Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-01.txt

Mohit Sahni <mohit06jan@gmail.com> Mon, 03 May 2021 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mohit06jan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E113A0918 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2021 23:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 AOYCNfI0T0DI for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2021 23:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37BC03A0909 for <ace@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 May 2021 23:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id z24so1177420ioj.7 for <ace@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 May 2021 23:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dRoARdwf9/2Rprwv45xUdjQ5xjslZ8ow/4Nyv8br2TE=; b=AZbBIRwc3Yd52vNRKyTtKlfMAtc3CxYaloDHQd1gWpe5CI3lX9tllEVxrzsdqCfQYG WEEQacYJn9YDeAlcMVqlddS/yrlV/wLhjLG36osy9dr8HfcA1csbePjYAUOr1vOmG2dC k7TjF4/kh8BL1D4wEi8yPTiAuAnr7eceX5XnDivIM0X/EVxqgxZc0h7jVkrRC7UpR92s IA1ZxbfSFL5mcxiOl67hChLq6oDia8Pa+xZgD1l7xGCEZzDaDmfceQqZI90/cj3SPAwF 0gqkWwb0KRGb0zZya2RTKdyTheNXUl5K6gGh8ED6/mP7Q55hz60/52MEsdRp5JN3w0o3 EU+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dRoARdwf9/2Rprwv45xUdjQ5xjslZ8ow/4Nyv8br2TE=; b=JTFDKfALzf3nBJAwUmT3ePk7jCmJ/AJgWiO+U+1djXVahp9YizVWNmrQVTnpjo0SK0 rDIxZJ9MS6fioe8kDJA7U9sHi2wwAD3zy+JjiIuSgbbaTB1qjTxk5CjzsM1YoEp0dwde ft/OsZe4v7xbnoZy44RwcMpogmngtjIH+DnSl2Ivr0IOgTCu1OMiE1vP68qaone7tbCG 46qlPvG5i5nfl3TKmI471a2lzuccfaCVBiNALwzIu1uO4rWoqFZ9cGwVpNbbmu1qyL/+ guExFnlRavWEU3Ms4TS5MMxekfJBI4GrJfcTWz6t0Vfxa3xeKFDuYZsHs4TQxLGnpRzW RiTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532O9XZTerU7Q4iqkunTkGaWnEGRxmOummpHGCXhOrErRUzQnMMY Uie1kdRPxD+PZYkWCyMQDSEb52R9HhRvYWq5IKs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwpgHxSOfr9FQe/79XjinHFDEweL4WA161HfcsNhmGTwGriONvaNBFRseqrDGkjwwUYoF5WP8MNknf1WGe4y1s=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:f212:: with SMTP id q18mr3840484ioh.131.1620023251354; Sun, 02 May 2021 23:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <AM0PR10MB24186B276EBD30EE32A7A87BFE969@AM0PR10MB2418.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAEpwuw167FdJzQYLK2ZV0B_6=2edV+wj9zKDnpbiN-0aTgNL=g@mail.gmail.com> <4f9d9e3f-be6a-9fe7-40b2-1f018df1742a@siemens.com> <ea9d4f16-8744-c757-6b81-f22b3ff77e5d@siemens.com> <CAEpwuw2z=5L_szZihL2giz80dfT+Bx3T2C8tN8LJP-Ro2bgSoA@mail.gmail.com> <a300bc62-987c-19d0-6a36-e73a1ca17988@siemens.com>
In-Reply-To: <a300bc62-987c-19d0-6a36-e73a1ca17988@siemens.com>
From: Mohit Sahni <mohit06jan@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2021 23:27:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEpwuw3At62cjPUeXrZ7wdJEpJkRYAit9ydU7wuw0+-rom5DQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David von Oheimb <David.von.Oheimb@siemens.com>
Cc: "ace@ietf.org" <ace@ietf.org>, "Brockhaus, Hendrik" <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com>, Andreas Kretschmer <Andreas.Kretschmer@siemens.com>, stripathi@paloaltonetworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/3-ekNAZrsJE3GO1r0lOj5Bzb2nY>
Subject: Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2021 06:27:39 -0000

Hi David
Many thanks for the comments, please see my response inline, I will
wait for couple of more days for any new comments and will publish a
new version of draft with the name change (cmpv2 -> cmp) and changes
based on your feedback.

Regards,
-Mohit


On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 6:34 AM David von Oheimb
<David.von.Oheimb@siemens.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mohit,
>
> a couple of comments for the WGLC also from my side.
>
> Abstract:
>
> IMO it would be nice (but it's of course not strictly needed) to refer to the Lightweight CMP profile already in the abstract,
> maybe this way after the first sentence:
>
>      It details the CoAP transfer option mentioned in the Lightweight CMP Profile.
>
[M.S.]: Agreed.
> Section 1:
>
> encryption of messages -> protection of messages    (because authenticity is the predominant requirement)
>
[M.S.] Agreed
> between CAs -> between RAs                          (between CAs makes little sense, but there may be more than one RA involved)
>
[M.S.] Cross certificate signing requires two CA's to communicate with
each other (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4210#section-6.6).
> Section 2.6:
>
> the Block-Wise transfer [RFC7959] mode
>    MUST be used for the CMP Transactions over CoAP
>
> I do not have a strong opinion here, but I fear that strictly requiring block-wise transfer may needlessly exclude simple implementations,
> which may be sufficient in scenarios where the payloads are known to be rather small.
> Writing SHOULD or RECOMMENDED would state that implementors can deviate from the recommendation,
> but only if they are aware of the consequences and are willing to cope with them.
> So what you could do - if others agree - is to replace
>
>    In order to avoid IP fragmentation of messages exchanged
>    between EEs and RAs or CAs, the Block-Wise transfer [RFC7959] mode
>    MUST be used for the CMP Transactions over CoAP.
>
> by a strengthened recommendation with a motivation/warning, e.g.,
>
>    Block-wise transfer [RFC7959] mode
>    SHOULD be used for the CMP Transactions over CoAP.
>    This is strongly recommended to avoid IP fragmentation of messages
>    and the block-wise option is a critical option as per RFC 7959.
>
[M.S.] In my opinion if we make this optional, then we will end up
with implementations that will have to support both block-wise and non
block-wise mode and may cause several interoperability issues.
> Section 3:
>
> Nice to see that you streamlined the text regarding DTLS.
>
> Section 4:
>
> cross protocol proxy -> cross-protocol proxy
[M.S.]  Agreed.
>
> pre configured servers -> pre-configured servers
>
[M.S.]  Agreed.
> Section 5:
>
>  In order to protect themselves against DDoS attacks, the
>    implementations SHOULD avoid sending or receiving very small packets
>    containing partial CMP PKIMessage data.
>
> Sounds good, but the point is not distributed DoS (only) but DoS in general, so: DDoS -> DoS
> and there is no real protection against DoS, just reduction of risks they impose.
> Moreover, the recipient has little influence on the size of packets.
> I'd further suggest streamlining the sentence, arriving at, e.g.,:
>
[M.S.] DDos->Dos agreed

> "In order to reduce the risks imposed by DoS attacks,
> implementations SHOULD minimize fragmentation of messages,
> i.e., avoid packets containing partial CMP PKIMessage data."
>
[M.S.] Agreed.
> And better starting a new paragraph thereafter because using a CoAP-to-HTTP proxy is a different topic.
[M.S.] Agreed.
>
> Regards,
>
>     David