Embryo Space Inc.

Brownsville TX United States of America embryospace@gmail.com

Internet Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking DTN BPv7 custody receipt extension block This document defines the Custody Receipt Block, a Bundle Protocol Version 7 (BPv7) extension block that carries a chain of signed custody receipts inside the bundle those receipts describe. Each node that chooses to act as a custodian appends one receipt stating that it held the bundle, which node it received it from, and when it received and forwarded it. Nodes that do not implement the block forward it unchanged and are never required to read the payload or to sign anything. A verifier holding the custodians' public keys can check the chain after the fact and can report, rather than infer, any part of the route for which no receipt exists. The receipts are evidence for accounting and dispute resolution between operators. They are not Bundle Protocol administrative records and they do not replace or modify custody transfer signalling. About This Document An open reference implementation (Apache-2.0), test vectors and live interoperability results are at . The implementation uses block type 224 from the private and experimental range pending any assignment.

Introduction In a delay/disruption tolerant network, a bundle may be held for minutes to hours by nodes run by different operators before it reaches its destination. When something goes wrong (a bundle arrives late, is lost, or arrives altered), each operator holds only its own local logs. Those logs are not portable evidence: another party cannot verify them without trusting the operator that wrote them. BPv7 does not include custody transfer; reliable hop-by-hop transfer is addressed separately . Custody transfer answers "who is responsible for retransmission now". This document addresses a different question: "who can prove they held this bundle, and when". The mechanism is a signed receipt that travels with the bundle and can be verified by any party, at any later time, without contacting the nodes that produced it. The design follows the end-to-end argument : forwarding nodes do nothing beyond normal BPv7 block processing. Only nodes whose operators choose to act as custodians produce receipts, and no node parses the payload: a custodian hashes the bytes it holds. A verifier at the destination, or any later auditor, does the checking. This document is published as Experimental so that the format can be evaluated in multi-operator deployments. This revision defines version 2 receipts, a CBOR payload signed as a COSE_Sign1 and bound to the BPv7 bundle identity; the version 1 encoding of revision -00 is kept in so that receipts already produced remain verifiable. Both have been run through five BPv7 paths built from four independent implementations; see .

Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Custodian:

A node whose operator has chosen to sign receipts for bundles it holds. Being a custodian in this sense is independent of custody transfer and implies no retransmission responsibility.

Forwarder:

Any BPv7 node that is not acting as a custodian for a given bundle. A forwarder may or may not implement this specification.

Origin:

The first custodian for a bundle.

Custody receipt (receipt):

A signed statement by one custodian that it held one bundle, defined in . A receipt is not a BPv7 administrative record ().

Receipt chain:

The ordered list of receipts carried in one Custody Receipt Block.

Uncustodied transit gap (gap):

A part of the route, visible to a verifier, for which no receipt exists.

Custody Receipt Format A version 2 custody receipt is a COSE_Sign1 structure (), untagged, whose payload is a CBOR map signed by one custodian.

Signature The protected header MUST contain the algorithm parameter (label 1). Implementations MUST support EdDSA (value -8) with Ed25519 (, ). The unprotected header map is empty in this version, and no external additional authenticated data is used. The signing key is identified by the custodian EID in the payload; key distribution is out of scope ().

Payload Custody receipt payload (CBOR map)

Key	Name	Type	Meaning
1	prevHop	tstr	EID of the node the custodian received the bundle from
2	thisHop	tstr	EID of the custodian
3	bundle	array	Bundle identity of what was held ()
4	payloadHash	bstr	SHA-256 of the payload block's block-type-specific data as held
5	receivedAt	uint	Reception time, DTN time ()
6	forwardedAt	uint	Forwarding time, DTN time
7	subject	tstr	Optional application identifier

custody-receipt = COSE_Sign1 ; RFC 9052, untagged receipt-payload = { 1 => eid-text, ; prevHop 2 => eid-text, ; thisHop 3 => bundle-identity, 4 => bstr .size 32, ; payloadHash, SHA-256 5 => uint, ; receivedAt, DTN time 6 => uint, ; forwardedAt, DTN time ? 7 => tstr, ; subject } bundle-identity = [ eid-text, [ uint, uint ] ] ; whole bundle / [ eid-text, [ uint, uint ], uint, uint ] ; fragment eid-text = tstr ; EID in text form A custodian SHOULD take prevHop from the Previous Node block () when one is present. An encoded receipt is about 156 octets.

Bundle Identity and Payload Binding The bundle identity is the source node ID and creation timestamp of the bundle and, when the custodian holds a fragment, the fragment offset and total application data unit length, all taken from the primary block (). A custodian computes payloadHash over the payload block's block-type-specific data without interpreting it. No custodian parses the application data unit, including the first one, and the binding holds when the payload is encrypted by a Block Confidentiality Block , since the custodian hashes the ciphertext it holds. Any verifier can check the binding with no application knowledge. An application that needs its own identifier MAY carry it in subject; verifiers that do not know the application ignore it.

Fragments The block is replicated in every fragment (). A receipt made before fragmentation names the whole bundle and therefore covers every fragment, but its payloadHash can only be checked after reassembly. A custodian that holds a fragment signs for that fragment: its bundle identity includes the fragment offset and total length, and its payloadHash covers that fragment's payload. A receipt naming a different fragment of the same bundle does not cover the fragment it is found in.

The Custody Receipt Block

Block Format The block-type code is TBD1 (). Implementations of this version use 224, from the private and experimental range, until a code point is assigned. The block-type-specific data is a CBOR array of receipts in the order they were appended. In version 2 each element is a COSE_Sign1 array; in version 1 () each element is a text string. A block MUST hold receipts of one version only. custody-receipt-block-data = [ + custody-receipt ] ; version 2 / [ + tstr ] ; version 1 A bundle MUST NOT contain more than one Custody Receipt Block.

Block Processing Control Flags The block MUST have "Block must be replicated in every fragment" set, and MUST have "Delete bundle if block can't be processed" and "Discard block if it can't be processed" clear. A node that does not implement this specification therefore retains the block and forwards it unchanged (). A CRC-32C is RECOMMENDED.

Processing

Custodian Behavior A custodian that holds a bundle and chooses to sign for it derives the bundle identity and payloadHash from what it holds, signs a receipt, appends it to the array (adding the block if absent) and recomputes the block CRC. It MUST NOT alter or reorder earlier receipts, and MUST NOT append a version 2 receipt to a block of version 1 receipts. Which bundles a node signs for is local policy (for example, by source, destination, service agreement or the presence of the block). No new naming scheme is needed.

Forwarder Behavior A forwarder performs normal BPv7 processing. It does not read the payload, does not sign, and need not implement this specification.

Verification For each receipt, a verifier: verifies the COSE_Sign1 under a key it obtained independently for the EID in thisHop (failure: signature_invalid, or custodian_not_pinned when it has no key); checks that bundle equals the identity of the bundle received or, when the received bundle is a fragment, the identity of the whole bundle (failure: wrong_bundle); and, when bundle equals the identity received, checks payloadHash against the payload received (failure: payload_hash_mismatch). A whole-bundle receipt found in a fragment is reported as not hash-checked. Two modes are defined:

Pinned route:

The verifier knows the expected ordered list of custodians. The number of receipts MUST equal the length of the list, each thisHop MUST match its position, and each prevHop after the first MUST equal the previous receipt's thisHop.

Audit:

The verifier knows the custodians' keys but not the route. Wherever a receipt's prevHop differs from the previous receipt's thisHop (or from the expected origin), and wherever the node that delivered the bundle (from its Previous Node block) differs from the last receipt's thisHop, the verifier MUST report a gap naming the last signed hop, the next signed hop, and the unsigned node observed. A result with any gap MUST NOT be reported as complete. Because each node replaces the Previous Node block, a gap names at least one unsigned node, not necessarily all of them.

A missing receipt is reported as missing and is never inferred. A receipt that is present but invalid is a failure, not a gap. A verifier SHOULD bound the number of receipts it processes.

Interaction with BPSec Because every custodian modifies the Custody Receipt Block, a Block Integrity Block MUST NOT target it. Receipts carry their own signatures. A BIB that targets the payload or the primary block is unaffected by appending receipts, since appending changes neither. A Block Confidentiality Block MUST NOT target the Custody Receipt Block, because every custodian appends to it.

Implementation Status Note to the RFC Editor: please remove this section before publication, as described in . One implementation exists: dtn-custody-demo, Embryo Space Inc., Apache-2.0, JavaScript (Node.js) with no third-party dependencies, . It includes its own BPv7 codec, checked byte for byte against the uD3TN project's Python library, and implements both receipt versions. In live runs the block, with version 1 or version 2 receipts and with a payload BIB beside it, was carried byte-identical across a scheduled contact gap by uD3TN, NASA HDTN, JPL ION and Aalyria Hardy, and along one path through uD3TN and then NASA HDTN; none of them implement it. The audit mode reported the unsigned stretch through each stack that adds a Previous Node block. uD3TN adds one only when built with a compile-time option that is off by default; with it enabled, the uD3TN path was reported the same way. Deployments that rely on the audit need forwarders that emit Previous Node blocks. Results and commands are in the repository (transport/bpv7/RESULTS.md). Testing against JPL ION as a BIB acceptor and signer found that ION builds the integrity-protected plaintext for a payload target from the whole serialized block rather than from the block-type-specific data as a byte string (), and omits the SHA variant parameter while signing with HMAC 256/256. This has been reported to the ION maintainers. The reference implementation interoperates with ION through an optional mode and uses the RFC 9173 construction by default.

Open Issues

• Key identification. Keys are found by thisHop. A COSE key identifier (kid) would allow key rotation without changing EIDs.
• Batching. The block grows by one receipt per custodian. A custodian could instead sign one receipt per contact over a Merkle root of the bundles it held, as the reference implementation does outside the block; how such a receipt is carried in each bundle is not yet specified.
• Other signature algorithms. Only EdDSA is required. Whether to require a second algorithm (for example ES256) for flight hardware with existing cryptographic support is open.
• Reassembly. A verifier that reassembles fragments could check whole-bundle receipts against the reassembled payload; the procedure is not yet specified.

Security Considerations Key distribution. Receipts are only as meaningful as the binding between a custodian EID and its key. Verifiers MUST obtain keys independently of the receipts and MUST NOT trust a key carried with a receipt. Stripping. Any forwarder can remove the block or truncate the array and recompute the CRC. This cannot be prevented by the block itself; it is detected because the removed custodians appear as gaps. A verifier MUST treat a gap as absence of evidence, not as evidence of absence. Replay. A receipt copied to another bundle fails verification because it names the bundle identity and payload hash of what was held. False times. A custodian can sign false receivedAt and forwardedAt values. Receipts bind a custodian to its claims; they do not prove the claims are true. Inconsistent times across adjacent receipts can be flagged by the verifier. Denial of service. Verification cost and block size grow linearly with the number of receipts. A verifier SHOULD bound the number of receipts it will process. Privacy. Receipts reveal the custodians on a route and their timing to anyone who can read the bundle.

IANA Considerations IANA is requested to assign one value (TBD1) in the "Bundle Block Types" registry of the "Bundle Protocol" registry group:

Value	Description	Reference
TBD1	Custody Receipt Block	This document

References Normative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. This document presents a specification for the Bundle Protocol, adapted from the experimental Bundle Protocol specification developed by the Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force and documented in RFC 5050. This document defines a security protocol providing data integrity and confidentiality services for the Bundle Protocol (BP). The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the need for version negotiation. These design goals make it different from earlier binary serializations such as ASN.1 and MessagePack. This document obsoletes RFC 7049, providing editorial improvements, new details, and errata fixes while keeping full compatibility with the interchange format of RFC 7049. It does not create a new version of the format. JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data. This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based interoperability guidance. This document describes elliptic curve signature scheme Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA). The algorithm is instantiated with recommended parameters for the edwards25519 and edwards448 curves. An example implementation and test vectors are provided. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format designed for small code size and small message size. There is a need to be able to define basic security services for this data format. This document defines the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) protocol. This specification describes how to create and process signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption using CBOR for serialization. This specification additionally describes how to represent cryptographic keys using CBOR. This document, along with RFC 9053, obsoletes RFC 8152. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format designed for small code size and small message size. There is a need to be able to define basic security services for this data format. This document defines a set of algorithms that can be used with the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) protocol (RFC 9052). This document, along with RFC 9052, obsoletes RFC 8152. This document specifies algorithm identifiers and ASN.1 encoding formats for elliptic curve constructs using the curve25519 and curve448 curves. The signature algorithms covered are Ed25519 and Ed448. The key agreement algorithms covered are X25519 and X448. The encoding for public key, private key, and Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) structures is provided. National Institute of Standards and Technology Informative References This document defines default integrity and confidentiality security contexts that can be used with Bundle Protocol Security (BPSec) implementations. These security contexts are intended to be used both for testing the interoperability of BPSec implementations and for providing basic security operations when no other security contexts are defined or otherwise required for a network. This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section. This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. This process is not mandatory. Authors of Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. This document obsoletes RFC 6982, advancing it to a Best Current Practice. IPNGROUP Spatiam Corporation SAIC University of Bologna This document describes Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation (BIBE), a Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol (BP) "convergence layer" protocol that tunnels BP "bundles" through encapsulating bundles. The services provided by the BIBE convergence-layer protocol adapter encapsulate an outbound BP "bundle" in a BIBE convergence-layer protocol data unit for transmission as the payload of a bundle. Security measures applied to the encapsulating bundle may augment those applied to the encapsulated bundle. The protocol includes a mechanism for recovery from loss of an encapsulating bundle, called Bundle Retransmission Methods (BRM). This mechanism is adapted from the custody transfer procedures described in the experimental Bundle Protocol (version 6) specification developed by the Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force and documented in RFC 5050.

Version 1 Receipts Revision -00 of this document defined version 1 receipts, which remain in use. A version 1 receipt is a JSON object carried in the block as its canonical form (keys sorted recursively by UTF-16 code unit, no insignificant whitespace). Its members are kind ("custody/1"), payloadId, bundleId, prevHop, thisHop, receivedAt and forwardedAt (milliseconds since 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z), claimId ("0x" and the lowercase hexadecimal SHA-256 of the canonical form without claimId, sig and signerPub), sig (base64 Ed25519 signature over the UTF-8 bytes of claimId) and signerPub (base64 DER SubjectPublicKeyInfo ). The origin sets payloadId and bundleId from the application data unit; later custodians copy them from the first receipt. An encoded version 1 receipt is about 530 octets.

Changes from -00

• Version 2 receipts: a CBOR payload signed as COSE_Sign1 (EdDSA), about 156 octets instead of about 530. Version 1 moved to .
• Receipts are bound to the BPv7 bundle identity and a hash of the payload bytes held, so no custodian parses the payload and any verifier can check the binding.
• Fragment handling defined.
• Implementation status updated: a path through two implementations, version 2 receipts live, and the JPL ION BPSec report.