Re: [Ace] Charter discussion

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

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
> 
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:02 PM Daniel Migault <[e-mail]> 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 <
> > [e-mail]> 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" <[e-mail]> 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://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/
> >>
> >> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-selander-ace-eals/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Daniel Migault
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ericsson
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Migault
> > Ericsson
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson

> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace