Re: [Ace] [core] Proposed charter for ACE (EAP over CoAP?)

[Laurent Toutain <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I think it is important to have EAP on top of CoAP, as Dan said it fit well
with the last charter item.

Laurent

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:20 PM Daniel Migault <daniel.migault=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> CCing emu, core
>
> It seems ACE to me that ACE could be home for such a document. I am
> wondering if emu core or any other WG believe there is a better place for
> it.
>
> Regarding ACE I am wondering what is the WG opinion about adding this item
> to the ACE charter.
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ace <[e-mail]> on behalf of Dan Garcia <
> [e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 3, 2020 6:10 AM
> *To:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [Ace] Proposed charter for ACE (EAP over CoAP?)
>
>
> Dear all:
>
> Regarding the new charter, since ACE is considering the definition of CoAP
> transport for CMPv2 (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-00), we
> were wondering whethere it could also consider specifying EAP (Extensible
> Authentication Protocol) over CoAP.
>
> In this sense, we proposed this some time ago and we have implementations
> about this.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap-06
> https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/16/3/358
> https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/17/11/2646
>
> The usage of CoAP can provide a very light and link-layer independent (we
> even tested in LoRa networks) EAP lower-layer (transport for EAP) suitable
> for IoT enviroment. We believe this would be really useful since EAP
> provides flexibility for the authentication and it is a well-known protocol.
>
> Therefore, we would like to propose the following modification to the
> charter:
>
> "The Working Group will examine how to use Constrained Application
> Protocol (CoAP) as a transport medium for certificate enrollment protocols,
> such as EST and CMPv2, *as well as a transport for authentication
> protocols such as EAP*, and standardize them as needed."
>
> This modification does not necessarily mean the adoption of our draft.
> After all, we completely understand that this would happen only if there is
> an interest in the WG. Nevertheless, we would like to avoid that the
> charter is a barrier later if there is interest in the WG to work in this
> transport of EAP over CoAP:
>
> Any opinion about this?
>
> Best Regards.
> El 18/11/2020 a las 8:08, Daniel Migault escribió:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please find the proposed charter we agreed on during the interim meeting.
> If you would like to propose any change, please use the following URL by
> November 25:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=f9dc6551-a6475d83-f9dc25ca-866132fe445e-9c25a5c257a23470&q=1&e=03ce3af5-6990-40e0-b2b5-255ac5f5dfe0&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing>
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
> The Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ace) WG
> has defined a standardized solution framework for authentication and
> authorization to enable authorized access to resources identified by a URI
> and hosted on a resource server in constrained environments.
>
> The access to the resource is mediated by an authorization server, which
> is not considered to be constrained.
>
> Profiles of this framework for application to security protocols commonly
> used in constrained environments, including CoAP+DTLS and CoAP+OSCORE, have
> also been standardized.  The Working Group is charged with maintenance of
> the framework and existing profiles thereof, and may undertake work to
> specify profiles of the framework for additional secure communications
> protocols and for additional support services providing authorized access
> to crypto keys (that are not necessarily limited to constrained
> endpoints, though the focus remains on deployment in ecosystems with a
> substantial portion of constrained devices).
>
> In addition to the ongoing maintenance work, the Working Group will extend
> the framework as needed for applicability to group communications, with
> initial focus on (D)TLS and (Group) OSCORE as the underlying group
> communication security protocols. The Working Group will standardize
> procedures for requesting and distributing group keying material using the
> ACE framework as well as appropriated management interfaces.
>
> The Working Group will standardize a format for expressing authorization
> information for a given authenticated principal as received from an
> authorization manager.
>
> The Working Group will examine how to use Constrained Application Protocol
> (CoAP) as a transport medium for certificate enrollment protocols, such as
> EST and CMPv2, and standardize as needed.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:47 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for updating the draft charter at [1], Daniel!
>
> I note that Michael raised the question of whether some other group might
> also be interested in working on CMP-over-coap, so the IESG will be sure to
> discuss that if CMP is still in the draft ACE charter when it goes to the
> IESG for review.
>
> -Ben
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:16:48PM -0500, Daniel Migault wrote:
> > Thank you all for the feed backs. For the purpose of driving the charter
> > discussion at the IETf 109, I have added the comments into the proposed
> > text [1].
> >
> > My current understanding is that it seems beneficial to add CMPv2 over
> CoAP
> > in the charter. I am happy to be contradicted.
> > * I have not seen a clear cut to do one or the other.
> > * EST and CMPv2 are two protocols that can be used for enrollment or cert
> > management while addressing different cases / needs / situations -- maybe
> > we can clarify that point. I can see leveraging the existing CMP
> > infrastructure, but it seems that is not the only one.
> > * I am not convinced that not having CMP over CoAP will not prevent its
> > deployment and as such I prefer to have it standardized - this might be a
> > personal thought.
> > * Adding any piece of work require cycles, but it seems to me that CPM
> will
> > not have a major impact on the WG progress. The work will probably
> include
> > other WG such a LAMPS.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Daniel
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=a01e017d-ff8539af-a01e41e6-866132fe445e-7268e18ca0e30ad7&q=1&e=03ce3af5-6990-40e0-b2b5-255ac5f5dfe0&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing>
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:02 PM Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Goran,
> > >
> > > I added the text to the charter we will discuss later.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:26 AM Göran Selander <
> > > [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Daniel,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Here’s another input to the charter.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The current group key management solutions addresses the problem of
> > >> authorized access to group keys and public keys of group members.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> A related problem is authorized access of public keys of other devices
> > >> not necessarily part of a security group, in the sense of sharing a
> > >> symmetric key used to protect group messages.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Authorized access to raw public keys serves an important function in
> > >> constrained settings where public key certificates may not be
> feasible due
> > >> to the incurred overhead, e.g. for when authenticating using EDHOC
> > >> (draft-ietf-lake-edhoc).
> > >>
> > >> This functionality is thus a subset of what is already supported, but
> > >> since the current solution is geared towards groups a different
> solution
> > >> may be needed (although it is probably possible to reuse parts from
> the
> > >> existing schemes for provisioning and requesting public keys).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> With this in mind, I propose the following change (highlighted in
> > >> boldface below):
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> OLD
> > >>
> > >> The Working Group is charged with maintenance of the framework and
> > >> existing profiles thereof, and may undertake work to specify profiles
> of
> > >> the framework for additional secure communications protocols (that
> are not
> > >> necessarily limited to constrained endpoints, though the focus
> remains on
> > >> deployment ecosystems with a substantial portion of constrained
> devices).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> NEW
> > >>
> > >> The Working Group is charged with maintenance of the framework and
> > >> existing profiles thereof, and may undertake work to specify profiles
> of
> > >> the framework for additional secure communications protocols *and
> **for
> > >> additional **support services **providing* *authorized access to
> crypto* *keys
> > >> *(that are not necessarily limited to constrained endpoints, though
> the
> > >> focus remains on deployment ecosystems with a substantial portion of
> > >> constrained devices).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Göran
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 2020-10-15, 19:50, "Ace" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I would like to start the charter discussion. Here is a draft of a
> > >> proposed charter [1].
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> It seems to be that additional discussion is needed with regard to the
> > >> last paragraph related certificate management. In particular the
> discussion
> > >> might revive a discussion that happened in 2017 [2] - when I was not
> > >> co-chair of ACE -and considered other expired work such as [3].
> Please make
> > >> this discussion constructive on this thread.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The fundamental question is whether we need certificate management at
> > >> this stage. If the answer is yes, and we have multiple proposals, it
> would
> > >> be good to clarify the position of the different proposals and
> evaluate
> > >> whether a selection is needed or not before validating the charter.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Please provide your inputs on the mailing list before October 30. Of
> > >> course for minor edits, you may suggest them directly on the google
> doc.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yours,
> > >>
> > >> Daniel
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=2eaaeb96-7131d344-2eaaab0d-866132fe445e-7e515f25c81762b8&q=1&e=03ce3af5-6990-40e0-b2b5-255ac5f5dfe0&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing>
> > >> <
> > >>
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=4f3d9c3b-118c475b-4f3ddca0-86e2237f51fb-627e48b069462d70&q=1&e=6924b2a6-e7e5-4ec1-a1af-c94637953dc5&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> [2]
> > >>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2017-ace-03-201710191300/
> > >>
> > >> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-selander-ace-eals/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Daniel Migault
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Ericsson
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel Migault
> > > Ericsson
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Migault
> > Ericsson
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ace mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>


-- 
Laurent Toutain
+--- VoIP (recommended) ---+----------- Télécom Bretagne -----------+
| Tel: [phone]    | Tel: + 33 2 99 12 7026                 | Visit
:
| Mob: [phone]    |                                        |
| Fax: [phone]    | Fax: [phone]                  |
http://class.touta.in
| [e-mail]         | [e-mail]    |
+--------------------------+----------------------------------------+