Re: [Ace] Charter discussion

Michael Richardson <> Tue, 03 November 2020 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C493A0D7C for <>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:44:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yI4IJy1U2q1I for <>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBE543A0D3C for <>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABDA389BC; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 13:44:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by localhost (localhost []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Fe7t4eXhaac0; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 13:44:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BD9389C3; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 13:43:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422271662; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 12:28:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Ace Wg <>
cc: Daniel Migault <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Charter discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide