Re: [6tisch] xxx-bootstrap

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 06 December 2016 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545A1129A45; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:53:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bo7JDNgGOuXp; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47CC6129421; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE818200A3; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 13:10:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C2B63768; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 12:53:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, 6tisch-security@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <72f491eeb444448daa34196c9ac656ea@xs4all.nl>
References: <efb18853e63642bc4a996dc419cd1efb@xs4all.nl> <31466.1480551529@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <72f491eeb444448daa34196c9ac656ea@xs4all.nl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 12:53:06 -0500
Message-ID: <13358.1481046786@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/r0670_L8ULGgeevhGvgRKJG8hJY>
Cc: 6tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>, sandeep kumar <sandeep.kumar@philips.com>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] xxx-bootstrap
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: 6tisch-security@ietf.org
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 17:53:10 -0000

replying to three of your messages, and trying to repoint the thread at
6tisch-security.

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
    > all in favor of one approach to merge the push/pull aspects. (I have to
    > understand the protocol exchange below, but it looks feasibale)
    > I am not sure about understanding EDHOC, but may be that is not important.

I think it is.

    > I still see all the mime formats. is that phase 1?

They are HTTP content-types really.
That's part of of the phase 2.

    > Is phase 2 then switching to OSCOAP with a single format containing binary
    > encoding?

No, we would use EDHOC to create a secure session, and then we would run
our EST-CoAP-variant over that. No DTLS at all.

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
    > I don't think EDHOC is meant to replace EST or the anima work.

EDHOC doesn't replace EST, it replaces DTLS.

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
    > As discussed earlier, having a push/pull agnostic protocol would be
    > nice. (and probably feasible)

    > As stated earlier, I think that discovery and which node starts the bootstrap
    > protocol (BRSKI) is very much installation/technology dependent, and should
    > be done in another document.

I feel very much like I am the holdout for having the JCE initiate the join
protocol.

    > My intention was to reduce the coding effort of the registrar by making 1)
    > and 2) as similar as can be hoped for;
    > while payload considerations are of secondary importance.
    > My hope being that a manufacturer will deliver a registrar box supporting
    > both coap and http versions.

    > When the consensus is that adding coap is already such an extra effort that
    > code sharing between http and coap versions does not alleviate the effort,
    > then any solution for coap that concentrates on payload reduction is fine by
    > me.

I can see an implementation where a front-end requests/processes the PKCS
format messages in traditional EST and the CoAP push/pull variants, and then
feeds it into the same engine.

I think that the biggest interoperability problem that we are going to have
is in the step where the Registrar/JCE tells the Pledge what to put in it's
CSR. This is because this part probably involves doing real ASN.1 work, and
pledges will want none of that.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-