| Internet-Draft | A2X AdHoc sessions | July 2023 |
| Moskowitz, et al. | Expires 24 January 2024 | [Page] |
Aircraft-to-anything (A2X) communications are often single broadcast messages that need to be signed with expensive (in cpu and payload size) asymmetric cryptography. There are also frequent cases of extended exchanges between two devices where a lower cost symmetric key protect flow can be used.¶
This document shows both how to secure A2X broadcast messages with DRIP DET and Endorsement objects and to leverage these to create an AdHoc session key for just such a communication flow.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 January 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
Aircraft-to-anything (A2X) communications are currently an open area of debate and research. There are questions as to whether air-to-ground-to-air or air-to-air will prevail as the driving force and thus the impetus for solutions. One real need is in air-to-air Detect And Avoid (DAA). There are current DAA approaches for general aviation over Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B); this is unlikely to scale to the needs of Unmanned Aircraft (UA). UA-to-UA and UA - to - General Aviation will drive a different solution.¶
Although all aspects of this document is applicable to all aircraft, the language will be Uncrewed Aircraft (UA) slanted. This is to avoid any confusion within the body of the document about what type of aircraft is under discussion.¶
A prevailing current approach is to leverage the Broadcast Remote ID (B-RID) messages, as they provide situational awareness in the Vector/Location ASTM messages [F3411-22a]. But this message is not adequate by itself for situational awareness as it does not identify the UA (other than the wireless media MAC address). Thus although it is possible for UAs act on a set of B-RID messages, this document will define specific, singular, messages that are directly actionable by listening UAs.¶
The messages defined in this document leverage the DRIP Entity Tags (DET) [RFC9374] and its underlying Ed25519 keypair. It also relies on DET endorsement hierarchy for trust in the DETs.¶
ECDSA as in the ICAO defined International Aviation Common (IAC) PKI can be used in DETs (DET Suite ID of 3). With point-compression, the P-256 keys would have Host Idenities (HI) 1 byte larger than Ed25519 (i.e. 33 bytes). This increase may still be usable. It would also facilitate DAA between civil/general aviation and UAs.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
This document uses the terms defined in Section 2.2 of Drip Requirements and Terminology [RFC9153] and in Section 2 of Drip Architecture [RFC9434]. The following new terms are used in the document:¶
The basic view of Aircraft-to-Anything (A2X) communications is broadcast based. What is there within radio range of a UA? In most situations, the UA has no apriori knowledge of other systems around it. Thus the UA would just broadcast any information of general knowledge, like "Hello, I am me and I am here. Oh, and I am out of fuel and crashing."¶
Thus the first concern is to be able to create a single, trusted message from the UA for all devices around it. The following sections detail the pieces of such a trusted message.¶
The DRIP HDA Endorsement of UA DET is a DRIP Link authentication message as defined in Section 4.2 of [drip-authentication]. It is the primary trust proof of UA DETs. This object is 136 bytes, but in the specific context where the UA DET has the same first 64 bits as the HDA DET (typical case), the 16 byte UA DET can be derived from the HDA DET and the UA HI, compressing the object to 120 bytes.¶
| Bytes | Name | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | VNB Timestamp | Current time at signing, set by HDA |
| 4 | VNA Timestamp | Timestamp denoting recommended time to trust Endorsement, set by HDA |
| 32 | HI of UA | Host Identity of UA |
| 16 | DET of HDA | DRIP Entity Tag of HDA |
| 64 | Signature by HDA | Signature over preceding fields using the keypair of the HDA DET |
The UA can now fully endorse a A2X message by signing it, along with the HDA Compressed Endorsement of the UA (Section 3.1). A Message ID field is needed to distinguish all the multiple messages for this datagram. The message also needs a Until timestamp for a total of 189 bytes plus n bytes of the actual message:¶
| Bytes | Name | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | VNA Timestamp | Timestamp denoting recommended time to trust Evidence |
| 1 | Message ID | A2X Message ID Number |
| n | A2X Message | Actual A2X Message |
| 120 | HDA/UA Endorsement | Compressed HDA on UA Endorsement |
| 64 | Signature by UA | Signature over preceding fields using the keypair of the UA DET |
The UA also has the option to send a A2X message without the HDA Endorsement (Section 3.1). These shorter messages can be alternated with the full messages, based on an assumption that the other parties will receive the full endorsed message either prior or after this shorter message format. Or a block of these shorter messages could be sent based on other assumptions. This message is 85 bytes plus n bytes of the actual message, with the average overhead of the 2 messages (1:1 transmission) is 137 bytes:¶
| Bytes | Name | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | VNA Timestamp | Timestamp denoting recommended time to trust Evidence |
| 1 | Message ID | A2X Message ID Number |
| n | A2X Message | Actual A2X Message |
| 16 | DET of UA | DRIP Entity Tag of UA |
| 64 | Signature by UA | Signature over preceding fields using the keypair of the UA DET |
All the pieces are present in these messages for a SCHC [RFC8724] process to expand them to multicast addressed IPv6 datagrams. The destination IPv6 address would be ff02::1 (all nodes), the source address is the UA DET. The protocol would be UDP with the port numbers are still TBD and completely up to the receiving UA.¶
Thus the A2X application would just be an IPv6 application and A2X could be this broadcast method or a datagram that actually was routed over an IPv6 network. There is no transmission cost to this, just the SCHC mechanism. It is completely up to the receiving UA and the sending UA needs not be concerned if this is how its messages are processed.¶
The Ed25519 keys used for DETs can be converted to Curve25519 keys per [RFC7748] for use in an X25519 ECDH key establishment. The P-256 keys in ECDSA can be directly used in an ECDH key establishment [NIST.SP.800-56Ar3]. However, these keys are not enough for key establishment, nonces are needed to make each encounter has a unique session key. These nonces need to be at least 16 bytes each (from each party in the session). The security concerns of using potentially static, rather than ephemeral EC keys is discussed in Section 8.1.¶
One use case for this is in DAA. There may be a number of messages between two UA during the DAA event. The DAA event would probably start when each party receives a Vector/Location message showing a potential encounter. If we use the ASTM F3411-22a Vector/Location message, less the timestamp information, along with a 16 byte nonce, we have the beginning of the additional information for this ECDH key establishment and use of the key in a authenticated session.¶
| Bytes | Name | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | VNA Timestamp | Timestamp denoting recommended time to trust Evidence |
| 1 | Message ID | A2X Message ID Number |
| 16 | Nonce | Random Session Nonce |
| 20 | Vector/Location | Extracted from ASTM Vector/Location message |
| 120 | HDA/UA Endorsement | Compressed HDA on UA Endorsement |
| 64 | Signature by UA | Signature over preceding fields using the keypair of the UA DET |
Such an authenticated session would look much like DTLS, needing a Connection ID to map in the systems to the symmetric connection keys and ending in a keyed-MAC. Note that authentication may be enough and encryption of the message content will rarely be of value. If specific data elements need confidentiality, they can be encrypted in place using AES-CFB.¶
Carefully constructed, though still random, nonces can be used to construct a 1-byte Connection ID as follows. Each V/L message includes a 16 byte nonce that changes regularly, say once a second. In a 16 (or 32) nonce window, the first 4 bits of the nonce MUST be unique. Then the Connection ID can be: .¶
ConnectionID = ltrunc(othernonce,4)|ltrunc(mynonce,4)
Note that there is no provision in the above message for specifying the session protection algorithm. Table 5, below, does a KMAC on the message; this does not provide for crypto agility.¶
Note that a 1-byte approach could be support of 64 possible algorithms and the above message provide a list of 4 choices in order of preference. This is similar to the DH_GROUP_LIST in the HIPv2 I1 message; at least this list would be protected from tamper by the message signature.¶
Each UA converts its Ed25519 private key to an Curve25519 private key. Likewise it converts the received Ed25519 key to an Curve25519 public key (e.g. [Ed25519_Curve25519]). These are then used for each UA to compute the X25519 derived shared secret. Alternatively a P-256 key may be used.¶
Note that there is no way for one party to use P-256 and the other Curve25519. This method is reserved for cases where both have the same key algorithm.¶
Here, KMAC from [NIST.SP.800-185] is used with x25519. This is a single pass using the underlying cSHAKE function. The function call is:¶
OKM = KMAC128(salt | info, IKM, 128, S)
Where
IKM = X25519 ECDH secret | sort(HI-my | HI-other)
salt = sort(nonce-my | nonce-other)
info = sort(DET-my | DET-other)
S = the byte string 01001011 | 01000100 | 01000110
which is the characters "K", "D", and "F"
in 8-bit ASCII.
Note that that for P-256, HKDF with SHA2 would be used. TBA.¶
Now a session message would be (33 bytes plus n bytes of the actual message):¶
| Bytes | Name | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 16 | Destination DET | DRIP Entity Tag of the destination UA |
| 1 | Connection ID | Source UA Connection ID |
| 1 | Sequence Number | Source UA Sequence Number |
| 1 | Message ID | A2X Message ID Number |
| n | A2A Message | Actual A2A Message |
| 12 | MAC by Source | KMAC on message by Source UA |
Author's Note: Probably should explicitly include the source DET (rather than a SCHC expansion rule) or at least make it explicit ver part of the SCHC expansion rules. This is to protect against cases where multiple UA connected to one destination UA and how to manage ConnectionID to avoid collisions in this 1-byte ID.¶
Author's Note: This section needs the state machine clearly drawn out. Otherwise too hard to follow and implement correctly.¶
In theory once one UA sends its Nonce Enabled A2A message and received a Nonce Enabled A2A message from a nearby UA, it can immediately set up and use the A2A secure messages in Section 4.2. In practice messages will not be received and one UA may operate on the basis that a secure session is possible when the other UA does not have the needed information for the secure session. This section will detail a procedure for UAs to follow to reach that point of common knowledge and thus transition to a secure session.¶
The Connection ID shown in Figure 1 is unidirectional. It is part of a tuple (Source DET, Destination DET, Connection ID) that contains the operational state of the unidirectional secure messages (e.g. session key, sequence number). Each UA in the secure session link MUST have this tuple, but may have multiple such (at least two, one for each direction) and could be using one Connection ID and session for sending and another for receiving. the basis for the tuple for the secured messaging.¶
A Connection ID MUST NOT have each 4-bit component the same; this would break the unidirectional feather of the secure connection. When a UA receives a Nonce Enabled A2A message, it MUST send its own and the contained nonce MUST NOT have the same first 4 bits as the one received. After sending its Nonce Enabled A2A message, it MAY immediately switch to a secure session mode.¶
If a UA receives a secure session message (addressed to its DET), but does not have the security tuple for the contained Connection ID and thus the source DET, it MUST continue to use the Nonce Enabled A2A messages. A UA that receives a Nonce Enabled A2A message MUST work on the basis that the sending UA does not have similar from it. The UA MUST send a Nonce Enabled A2A message and switch to these two messages as¶
This process MAY be repeated for 4 attempts. At which point it should be assumed something is interfering with message transmissions and act accordingly.¶
Author Note: the above datagram was produced from a full IPv6|DTLS message. The MACing is on this original message. The receiver needs to reverse the SCHC before authenticating the message, but this might be a DOS risk.¶
TBD¶
Below are the initial defined messages for use in A2X.¶
| ID | Bytes | Name | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20 | Location/Vector | ASTM Location/Vector Message less timestamp fields |
| 2 | 36 | L/V and Nonce | Msg 1 plus Nonce |
Author's Note: Still need work on what wireless technologies are practical for this approach and even if it is appropriate to discuss actual wireless transport here. There are messages here that are too large for the ASTM Remote ID BT4 limit of 200 bytes, but may well fit into the practical limits of 250 bytes over BT5 and WiFi Beacons. It is even possible of a multi-RF approach, separating the large messages from the short ones.¶
Author's Note: We define here a new ASTM Auth message content that is only sent over BT5 and WiFi Beacons.¶
Author's Note: Using SCHC as an Ethertype we can position these messages to work over multiple wireless tech. Most noteably IEEE 802.11ah (HiLo) with 802.11bc (Enhanced Broadcast Service). Also 802.16 and 802.15.16t (Licensed Narrowband) addendum to 802.16.¶
TBD¶
Author's note: We need to have a discussion on the size of the MAC in the A2A (Table 5) message. Currently a 12-byte MAC is specified. Considering this is an authentication MAC and the messages are timestamped, an 8-byte MAC should be adequate. But the discussion on this is needed and other examples of 8-byte authentication MACs provided.¶
TBD¶
In Section 4 the UA Identity keys are used in a ECDH key derivation operation. The common practice is to use "right now" ephemeral EC keys. This is not practical in this case, as there is very limited time and bandwidth to carry out a full key exchange. Another factor is in most cases the data protected with the derived key is of only immediate value, rarely having any historical worth.¶
Additionally these Identity keys are normally specific to this mission; new keys are typically used for each flight. Thus, in large measure, they are ephemeral.¶
Finally, most uses of this approach is only to authenticate an extended exchange between two UA rather than the more bandwidth costly digitally signed messages.¶
Thus, all factors considered, ECDH key establishment with these Identity keys are practical and within reasonable security bounds.¶
Adam Wiethuechter of AX Enterprize provided review and implementation insights.¶