Re: [Ace] Charter discussion

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Please have a look at the latest version of the charter before we move it
forward by the end of the week - December 11.

I added a note on potential WG that could host the CMPv2 over CoAP -
eventually. I am wondering if we should put a note to these WGs.

Yours,
Daniel

The Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ace) WG
has defined a standardized solution framework for authentication and
authorization to enable authorized access to resources identified by a URI
and hosted on a resource server in constrained environments.

The access to the resource is mediated by an authorization server, which is
not considered to be constrained.

Profiles of this framework for application to security protocols commonly
used in constrained environments, including CoAP+DTLS and CoAP+OSCORE, have
also been standardized.  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 in ecosystems with a substantial
portion of constrained devices).

In addition to the ongoing maintenance work, the Working Group will extend
the framework as needed for applicability to group communications, with
initial focus on (D)TLS and (Group) OSCORE as the underlying group
communication security protocols. The Working Group will standardize
procedures for requesting and distributing group keying material using the
ACE framework as well as appropriated management interfaces.

The Working Group will standardize a format for expressing authorization
information for a given authenticated principal as received from an
authorization manager.

The Working Group will examine how to use Constrained Application Protocol
(CoAP) as a transport medium for certificate enrollment protocols, such as
EST and CMPv2, as well as a transport for authentication protocols such as
EAP, and standardize as needed. [Note that CMPv2 work may also be hosted in
LAMPS (which revisits CMPv2), ANIMA ( which defines CMPv2 as an alternative
to EST) or IOTPS. EAP work has been coordinated with EMU. In any case, if
the work is being considered in ACE, we will make sure the corresponding WG
will follow the progress.]





On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:47 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:

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


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson