Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)

Hi, 

> Looking into Mohits draft, cmp-over-coap is much simpler than
est-over-coaps, as CMP does not need any binding to an underlying (D)TLS
handshake.

Not sure that is accurate. And EST does not bind to the tunnel protocol
either unless proof of possession is used. For now the cmp-over-coap draft
says 

   When the end to end secrecy is desired for CoAP transport, CoAP over
   DTLS [RFC6347] as a transport medium SHOULD be used.

COAP can run over DTLS or plain UDP and in rare cases TCP, TLS and maybe
Websockets. I am not sure someone would run cmp-over-coap over TCP because
then he could just run CMP natively without COAP in the middle. Any
application layer protocol (CMP etc) can run over any transport but I am not
sure there are more transports than the usual ones for cmp-over-coap anyway.

I agree that if this gets picked up it should be by ACE.

I would like to understand what gaps it is filling compared to
est-over-coaps which took a lot of work and where it will be used and
implemented in. 

Panos

-----Original Message-----
From: Ace <ace-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Brockhaus, Hendrik
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:51 AM
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>; Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Mohit Sahni <mohit06jan@gmail.com>; steffen.fries@siemens.com;
ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel
Migault)

> Von: Ace <ace-bounces@ietf.org> Im Auftrag von Benjamin Kaduk
> 
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 04:31:05PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > Mohit Sahni <mohit06jan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >     > To give some background, this draft is an extension of Light
Weight CMP
> >     > Profile (
> >     >
>
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf
.
> org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-
> 02&amp;data=02%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Cc3b352cdfd
> 174b0a7e2008d82dc1484f%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C
> 0%7C637309655452109222&amp;sdata=QWHu3IEwf4TIIpaW0cvKuMiGXixV1AX
> dws6g0vBQJPY%3D&amp;reserved=0)
> >     > draft currently under development in the LAMPS WG. We 
> > discussed the
> "CMPv2
> >     > over CoAP" draft in the LAMPS WG and figured out that ACE WG 
> > is a
> more
> >     > appropriate place for this draft. However, Jim suggested that 
> > we will
> need
> >     > to modify the charter  of the ACE WG to adopt this draft.
> >
> > We did est-over-coaps [still in the queue], why shouldn't we do 
> > cmp-over-
> coap(s)?
> 
> It may just be that "est-over-coaps is so obviously us" that I didn't 
> check the charter carefully at that time.  But, at this point, we're 
> probably overdue for a recharter anyway, as the core framework is making
its way to the IESG.
> 

Steffen and I discussed this with Jim last year in Prague, if I remember
correctly, and he recommended to submit cmp-over-coap to ACE and not to
LAMPS.
As est-over-coaps was in scope of ACE, I also think it is quite obvious to
discuss cmp-over-coap in ACE.
Looking into Mohits draft, cmp-over-coap is much simpler than
est-over-coaps, as CMP does not need any binding to an underlying (D)TLS
handshake.
If you think this needs rechartering, we should go for it.

- Hendrik

_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace

Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)

Attachment: smime.p7s