IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-00

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Thu, 15 March 2018 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
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 EB4FA126BF7 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 2D3wdDOaR4pd for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud8.xs4all.net (lb3-smtp-cloud8.xs4all.net [194.109.24.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 638C4126CB6 for <ace@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([IPv6:2001:888:0:22:194:109:20:204]) by smtp-cloud8.xs4all.net with ESMTPA id wPqEewlAraXTbwPqEegRjm; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:10:34 +0100
Received: from 2001:983:a264:1:100e:6a6a:72bf:c3e7 by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:10:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:10:34 +0100
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: ace@ietf.org
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <25902.1521100857@dooku.sandelman.ca>
References: <001d01d3b8b4$f6e71600$e4b54200$@augustcellars.com> <e426d5786082bdc863fbe6a5960c112b@xs4all.nl> <24297.1520991636@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <d716e4e92bcd44b891469a7f6a92598d@xs4all.nl> <25902.1521100857@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <00435523cc9b3c1969a026200260a373@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfPc2zyAAhMRxCgs8qEOxtTkxSUn/K5BXE814Wnc28okgLkNTljs8tari45clFp2jgW+OuowvQJAAp5JEfKP2qhX5TbUqkXB9UB/XlvmqXcY+cCwRals+ t0s0IzyUazY0jJTxmEurXUvaKmG07bVbpQ24Vjzgfw9027nBj2iMubDWa1nS/Hgmxlv/aVysTvE2Ub09DxtMMlR2jnczuPlAEScjOYpRXMlEhSZB3GpnSt6N
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/aknbtsvS4B7u8egYFBM9OkNJrfg>
Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-00
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:10:40 -0000


Michael Richardson schreef op 2018-03-15 09:00:
> peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>     >> >> DTLS connection is going to be required to act as an RA.  RAs
>     >> are required
>     >> >> to have the entire request for adding authentication as 
> necessary.
>     >>
>     >> > This is visible in the figure of section 6, but needs 
> elaboration in
>     >> the
>     >> > text.
>     >>
>     >> I don't understand why we have that paragraph.
>     >> An end point that terminates the Pledge (D)TLS connection and 
> acts as
>     >> an RA *IS* a Join Registrar, not a Proxy.
>     >>
> 
>     > Thus is outside the BRSKI context, and thus a proxy with RA
> (separate or not)
> 
> Let me delete "Join" from above sentence.
> 
> A device that terminates the DTLS security (CoAPS) and then talks to 
> the CA
> is a Registration Authority according to EST and RFC5280.  It's not a 
> proxy.
> (And it doesn't matter if it speaks HTTPS or CMS or CMP or
> super-pigeon-telepathy
> to the CA)
> 
A http/coap proxy  is specified in RFC8075. It explains "how an HTTP 
request is mapped to
    a CoAP request and how a CoAP response is mapped back to an HTTP
    response".

In the est-coap draft DTLS and TLS connections are terminated in the 
http/coap proxy, and the proxy is therefore connected to an RA (possibly 
running on the same host as the proxy).

Where is my terminology going astray?

Peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email