Re: [Ace] Charter discussion

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 03 November 2020 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 88C493A0D7C for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:44:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 yI4IJy1U2q1I for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:44:51 -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 BBE543A0D3C for <ace@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABDA389BC; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 13:44:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Fe7t4eXhaac0; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 13:44:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BD9389C3; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 13:43:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422271662; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 12:28:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ace Wg <ace@ietf.org>
cc: Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0702MB3674F5E7C6044443418E8B1BF4110@HE1PR0702MB3674.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CADZyTkmnV_Dhb5iXzykUyEAskLDg7tj=80CbEBGmSyFQNS2FHw@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0702MB3674F5E7C6044443418E8B1BF4110@HE1PR0702MB3674.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 12:28:03 -0500
Message-ID: <25440.1604424483@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/4U3EuPERoYUfmr4KefFyunJTZgU>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Charter discussion
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 18:44:54 -0000

<#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 <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide