 and upper limit 2048
            may be used for RSA <xref target="RSA"></xref>.</t>
          </list></t>
      </section>
	  -->

      <section title="Applicability">
        <t>In principle, secure DHCPv6 is applicable in any environment where
        physical security on the link is not assured and attacks on DHCPv6
        are a concern. In practice, however, authenticated and encrypted 
        DHCPv6 configuration will rely on some operational assumptions mainly 
        regarding public key distribution and management. In order to achieve 
        the more wide use of secure DHCPv6, opportunistic security <xref target="RFC7435"></xref>
        can be applied to secure DHCPv6 deployment, which allows DHCPv6 
        encryption in environments where support for authentication is not 
        available.</t>

        <t>Secure DHCPv6 can achieve authentication and encryption based on
        pre-sharing of authorized certificates.  The One feasible environment 
        in an early deployment stage would be enterprise networks. In enterprise 
        networks, the client is manually pre-configured with the trusted 
        servers' public key and the server is also manually pre-configured 
        with the trusted clients' public keys. In some scenario, such as 
        coffee shop where the certificate cannot be validated and don't want 
        to be blocked from the Internet, then the DHCPv6 configuration process 
        can be encrypted without authentication.</t>

        <t>Note that this deployment scenario based on manual operation is not
        different very much from the existing, shared-secret based
        authentication mechanisms defined in [RFC3315] in terms of
        operational costs.  However, Secure DHCPv6 is still securer than the
        shared-secret mechanism in that even if clients' keys stored for the
        server are stolen that does not mean an immediate threat as these are
        public keys.  In addition, if some kind of PKI is used with Secure
        DHCPv6, even if the initial installation of the certificates is done
        manually, it will help reduce operational costs of revocation in case
        a private key (especially that of the server) is compromised.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="DHCPv6 Client Behavior">
      <t>The secure DHCPv6 client is pre-configured with a certificate and its 
	    corresponding private key for client authentication. If the client is 
      pre-configured with public key but not with a certificate, it can generate 
      the self-signed certificate.</t>

      <t>The secure DHCPv6 client sends Information-request message as per 
	    <xref target="RFC3315"></xref>. The Information-request message is used 
	    by the DHCPv6 client to request the server's identity verification information 
	    without having addresses, prefixes or any non-security options assigned to 
	    it. The Information-request message MUST NOT include any other DHCPv6 options 
	    except the ORO option to minimize client's privacy information leakage. The 
	    Option Request option in the Information-request message MUST contain the 
	    option code of the Certificate option.</t>

      <t>When receiving the Reply messages from DHCPv6 servers, a secure
      DHCPv6 client discards any DHCPv6 messages that meet any of the
      following conditions:<list style="symbols">
          <t>the Signature option is missing,</t>

          <t>multiple Signature options are present,</t>

          <t>the Certificate option is missing.</t>
        </list></t>

	    <t>And then the client first checks the support of the hash algorithm, 
	    signature algorithm and encryption algorithms that the server supports. 
      If the checks fails, the Reply message is dropped. If the hash algorithm
      field is zero, then it indicates that the hash algorithm is fixed 
      according to the corresponding signature algorithm. If all the 
      algorithms are supported, then the client selects one hash algorithm, 
      signature algorithm and encryption algorithm from the provided algorithms
      set. And then the client also uses the same algorithms in the return 
      messages.</t>
	  
      <t>Then the client checks the authority of the server. The client 
      validates the certificates through the pre-configured local trusted 
      certificates list or other methods. A certificate that finds a 
	    match in the local trust certificates list is treated as verified.
	    <!--If the 
	    client want to check server's certificate to see whether it has been revoked, 
	    the OCSP stapling can be used. 
	    -->
	    The message transaction-id is used as the identifier of the authenticated 
	    server's public key for further message encryption. At this point, the 
      client has either recognized the certificate of the server, or decided 
      to drop the message.
	    </t>
	  
	    <t>The client MUST now authenticate the server by verifying the signature
      and checking increasing number, if there is a Increasing-number option. 
      The order of two procedures is left as an implementation decision. It is 
      RECOMMENDED to check increasing number first, because signature verification 
      is much more computationally expensive. If the decrypted message contains 
      the Increasing-number option, the client checks it according to the rule 
      defined in <xref target="IncreasingNumCheck"></xref>. For the message 
      without an Increasing-number option, according to the client's local policy,
      it MAY be acceptable or rejected. If the server rejects such a message, the 
      increasing number check fails.</t>

      <t>The Signature field verification MUST show that the signature has
      been calculated as specified in <xref target="SigOption"></xref>. Only
      the messages that get through both the signature verification and
      increasing number check (if there is a Increasing-number option) are 
      accepted. Reply message that does not pass the above tests MUST be 
      discarded.</t>

      <t>If there are multiple authenticated DHCPv6 certs, the client
      selects one DHCPv6 cert. The client can also choose other implementation 
      method depending on the client's local policy if the defined protocol 
      can also run normally. For example, the client can try multiple 
      transactions (each encrypted with different public key) at the "same" 
      time. It should be noted that the selected certificate may correspond
      to multiple DHCPv6 servers.</t>

      <t>If there are no authenticated DHCPv6 certs or existing servers 
      fail authentication, the client should retry a number of times. The 
      client conducts the server discovery process as per section 18.1.5 
      of <xref target="RFC3315"></xref> to avoid the packet storm. In this way, 
      it is difficult for the rogue server to beat out a busy "real" server. 
      And then the client takes some alternative action depending on its 
      local policy, such as attempting to use an unsecured DHCPv6 server. 
      </t>

      <t>Once the server has been authenticated, the DHCPv6 client sends the
      Encrypted-Query message to the DHCPv6 server. The Encrypted-Query message 
	    contains the Encrypted-message option, which MUST be constructed as 
	    explained in <xref target="EncryMesOption"></xref>. In addition, the Server 
      Identifier option MUST be included if it is in the original message 
      (i.e. Request, Renew, Decline, Release) to avoid the need for other servers 
      receiving the message to attempt to decrypt it. The Encrypted-message 
      option contains the DHCPv6 message that is encrypted using the public 
      key contained in the selected cert. The Encrypted-Query message MUST 
      NOT contain any other DHCPv6 option except the Server Identifier option 
      and Encrypted-Message option.</t>
	  
	    <t>The first DHCPv6 message sent from the client to the server, such as 
      Solicit message, MUST contain the Certificate option, Signature option and 
      Increasing-number option for client authentication. The encryption 
      text SHOULD be formatted as explain in <xref target="RFC5652"></xref>. 
      The Certificate option MUST be constructed as explained in <xref target="CertOption"></xref>. 
      It should be noted that a client's certificate for the mandatory algorithm
      MUST be contained to ensure that the Reply message with the error code 
      can be encrypted using the mandatory algorithm. In addition, one and only 
      one Signature option MUST be contained, which MUST be constructed as 
      explained in <xref target="SigOption"></xref>. One and only one 
      Increasing-number option SHOULD be contained, which MUST be constructed 
      as explained in <xref target="IncreasingNumOption"></xref>.</t>
	  
	    <t>If the client has multiple certificates with different public/private 
	    key pairs, the message transaction-id is also used as the identifier of the 
	    client's private key for decryption. In addition, the subsequent encrypted 
	    DHCPv6 message can contain the Increasing-number option to defend against 
      replay attack.</t>

      <t>For the received Encrypted-Response message, the client MUST drop the 
      Encrypted-Response message if other DHCPv6 option except Encrypted-message 
      option is contained. Then, the client extracts the Encrypted-message 
      option and decrypts it using its private key to obtain the original DHCPv6 
      message. Then it handles the message as per <xref target="RFC3315"></xref>. 
      If the decrypted DHCPv6 message contains the Increasing-number option, the 
      DHCPv6 client checks it according to the rule defined in 
      <xref target="IncreasingNumCheck"></xref>. If the client fails to get the 
      proper parameters from the chosen server, it sends the Encrypted-Query 
      message to another authenticated server for parameters configuration 
      until the client obtains the proper parameters.</t>

      <t>When the decrypted message is Reply message with an error status code,
      the error status code indicates the failure reason on the server side.
      According to the received status code, the client MAY take follow-up
      action:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
	      <t>Upon receiving an AlgorithmNotSupported error status code, the
        client SHOULD resend the message protected with one of the
        mandatory algorithms.</t>
	  
        <t>Upon receiving an AuthenticationFail error status code, the
        client is not able to build up the secure communication with the
        server. However, there may be other DHCPv6 servers available that          
        successfully complete authentication. The client MAY use the
        AuthenticationFail as a hint and switch to other certificate if 
		    it has another one; but otherwise treat the message containing the 
		    status code as if it had not been received. But it SHOULD NOT retry 
		    with the same certificate. However, if the client decides to retransmit 
		    using the same certificate after receiving AuthenticationFail, it MUST 
		    NOT retransmit immediately and MUST follow normal retransmission 
		    routines defined in <xref target="RFC3315"></xref>.</t>
		  
		    <t>Upon receiving a DecryptionFail error status code, the client MAY
        resend the message following normal retransmission routines
        defined in <xref target="RFC3315"></xref>.</t>
		  
		    <t>Upon receiving a ReplayDetected error status code, the client 
        MAY resend the message with an adjusted Increasing-number option 
        according to the returned number from the DHCPv6 server.</t>
		  
		    <t>Upon receiving a SignatureFail error status code, the client MAY
        resend the message following normal retransmission routines defined
       in <xref target="RFC3315"></xref>.</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="DHCPv6 Server Behavior">
      <t>The secure DHCPv6 server is pre-configured with a certificate and its 
	    corresponding private key for server authentication. If the server is 
      pre-configured with public key but not with a certificate, it can generate 
      the self-signed certificate.</t>

      <t>When the DHCPv6 server receives the Information-request message and
      the contained Option Request option identifies the request is for the server
      certificate information, it replies with a Reply message to the client.
      The Reply message MUST contain the requested Certificate option, which
      MUST be constructed as explained in <xref target="CertOption"></xref>, 
	    and Server Identifier option. In addition, the Reply message MUST contain
	    one and only one Signature option, which MUST be constructed as explained 
	    in <xref target="SigOption"></xref>. Besides, the Reply message SHOULD 
	    contain one and only one Increasing-number option, which MUST be constructed 
      as explained in <xref target="IncreasingNumOption"></xref>. In addition, 
      if client authentication is needed, then the ORO option in the Reply 
      message contains the code of the certificate option to indicate the 
      request of the client certificate information.</t>

      <t>Upon the receipt of Encrypted-Query message, the server MUST drop 
      the message if the other DHCPv6 option is contained except Server Identifier 
      option and Encrypted-message option. Then, the server checks the
      Server Identifier option if the Encrypted-Query message contains it. 
      The DHCPv6 server drops the message that is not for it, thus not 
      paying cost to decrypt messages. It decrypts the Encrypted-message 
      option using its private key if it is the target server. If the 
      decryption fails, the server SHOULD send an encrypted Reply message 
      with a DecryptionFail error status code, defined in 
      <xref target="StatusCodes"></xref>, back to the client.</t>

      <t>If secure DHCPv6 server needs client authentication and decrypted message 
      is a Solicit/Information-request message which contains the information
      for client authentication, the secure DHCPv6 server discards the received 
      message that meets any of the following conditions:<list style="symbols">
          <t>the Signature option is missing,</t>

          <t>multiple Signature options are present,</t>

          <t>the Certificate option is missing.</t>
        </list></t>
	    <t>In such failure, the server SHOULD send an encrypted Reply message 
      with an UnspecFail (value 1, <xref target="RFC3315"></xref>) error status
      code to the client.</t>
	  
	    <t>The server SHOULD first check the support of the hash function, 
	    signature algorithm, encryption algorithm that the client supports. If 
      the hash algorithm field is zero, then the corresponding hash algorithm
      is fixed according to the signature algorithm. If the check fails, the 
      server SHOULD reply with an AlgorithmNotSupported error status code, 
      defined in <xref target="StatusCodes"></xref>, back to the client. 
	    Because the server does not support the acknowledged algorithm, the 
	    Reply message with the AlgorithmNotSupported error status code is 
	    encrypted with the mandatory algorithm. If all the algorithms are 
	    supported, the server then uses the acknowledged algorithms in the 
      future communication.</t>
	  
	    <t>The server validates the client's certificate through the local 
      pre-configured trusted certificates list. A certificate that finds 
      a match in the local trust certificates list is treated as verified. 
      The message that fails authentication validation MUST be dropped. 
      In such failure, the DHCPv6 server replies with an AuthenticationFail 
      error status code, defined in <xref target="StatusCodes"></xref>, 
	    back to the client. The Reply message with the AuthenticationFail 
	    error status code is also encrypted. At this point, the server has 
	    either recognized the authentication of the client, or decided to 
	    drop the message.</t>
	  
	    <t>If the decrypted message contains the Increasing-number option, the 
      server checks it according to the rule defined in <xref target="IncreasingNumCheck"></xref>.
      If the check fails, an encrypted Reply message with a ReplayDetected 
      error status code, defined in <xref target="StatusCodes"></xref>, 
      should be sent back to the client. In addition, a Increasing-number 
      option is carried to indicate the server's stored number for the client
      to use. According to the server's local policy, the message without 
      an Increasing-number option MAY be acceptable or rejected. If the server
      rejects such a message, the server processes it as the increasing number
      check fails.</t>

      <!--
	  <t>If the server does not send the Timestamp option, the client ignores
      the timestamp check and verifies the signature. If there is a timestamp
      option, the server MUST now authenticate the client by verifying the
      signature and checking timestamp (see details in <xref
      target="timestampCheck"></xref>). The order of two procedures is left as
      an implementation decision. It is RECOMMENDED to check timestamp first,
      because signature verification is much more computationally expensive.
      Depending on server's local policy, the message without a Timestamp
      option MAY be acceptable or rejected. If the server rejects such a
      message, a TimestampFail error status code, defined in <xref
      target="StatusCodes"></xref>, should be sent back to the client. The
      reply message that carries the TimestampFail error status code SHOULD
      carry a Timestamp option, which indicates the server's clock for the
      client to use.</t>
      -->

      <t>The Signature field verification MUST show that the signature has
      been calculated as specified in <xref target="SigOption"></xref>. 
      If the signature check fails, the DHCPv6 server SHOULD send an 
      encrypted Reply message with a SignatureFail error status code.
      Only the clients that get through both the signature verification and
      increasing number check (if there is a Increasing-number option) are 
      accepted as authenticated clients and continue to be handled their 
      message as defined in <xref target="RFC3315"></xref>.</t>
      <!--
      ; or
      a TimestampFail error status code, defined in <xref
      target="StatusCodes"></xref>, for the timestamp check failure, back to
      the client.
      -->
	  
      <t>Once the client has been authenticated, the DHCPv6 server sends the
      Encrypted-response message to the DHCPv6 client. The Encrypted-response
      message MUST only contain the Encrypted-message option, which MUST be 
      constructed as explained in <xref target="EncryMesOption"></xref>. The 
      encryption text SHOULD be formatted as explain in <xref target="RFC5652"></xref>. 
      The Encrypted-message option contains the encrypted DHCPv6 message that 
      is encrypted using the authenticated client's public key. To provide the 
	  replay protection, the Increasing-number option can be contained in the 
      encrypted DHCPv6 message.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Relay Agent Behavior">
      <t>When a DHCPv6 relay agent receives an Encrypted-query or
      Encrypted-response message, it may not recognize this message. The
      unknown messages MUST be forwarded as described in <xref
      target="RFC7283"></xref>.</t>

      <t>When a DHCPv6 relay agent recognizes the Encrypted-query and
      Encrypted-response messages, it forwards the message according to
      section 20 of <xref target="RFC3315"></xref>. There is nothing more the
      relay agents have to do, it neither needs to verify the messages from
      client or server, nor add any secure DHCPv6 options. Actually, by
      definition in this document, relay agents MUST NOT add any secure
      DHCPv6 options.</t>

      <t>Relay-forward and Relay-reply messages MUST NOT contain any
      additional Certificate option or Increasing-number option, aside from those 
	  present in the innermost encapsulated messages from the client or 
	  server.</t>
	  
	  <t>Relay agent is RECOMMENDED to cache server announcements to form 
	  the list of the available DHCPv6 server certs. If the relay agent 
	  receives the Information-request message, then it replies with  
	  a list of server certs available locally. In this way, the client 
	  can be confident of a quick response, and therefore treat the lack 
	  of a quick response as an indication that no authenticated DHCP servers 
	  exist.</t>
    </section>

    <!--
    <section title="Processing Rules">
      <section anchor="timestampCheck" title="Timestamp Check">
        <t>In order to check the Timestamp option, defined in <xref
        target="TimeStampOption"></xref>, recipients SHOULD be configured with
        an allowed timestamp Delta value, a "fuzz factor" for comparisons, and
        an allowed clock drift parameter. The recommended default value for
        the allowed Delta is 300 seconds (5 minutes); for fuzz factor 1
        second; and for clock drift, 0.01 second.</t>

        <t>Note: the Timestamp mechanism is based on the assumption that
        communication peers have roughly synchronized clocks, within certain
        allowed clock drift. So, an accurate clock is not necessary. If one has a
        clock too far from the current time, the timestamp mechanism would not
        work.</t>

        <t>To facilitate timestamp checking, each recipient SHOULD store the
        following information for each sender, from which at least one
        accepted secure DHCPv6 message is successfully verified (for 
        timestamp check and signature verification):</t>

        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>The receive time of the last received and accepted DHCPv6
            message. This is called RDlast.</t>

            <t>The timestamp in the last received and accepted DHCPv6 message.
            This is called TSlast.</t>
          </list>A verified (for timestamp check and signature verification) 
		  secure DHCPv6 message initiates the update of the above variables 
		  in the recipient's record.</t>

        <t>Recipients MUST check the Timestamp field as follows:</t>

        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>When a message is received from a new peer (i.e., one that is
            not stored in the cache), the received timestamp, TSnew, is
            checked, and the message is accepted if the timestamp is recent
            enough to the reception time of the packet, RDnew:<list
                style="empty">
                <t>-Delta &lt; (RDnew - TSnew) &lt; +Delta</t>
              </list><vspace blankLines="1" />After the signature verification
            also succeeds, the RDnew and TSnew values SHOULD be stored in the
            cache as RDlast and TSlast.</t>

            <t>When a message is received from a known peer (i.e., one that
            already has an entry in the cache), the timestamp is checked
            against the previously received Secure DHCPv6 message:<list
                style="empty">
                <t>TSnew + fuzz &gt; TSlast + (RDnew - RDlast) x (1 - drift) -
                fuzz</t>
              </list><vspace blankLines="1" />If this inequality does not hold
            or RDnew &lt; RDlast, the recipient SHOULD silently discard the
            message. If, on the other hand, the inequality holds, the
            recipient SHOULD process the message. <vspace
            blankLines="1" />Moreover, if the above inequality holds and TSnew
            &gt; TSlast, the recipient SHOULD update RDlast and TSlast after
            the signature verification also successes. Otherwise, the
            recipient MUST NOT update RDlast or TSlast.</t>
          </list>An implementation MAY use some mechanism such as a timestamp
        cache to strengthen resistance to replay attacks. When there is a very
        large number of nodes on the same link, or when a cache filling attack
        is in progress, it is possible that the cache holding the most recent
        timestamp per sender will become full. In this case, the node MUST
        remove some entries from the cache or refuse some new requested
        entries. The specific policy as to which entries are preferred over
        others is left as an implementation decision.</t>

        <t>An implementation MAY statefully record the latest timestamps from
        senders. In such implementation, the timestamps MUST be strictly
        monotonously increasing. This is reasonable given that DHCPv6 messages
        are rarely misordered.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    -->
    <section title="Processing Rules">
	  <section anchor="IncreasingNumCheck" title="Increasing Number Check">
        <t>In order to check the Increasing-number option, defined in <xref
        target="IncreasingNumOption"></xref>, the client/server has one stable 
        stored number for replay attack detection. The server should keep a 
        record of the increasing number forever. And the client keeps a record 
        of the increasing number during the transaction with the DHCPv6 server. 
        In addition, the client can forget the increasing number information 
        after the transaction is finished.</t>

        <t>It is essential to remember that the increasing number is finite.
        All arithmetic dealing with sequence numbers must be performed modulo 
        2^64. This unsigned arithmetic preserves the relationship of sequence 
        numbers as they cycle from 2^64 - 1 to 0 again.</t>

        <t>In order to check the Increasing-number option, the following
        comparison is needed. The symbol means "less or equal" (modulo 2^64). 
        </t>

        <t>NUM.STO = the stored number in the client/server</t>

        <t>NUM.REC = the acknowledged number from the received message</t>

        <t>The Increasing-number option in the received message passes the 
        increasing number check if NUM.REC is more than NUM.STO. And then, 
        the value of NUM.STO is changed into the value of NUM.REC.</t>

        <t>The increasing number check fails if NUM.REC is equal or less 
        than NUM.STO</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Extensions for Secure DHCPv6">
      <t>This section describes the extensions to DHCPv6. Four new DHCPv6
      options, two new DHCPv6 messages and five new status codes are 
	  defined.</t>

      <section title="New DHCPv6 Options">
        <section anchor="CertOption" title="Certificate Option">
          <t>The Certificate option carries the certificate(s) of the client/server. 
		      The format of the Certificate option is described as follows:</t>

          <t><figure align="center">
              <artwork><![CDATA[ 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_CERTIFICATE       |         option-len            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     EA-num    |      EA-id    |   EA-id       |     ...       .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+    
|   Cert-len    |                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               .
.                  Certificate (variable length)                .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   Cert-len    |                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               .
.                  Certificate (variable length)                .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
.                                ...                            .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

option-code    OPTION_CERTIFICATE (TBA1).

option-len     1 + length of EA-id list + length of certificate 
               list in octets.

EA-num         The number of the supported encryption algorithm.

EA-id          Encryption Algorithm id. The encryption algorithm 
               is used for the encrypted DHCPv6 configuration 
               process. This design is adopted in order to provide
               encryption algorithm agility. The value is from the
               Encryption Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 registry in 
               IANA. A registry of the initial assigned values 
               is defined in Section 12.

cert-len       The length of the certificate.

Certificate    A variable-length field containing certificates. The
               encoding of certificate and certificate data MUST
               be in format as defined in Section 3.6, [RFC7296].
               The support of X.509 certificate is mandatory.
]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>
        </section>
			   

        <section anchor="SigOption" title="Signature option">
          <t>The Signature option allows a signature that is signed by the
          private key to be attached to a DHCPv6 message. The Signature option
          could be in any place within the DHCPv6 message while it is logically
          created after the entire DHCPv6 header and options. It protects the 
		      entire DHCPv6 header and options, including itself. The format of 
          the Signature option is described as follows:</t>

          <t><figure align="center">
              <artwork><![CDATA[ 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_SIGNATURE          |        option-len             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     SA-num    |     SA-id     |     SA-id     |      ...      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     HA-num    |     HA-id     |     HA-id     |      ...      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
.                    Signature (variable length)                .
.                                                               .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

option-code    OPTION_SIGNATURE (TBA2).

option-len     2 + length of SA-id list + length of HA-id list + 
               length of Signature field in octets.

SA-id          Signature Algorithm id. The signature algorithm is
               used for computing the signature result. This 
               design is adopted in order to provide signature 
               algorithm agility. The value is from the Signature
               Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 registry in IANA. The
               support of RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 is mandatory. A 
               registry of the initial assigned values is defined
               in Section 12. 

HA-id          Hash Algorithm id. The hash algorithm is used for 
               computing the signature result. This design is 
               adopted in order to provide hash algorithm agility.
               The value is from the Hash Algorithm for Secure 
               DHCPv6 registry in IANA. The support of SHA-256 is
               mandatory. A registry of the initial assigned values
               is defined in Section 12. If the signature algorithm 
               and hash algorithm cannot be separated, the HA-id
               field is zero. The hash algorithm is decided by the
               corresponding signature algorithm.

Signature      A variable-length field containing a digital 
               signature. The signature value is computed with
               the hash algorithm and the signature algorithm,
               as described in HA-id and SA-id. The signature
               constructed by using the sender's private key
               protects the following sequence of octets:

               1. The DHCPv6 message header.

               2. All DHCPv6 options including the Signature
               option (fill the Signature field with zeroes).

               The Signature field MUST be padded, with all 0, to
               the next octet boundary if its size is not a
               multiple of 8 bits. The padding length depends on
               the signature algorithm, which is indicated in the
               SA-id field.
]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>
		  <t>Note: If Secure DHCPv6 is used, the DHCPv6 message is encrypted in a 
          way that the authentication mechanism defined in RFC3315 does not understand.
          So the Authentication option SHOULD NOT be used if Secure DHCPv6 is 
          applied.</t>
		  <!--Note: if both signature and authentication option are
          present, Signature option does not protect the Authentication
          Option. It allows the Authentication Option to be created after
          signature has been calculated and filled with the valid signature.
          It is because both options need to apply hash algorithm to whole
          message, so there must be a clear order and there can be only one
          last-created option. In order to avoid update <xref target="RFC3315"></xref> 
          because of changing auth option, the authors choose not to include 
          authentication option in the signature.</t>
		  -->
        </section>


        <section anchor="IncreasingNumOption" title="Increasing-number Option">
          <t>The Increasing-number option carries the number which is higher than the 
          local stored number on the client/server. It adds the anti-replay protection 
          to the DHCPv6 messages. It is optional.</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[ 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_INCREASING_NUM       |        option-len             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
|                  InreasingNum (64-bit)                        |
|                                                               |
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

option-code    OPTION_INCREASING_NUM (TBA3).

option-len     8, in octets.

IncreasingNum  A strictly increasing number for the replay attack detection 
               which is more than the local stored number.
               ]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="EncryMesOption" title="Encrypted-message Option">
          <t>The Encrypted-message option carries the encrypted DHCPv6 message
          with the recipient's public key.</t>

          <t>The format of the Encrypted-message option is:</t>

          <figure align="center" anchor="option-dhcpv6-msg"
                  title="Encrypted-message Option Format">
            <artwork><![CDATA[
   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-code          |           option-len          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  .                  encrypted DHCPv6 message                     .
  .                       (variable)                              .
  .                                                               .
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>

          <t><list style="hanging">
              <t hangText="option-code">OPTION_ENCRYPTED_MSG (TBA4).</t>

              <t hangText="option-len">Length of the encrypted DHCPv6
              message.</t>

              <t hangText="encrypted DHCPv6 message">A variable length field
              containing the encrypted DHCPv6 message sent by the client or
              the server. In Encrypted-Query message, it contains encrypted
              DHCPv6 message sent by a client. In Encrypted-response message,
              it contains encrypted DHCPv6 message sent by a server.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>
      </section>

	  <section anchor="DHCPv6Messages" title="New DHCPv6 Messages">
        <t>Two new DHCPv6 messages are defined to achieve the DHCPv6 encryption:
        Encrypted-Query and Encrypted-Response. Both the DHCPv6 messages defined
        in this document share the following format:</t>
        <figure align="center" anchor="encrypted-query-format"
                  title="The format of Encrypted-Query and Encrypted-Response Messages">
          <artwork><![CDATA[
   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    msg-type   |               transaction-id                  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  .                             options                           .
  .                           (variable)                          .
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>

        <t><list hangIndent="16" style="hanging">
            <t hangText="msg-type">Identifier of the message type. It can be either
              Encrypted-Query (TBA5) or DHCPv6-Response (TBA6).</t>

            <t hangText="transaction-id">The transaction ID for this message
            exchange.</t>

            <t hangText="options">The Encrypted-Query message MUST contain the 
            Encrypted-message option and MUST contain the Server Identifier option
            if the message in the Encrypted-message option has a Server Identifier 
            option. The Encrypted-Response message MUST only contain the 
            Encrypted-message option.</t>
          </list></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="StatusCodes" title="Status Codes">
        <t>The following new status codes, see Section 5.4 of <xref
        target="RFC3315"></xref> are defined. <list style="symbols">
            <t>AlgorithmNotSupported (TBD7): indicates that the DHCPv6 server
            does not support algorithms that sender used.</t>

            <t>AuthenticationFail (TBD8): indicates that the message from the
	        DHCPv6 client fails authentication check.</t>

            <t>ReplayDetected (TBD9): indicates the message from DHCPv6 client
            fails the increasing number check.</t>
			
			<t>SignatureFail (TBD10): indicates the message from DHCPv6 client
            fails the signature check.</t>
			
			<t>DecryptionFail (TBD11): indicates the message from DHCPv6 client
			fails the DHCPv6 message decryption.</t>
        </list></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>This document provides the authentication and encryption mechanisms
      for DHCPv6.</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC6273"></xref> has analyzed possible threats to the
      hash algorithms used in SEND. Since Secure DHCPv6 defined in this
      document uses the same hash algorithms in similar way to SEND, analysis
      results could be applied as well: current attacks on hash functions do
      not constitute any practical threat to the digital signatures used in
      the signature algorithm in Secure DHCPv6.</t>
	  
      <t>A server, whose local policy accepts messages without a Increasing-number
      option, may have to face the risk of replay attacks.</t>

      <!--
      <t>A window of vulnerability for replay attacks exists until the
      timestamp expires. Secure DHCPv6 nodes are protected against replay
      attacks as long as they cache the state created by the message
      containing the timestamp. The cached state allows the node to protect
      itself against replayed messages. However, once the node flushes the
      state for whatever reason, an attacker can re-create the state by
      replaying an old message while the timestamp is still valid. In
      addition, the effectiveness of timestamps is largely dependent upon the
      accuracy of synchronization between communicating nodes. However, how
      the two communicating nodes can be synchronized is out of scope of this
      work.</t>
      -->

      <!--
      <t>Attacks against time synchronization protocols such as NTP <xref target="RFC5905"></xref>
      may cause Secure DHCPv6 nodes to have an incorrect timestamp value. This
      can be used to launch replay attacks, even outside the normal window of
      vulnerability. To protect against these attacks, it is recommended that
      Secure DHCPv6 nodes keep independently maintained clocks or apply
      suitable security measures for the time synchronization protocols.</t>
	    -->

	    <t>There are some mandatory algorithm for encryption algorithm in this
	    document. It may be at some point that the mandatory algorithm is no 
	    longer safe to use.</t>
	  
	    <t>If the client tries more than one cert for client authentication, the 
	    server can easily get a client that implements this to enumerate its 
	    entire cert list and probably learn a lot about a client that way.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
	    <t>This document defines four new DHCPv6 <xref target="RFC3315"></xref>
      options. The IANA is requested to assign values for these four options
      from the DHCPv6 Option Codes table of the DHCPv6 Parameters registry
      maintained in http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters. The
      four options are:</t>

      <t><list style="empty">
          <t>The Certificate Option (TBA1), described in <xref
          target="CertOption"></xref>.</t>

          <t>The Signature Option (TBA2), described in <xref
          target="SigOption"></xref>.</t>

          <t>The Increasing-number Option (TBA3),described in <xref
          target="IncreasingNumOption"></xref>.</t>

          <t>The Encrypted-message Option (TBA4), described in <xref
          target="EncryMesOption"></xref>.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>The IANA is also requested to assign value for these two messages
      from the DHCPv6 Message Types table of the DHCPv6 Parameters registry
      maintained in http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters. The two
      messages are:</t>

      <t><list style="empty">
          <t>The Encrypted-Query Message (TBA5), described in <xref
          target="DHCPv6Messages"></xref>.</t>

          <t>The Encrypted-Response Message (TBA6), described in <xref
          target="DHCPv6Messages"></xref>.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>The IANA is also requested to add three new registry tables to the
      DHCPv6 Parameters registry maintained in
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters. The three tables are
      the Hash Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 table, the Signature Algorithm
      for Secure DHCPv6 table and the Encryption Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6
	  table.</t>

      <t>Initial values for these registries are given below. Future
      assignments are to be made through Standards Action <xref
      target="RFC5226"></xref>. Assignments for each registry consist of a
      name, a value and a RFC number where the registry is defined.</t>

      <t>Hash Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6. The values in this table are 8-bit
      unsigned integers. The following initial values are assigned for Hash
      Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 in this document:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[          Name        |  Value  |  RFCs
   -------------------+---------+--------------
      SigAlg-Combined |   ox00  | this document
         SHA-256      |   0x01  | this document
         SHA-512      |   0x02  | this document
]]></artwork>
        </figure>Signature Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6. The values in this
      table are 8-bit unsigned integers. The following initial values are
      assigned for Signature Algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 in this document:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[          Name        |  Value  |  RFCs
   -------------------+---------+--------------
    RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 |   0x01  | this document
]]></artwork>
        </figure>Encryption algorithm for Secure DHCPv6. The values in this table are 
	  8-bit unsigned integers. The following initial values are assigned for 
      encryption algorithm for Secure DHCPv6 in this document:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[          Name        |  Value  |  RFCs
   -------------------+---------+--------------
           RSA        |   0x01  | this document
]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>
		
	  <t>IANA is requested to assign the following new DHCPv6 Status
      Codes, defined in <xref target="StatusCodes"></xref>, in the DHCPv6
      Parameters registry maintained in
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[      Code  |           Name        |   Reference
   ---------+-----------------------+--------------
      TBD7  | AlgorithmNotSupported | this document
      TBD8  |   AuthenticationFail  | this document
      TBD9  |     ReplayDetected    | this document
      TBD10 |     SignatureFail     | this document
      TBD11 |    DecryptionFail     | this document  
]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The authors would like to thank Tomek Mrugalski, Bernie Volz, Jianping
	    Wu, Randy Bush, Yiu Lee, Sean Shen, Ralph Droms, Jari Arkko, Sean
      Turner, Stephen Farrell, Christian Huitema, Stephen Kent, Thomas Huth,
      David Schumacher, Francis Dupont, Gang Chen, Suresh Krishnan, Fred
      Templin, Robert Elz, Nico Williams, Erik Kline, Alan DeKok, Bernard
      Aboba, Sam Hartman, Qi Sun, Zilong Liu and other members of the IETF
      DHC working group for their valuable comments.</t>

      <t>This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool <xref
      target="RFC2629"></xref>.</t>
    </section>
	
    <section anchor="changes" title="Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]">
      <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-14: For the deployment part, Tofu is 
      out of scope and take Opportunistic security into consideration;
      Increasing number option is changed into 64 bits; Increasing number
      check is a separate section; IncreasingnumFail error status code 
      is changed into ReplayDetected error status code; Add the section 
      of "caused change to RFC3315";</t>

      <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-13: Change the Timestamp option into 
      Increasing-number option and the corresponding check method; Delete 
      the OCSP stampling part for the certificate check; Add the scenario
      where the hash and signature algorithms cannot be separated; Add the 
      comparison with RFC7824 and RFC7844; Add the encryption text format
      and reference of RFC5652. Add the consideration of scenario where 
      multiple DHCPv6 servers share one common DHCPv6 server. Add the 
      statement that Encrypted-Query and Encrypted-Response messages can
      only contain certain options: Server Identifier option and 
      Encrypted-message option. Add opportunistic security for deployment 
      consideration. Besides authentication+encyrption mode, encryption-only 
      mode is added.</t>

	  <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-12: Add the Signature option and timestamp
	  option during server/client authentication process. Add the hash
	  function and signature algorithm. Add the requirement: The Information-request
      message cannot contain any other options except ORO option. Modify 
	  the use of "SHOULD"; Delete the reference of RFC5280 and modify the 
	  method of client/server cert verification; Add the relay agent cache
	  function for the quick response when there is no authenticated server.
	  2016-4-24.</t>
	  
	  <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-11: Delete the Signature option, because the 
	  encrypted DHCPv6 message and the Information-request message (only contain
	  the Certificate option) don't need the Signature option for message 
	  integrity check; Rewrite the "Applicability" section; Add the encryption 
	  algorithm negotiation process; To support the encryption algorithm 
	  negotiation, the Certificate option contains the EA-id(encryption 
	  algorithm identifier) field; Reserve the Timestamp option to defend 
	  against the replay attacks for encrypted DHCPv6 configuration process; 
	  Modify the client behavior when there is no authenticated DHCPv6 server; 
	  Add the DecryptionFail error code. 2016-3-9.</t>
	  
	  <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-10: merge DHCPv6 authentication and DHCPv6
	  encryption. The public key option is removed, because the device can 
	  generate the self-signed certificate if it is pre-configured the public
	  key not the certificate. 2015-12-10.</t>
	
	  <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-09: change some texts about the deployment
	  part.2015-12-10.</t>
	  
      <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08: clarified what the client and the server
      should do if it receives a message using unsupported algorithm; refined
      the error code treatment regarding to AuthenticationFail and
      TimestampFail; added consideration on how to reduce the DoS attack when
      using TOFU; other general editorial cleanups. 2015-06-10.</t>

      <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-07: removed the deployment consideration
      section; instead, described more straightforward use cases with TOFU in
      the overview section, and clarified how the public keys would be stored
      at the recipient when TOFU is used. The overview section also clarified
      the integration of PKI or other similar infrastructure is an open issue.
      2015-03-23.</t>

      <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-06: remove the limitation that only clients
      use PKI- certificates and only servers use public keys. The new text
      would allow clients use public keys and servers use PKI-certificates.
      2015-02-18.</t>

      <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-05: addressed comments from mail list that
      responsed to the second WGLC. 2014-12-08.</t>

      <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04: addressed comments from mail list. Making
      timestamp an independent and optional option. Reduce the serverside
      authentication to base on only client's certificate. Reduce the
      clientside authentication to only Leaf of Faith base on server's public
      key. 2014-09-26.</t>

      <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-03: addressed comments from WGLC. Added a new
      section "Deployment Consideration". Corrected the Public Key Field in
      the Public Key Option. Added consideration for large DHCPv6 message
      transmission. Added TimestampFail error code. Refined the retransmission
      rules on clients. 2014-06-18.</t>

      <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-02: addressed comments (applicability
      statement, redesign the error codes and their logic) from IETF89 DHC WG
      meeting and volunteer reviewers. 2014-04-14.</t>

      <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-01: addressed comments from IETF88 DHC WG
      meeting. Moved Dacheng Zhang from acknowledgement to be co-author.
      2014-02-14.</t>

      <t>draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-00: adopted by DHC WG. 2013-11-19.</t>

      <t>draft-jiang-dhc-sedhcpv6-02: removed protection between relay agent
      and server due to complexity, following the comments from Ted Lemon,
      Bernie Volz. 2013-10-16.</t>

      <t>draft-jiang-dhc-sedhcpv6-01: update according to review comments from
      Ted Lemon, Bernie Volz, Ralph Droms. Separated Public Key/Certificate
      option into two options. Refined many detailed processes.
      2013-10-08.</t>

      <t>draft-jiang-dhc-sedhcpv6-00: original version, this draft is a
      replacement of draft-ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6, which reached IESG and dead
      because of consideration regarding to CGA. The authors followed the
      suggestion from IESG making a general public key based mechanism.
      2013-06-29.</t>
    </section> 
	
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2460'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3315'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3971'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4443'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5652'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5905'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7296'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7283'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7435'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7824'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7844'?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <reference anchor="RSA">
        <front>
          <title>RSA Encryption Standard, Version 2.1, PKCS 1</title>

          <author fullname="">
            <organization>RSA Laboratories</organization>
          </author>

          <date month="November" year="2002" />
        </front>
      </reference>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2629'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5226'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6273'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7258'?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>

