Re: [Ace] Charter discussion

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>

Göran Selander wrote:
    > In the same spirit there was support at the meeting [2] to specify
    > protection of EST payloads profiled for use with OSCORE as
    > communication security protocol, together with a suitable AKE for
    > authentication. Following the adoption of EDHOC in LAKE this work has
    > now been revived [5]. IMHO the reasoning above still makes sense.

    > With this in mind, and taking into account recent discussion on the
    > list, perhaps this part of the charter:


    > ”The Working Group will standardize how to use Constrained Application
    > Protocol (CoAP) as a Transport Medium for the Certificate management
    > protocol version 2 (CMPv2).   ”

Note that CMPv2 is being revised in LAMPS, and that the ANIMA
brski-async-enroll is specifying CMPv2 as an alternative for EST in an
onboarding flow.

I further expect to propose text to brski-async-enroll to do CMPv2 via
CoAP multicast + CORECONF.
I'd rather do this work in the proposed IOTOPS WG, but I don't really
understand how that is working out yet.

As such, there is no need to find another place for to do CMPv2/over CoAP.

    > should be rephrased or complemented with the reasoning above, for example:

    > The scope of the Working Group includes profiles of the Enrolment over Secure Transport (EST) transported with the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)”

Is this a re-interpretation of the charter, or a proposed charter change?

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide