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

Dan Garcia <dan.garcia@um.es> Thu, 03 December 2020 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <dan.garcia@um.es>
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 B752B3A0115 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:10:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=um.es
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 g4-zc5dsouvd for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:10:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx01.puc.rediris.es (outbound4mad.lav.puc.rediris.es [130.206.19.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA0C23A00D9 for <ace@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:10:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xenon43.um.es (xenon43.um.es [155.54.212.170]) by mx01.puc.rediris.es with ESMTP id 0B3BACwr026530-0B3BACws026530 for <ace@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:10:13 +0100
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xenon43.um.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4A420936 for <ace@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:10:12 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by antispam in UMU at xenon43.um.es
Received: from xenon43.um.es ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xenon43.um.es [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ayt3W3er_dpX for <ace@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:10:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [156.35.171.42] (unknown [156.35.171.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dan.garcia@um.es) by xenon43.um.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 467F420884 for <ace@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:10:11 +0100 (CET)
To: ace@ietf.org
References: <CADZyTkmnV_Dhb5iXzykUyEAskLDg7tj=80CbEBGmSyFQNS2FHw@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0702MB36740BAAFD7FDA2688564BF7F4E60@HE1PR0702MB3674.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CADZyTkkpLRvqD5Vx704u=qbRvE82o4cKk3Ff2Y2ZXes_B+nRbA@mail.gmail.com> <CADZyTkkSGiUvXf0NoVUwj0Vjf7AQ=pjdEHyHZsDdE67OvfTepw@mail.gmail.com> <20201117234700.GR39170@kduck.mit.edu> <CADZyTknej3DUbbKbRxdfi0HqVR7G7qkAh5htu3w9yFjE09sOtg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Garcia <dan.garcia@um.es>
Message-ID: <b78c1176-ffa0-9ad5-847e-94e9134b4212@um.es>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:10:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADZyTknej3DUbbKbRxdfi0HqVR7G7qkAh5htu3w9yFjE09sOtg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A660BF9B57C88F79D2C2305E"
Content-Language: es-ES
X-FEAS-SPF: spf-result=pass, ip=155.54.212.170, helo=xenon43.um.es, mailFrom=dan.garcia@um.es
Authentication-Results: mx01.puc.rediris.es; spf=pass (rediris.es: domain of dan.garcia@um.es designates 155.54.212.170 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dan.garcia@um.es
X-FE-Policy-ID: 2:15:0:SYSTEM
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; d=um.es; s=DKIM; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:content-type; bh=50u0pHHF7x3mD3YeyN6hDKNFi2lLo5orNmmndzg+L0I=; b=LjXIa1y62mgRRyYApIWpIb8BfGtcFWgiiRqXS6ECVM+U96MjrBphzxg5koRrnyZhcx0OcLmIdQc8 sHaxSwScPhhoPVkjmQRV3VAc/eWRqTHHqqs4BOUdvAJUHBYjUyVrgqucHi3370PDFl4Sv1YKBupT VOHUMJaubE3lIxqs+ZFYRoELZDp5KQuNjb3LplG2KhR+Eh0gE5i5Ha4iWS1AceLfCmydOpAmgTqV oeSLyUnFhNMdASk5hr/InchTa2JVIIPNoPIndn4CVy1QpMnKdmzKVr2XLICKzS+xL2BEVkTLoSM/ KsZtfcs5YQFoIbxU15HT5bzLxML9FOAXXrTW3w==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/3dxBAc6cPfIbc_XfQKSRVHqB890>
Subject: [Ace] Proposed charter for ACE (EAP over CoAP?)
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: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:10:19 -0000

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://docs.google.com/document/d/1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY/edit?usp=sharing>
>
> 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 <kaduk@mit.edu 
> <mailto:kaduk@mit.edu>> 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://docs.google.com/document/d/1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY/edit?usp=sharing>
>     >
>     > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:02 PM Daniel Migault
>     <mglt.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:mglt.ietf@gmail.com>> 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 <
>     > > goran.selander@ericsson.com
>     <mailto:goran.selander@ericsson.com>> 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" <ace-bounces@ietf.org
>     <mailto:ace-bounces@ietf.org>> 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://docs.google.com/document/d/1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY/edit?usp=sharing>
>     > >> <
>     > >>
>     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
>     <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/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2017-ace-03-201710191300/>
>     > >>
>     > >> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-selander-ace-eals/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-selander-ace-eals/>
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >> --
>     > >>
>     > >> Daniel Migault
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >> Ericsson
>     > >>
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > --
>     > > Daniel Migault
>     > > Ericsson
>     > >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > Daniel Migault
>     > Ericsson
>
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Ace mailing list
>     > Ace@ietf.org <mailto:Ace@ietf.org>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ace mailing list
>     Ace@ietf.org <mailto:Ace@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> Ace@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace