



CoRE Working Group                                             C. Amsüss
Internet-Draft                                                          
Intended status: Standards Track                               M. Tiloca
Expires: 3 September 2026                                        RISE AB
                                                            2 March 2026


    End-to-End Protected and Cacheable Responses for the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP) using Group Object Security for Constrained
                  RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE)
                  draft-ietf-core-cacheable-oscore-01

Abstract

   When using the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), exchanged
   messages can be protected end-to-end also across untrusted
   intermediary proxies.  This can be achieved with Object Security for
   Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) or, in the case of group
   communication, with Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful
   Environments (Group OSCORE).  However, this sidesteps the proxies'
   abilities to cache responses from the origin server(s).  This
   document restores cacheability of end-end protected responses at
   proxies, by using Group OSCORE and introducing consensus requests,
   which any client in an OSCORE group can send to one server or
   multiple servers in the same group.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Constrained RESTful
   Environments Working Group mailing list (core@ietf.org), which is
   archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/core-wg/cacheable-oscore.

Status of This Memo

   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/.





Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   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 3 September 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  OSCORE Message Processing without Source Authentication . . .   7
   3.  Deterministic Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  Deterministic Unprotected Request . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  The Request-Hash Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.4.  Use of Deterministic Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.4.1.  Preconditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.4.2.  Client Composition of Deterministic Requests  . . . .  13
       3.4.3.  Server Processing of Deterministic Requests . . . . .  15
       3.4.4.  Response to a Deterministic Request . . . . . . . . .  17
       3.4.5.  Deterministic Requests to Multiple Servers  . . . . .  19
   4.  Obtaining Information about the Deterministic Client  . . . .  20
   5.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.1.  Implementation in Californium . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.2.  Implementation in aiocoap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     7.1.  CoAP Option Numbers Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     7.2.  OSCORE Security Context Parameters Registry . . . . . . .  25
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28



Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   Appendix A.  Padding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     A.1.  The Padding Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     A.2.  Using and Processing the Padding Option . . . . . . . . .  30
   Appendix B.  Simple Cacheability using Ticket Requests  . . . . .  31
   Appendix C.  Application for More Efficient End-to-End Protected
           Multicast Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Appendix D.  Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   Appendix E.  Unsorted Further Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   Appendix F.  Test Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     F.1.  Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     F.2.  Deterministic Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     F.3.  Response to Deterministic Request . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   Appendix G.  Document Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
     G.1.  Version -00 to -01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44

1.  Introduction

   The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] supports
   intermediary proxies that perform requests on behalf of clients and
   relay back responses.  A core functionality of intermediary proxies
   is the caching of responses.

   Even in the presence of such intermediaries, exchanged CoAP messages
   can be protected end-to-end by using Object Security for Constrained
   RESTful Environments (OSCORE) [RFC8613].

   In a group communication environment [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis],
   CoAP exchanged messages can be protected end-to-end by using Group
   Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE)
   [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].  When protected with the group mode
   of Group OSCORE (see Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]),
   requests and responses exchanged in the OSCORE group can be read by
   all group members, i.e., not only by the intended recipient(s), thus
   achieving group-level confidentiality.

   With any security mechanism for CoAP, the caching of responses at
   intermediaries presents operators with a trade-off between required
   trust and provided performance:

   *  If an intermediary proxy is trusted, the proxy can inspect traffic
      that is going through, cache it, and provide cached responses.








Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   *  An untrusted proxy, while possible with OSCORE and Group OSCORE,
      sees different ciphertexts for different requests even when those
      requests target the same resource.  Even if the proxy could
      somehow produce a cache hit, cached responses would be rejected by
      the request-response matching of (Group) OSCORE.

   By using Group OSCORE, this document provides a way out of the trade-
   off situation.

   In particular, this document enables cacheability of protected
   responses for proxies that are not members of the OSCORE group and
   that are unaware of OSCORE and Group OSCORE in general.  To this end,
   it builds on the concept of "consensus request" initially considered
   in [I-D.ietf-core-observe-multicast-notifications], and it defines
   "Deterministic Request" as a convenient incarnation of such concept.

   All clients wishing to send a particular request with the GET method
   or FETCH method [RFC8132] are able to deterministically compute the
   same protected request, using a variation of the pairwise mode of
   Group OSCORE (see Section 8 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]).  It
   follows that cache hits become possible at the proxy, which can thus
   serve clients in the group from its cache.  Like in
   [I-D.ietf-core-observe-multicast-notifications], this requires that
   clients and servers are already members of a suitable OSCORE group.

   Cacheability of protected responses is useful also in applications
   where several clients wish to retrieve the same object from a single
   server.  Some security properties of OSCORE are dispensed with, in
   order to gain other desirable properties.

   In order to clearly handle the protocol's security properties and to
   broaden applicability to group situations outside the deterministic
   case, the technical implementation is split into two halves:

   *  Maintaining request-response bindings in the absence of request
      source authentication; and

   *  Building and processing of Deterministic Requests, which have no
      source authentication and thus require the former.

1.1.  Use Cases

   When firmware updates are delivered using CoAP, many similar devices
   fetch the same large data at the same time.  Collecting such large
   data at a proxy from its cache not only keeps the traffic low, but
   also lets the clients ride single file to hide their numbers
   [SW-EPIV] and identities.  By using protected Deterministic Requests
   as defined in this document, it is possible to efficiently perform



Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   data collection at a proxy also when the firmware updates are
   protected end-to-end.

   When relying on intermediaries to fan out the delivery of multicast
   data protected end-to-end as in
   [I-D.ietf-core-multicast-notifications-proxy], the use of protected
   Deterministic Requests as defined in this document allows for a more
   efficient setup, by reducing the amount of message exchanges and
   enabling early population of cache entries (see Appendix C).

   When building RESTful networks following the patterns of Information-
   Centric Networking (ICN), CoAP proxies take the role of forwarding
   nodes.  Caching plays a large role in such networks, and cacheable
   OSCORE provides a compatible security mechanism [ICN-paper].

   When DNS messages are transported over CoAP
   [I-D.ietf-core-dns-over-coap], it is recommended to use OSCORE for
   protecting such messages [DNS-CoAP-paper].  By restoring cacheability
   of OSCORE-protected responses, it becomes possible to benefit from
   the cache retrieval of such CoAP responses that particularly
   transport DNS messages.

1.2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Readers are expected to be familiar with terms and concepts of CoAP
   [RFC7252] and its method FETCH [RFC8132], group communication for
   CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis], Concise Binary Object
   Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949], CBOR Object Signing and Encryption
   (COSE) [RFC9052][RFC9053], OSCORE [RFC8613], and Group OSCORE
   [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].

   This document also introduces the following new terms.

   *  Consensus Request: a CoAP request that multiple clients use to
      repeatedly access a particular resource.  In this document, it
      exclusively refers to requests protected with Group OSCORE to a
      resource hosted at one or more servers in the OSCORE group.








Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


      A Consensus Request has all the properties relevant to caching,
      but its transport dependent properties (e.g., Token or Message ID)
      are not defined.  Thus, different requests on the wire can be said
      to "be the same Consensus Request" even if they have different
      Tokens or source addresses.

      The Consensus Request is the reference for request-response
      binding.  In general, a client processing a response to a
      Consensus Request did not generate (and thus sign) the consensus
      request.  The client not only needs to decrypt the Consensus
      Request to understand a corresponding response (for example to
      tell which path was requested), but it also needs to verify that
      this is the only Consensus Request that could elicit this
      response.

   *  Deterministic Client: a fictitious member of an OSCORE group,
      having no Sender Sequence Number, no asymmetric key pair, and no
      Recipient Context.

      The Group Manager responsible for the OSCORE group (see Section 12
      of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]) sets up the Deterministic
      Client and assigns it a unique Sender ID like for other group
      members.  Furthermore, the Deterministic Client has only the
      minimum common set of privileges shared by all group members.

   *  Deterministic Request: a Consensus Request generated by the
      Deterministic Client.  The use of Deterministic Requests is
      defined in Section 3.

   *  Ticket Request: a Consensus Request generated by the server
      itself.

      This term is not used in the main document, but is useful in
      comparison with other applications of Consensus Requests that are
      generated in a different way than as Deterministic Requests.  The
      prototypical Ticket Request is the Phantom Request defined in
      [I-D.ietf-core-observe-multicast-notifications].

      In Appendix B, the term is used to bridge the gap with that
      document.











Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


2.  OSCORE Message Processing without Source Authentication

   In OSCORE [RFC8613], a response is cryptographically bound to the
   corresponding request through CBOR data items [RFC8949] in their
   authenticated encryption's Additional Authenticated Data (AAD):
   "request_kid" and "request_piv".  Group OSCORE adds
   "request_kid_context" to that list.  Hereafter, those items are
   referred to as "request_details".

   The security of such binding depends on the server obtaining source
   authentication for the request, and on that source matching the
   request_details.  If this precondition is not fulfilled, a malicious
   group member could alter a request to the server (without altering
   the request_details above), and the client would still accept the
   response as if it were a response to its request.

   Source authentication is thus a precondition for the secure use of
   OSCORE and Group OSCORE.  However, it is hard to provide when:

   *  Requests are built exclusively using shared group keying material,
      like in the case of a Deterministic Client.

   *  Requests are sent without source authentication, or their source
      authentication is not checked.  (This was part of
      [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm] in revisions before version -12)

   This document does not [ yet? ] give full guidance on how to restore
   request-response binding for the general case, but currently only
   offers suggestions:

   *  The response can contain the full request.  An option that allows
      doing that is presented in [I-D.ietf-core-responses].

   *  The response can contain a cryptographic hash of the full request.
      This is used by the method specified in this document, as defined
      in Section 3.3.

   *  The agreed-on request data can be placed in a different position
      in the AAD, or take part to the derivation of the (Group) OSCORE
      Security Context.  In the latter case, care needs to be taken to
      never initialize a Security Context twice with the same input, as
      that would lead to reuse of the Authenticated Encryption with
      Associated Data (AEAD) nonce.

   [ Suggestion for any OSCORE v2: avoid request_details in the
   request's AAD as individual elements.  Rather than having
   'request_kid', 'request_piv' (and, in Group OSCORE,
   'request_kid_context') as separate fields, they can better be



Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   something more pluggable.  This would avoid the need to make up an
   option before processing, and would allow just plugging the (hash of
   the) request in there, as replacing the elements for the
   request_details. ]

   Additional care has to be taken in ensuring that request_details that
   are not expressed in the request itself are captured.  For instance,
   these include an indication of the Security Context through which the
   request is assumed to have been originated.

   Requests without source authentication have to be processed assuming
   only the minimal possible privilege of the requester [ which is
   currently described as the authorization of the Deterministic Client,
   and may be moved up here in later versions of this document ].  If a
   response to such a request is built and it contains data more
   sensitive than that (which might be justified if the response is
   protected for an authorized group member in pairwise mode), special
   consideration for any side channels like response size or timing is
   required.

3.  Deterministic Requests

   This section defines a method for clients starting from a same
   intended CoAP request to independently build the same, corresponding
   Deterministic Request protected with Group OSCORE.

3.1.  Deterministic Unprotected Request

   When clients build their unprotected request, they can already
   minimize variability and thus maximize reproducibility.

   This document does not set out full guidelines for minimizing the
   variation, but considered starting points are:

   *  Set the Inner CoAP Observe Option to 0 (register) [RFC7641], even
      if no observation is intended (and hence no Outer Observe Option
      is set).  Thus, both Observe and non-Observe requests can be
      aggregated into a single request, which is upstreamed as an
      observation at the latest when any Observe request reaches a
      caching proxy.

      In this case, following a Deterministic Request that includes only
      an Inner Observe Option, servers include an Inner Observe Option
      (but no Outer Observe Option) in a successful response sent as
      reply.  Also, when receiving a response to such a Deterministic
      Request previously sent, clients silently ignore the Inner Observe
      Option in that response.




Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   *  Avoid setting the CoAP ETag Option in requests on a whim.
      Instead, clients should only set it when there was a recent
      response conveying that ETag value.  When using block-wise
      transfers [RFC7959] and obtaining later blocks, clients should not
      send the known-stale ETag value.

   *  When using block-wise transfers [RFC7959], maximally sized large
      Inner blocks (szx=6) SHOULD be selected.  This serves not only to
      align the clients on consistent cache entries, but also helps
      amortize the additional data transferred in the per-message
      signatures.

      Outer block-wise transfer can then be used if these messages
      exceed a hop's efficiently usable Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
      size.

      If Block-wise Extension for Reliable Transport (BERT) [RFC8323] is
      usable with OSCORE, its use is fine as well; in that case, the
      server picks a consistent block size for all clients anyway.

   *  The CoAP Padding Option defined in Appendix A can be used to limit
      an adversary's ability to deduce the content and the target
      resource of Deterministic Requests from their length.  In
      particular, all Deterministic Requests of the same class (ideally,
      all requests to a particular server) can be padded to reach the
      same total length, that should be agreed on among all users of the
      same Group OSCORE Security Context.

   *  Clients should not send a protected (inner) CoAP Echo Option
      [RFC9175] in Deterministic Requests.

      In combination with Deterministic Requests, this limits the use of
      the Echo Option to its inclusion as an unprotected (outer) Echo
      Option, and thus to testing the reachability of the client.
      However, this is not practically limiting, since the use as an
      Inner option would be to prove freshness, which is something that
      Deterministic Requests simply cannot provide anyway.

   These guidelines only serve to ensure that cache entries are
   utilized.  Failure to follow these guidelines has no more severe
   consequences than decreasing the utility and effectiveness of a
   cache.









Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


3.2.  Design Considerations

   The hard part is determining a consensus pair (key, nonce) to be used
   with the AEAD cipher for encrypting the plain CoAP request and
   obtaining the Deterministic Request as a result, while also avoiding
   the reuse of the same (key, nonce) pair across different requests.

   Diversity can conceptually be enforced by applying a cryptographic
   hash function to the complete input of the encryption operation over
   the plain CoAP request (i.e., the AAD and the plaintext of the COSE
   object), and then using the result as source of uniqueness.  Any non-
   malleable cryptographically secure hash of sufficient length to make
   collisions sufficiently unlikely is suitable for this purpose.

   A tempting possibility is to use a fixed (group) key, and use the
   hash as a deterministic AEAD nonce for each Deterministic Request
   through the Partial IV component (see Section 5.2 of [RFC8613]).
   However, the 40 bits available for the Partial IV are by far
   insufficient to ensure that the deterministic nonce is not reused
   across different Deterministic Requests.  Even if the full
   deterministic AEAD nonce could be set, the sizes used by common
   algorithms would still be too small.

   Consequently, the proposed method takes the opposite approach, by
   considering a fixed deterministic AEAD nonce, while deriving a
   different deterministic encryption key for each Deterministic
   Request.  That is, the hash computed over the plain CoAP request is
   taken as input to the key derivation.  As an advantage, this approach
   does not require to transport the computed hash in the CoAP OSCORE
   Option.

   [ Note: This has a further positive side effect arising with version
   -11 of draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm.  That is, since the full
   encoded OSCORE Option is part of the AAD, it avoids a circular
   dependency from feeding the AAD into the hash computation, which in
   turn needs crude workarounds like building the full AAD twice, or
   zeroing out the hash-to-be. ]

3.3.  The Request-Hash Option

   In order to transport the hash of the plain CoAP request, a new CoAP
   option is defined, which MUST be supported by clients and servers
   that support Deterministic Requests.

   The option is called Request-Hash and its properties are summarized
   in Table 1, which extends Table 4 of [RFC7252].  The option is
   Elective, Safe-to-Forward, part of the Cache-Key, and not repeatable.




Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


    +========+=+===+===+===+==============+========+========+=========+
    | No.    |C| U | N | R | Name         | Format | Length | Default |
    +========+=+===+===+===+==============+========+========+=========+
    | TBD548 | |   |   |   | Request-Hash | opaque | any    | (none)  |
    +--------+-+---+---+---+--------------+--------+--------+---------+

          Table 1: The Request-Hash Option (C=Critical, U=Unsafe,
                        N=NoCacheKey, R=Repeatable)

   The Request-Hash Option is identical in all its properties to the
   Request-Tag Option defined in [RFC9175], with the following
   exceptions:

   *  It is not repeatable.

   *  The Option Value may be arbitrarily long.

      Implementations can limit the length of the Option Value to that
      of the longest output of the supported hash functions.

   *  It may be present in responses.

      Editor's note: Does this affect any other properties?

      A response's Request-Hash Option is, as a matter of default value,
      equal to the request's Request-Hash Option.  The response is valid
      only if the value of its Request-Hash Option is equal to the value
      of the Request-Hash Option in the corresponding request.

      Servers (including proxies) thus generally should not need to
      include the Request-Hash Option explicitly in responses,
      especially as a matter of bandwidth efficiency.

      A reason (and, currently, the only known) to actually include a
      Request-Hash option in a response is the possible use of non-
      traditional responses as described in [I-D.ietf-core-responses],
      which in terms of that document are non-matching to the request
      (and thus easily usable).  The Request-Hash Option included in the
      response allows populating caches (see below) and enables the
      decryption and verification of a response that is sent as a reply
      to a Consensus Request.  In the context of non-traditional
      responses, the value of the Request-Hash Option in the request
      corresponding to a response can be inferred from the value of the
      Request-Hash Option in the response.

   *  A proxy MAY use any fresh cached response from the selected server
      to reply to a request with the same Request-Hash; this may save it
      some memory.



Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


      When replying to a request that includes a Request-Hash Option,
      the proxy MAY add a Request-Hash Option to the response if the
      option is not already present in the response, or remove the
      Request-Hash Option from the response if the option is already
      present in the response.  In either case, the Request-Hash Option
      in the response MUST have the same value that the Request-Hash
      Option has in the corresponding request.

   *  When used with a Deterministic Request, the Request-Hash Option is
      created at message protection time by the sender endpoint, and it
      is used before message decryption and verification by the
      recipient endpoint.  Therefore, in this use case, this option is
      treated as Class U for OSCORE [RFC8613] in requests.  In the same
      application, for responses, this option is treated as Class I and
      is often elided from sending, in which case it is reconstructed at
      the recipient endpoint.  Other uses of the Request-Hash Option can
      treat it according to different classes for the OSCORE processing.

   The Request-Hash Option achieves the request-response binding
   described in Section 2.

3.4.  Use of Deterministic Requests

   This section defines how a Deterministic Request is built on the
   client side and then processed on the server side.

3.4.1.  Preconditions

   The use of Deterministic Requests in an OSCORE group requires that
   the interested group members are aware of the Deterministic Client in
   the group.  In particular, they need to know:

   *  The Sender ID of the Deterministic Client, to be used as 'kid'
      parameter for the Deterministic Requests.  This allows all group
      members to compute the Sender Key of the Deterministic Client.

      The Sender ID of the Deterministic Client is immutable throughout
      the lifetime of the OSCORE group.  That is, it is not relinquished
      and it does not change upon changes of the group keying material
      following a group rekeying performed by the Group Manager (see
      Section 12.2 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]).

   *  The hash algorithm to use for computing the hash of a plain CoAP
      request, when producing the associated Deterministic Request.







Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   Group members have to obtain this information from the Group Manager.
   A group member can do that, for instance, when obtaining the group
   keying material upon joining the OSCORE group, or later on as an
   active member by interacting with the Group Manager.

   The joining process based on the Group Manager defined in
   [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore] can be easily extended to support
   the provisioning of information about the Deterministic Client.  Such
   an extension is defined in Section 4 of the present document.  No
   such extension is needed for the management interface of the Group
   Manager, as [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin] already includes the
   relevant parameters.

3.4.2.  Client Composition of Deterministic Requests

   In order to build a Deterministic Request, the client protects the
   plain CoAP request using the pairwise mode of Group OSCORE (see
   Section 8 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]), with the following
   alterations.

   1.  When preparing the OSCORE Option, the external_aad, and the AEAD
       nonce:

       *  The Sender ID used is the Deterministic Client's Sender ID.

       *  The element 'sender_cred' in the aad_array takes the empty
          CBOR byte string (0x40).

       *  The Partial IV used is 0.

   2.  The client uses the hash function indicated for the Deterministic
       Client and computes a hash H over the following input: the Sender
       Key of the Deterministic Client, concatenated with the binary
       serialization of the aad_array from Step 1, concatenated with the
       COSE plaintext.

       Note that the payload of the plain CoAP request (if any) is not
       self-delimiting, and thus hash functions are limited to non-
       malleable ones.

   3.  The client derives the deterministic Pairwise Sender Key K as
       defined in Section 2.5.1 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm],
       with the following differences:

       *  The Sender Key of the Deterministic Client is used as the
          first argument of the HMAC-based Key Derivation Function
          (HKDF).




Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


       *  The hash H from Step 2 is used as the second argument IKM-
          Sender of the HKDF, i.e., as a pseudo Input Keying Material
          (IKM) computable by all the group members.

          Note that an actual IKM-Sender cannot be obtained, since there
          is no authentication credential (and public key included
          therein) associated with the Deterministic Client to be used
          as Sender Authentication Credential and for computing an
          actual Diffie-Hellman Shared Secret.

       *  The Sender ID of the Deterministic Client is used as the value
          for the 'id' element of the 'info' parameter used as third
          argument of the HKDF.

   4.  The client includes a Request-Hash Option in the request to
       protect, with value set to the hash H from Step 2.

   5.  The client MAY include an Inner Observe Option set to 0
       (register) to be protected with Group OSCORE, even if no
       observation is intended [RFC7641] (see Section 3.1).

   6.  The client protects the request using the pairwise mode of Group
       OSCORE as defined in Section 8.3 of
       [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm], using the AEAD nonce from Step
       1, the deterministic Pairwise Sender Key K from Step 3 as AEAD
       encryption key, and the finalized AAD.

   7.  The client MUST NOT include an unprotected (outer) Observe Option
       if no observation is intended, even in case an Inner Observe
       Option was included at Step 5.

   8.  The client MUST set 0.05 (FETCH) [RFC8132] as the Outer Code of
       the protected request to make it usable for a proxy's cache, even
       if no observation is intended.

   The result is the Deterministic Request to be sent.

   Since the encryption key K is derived using material from the whole
   plain CoAP request, this (key, nonce) pair is only used for this very
   message, which is deterministically encrypted unless there is a hash
   collision between two Deterministic Requests.

   The deterministic encryption requires that the AEAD algorithm used is
   deterministic in itself.  This is the case for all the AEAD
   algorithms currently registered with COSE in [COSE.Algorithms].  For
   future algorithms, a flag in the COSE registry is to be added.





Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   Note that, while the process defined above is based on the pairwise
   mode of Group OSCORE, no information about the server takes part in
   the key derivation or is included in the AAD.  This is intentional,
   since it allows sending a Deterministic Request to multiple servers
   at once (see Section 3.4.5).  On the other hand, it requires later
   checks at the client when verifying a response to a Deterministic
   Request (see Section 3.4.4).

3.4.3.  Server Processing of Deterministic Requests

   Upon receiving a Deterministic Request, a server performs the
   following actions.

   A server that does not support Deterministic Requests would not be
   able to create the necessary Recipient Context, and thus will fail
   decrypting and verifying the request.

   1.  If not already available, the server retrieves the information
       about the Deterministic Client from the Group Manager and derives
       the Sender Key of the Deterministic Client.

   2.  The server recognizes the request to be a Deterministic Request,
       due to the presence of the Request-Hash Option and to the 'kid'
       parameter of the OSCORE Option that is set to the Sender ID of
       the Deterministic Client.

       If the 'kid' parameter of the OSCORE Option specifies a different
       Sender ID than the one of the Deterministic Client, the server
       MUST NOT take the following steps and instead processes the
       request as per Section 8.4 of [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].

   3.  The server retrieves the hash H from the Request-Hash Option.

   4.  The server derives a Recipient Context for processing the
       Deterministic Request.  In particular:

       *  The Recipient ID is the Sender ID of the Deterministic Client.

       *  The Recipient Key is derived as the key K in Step 3 of
          Section 3.4.2, with the hash H retrieved at Step 3 of the
          present Section 3.4.3.

   5.  The server decrypts and verifies the request using the pairwise
       mode of Group OSCORE as defined in Section 8.4 of
       [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm] and the Recipient Context from
       Step 4, with the difference that the server does not perform
       replay checks against a Replay Window (see below).




Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   In case of successful verification, the server MUST also perform the
   following actions, before possibly delivering the request to the
   application.

   *  Starting from the recovered plain CoAP request, the server MUST
      recompute the same hash that the client computed at Step 2 of
      Section 3.4.2.

      If the recomputed hash value differs from the value retrieved from
      the Request-Hash Option at Step 3, the server MUST treat the
      request as invalid and MAY reply with an unprotected 4.00 (Bad
      Request) error response.  The server MAY set an Outer Max-Age
      Option with value zero.  The diagnostic payload MAY contain the
      string "Decryption failed".

      This prevents an attacker that guessed a valid authentication tag
      for a given Request-Hash value to poison caches with incorrect
      responses.

   *  The server MUST verify that the unprotected request is safe to be
      processed in the REST sense, i.e., that it has no side effects.
      If verification fails, the server MUST discard the request and
      SHOULD reply with a protected 4.01 (Unauthorized) error response.

      Note that some CoAP implementations may not be able to prevent
      that an application produces side effects from a safe request.
      This may incur checking whether the particular resource handler is
      explicitly marked as eligible for processing Deterministic
      Requests.  An implementation may also have a configured list of
      requests that are known to be side-effect free, or even a pre-
      built list of valid hashes for all sensible requests for them, and
      reject any other request.

      These checks replace the otherwise present requirement that the
      server needs to check the Replay Window of the Recipient Context
      (see Step 5 above), which is inapplicable with the Recipient
      Context derived at Step 4 from the value of the Request-Hash
      Option.  The reasoning is analogous to the one in
      [I-D.amsuess-lwig-oscore] to treat the potential replay as
      answerable, if the handled request is side-effect free.











Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


3.4.4.  Response to a Deterministic Request

   When preparing a response to a Deterministic Request, the server
   treats the Request-Hash Option as a Class I option.  The value of the
   Request-Hash Option MUST be equal to the value of the Request-Hash
   Option that was specified in the corresponding Deterministic Request.
   Since the client is aware of the Request-Hash value to expect in the
   response, the server usually elides the Request-Hash Option from the
   actually transmitted response.

   Treating the Request-Hash Option as a Class I option creates the
   request-response binding, thus ensuring that no mismatched responses
   can be successfully unprotected and verified by the client (see
   Section 2).

   The client MUST reject a response to a Deterministic Request, if the
   value of the Request-Hash Option included in the response is not
   equal to the value that was specified in the Request-Hash Option of
   that Deterministic Request.

   When preparing the response, the server performs the following
   actions.

   1.  The server includes in the response a Max-Age Option with value
       different from zero, thus making the Deterministic Request usable
       for the proxy cache.

   2.  The server preliminarily sets the Request-Hash Option with the
       full Request-Hash value, i.e., the same value of the Request-Hash
       Option that was specified in the Deterministic Request.

   3.  If the Deterministic Request included an Inner Observe Option but
       not an Outer Observe Option and the resource is observable
       [RFC7641], the server MUST include an Inner Observe Option in the
       response.

   4.  The server MUST protect the response using the group mode of
       Group OSCORE, as defined in Section 7.3 of
       [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].  This is required to ensure
       that the client can verify the source authentication of the
       response, since the "pairwise" key used for producing the
       Deterministic Request is actually shared among all the group
       members.

       Note that the Request-Hash Option is treated as Class I here.






Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   5.  The server MUST include its Sender Sequence Number as Partial IV
       in the response and use it to build the nonce to protect the
       response.  This is required since the server does not perform
       replay protection on the Deterministic Request (see
       Section 3.4.4).

   6.  The server uses 2.05 (Content) as Outer Code of the response even
       though the response is not necessarily an Observe notification
       [RFC7641], in order to make the response cacheable.

   7.  The server SHOULD remove the Request-Hash Option from the
       response before sending the response to the client, as per the
       general option mechanism defined in Section 3.3.

   8.  If the Deterministic Request included an Inner Observe Option but
       not an Outer Observe Option, the server MUST NOT include an Outer
       Observe Option in the response.

   Upon receiving the response, the client performs the following
   actions.

   1.  In case the response includes a 'kid' in the OSCORE Option, the
       client MUST verify it to be exactly the 'kid' of the server to
       which the Deterministic Request was sent, unless responses from
       multiple servers are expected (see Section 3.4.5).

   2.  In case the response does not include the Request-Hash Option,
       the client adds the Request-Hash Option to the response, setting
       the Option Value to the same Option Value of the Request-Hash
       Option that was included in the Deterministic Request.

       Otherwise, the client MUST reject the response if the Option
       Value of the Request-Hash Option is different from the Option
       Value of the Request-Hash Option that was included in the
       Deterministic Request.

   3.  The client verifies the response using the group mode of Group
       OSCORE, as defined in Section 7.4 of
       [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].  In particular, the client
       verifies the countersignature in the response, based on the 'kid'
       either retrieved from the OSCORE Option of the response if
       present therein, or otherwise of the server to which the
       Deterministic Request was sent to.  When verifying the response,
       the Request-Hash Option is treated as a Class I option.







Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   4.  If the Deterministic Request included an Inner Observe Option but
       not an Outer Observe option (see Section 3.1), the client MUST
       silently ignore the Inner Observe Option in the response, which
       MUST NOT result in stopping the processing of the response.

       Note that this deviates from Section 4.1.3.5.2 of [RFC8613], but
       it is limited to a very specific situation, where the client and
       server both know exactly what happens.  This does not affect the
       use of Group OSCORE in other situations.

3.4.5.  Deterministic Requests to Multiple Servers

   A Deterministic Request can be sent to a CoAP group, e.g., over UDP
   and IP multicast [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis], thus targeting
   multiple servers at once.

   To simplify key derivation, such a Deterministic Request is still
   created in the same way as a one-to-one request and still protected
   with the pairwise mode of Group OSCORE, as defined in Section 3.4.2.

   Note that this deviates from the recommendation in Section 7 of
   [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm], since the Deterministic Request in
   this case is indeed intended to multiple recipients, but yet it is
   protected with the pairwise mode.  However, this is limited to a very
   specific situation, where the client and servers both know exactly
   what happens.  This does not affect the use of Group OSCORE in other
   situations.

   [ Note: If it was protected with the group mode, the request hash
   would need to be fed into a group key derivation just for this corner
   case.  Furthermore, there would need to be a signature in spite of no
   authentication credential (and public key included therein)
   associated with the Deterministic Client. ]

   When a server receives a request from the Deterministic Client as
   addressed to a CoAP group, the server proceeds as defined in
   Section 3.4.3, with the difference that it MUST include its own
   Sender ID in the response, as the 'kid' parameter of the OSCORE
   Option.

   Although it is normally optional for the server to include its Sender
   ID when replying to a request protected in pairwise mode, it is
   required in this case for allowing the client to retrieve the
   Recipient Context associated with the server originating the
   response.






Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   If a server is a member of a CoAP group, and it fails to successfully
   decrypt and verify an incoming Deterministic Request, then it is
   RECOMMENDED for that server to not reply with an error response, in
   case the server verifies that the Deterministic Request was sent to
   the CoAP group (e.g., to the associated IP multicast address) or in
   case the server is not able to verify that altogether.

4.  Obtaining Information about the Deterministic Client

   This section extends the joining process defined in
   [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore] and based on the Authentication
   and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework
   [RFC9200].  Upon joining the OSCORE group, this enables a new group
   member to obtain from the Group Manager the required information
   about the Deterministic Client (see Section 3.4.1).

   With reference to the 'key' parameter included in the Join Response
   defined in Section 6.3 of [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore], the
   Group_OSCORE_Input_Material object specified as its value contains
   also the two additional parameters 'det_senderId' and 'det_hash_alg'.
   These are registered in Section 7.2 of this document and are defined
   as follows:

   *  The 'det_senderId' parameter, if present, has as value the OSCORE
      Sender ID assigned to the Deterministic Client by the Group
      Manager.  This parameter MUST be present if the OSCORE group uses
      Deterministic Requests as defined in this document.  Otherwise,
      this parameter MUST NOT be present.

   *  The 'det_hash_alg' parameter, if present, has as value the hash
      algorithm to use for computing the hash of a plain CoAP request,
      when producing the associated Deterministic Request.  This
      parameter takes values from the "Value" column of the "COSE
      Algorithms" Registry [COSE.Algorithms].  This parameter MUST be
      present if the OSCORE group uses Deterministic Requests as defined
      in this document.  Otherwise, this parameter MUST NOT be present.

   The same extension above applies also to the 'key' parameter included
   in a Key Distribution Response (see Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore]).

   With reference to the 'key' parameter included in a Signature
   Verification Data Response defined in Section 9.6 of
   [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore], the Group_OSCORE_Input_Material
   object specified as its value contains also the 'det_senderId'
   parameter defined above.





Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


5.  Implementation Status

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Note to RFC Editor: when deleting this section, please also delete
   RFC 7942 from the references of this document.

   (Boilerplate as per Section 2.1 of [RFC7942]:)

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to [RFC7942], "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.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

5.1.  Implementation in Californium

   *  Responsible organization: RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB

   *  Implementation's name: Cacheable OSCORE for Eclipse Californium

   *  Available at: https://github.com/rikard-sics/californium/tree/
      cacheable-oscore

   *  Description: Implementation in Java, building on Eclipse
      Californium, see:

      -  https://github.com/eclipse-californium/californium

      -  http://eclipse.dev/californium/

   *  Implementation's level of maturity: prototype





Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   *  Version compatibility: -08 (which is the last time the wire format
      changed)

   *  Licensing: according to the same dual license of Eclipse
      Californium, i.e., according to the "Eclipse Distribution License
      1.0" and the "Eclipse Public License 2.0".  See:

      -  https://github.com/eclipse-californium/californium/blob/main/
         LICENSE

      -  https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php

      -  https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/

   *  Contact point: Marco Tiloca - marco.tiloca@ri.se

   *  Last updated: 2025-06-27

5.2.  Implementation in aiocoap

   *  Implementation: aiocoap https://christian.amsuess.com/tools/
      aiocoap/ (https://christian.amsuess.com/tools/aiocoap/)

   *  Description: General purpose unconstrained implementation of CoAP

   *  Implementation maturity: Cacheable OSCORE is part of the regular
      release, but not well integrated in the security setup.

   *  Version compatibility: -08 (which is the last time the wire format
      changed)

   *  Licensing: MIT

   *  Contact point: Christian Amsüss

   *  Last updated: 2025-06-30

6.  Security Considerations

   The same security considerations from [RFC7252],
   [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis], [RFC8613], and
   [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm] hold for this document.

   The following elaborates on how, compared to Group OSCORE,
   Deterministic Requests dispense with some of the OSCORE security
   properties, by just so much as to make caching possible.





Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   *  A Deterministic Request is intrinsically designed to be replayed,
      as intended to be identically sent multiple times by multiple
      clients to the same server(s).

      Consistently, as per the processing defined in Section 3.4.3, a
      server receiving a Deterministic Request does not perform replay
      checks against an OSCORE Replay Window.

      This builds on the following considerations:

      -  For a given request, the level of tolerance to replay risk is
         specific to the resource it operates upon (and therefore only
         known to the origin server).  In general, if processing a
         request does not have state-changing side effects, the
         consequences of replay are not significant.

         Just like for what concerns the lack of source authentication
         (see below), the server must verify that the received
         Deterministic Request (more precisely, its handler) is side-
         effect free.  The distinct semantics of the CoAP request
         methods can help the server make that assessment.

      -  Consistently with the point above, a server can choose whether
         it will process a Deterministic Request on a per-resource
         basis.  It is RECOMMENDED that origin servers allow resources
         to explicitly configure whether Deterministic Requests are
         appropriate to receive, as still limited to requests that are
         safe to be processed in the REST sense, i.e., they do not have
         state-changing side effects.

   *  Receiving a response to a Deterministic Request does not mean that
      the response was generated after the Deterministic Request was
      sent.

      However, a valid response to a Deterministic Request still
      contains two freshness statements:

      -  It is more recent than any other response from the same group
         member that conveys a smaller sequence number as Partial IV.

      -  It is more recent than the original creation of the
         deterministic keying material in the Group OSCORE Security
         Context.

   *  Source authentication of Deterministic Requests is lost.






Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


      Instead, the server must verify that the Deterministic Request
      (more precisely, its handler) is side-effect free.  The distinct
      semantics of the CoAP request methods can help the server make
      that assessment.

      Just like for what concerns the acceptance of replayed
      Deterministic Requests (see above), the server can choose whether
      it will process a Deterministic Request on a per-resource basis.

   *  The privacy of Deterministic Requests is limited.

      An intermediary can determine that two Deterministic Requests from
      different clients are identical, and thus associate the different
      responses generated for them.

      If a server produces responses in reply to a Deterministic Request
      and those responses vary in size, the server can use the Padding
      Option defined in Appendix A in order to hide when the response is
      changing.

   [ More on the verification of the Deterministic Request ]

7.  IANA Considerations

   Note to RFC Editor: Please replace "[RFC-XXXX]" with the RFC number
   of this document and delete this paragraph.

   This document has the following actions for IANA.

7.1.  CoAP Option Numbers Registry

   IANA is asked to add the following entries in the "CoAP Option
   Numbers" registry within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
   Parameters" registry group.

                 +==========+==============+============+
                 | Number   | Name         | Reference  |
                 +==========+==============+============+
                 | TBD548   | Request-Hash | [RFC-XXXX] |
                 +----------+--------------+------------+
                 | TBD64988 | Padding      | [RFC-XXXX] |
                 +----------+--------------+------------+

                    Table 2: Registrations in the CoAP
                         Option Numbers Registry

   [




Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   For the Request-Hash Option, the number suggested to IANA is 548.

   For the Padding Option, the option number is picked to be the highest
   number in the "Expert Review" range; the high option number allows it
   to follow practically all other options, and thus to be set when the
   final unpadded message length including all options is known.
   Therefore, the number suggested to IANA is 64988.

   Applications that make use of the "Experimental use" range and want
   to preserve that property are invited to pick the largest suitable
   experimental number (65532).

   Note that unless other high options are used, this means that padding
   a message adds an overhead of at least 3 bytes, i.e., 1 byte for the
   Option Delta/Length and two more bytes for the extended Option Delta
   (see Section 3.1 of [RFC7252]).  This is considered acceptable
   overhead, given that the application has already chosen to prefer the
   privacy gains of padding over wire transfer length.

   ]

7.2.  OSCORE Security Context Parameters Registry

   IANA is asked to add the following entries in the "OSCORE Security
   Context Parameters" registry within the "Authentication and
   Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" registry group.

   *  Name: det_senderId

   *  CBOR Label: 14 (suggested)

   *  CBOR Type: byte string

   *  Registry: -

   *  Description: OSCORE Sender ID assigned to the Deterministic Client
      of an OSCORE group

   *  Reference: [RFC-XXXX]



   *  Name: det_hash_alg

   *  CBOR Label: 15 (suggested)

   *  CBOR Type: text string / integer




Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   *  Registry: [COSE.Algorithms] Values (Hash)

   *  Description: Hash algorithm to use in an OSCORE group when
      producing a Deterministic Request

   *  Reference: [RFC-XXXX]

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [COSE.Algorithms]
              IANA, "COSE Algorithms",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/
              cose.xhtml#algorithms>.

   [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis]
              Dijk, E. and M. Tiloca, "Group Communication for the
              Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis-
              18, 10 February 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
              groupcomm-bis-18>.

   [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]
              Tiloca, M., Selander, G., Palombini, F., Mattsson, J. P.,
              and R. Höglund, "Group Object Security for Constrained
              RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE)", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-28, 23
              December 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-28>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7252>.

   [RFC7641]  Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7641>.





Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   [RFC7959]  Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7959>.

   [RFC8132]  van der Stok, P., Bormann, C., and A. Sehgal, "PATCH and
              FETCH Methods for the Constrained Application Protocol
              (CoAP)", RFC 8132, DOI 10.17487/RFC8132, April 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8132>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8392]  Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
              "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
              May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8392>.

   [RFC8610]  Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
              Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
              Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
              JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8610>.

   [RFC8613]  Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
              (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8613>.

   [RFC8949]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949>.

   [RFC9052]  Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
              Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9052>.

   [RFC9053]  Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
              Initial Algorithms", RFC 9053, DOI 10.17487/RFC9053,
              August 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9053>.

   [RFC9175]  Amsüss, C., Preuß Mattsson, J., and G. Selander,
              "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP): Echo, Request-
              Tag, and Token Processing", RFC 9175,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9175, February 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9175>.



Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


8.2.  Informative References

   [DNS-CoAP-paper]
              Lenders, M. S., Amsüss, C., Gündogan, C., Nawrocki, M.,
              Schmidt, T. C., and M. Wählisch, "Securing Name Resolution
              in the IoT: DNS over CoAP", September 2023,
              <https://doi.org/10.1145/3609423>.

   [I-D.amsuess-lwig-oscore]
              Amsüss, C., "OSCORE Implementation Guidance", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-amsuess-lwig-oscore-00, 29
              April 2020, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
              amsuess-lwig-oscore-00>.

   [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore]
              Tiloca, M. and F. Palombini, "Key Management for Group
              Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
              (Group OSCORE) Using Authentication and Authorization for
              Constrained Environments (ACE)", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-20, 25
              February 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-20>.

   [I-D.ietf-ace-oscore-gm-admin]
              Tiloca, M., Höglund, R., Van der Stok, P., and F.
              Palombini, "Admin Interface for the OSCORE Group Manager",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ace-oscore-
              gm-admin-15, 23 February 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ace-
              oscore-gm-admin-15>.

   [I-D.ietf-core-dns-over-coap]
              Lenders, M. S., Amsüss, C., Gündoğan, C., Schmidt, T. C.,
              and M. Wählisch, "DNS over CoAP (DoC)", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-20, 16
              September 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-20>.

   [I-D.ietf-core-multicast-notifications-proxy]
              Tiloca, M., Höglund, R., Amsüss, C., and F. Palombini,
              "Using Proxies for Observe Notifications as CoAP Multicast
              Responses", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              core-multicast-notifications-proxy-00, 20 October 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
              multicast-notifications-proxy-00>.






Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   [I-D.ietf-core-observe-multicast-notifications]
              Tiloca, M., Höglund, R., Amsüss, C., and F. Palombini,
              "Observe Notifications as CoAP Multicast Responses", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-observe-
              multicast-notifications-13, 20 October 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
              observe-multicast-notifications-13>.

   [I-D.ietf-core-responses]
              Bormann, C. and C. Amsüss, "CoAP: Non-traditional response
              forms", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-
              responses-00, 12 January 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
              responses-00>.

   [ICN-paper]
              Gündoğan, C., Amsüss, C., Schmidt, T. C., and M. Wählisch,
              "Group Communication with OSCORE: RESTful Multiparty
              Access to a Data-Centric Web of Things", October 2021,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9525000>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942>.

   [RFC8323]  Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K.,
              Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained
              Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets",
              RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC8323, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8323>.

   [RFC9200]  Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and
              H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for
              Constrained Environments Using the OAuth 2.0 Framework
              (ACE-OAuth)", RFC 9200, DOI 10.17487/RFC9200, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9200>.

   [SW-EPIV]  Lucas, G., "Star Wars", Lucasfilm Ltd. , 1977.

Appendix A.  Padding

   As discussed in Section 6, information can be leaked by the length of
   a response or, in different contexts, of a request.

   In order to hide such information and mitigate the impact on privacy,
   the new CoAP Padding Option is defined (see Appendix A.1), as a means
   to increase the length of a message without changing its meaning.



Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   The option can be used with any CoAP transport, but it is especially
   useful when using OSCORE or Group OSCORE, since they do not provide
   any padding of their own.

   Before choosing to pad a message by using the Padding Option,
   application designers should consider whether they can arrange for
   common message variants to have the same length, by picking a
   suitable content representation; the canonical example here is
   expressing "yes" and "no" with "y" and "n", respectively.

A.1.  The Padding Option

   The option is called Padding and its properties are summarized in
   Table 3, which extends Table 4 of [RFC7252].  The option is Elective,
   Safe-to-Forward, not part of the Cache-Key, and repeatable.  The
   option may be repeated, as that may be the only way to achieve a
   certain total length for the padded message.

    +==========+===+===+===+===+=========+========+========+=========+
    | No.      | C | U | N | R | Name    | Format | Length | Default |
    +==========+===+===+===+===+=========+========+========+=========+
    | TBD64988 |   |   | x | x | Padding | opaque | any    | (none)  |
    +----------+---+---+---+---+---------+--------+--------+---------+

            Table 3: The Padding Option (C=Critical, U=Unsafe,
                       N=NoCacheKey, R=Repeatable)

   The Padding Option is treated as Class E for OSCORE [RFC8613], which
   makes it indistinguishable from other Class E options or from the
   message payload to third parties.

A.2.  Using and Processing the Padding Option

   A server that produces different responses of different length for a
   given class of requests might wish to produce responses of consistent
   length, typically to hide the variation from anyone but the intended
   recipient.  In such a case, the server can pick a length that all
   possible responses can be padded to, and set the Padding Option with
   a suitable all-zero Option Value in all responses to that class of
   requests.











Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   Likewise, a client can decide on a class of requests that it pads to
   reach a consistent length.  This has considerably less efficacy and
   applicability when applied to Deterministic Requests.  That is: an
   external observer can group together different requests even if they
   are of the same length; and padding would hinder convergence on a
   single Consensus Request, thus requiring all users of the same Group
   OSCORE Security Context to agree in advance on the same total length
   for the requests.

   Any party receiving a Padding Option MUST ignore it.  In particular,
   a server MUST NOT make its choice of padding a response dependent on
   any padding present in the corresponding request.  A means driven by
   the client for coordinating response padding is out of scope for this
   document.

   Proxies that see a Padding Option MAY discard it.

Appendix B.  Simple Cacheability using Ticket Requests

   Building on the concept of Phantom Requests and Informative Responses
   defined in [I-D.ietf-core-observe-multicast-notifications], basic
   caching is already possible without building a Deterministic Request.

   The approach discussed in this appendix is not provided for
   application.  In fact, it is efficient only when dealing with very
   large representations and no OSCORE Inner block-wise mode (which is
   inefficient for other reasons), or when dealing with Observe
   notifications (which are already well covered in
   [I-D.ietf-core-observe-multicast-notifications]).

   Rather, it is more provided as a "mental exercise" for the authors
   and interested readers to bridge the gap between this document and
   [I-D.ietf-core-observe-multicast-notifications].

   That is, instead of replying to a client with a regular response, a
   server can send an Informative Response, defined as a protected 5.03
   (Service Unavailable) error message.  The payload of the Informative
   Response contains the Phantom Request, which is a Ticket Request in
   the broader terminology used by this document.

   Unlike a Deterministic Request, a Phantom Request is protected with
   the group mode of Group OSCORE.  Instead of verifying a hash, the
   client will be able to see from the countersignature of later
   responses that this was indeed the request that the server is
   replying to.  The client also verifies that the request URI is
   identical between the original request and the Ticket Request.





Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   The remaining exchange can largely play out like in
   [I-D.ietf-core-multicast-notifications-proxy]'s "Example with a Proxy
   and with Group OSCORE".  That is, the client first sends the Phantom
   Request to the proxy (but, lacking a tp_info, without including a
   Listen-To-Multicast-Responses Option).  Then, the proxy forwards the
   Phantom Request to the server, due to the lack of the Listen-To-
   Multicast-Responses Option.

   The server then produces a regular response and includes an Outer
   Max-Age Option with Option Value different from zero.  Note that
   there is no point in including an Inner Max-Age Option, as the client
   could not pin it in time.

   When a second, different client later asks for the same resource at
   the same server, its new request uses a different 'kid' and 'Partial
   IV' than the first client's.  Thus, the new request produces a cache
   miss at the proxy and is forwarded to the server, which replies with
   the same Ticket Request provided to the first client.  After that,
   when the second client sends the Ticket Request, a cache hit at the
   proxy will be produced, and the Ticket Request can be served from the
   proxy's cache.

   When multiple proxies are in use, or the response has expired from
   the proxy's cache, the server receives the Ticket Request multiple
   times.  It is a matter of perspective whether the server treats that
   as an acceptable replay (given that this whole mechanism only makes
   sense on requests free of side effects), or whether it is
   conceptualized as having an internal proxy where the request produces
   a cache hit.

Appendix C.  Application for More Efficient End-to-End Protected
             Multicast Notifications

   The specification [I-D.ietf-core-observe-multicast-notifications]
   defines how a CoAP server can serve all clients observing a same
   resource at once, by sending notifications over multicast.  As
   described in [I-D.ietf-core-multicast-notifications-proxy], the
   approach supports the possible presence of intermediaries such as
   proxies, also if Group OSCORE is used to protect notifications end-
   to-end.











Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   However, comparing the "Example with a Proxy" in Section 6 of
   [I-D.ietf-core-multicast-notifications-proxy] and the "Example with a
   Proxy and with Group OSCORE" in Section 7 of
   [I-D.ietf-core-multicast-notifications-proxy] shows that, when using
   Group OSCORE, more requests need to reach the server.  This is
   because every client originally protects its Observation request
   individually, and thus it needs a custom response served to obtain
   the Phantom Request as a Ticket Request.

   If the clients send their requests as the same Deterministic Request,
   then the server can use these requests as Ticket Requests as well.
   Thus, there is no need for the server to provide a same Phantom
   Request to each client.

   Instead, the server can send a single, unprotected Informative
   Response - very much like in the example without Group OSCORE - hence
   setting the proxy up and optionally providing also the latest
   notification along the way.  The proxy can thus be configured by the
   server following the first request from the clients, after which it
   has an active observation and a fresh cache entry in time for the
   second client to arrive.  This is shown by the "Example with a Proxy
   and with Deterministic Requests" in Section 8 of
   [I-D.ietf-core-multicast-notifications-proxy].

Appendix D.  Open Questions

   *  Is "deterministic encryption" something worthwhile to consider in
      COSE?

      COSE would probably specify something more elaborate for the KDF
      (the current KDF round is the pairwise mode's; COSE would probably
      run through KDF with a KDF context structure).

      COSE would give a header parameter name to the Request-Hash
      (which, for the purpose of OSCORE Deterministic Requests, would
      put back into Request-Hash by extending the option compression
      function across the two options).

      Conceptually, they should align well, and the implementation
      changes are likely limited to how the KDF is run.

   *  An unprotection failure from a mismatched hash will not be part of
      the ideally constant-time code paths that otherwise lead to AEAD
      unprotect failures.  Is that a problem?







Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


      After all, it does tell the attacker that they did succeed in
      producing a valid MAC (it's just not doing it any good, because
      this key is only used for Deterministic Requests and thus also
      needs to pass the Request-Hash check).

Appendix E.  Unsorted Further Ideas

   *  We could allow clients to elide all other options than the
      Request-Hash Option, and elide the payload, if they have reason to
      believe that they can produce a cache hit with the abbreviated
      request alone.

      This may prove troublesome in terms of cache invalidation (the
      server would have to use short-lived responses to indicate that it
      does need the full request, or we would need special handling for
      error responses, or criteria by which proxies do not even forward
      these if they do not have a response at hand).

      That may be more trouble than it is worth without a strong use
      case (say, of complex but converging FETCH requests).

      Hashes could also be used in a truncated form for that -- should
      we suggest SHA-256/128 as a default?  (Its birthday paradox starts
      to kick in at around 2^64 deterministic requests).

Appendix F.  Test Vectors

   This appendix includes test vectors for an example where the method
   defined in this document is used.

   In the following, a CoAP Client C and a CoAP Server S are member of
   the same OSCORE group, and they exchange Deterministic Requests and
   corresponding responses.

   Note that, while they are consistent with the presented example, the
   values of the Token and Message ID in the CoAP messages are only
   indicative, as they are subject to change throughout different
   message exchanges.

   The considered authentication credentials of the CoAP Server S and of
   the Group Manager are CWT Claims Sets (CCSs) [RFC8392].  Both
   authentication credentials as well as the aad_array used through the
   Group OSCORE processing are also expressed in CBOR extended
   diagnostic notation as defined in Section 8 of [RFC8949] and
   Appendix G of [RFC8610] ("diagnostic notation").






Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


F.1.  Setup

   The Group OSCORE Security Context specifies the following parameters.

   *  AEAD Algorithm: AES-CCM-16-64-128 (10)

   *  HKDF Algorithm: HKDF SHA-256 (5)

   *  Group Encryption Algorithm: AES-CCM-16-64-128 (10)

   *  Signature Algorithm: EdDSA (used with curve Ed25519) (-8, 6)

   *  Pairwise Key Agreement Algorithm: ECDH-SS-HKDF-256 (used with
      curve X25519) (-27, 4)

   *  Hash algorithm for Deterministic Requests: SHA-256 (-16)

   *  Master Secret (16 bytes):

      0x0102030405060708090a0b0c0d0e0f10

   *  Master Salt (8 bytes):

      0x9e7ca92223786340

   *  ID Context (2 bytes):

      0xdd11

   *  Deterministic Client's Sender ID (1 byte):

      0xdc

   *  Server's Sender ID (1 byte):

      0x52

   *  Server's authentication credential as CCS (diagnostic notation):













Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


      { 1: "coaps://server.example.com",
        2: "sender",
        3: "coaps://client.example.org",
        4: 1879067471,
        8: {
             1: {
                   1: 1,
                   3: -8,
                  -1: 6,
                  -2: h'77ec358c1d344e41ee0e87b8383d23a2
                        099acd39bdf989ce45b52e887463389b'
                }
           }
      }

   *  Server's authentication credential as CCS (serialization) (118
      bytes):

      0xa501781a636f6170733a2f2f7365727665722e6578616d706c652e636f6d
        026673656e64657203781a636f6170733a2f2f636c69656e742e6578616d
        706c652e6f7267041a70004b4f08a101a401010327200621582077ec358c
        1d344e41ee0e87b8383d23a2099acd39bdf989ce45b52e887463389b

   *  Server's private key (serialization) (32 bytes):

      0x857eb61d3f6d70a278a36740d132c099
        f62880ed497e27bdfd4685fa1a304f26

   *  Group Manager's authentication credential as CCS (diagnostic
      notation):

      { 1: "coaps://mysite.example.com",
        2: "groupmanager",
        3: "coaps://domain.example.org",
        4: 2879067471,
        8: {
             1: {
                  1: 1,
                  3: -8,
                 -1: 6,
                 -2: h'cde3efd3bc3f99c9c9ee210415c6cba55
                       061b5046e963b8a58c9143a61166472'
               }
           }
      }

   *  Group Manager's authentication credential as CCS (serialization)
      (124 bytes):



Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


      0xa501781a636f6170733a2f2f6d79736974652e6578616d706c652e636f6d
        026c67726f75706d616e6167657203781a636f6170733a2f2f646f6d6169
        6e2e6578616d706c652e6f7267041aab9b154f08a101a401010327200621
        5820cde3efd3bc3f99c9c9ee210415c6cba55061b5046e963b8a58c9143a
        61166472

F.2.  Deterministic Request

   The client generates an unprotected CoAP GET request, which contains
   only the Uri-Path option with value "helloWorld".  The request is
   Confirmable, with a Token length equal to 8 bytes.

   Unprotected CoAP request (23 bytes):

   0x48019483f0aeef1c796812a0ba68656c6c6f576f726c64

   0x48 (Version: 1, Type: CON, Token Length: 8 - 1 byte)
     01 (Code: GET - 1 byte)
     9483 (Message ID - 2 bytes)
     f0aeef1c796812a0 (Token - 8 bytes)
     ba 68656c6c6f576f726c64 (Uri-path:"helloWorld" - 11 bytes)

   The client protects the CoAP request above to produce a Deterministic
   Request.  When doing so, the client does not include an Inner Observe
   option.


   The following information is used to compute the Request-Hash value.

   *  Deterministic Client's Sender Key (16 bytes):

      0x761c3081b8d8329790a8b321b3b4c3a4

   *  aad_array (diagnostic notation):

















Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


      [1,
       [10, 10, -8, -27],
       h'dc',
       h'00',
       h'',
       h'dd11',
       h'190002dd11dc',
       h'',
       h'a501781a636f6170733a2f2f6d79736974652e6578616d706c652e636f6d
         026c67726f75706d616e6167657203781a636f6170733a2f2f646f6d6169
         6e2e6578616d706c652e6f7267041aab9b154f08a101a401010327200621
         5820cde3efd3bc3f99c9c9ee210415c6cba55061b5046e963b8a58c9143a
         61166472'
      ]

   *  aad_array (serialization) (150 bytes):

      0x8901840a0a27381a41dc41004042dd1146190002dd11dc40587ca501781a
        636f6170733a2f2f6d79736974652e6578616d706c652e636f6d026c6772
        6f75706d616e6167657203781a636f6170733a2f2f646f6d61696e2e6578
        616d706c652e6f7267041aab9b154f08a101a4010103272006215820cde3
        efd3bc3f99c9c9ee210415c6cba55061b5046e963b8a58c9143a61166472

   *  Plaintext (12 bytes):

      0x01ba68656c6c6f576f726c64

   *  Request-Hash value (32 bytes):

      0x404b3a7c9f8c878a0b5246cca71e3926
        f0a8cebefdcabbc80e79579d5a1ee17d


   The following information is used to produce the protected
   Deterministic Request.

   *  Partial IV (1 byte):

      0x00

   *  kid (1 byte):

      0xdc

   *  kid context (2 bytes):

      0xdd11




Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   *  AAD (serialization) (163 bytes):

       0x8368456e6372797074304058968901840a0a27381a41dc41004042dd114619
         0002dd11dc40587ca501781a636f6170733a2f2f6d79736974652e6578616d
         706c652e636f6d026c67726f75706d616e6167657203781a636f6170733a2f
         2f646f6d61696e2e6578616d706c652e6f7267041aab9b154f08a101a40101
         03272006215820cde3efd3bc3f99c9c9ee210415c6cba55061b5046e963b8a
         58c9143a61166472

   *  Plaintext (12 bytes):

      0x01ba68656c6c6f576f726c64

   *  Encryption Key (16 bytes):

      0x5d4671f0d12d27a59dec68c2e2ebcc88

   *  Nonce (13 bytes):

      0x46eb80969ab7389b084dd6f996


   From the previous parameter, the following is derived:

   *  OSCORE option value (6 bytes):

      0x190002dd11dc

   *  Request-Hash option value (32 bytes):

      0x404b3a7c9f8c878a0b5246cca71e3926
        f0a8cebefdcabbc80e79579d5a1ee17d

   *  Ciphertext (20 bytes):

      0x65bcd5d5edf413497bfdeec8975e2acafa702b45

   From there, the protected CoAP request as Deterministic Request (76
   bytes):












Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   0x48059483f0aeef1c796812a096190002dd11dced010e13404b3a7c9f8c878a
     0b5246cca71e3926f0a8cebefdcabbc80e79579d5a1ee17dff65bcd5d5edf4
     13497bfdeec8975e2acafa702b45

   0x48 (version:1, type: CON, Token Length: 8 - 1 byte)
     05 (Code: FETCH - 1 byte)
     9483 (Message ID - 2 bytes)
     f0aeef1c796812a0 (Token - 8 bytes)
     96 190002dd11dc (OSCORE option - 7 bytes)
     ed 010e 13 404b3a7c9f8c878a0b5246cca71e3926f0a8cebefdcabbc8
                0e79579d5a1ee17d (Request-Hash option - 36 bytes)
     ff (payload marker - 1 byte)
     65bcd5d5edf413497bfdeec8975e2acafa702b45 (payload - 20 bytes)

F.3.  Response to Deterministic Request

   The server responds to the first request with an ACK message, to
   which a 2.05 (Content) response indicating a Max-Age of 3600 seconds
   is piggybacked.  The payload of the response is the ASCII-encoded
   string ".  ID: 42".

   Unprotected CoAP response (61 bytes):

   0x68459483f0aeef1c796812a0d2010e10ed010913404b3a7c9f8c878a0b5246
     cca71e3926f0a8cebefdcabbc80e79579d5a1ee17dff2e2049443a203432

   0x68 (version: 1, type: ACK, Token Length: 8 - 1 byte)
     45 (Code: 2.05 - 1 byte)
     9483 (Message ID - 2 bytes)
     f0aeef1c796812a0 (Token - 8 bytes)
     d2 01 0e10 (Max-Age:3600 - 4 bytes)
     ed 0109 13 404b3a7c9f8c878a0b5246cca71e3926f0a8cebefdcabbc8
                0e79579d5a1ee17d (Request-Hash - 36 bytes)
     ff (payload marker - 1 byte)
     2e2049443a203432 (payload - 8 bytes)

   The server protects the CoAP response above as follows.  When doing
   so, the server: does not include an Inner Observe option; includes
   its own Sender ID in the 'kid' of the OSCORE option; elides the
   Request-Hash option from the response.


   The following information is used to protect the response.

   *  Partial IV (1 byte):

      0x00




Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   *  kid (1 byte):

      0x52

   *  kid context (2 bytes):

      0xdd11

   *  aad_array (diagnostic notation):

      [1,
       [10, 10, -8, -27],
       h'dc',
       h'00',
       h'ed011713404b3a7c9f8c878a0b5246cca71e3926f0a8cebefdcabbc80e79
         579d5a1ee17d',
       h'dd11',
       h'290052',
       h'a501781a636f6170733a2f2f7365727665722e6578616d706c652e636f6d
         026673656e64657203781a636f6170733a2f2f636c69656e742e6578616d
         706c652e6f7267041a70004b4f08a101a401010327200621582077ec358c
         1d344e41ee0e87b8383d23a2099acd39bdf989ce45b52e887463389b',
       h'a501781a636f6170733a2f2f6d79736974652e6578616d706c652e636f6d
         026c67726f75706d616e6167657203781a636f6170733a2f2f646f6d6169
         6e2e6578616d706c652e6f7267041aab9b154f08a101a401010327200621
         5820cde3efd3bc3f99c9c9ee210415c6cba55061b5046e963b8a58c9143a
         61166472'
      ]

   *  aad_array (serialization) (303 bytes):

      0x8901840a0a27381a41dc41005824ed011713404b3a7c9f8c878a0b5246cc
        a71e3926f0a8cebefdcabbc80e79579d5a1ee17d42dd11432900525876a5
        01781a636f6170733a2f2f7365727665722e6578616d706c652e636f6d02
        6673656e64657203781a636f6170733a2f2f636c69656e742e6578616d70
        6c652e6f7267041a70004b4f08a101a401010327200621582077ec358c1d
        344e41ee0e87b8383d23a2099acd39bdf989ce45b52e887463389b587ca5
        01781a636f6170733a2f2f6d79736974652e6578616d706c652e636f6d02
        6c67726f75706d616e6167657203781a636f6170733a2f2f646f6d61696e
        2e6578616d706c652e6f7267041aab9b154f08a101a40101032720062158
        20cde3efd3bc3f99c9c9ee210415c6cba55061b5046e963b8a58c9143a61
        166472

   *  AAD (serialization) (317 bytes):







Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


      0x8368456e6372797074304059012f8901840a0a27381a41dc41005824ed01
        1713404b3a7c9f8c878a0b5246cca71e3926f0a8cebefdcabbc80e79579d
        5a1ee17d42dd11432900525876a501781a636f6170733a2f2f7365727665
        722e6578616d706c652e636f6d026673656e64657203781a636f6170733a
        2f2f636c69656e742e6578616d706c652e6f7267041a70004b4f08a101a4
        01010327200621582077ec358c1d344e41ee0e87b8383d23a2099acd39bd
        f989ce45b52e887463389b587ca501781a636f6170733a2f2f6d79736974
        652e6578616d706c652e636f6d026c67726f75706d616e6167657203781a
        636f6170733a2f2f646f6d61696e2e6578616d706c652e6f7267041aab9b
        154f08a101a4010103272006215820cde3efd3bc3f99c9c9ee210415c6cb
        a55061b5046e963b8a58c9143a61166472

   *  Plaintext (14 bytes):

      0x45d2010e10ff2e2049443a203432

   *  Encryption Key (16 bytes):

      0xa8c8b7db5d05cfc7faa2bb1afaca6c2f

   *  Nonce (13 bytes):

      0x46eb80969ab73815084dd6f996


   From the previous parameter, the following is derived:

   *  OSCORE option value (3 bytes):

      0x290052

   *  Request-Hash option value (32 bytes):

      0x404b3a7c9f8c878a0b5246cca71e3926
        f0a8cebefdcabbc80e79579d5a1ee17d

   *  Ciphertext (22 bytes):

      0xcbc7356c84c10b626fef8bd57ed2dfaeec175f8e44e1

   *  Plain signature (64 bytes):

      0x44879f32ab6e8533fd89dedada6e104d10d88ea42fa6d0
        c8e7ccb21e0088e0226ef98405a84f13525a22fd7cf327
        9f3b1cee59af3f45e96d38c48f38a0217405

   *  Signature Encryption Key (16 bytes):




Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


      0x85ca7c0bc5b8ea2e267b203dc3b71ce6

   *  Signature Keystream (64 bytes):

      0xf6161f5ea4d6375819924cbcac00f45a469c517f0a435d
        e590b7a242064d5afc092fa2290b480166701088a1c4ad
        06d3e933a3f21a39b3204f7159b977193ce8

   *  Encrypted Signature (64 bytes):

      0xb291806c0fb8b26be41b9266766ee4175644dfdb25e58d
        2d777b105c06c5bade67d6262ca30712342a3275dd378a
        99e8f5ddfa5d257c5a4d77b5d681d73848ed


   From there, the protected CoAP response (106 bytes):

   0x68459483f0aeef1c796812a093290052520e10ffcbc7356c84c10b626fef8b
     d57ed2dfaeec175f8e44e1b291806c0fb8b26be41b9266766ee4175644dfdb
     25e58d2d777b105c06c5bade67d6262ca30712342a3275dd378a99e8f5ddfa
     5d257c5a4d77b5d681d73848ed

   0x68 (version:1, type: ACK, Token Length: 8 - 1 byte)
     45 (Code: 2.05 - 1 byte)
     9483 (Message ID - 2 bytes)
     f0aeef1c796812a0 (Token - 8 bytes)
     93 290052 (OSCORE option - 4 bytes)
     52 0e10 (Max age option - 3 bytes)
     ff (payload marker - 1 byte)
     cbc7356c84c10b626fef8bd57ed2dfaeec175f8e44e1b29180
       6c0fb8b26be41b9266766ee4175644dfdb25e58d2d777b10
       5c06c5bade67d6262ca30712342a3275dd378a99e8f5ddfa
       5d257c5a4d77b5d681d73848ed (payload - 86 bytes)

Appendix G.  Document Updates

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

G.1.  Version -00 to -01

   *  Updated title.

   *  Revised abstract and first part of the introduction.

   *  Updated references.

   *  Suggested values for IANA registrations.




Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 43]

Internet-Draft    Group OSCORE Cacheable CoAP Responses       March 2026


   *  Removed changelog for the individual submission document.

   *  Minor clarifications and editorial improvements.

Acknowledgments

   The authors sincerely thank Martine Lenders, Michael Richardson, Jim
   Schaad, and Göran Selander for their comments and feedback.

   This work was supported by the Sweden's Innovation Agency VINNOVA
   within the EUREKA CELTIC-NEXT projects CRITISEC and CYPRESS; and by
   the H2020 project SIFIS-Home (Grant agreement 952652).

Authors' Addresses

   Christian Amsüss
   Austria
   Email: christian@amsuess.com


   Marco Tiloca
   RISE AB
   Isafjordsgatan 22
   SE-16440 Stockholm Kista
   Sweden
   Email: marco.tiloca@ri.se

























Amsüss & Tiloca         Expires 3 September 2026               [Page 44]
