Routing Working Group J. E. W. V Internet-Draft Department of the Air Force Intended status: Standards Track S. Kanno Expires: 7 August 2026 GMO Internet Group, Inc. 3 February 2026 PRISM: Protocol for Routing Intelligent Service Mapping draft-willman-rtgwg-prism-sdwan-00 Abstract This document specifies PRISM, an application-aware traffic steering protocol for Software-Defined Wide Area Networks (SD-WAN). PRISM provides deep application identification, per-flow tracking, Service Level Agreement (SLA) enforcement, and policy-based path selection integration with Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6). PRISM is designed as a companion protocol to CONDUIT (Cryptographic Orchestration of Network Distributed Underlay for IPsec Transport), together providing a complete open-standard SD-WAN solution. CONDUIT manages the encrypted tunnel fabric while PRISM provides the application intelligence and policy enforcement. The protocol is fully programmable via gRPC, supports distributed and centralized deployment models, and mandates a phased transition to Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite 2.0 (CNSA 2.0) cryptographic requirements. 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/. 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 7 August 2026. V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PRISM February 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. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Relationship to CONDUIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Design Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.4. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. System Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Deployment Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Application Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Identification Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Encrypted Traffic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Application Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Flow Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. Flow Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. Flow Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Policy Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. Policy Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. Match Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.3. Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.4. SLA Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. SRv6 Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Traffic Class to SRv6 Color Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Dynamic Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. SLA Monitoring and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.1. SLA Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.2. Remediation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Control Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.1. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Message Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 9.3. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. gRPC API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. Cryptographic Agility and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.1. Cryptographic Agility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.2. Phased Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.3. Algorithm Requirements by Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11.4. Transport Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.1. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.2. Application Identification Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12.3. Policy Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13.1. UDP Port Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13.2. Application Category Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1. Introduction 1.1. Problem Statement Software-Defined Wide Area Networks (SD-WAN) have emerged as a critical technology for enterprises and tactical networks requiring Intelligent traffic management across multiple WAN connections. However, existing SD-WAN solutions are predominantly proprietary, creating several challenges: Vendor Lock-in: Organizations deploying proprietary SD-WAN solutions become dependent on a single vendor for features, updates, and interoperability. Limited Interoperability: Proprietary solutions cannot interoperate with equipment from other vendors, limiting deployment flexibility and multi-vendor environments. Opaque Operation: Closed implementations prevent security auditing and verification of traffic handling behavior. Cryptographic Limitations: Many commercial SD-WAN products do not support government-mandated cryptographic standards such as CNSA 2.0. V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 An open-standard SD-WAN protocol would address these limitations by providing a vendor-neutral specification that enables interoperability, permits security auditing, and ensures compliance with required cryptographic standards. SD-WAN functionality comprises two distinct concerns: 1. Tunnel Fabric Management: Creating, monitoring, and maintaining encrypted tunnels across multiple WAN links. [I-D.conduit-tunnel-fabric] addresses this function. 2. Application-Aware Traffic Steering: Identifying applications, tracking flows, enforcing policies, and selecting optimal paths based on application requirements. This function is addressed by PRISM. 1.2. Relationship to CONDUIT PRISM and [I-D.conduit-tunnel-fabric] together form a complete open- standard SD-WAN solution with clear separation of responsibilities: CONDUIT Responsibilities: * IPsec tunnel lifecycle management (creation, deletion, rekeying) * Tunnel health monitoring (probing, metrics collection) * Metric publishing to SRv6/IGP * IKEv2 security association management PRISM Responsibilities: * Application identification (deep packet inspection, heuristics) * Flow tracking and management * Policy definition and enforcement * SLA monitoring and alerting * Traffic class assignment for SRv6 steering The relationship can be summarized as: PRISM decides WHAT traffic class each flow belongs to; SRv6 decides WHICH path to use based on Flex-Algo; CONDUIT ensures the paths EXIST and reports their quality. V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 1.3. Design Goals PRISM is designed to meet the following goals: +==========================+======================================+ | Parameter | Requirement | +==========================+======================================+ | Flow Scale | 10 million concurrent flows per node | +--------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Application Signatures | 5000+ applications recognized | +--------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Classification Latency | Less than 100 microseconds | +--------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Policy Scale | 100,000 policies per node | +--------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | SLA Measurement Accuracy | Within 1ms for latency metrics | +--------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | API Coverage | 100% functionality via gRPC | +--------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Cryptographic Suite | CNSA 2.0 readiness (phased) | +--------------------------+--------------------------------------+ Figure 1 1.4. Scope This document specifies: * Application identification mechanisms and signature format * Flow tracking and management procedures * Policy framework for traffic steering * SLA definition and enforcement * Integration with SRv6 for path selection * Control protocol for distributed operation * gRPC API for management and analytics This document does not specify: * Tunnel management (covered by [I-D.conduit-tunnel-fabric]) * SRv6 data plane operations (covered by [RFC8986]) V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 * Specific application signatures (maintained separately) * Deep packet inspection algorithms (implementation-specific) 2. Conventions and Terminology 2.1. Requirements Language 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. 2.2. Definitions Application: A network service or program identified by its traffic characteristics, such as Microsoft Teams, Salesforce, or SSH. Application Category: A grouping of applications with similar characteristics or business purposes, such as "unified communications" or "business critical". Application Signature: A set of patterns or heuristics used to identify a specific application from its network traffic. Flow: A unidirectional sequence of packets sharing common identifying characteristics, typically a 5-tuple of protocol, source address, source port, destination address, and destination port. Session: A bidirectional communication comprising two related flows (forward and reverse directions). Traffic Class: A classification assigned to flows that maps to specific SRv6 treatment, including path selection and QoS. SLA (Service Level Agreement): A set of performance thresholds that define acceptable service quality for an application or traffic class. V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 Policy: A rule that matches traffic based on specified conditions and applies designated actions. DPI (Deep Packet Inspection): Analysis of packet contents beyond layer 4 headers to identify applications. PRISM Node: A device implementing the PRISM protocol, typically co- located with a CONDUIT node. PRISM Controller: A centralized management entity that distributes policies and aggregates analytics from PRISM nodes. 3. Architecture 3.1. System Overview A PRISM deployment consists of the following components: PRISM Controller: A centralized or distributed management entity responsible for policy management and distribution, application signature database maintenance, aggregated analytics and reporting, and SLA monitoring dashboard. PRISM Node: A data plane element deployed at network edges responsible for application identification, flow tracking, and classification, policy enforcement, per-flow metrics collection, and SRv6 traffic class assignment. CONDUIT Node: Co-located tunnel fabric manager providing IPsec tunnel management and path quality metrics (feeds into SLA calculations). SRv6 Data Plane: Forwarding plane that executes traffic engineering decisions based on traffic class assignments from PRISM. 3.2. Deployment Models PRISM supports multiple deployment models: Distributed Mode: Each PRISM node operates independently. Policies V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 are configured locally on each node. No central controller required. Suitable for small deployments or disconnected operations. Centralized Mode: PRISM Controller manages all nodes. Policies are defined centrally and distributed to nodes. Centralized analytics and reporting. Suitable for enterprise deployments. Hierarchical Mode: Regional controllers manage local nodes. Global controller coordinates regional controllers. Policies can be global, regional, or local. Suitable for large distributed deployments. Hybrid Mode: Central controller for policy distribution. Local autonomy for real-time decisions. Nodes operate independently if the controller is unreachable. Suitable for tactical/resilient deployments. 4. Application Identification 4.1. Identification Methods PRISM employs multiple methods to identify applications: +=======================+=======+=============================+ | Method | Layer | Description | +=======================+=======+=============================+ | Port-based | L4 | Well-known ports (SSH=22) | +-----------------------+-------+-----------------------------+ | Protocol Signature | L7 | Pattern matching in payload | +-----------------------+-------+-----------------------------+ | TLS/SNI Analysis | L7 | Server Name Indication | +-----------------------+-------+-----------------------------+ | DNS Correlation | L7 | Map DNS queries to flows | +-----------------------+-------+-----------------------------+ | Certificate Analysis | L7 | X.509 certificate fields | +-----------------------+-------+-----------------------------+ | Behavioral Heuristics | L3-L7 | Traffic patterns/timing | +-----------------------+-------+-----------------------------+ | Machine Learning | L3-L7 | Trained classifiers | +-----------------------+-------+-----------------------------+ | IP Reputation | L3 | Known service IP ranges | +-----------------------+-------+-----------------------------+ Figure 2 V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 Classification proceeds through methods in order of reliability until a confident identification is achieved. 4.2. Encrypted Traffic Analysis For encrypted traffic (TLS/DTLS), PRISM uses metadata analysis without decryption: TLS Server Name Indication (SNI): The SNI field in the TLS Client Hello message reveals the intended server hostname, making it the primary method for HTTPS application classification. Note: The effectiveness of SNI-based identification will diminish as Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) [I-D.ietf-tls-esni] is deployed. Implementations SHOULD prioritize heuristic and behavioral analysis methods (Section 4.1) to maintain classification accuracy for ECH-protected flows. TLS Certificate Analysis: Server certificates contain identifying information, including Common Name, Subject Alternative Names, Organization, and Issuer. JA3/JA3S Fingerprinting: TLS handshake characteristics create unique fingerprints for client and server implementations. Note that JA3 hashes use MD5 for identification purposes only; this does not affect CNSA compliance as no cryptographic protection is derived from these hashes. Encrypted Traffic Behavioral Analysis: Statistical analysis of packet sizes, timing, and directionality can identify applications without payload inspection. PRISM MUST NOT perform TLS interception or decryption. All encrypted traffic analysis is performed on metadata and observable traffic characteristics only. 4.3. Application Categories Applications are organized into categories for policy management: V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 9] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 +========================+============================+ | Category | Description | +========================+============================+ | unified-communications | Voice, video, messaging | | | (Teams, Zoom, Webex) | +------------------------+----------------------------+ | business-critical | Core business applications | | | (ERP, CRM, custom apps) | +------------------------+----------------------------+ | cloud-services | SaaS applications (O365, | | | Salesforce, Workday) | +------------------------+----------------------------+ | infrastructure | Network services (DNS, | | | NTP, SNMP) | +------------------------+----------------------------+ | security | Security tools (AV | | | updates, SIEM) | +------------------------+----------------------------+ | file-transfer | File sharing (SharePoint, | | | Box, FTP) | +------------------------+----------------------------+ | web-browsing | General web traffic | +------------------------+----------------------------+ | streaming-media | Video/audio streaming | | | (YouTube, Spotify) | +------------------------+----------------------------+ | remote-access | VPN, RDP, SSH | +------------------------+----------------------------+ | unknown | Unclassified traffic | +------------------------+----------------------------+ Figure 3 5. Flow Management 5.1. Flow Identification A composite key identifies flows: Standard 5-Tuple: * IP Protocol (8 bits) * Source IP Address (128 bits for IPv6) * Destination IP Address (128 bits for IPv6) * Source Port (16 bits) V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 10] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 * Destination Port (16 bits) Extended Identifiers (optional): * VLAN ID * VRF/VPN ID * Ingress interface 5.2. Flow Lifecycle Flows progress through the following states: NEW: First packet observed. Application identification in progress. Default traffic class applied. CLASSIFYING: Multiple packets observed. Application identification in progress. May transition to ESTABLISHED once classification confidence exceeds threshold. ESTABLISHED: Application identified with sufficient confidence. Traffic class assigned based on policy. SLA monitoring is active. CLOSING: Connection termination detected. Preparing to collect final statistics. CLOSED: Flow terminated. Final statistics recorded. Entry scheduled for removal after reporting. 6. Policy Framework 6.1. Policy Model PRISM policies follow a match-action model with the following structure: * Policy ID: Unique identifier * Name: Human-readable name * Priority: Evaluation order (lower = higher priority) V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 11] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 * Match: Conditions that select applicable traffic * Action: Operations to perform on matching traffic * Schedule: Optional time-based activation 6.2. Match Conditions Policies can match on: * Source/destination IP address or prefix * Port or port range * Specific application ID or category * Application risk level * Protocol (TCP, UDP, etc.) * DSCP value * Time of day * Ingress interface or zone 6.3. Actions When a policy matches, the following actions may be applied: Traffic Class Assignment: Set traffic class (maps to SRv6 color), set DSCP value Path Selection: Prefer specific path characteristics, avoid specific paths, pin to a specific path SLA Assignment: Apply SLA profile, set violation actions Bandwidth Management: Rate limit, bandwidth guarantee Security: Permit, deny, redirect to inspection 6.4. SLA Definitions Standard SLA Profiles: V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 12] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 +================+=========+========+======+====================+ | Profile | Latency | Jitter | Loss | Use Case | +================+=========+========+======+====================+ | realtime-voice | 150ms | 30ms | 1% | VoIP | +----------------+---------+--------+------+--------------------+ | realtime-video | 200ms | 50ms | 1% | Video conferencing | +----------------+---------+--------+------+--------------------+ | interactive | 300ms | 100ms | 2% | Virtual desktop | +----------------+---------+--------+------+--------------------+ | transactional | 500ms | N/A | 0.1% | Database, API | +----------------+---------+--------+------+--------------------+ | best-effort | N/A | N/A | N/A | General browsing | +----------------+---------+--------+------+--------------------+ Figure 4 7. SRv6 Integration 7.1. Traffic Class to SRv6 Color Mapping PRISM assigns traffic classes that map to SRv6 policy colors: +===============+=======+===========+=======================+ | Traffic Class | Color | Flex-Algo | Description | +===============+=======+===========+=======================+ | realtime | 100 | 128 | Voice, real-time C2 | +---------------+-------+-----------+-----------------------+ | video | 200 | 129 | Video conferencing | +---------------+-------+-----------+-----------------------+ | interactive | 300 | 128 | VDI, interactive apps | +---------------+-------+-----------+-----------------------+ | business | 400 | default | Business applications | +---------------+-------+-----------+-----------------------+ | best-effort | 0 | default | Default treatment | +---------------+-------+-----------+-----------------------+ Figure 5 7.2. Dynamic Path Selection PRISM influences path selection through traffic class assignment, not direct path manipulation. The sequence is: 1. PRISM classifies flow and assigns traffic class 2. Traffic class maps to SRv6 color 3. SRv6 color maps to SR policy V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 13] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 4. SR policy specifies Flex-Algo or explicit path 5. SRv6 data plane forwards accordingly This maintains clean separation: PRISM determines the application requirements, SRv6 satisfies them. 8. SLA Monitoring and Enforcement 8.1. SLA Metrics PRISM monitors: Latency: End-to-end delay. Measured via TCP timestamps or probes. Jitter: Variation in packet delay. Calculated per [RFC3550]. Packet Loss: Percentage not delivered. Inferred from TCP retransmissions. Throughput: Bytes per second over measurement interval. 8.2. Remediation Actions When SLA violations are detected: Alert Only: Generate alert, no corrective action. Reclassify: Move the flow to a different traffic class. Path Switch: Signal SRv6 to prefer the alternate path. Escalate: Notify the external system to take action. 9. Control Protocol 9.1. Transport PRISM control messages are transported via UDP on port 4796. PRISM control messages MUST be transported within a CONDUIT encrypted tunnel fabric to ensure confidentiality. Implementations MUST drop PRISM control messages received on unprotected interfaces. All control messages are authenticated using HMAC-SHA-384. V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 14] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 9.2. Message Header 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Version | Type | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Node ID (64 bits) + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Timestamp (64 bits) + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + + | | + + | | + HMAC-SHA-384 (384 bits) + | | + + | | + + | | + + | | + + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Total header size: 76 octets Version: 8 bits ( 1 octet) Type: 8 bits ( 1 octet) Flags: 16 bits ( 2 octets) Length: 16 bits ( 2 octets) Reserved: 16 bits ( 2 octets) Node ID: 64 bits ( 8 octets) Sequence Number: 32 bits ( 4 octets) V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 15] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 Timestamp: 64 bits ( 8 octets) HMAC-SHA-384: 384 bits (48 octets) 9.3. Message Types +=======+===============+========================================+ | Value | Name | Description | +=======+===============+========================================+ | 0x01 | HELLO | Node discovery and capability exchange | +-------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | 0x02 | HELLO_ACK | Response to HELLO | +-------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | 0x0F | ERROR | Error notification | +-------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | 0x10 | POLICY_PUSH | Policy distribution from controller | +-------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | 0x11 | POLICY_ACK | Policy receipt acknowledgment | +-------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | 0x20 | FLOW_REPORT | Flow statistics report | +-------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | 0x21 | FLOW_SYNC | Flow state synchronization (HA) | +-------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | 0x30 | SLA_ALERT | SLA violation notification | +-------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | 0x31 | SLA_CLEAR | SLA violation cleared | +-------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | 0x40 | APP_SIGNATURE | Application signature update | +-------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ Figure 6 10. gRPC API PRISM exposes functionality through five gRPC services: PolicyService: Policy lifecycle management (CRUD for policies, SLA profiles) ApplicationService: Application signature management FlowService: Flow visibility and real-time streaming AnalyticsService: SLA compliance reports and traffic analytics ConfigService: Node configuration V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 16] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 All gRPC connections MUST use mutual TLS (mTLS). Certificate requirements follow the Phased Transition model defined in Section 11.2. Phase 1 implementations MAY use CNSA 1.0 compliant certificates (ECDSA P-384). Phase 2 implementations SHOULD use hybrid certificates combining ECDSA P-384 and ML-DSA-87. Phase 3 implementations MUST use CNSA 2.0 compliant certificates (ML-DSA-87). 11. Cryptographic Agility and Transition To ensure long-term security against quantum threats while maintaining operational readiness, PRISM adopts a phased transition strategy aligned with CNSA 2.0 timelines and IETF guidance on Post- Quantum Cryptography [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]. This approach mandates cryptographic agility, enabling seamless updates to algorithms without protocol redesign. 11.1. Cryptographic Agility PRISM implementations MUST support cryptographic agility. Control plane messages and data plane encapsulations MUST include versioning or algorithm identifiers to allow negotiation of cryptographic suites. Implementations SHOULD be capable of upgrading cryptographic libraries independently of the core protocol logic. 11.2. Phased Transition The transition to Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) is defined in three phases, aligning with the transition models described in [NIST.IR.8547], [ENISA-PQC], and [BSI-PQC], and the timeline mandated by [CNSA2.0]: Phase 1 (Legacy/Current): Uses CNSA 1.0 algorithms (ECC P-384, AES- 256). This phase supports immediate deployment with currently FIPS-validated hardware and software. New deployments SHOULD plan for Phase 2 migration. Phase 2 (Transitional/Hybrid): Uses hybrid schemes combining CNSA 1.0 and CNSA 2.0 algorithms. Hybrid key exchange (e.g., ECDH P-384 + ML-KEM) and signatures provide "defense in depth" during the transition period. This phase is RECOMMENDED for all systems as PQC libraries become available. Phase 3 (Target): Uses pure CNSA 2.0 algorithms (ML-KEM, ML-DSA). Mandatory for all new systems by December 31, 2030 (software/ firmware and traditional networking equipment) or 2033 (niche equipment), per CNSA 2.0 guidance. The goal is for all NSS to be quantum-resistant by 2035. V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 17] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 11.3. Algorithm Requirements by Phase Implementations MUST support the algorithms defined for their operating phase: +==============+=================+===================+=================+ | Algorithm | Phase 1 (Legacy)| Phase 2 (Hybrid) | Phase 3 (Target)| +==============+=================+===================+=================+ | Sym. Enc. | AES-256-GCM | AES-256-GCM | AES-256-GCM | +--------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+ | Key Exchange | ECDH P-384 | ECDH P-384 + | ML-KEM-1024 | | | | ML-KEM-1024 | | +--------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+ | Dig. Sig. | ECDSA P-384 | ECDSA P-384 + | ML-DSA-87 | | | | ML-DSA-87 | | +--------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+ | Hashing | SHA-384 | SHA-384 / SHA-512 | SHA-384 / | | | | | SHA-512 | +--------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+ | State Sig. | LMS / XMSS | LMS / XMSS | LMS / XMSS | | (Firmware) | | | | +--------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+ Figure 7 Note: "ML-KEM" refers to Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism (FIPS 203). "ML-DSA" refers to Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard (FIPS 204). 11.4. Transport Security gRPC connections MUST use TLS 1.3. For Phase 1, the TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 cipher suite is REQUIRED. Phase 2 and 3 implementations MUST support PQC-aware TLS cipher suites as they are standardized by the IETF (e.g., [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design], [I-D.ietf-tls-mlkem]). For IPsec compliance (via CONDUIT), implementations MUST support [RFC9370] to enable multiple key exchanges for hybrid PQC. 12. Security Considerations 12.1. Privacy Considerations PRISM performs deep packet inspection, which raises privacy concerns. PRISM analyzes metadata of encrypted traffic but does not decrypt contents. Organizations SHOULD define data retention policies. V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 18] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 12.2. Application Identification Risks Sophisticated actors may attempt to evade identification. Implementations SHOULD employ multiple identification methods and provide mechanisms to review classifications. 12.3. Policy Security Policies MUST be authenticated using HMAC-SHA-384. Policy changes SHOULD require appropriate authorization and be logged for audit. 13. IANA Considerations 13.1. UDP Port Allocation This document requests the allocation of UDP port 4796 for PRISM control messages. 13.2. Application Category Registry This document requests the creation of a "PRISM Application Categories." registry with initial values from 0x01 (unified- communications) through 0xFF (unknown). 14. References 14.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, July 2003, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer, D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986, DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021, . V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 19] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 [I-D.conduit-tunnel-fabric] V, J. E. W., "Underlay for IPsec Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-conduit-tunnel-fabric-00, 30 January 2026, . 14.2. Informative References [RFC9460] Schwartz, B., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Service Binding and Parameter Specification via the DNS (SVCB and HTTPS Resource Records)", RFC 9460, DOI 10.17487/RFC9460, November 2023, . [NIST.IR.8547] NIST, "Transition to Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards", November 2024, . [ENISA-PQC] ENISA, "Post-Quantum Cryptography – Integration study", October 2022, . [BSI-PQC] BSI, "Quantum-safe cryptography – fundamentals, current developments and recommendations", 2021, . [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers] Banerjee, A., Reddy.K, T., Schoinianakis, D., Hollebeek, T., and M. Ounsworth, "Post-Quantum Cryptography for Engineers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- pquip-pqc-engineers-06, 21 October 2024, . [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design] Stebila, D., Fluhrer, S., and S. Gueron, "Hybrid key exchange in TLS 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-12, 14 January 2025, . V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 20] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 [I-D.ietf-tls-mlkem] Connolly, D., "ML-KEM Post-Quantum Key Agreement for TLS 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls- mlkem-07, 12 February 2026, . [CNSA2.0] National Security Agency, "Announcing the Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite 2.0", September 2022, . [I-D.ietf-tls-esni] Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. A. Wood, "TLS Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-esni-25, 14 June 2025, . [RFC9370] Tjhai, CJ., Tomlinson, M., Bartlett, G., Fluhrer, S., Van Geest, D., Garcia-Morchon, O., and V. Smyslov, "Multiple Key Exchanges in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 9370, DOI 10.17487/RFC9370, May 2023, . Acknowledgements The authors thank the networking community for discussions on SD-WAN requirements and open standards approaches. Authors' Addresses John Edward Willman V Department of the Air Force 1800 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330 United States of America Phone: +1 786 994 3023 Email: john.willman.1@us.af.mil URI: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnewillmanv Satoru Kanno GMO Internet Group, Inc. Cerulean Tower 26-1 Sakuragaokacho, Tokyo 150-8512 Japan V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 21] Internet-Draft PRISM February 2026 Email: kanno@gmo-connect.jp URI: https://www.linkedin.com/in/satoru-kanno/ V & Kanno Expires 7 August 2026 [Page 22]