Re: [Ace] EST over CoAP

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 14 May 2018 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 3888812DA13 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2018 04:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 JxBxg1epLxWC for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2018 04:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECEBA12DA2C for <ace@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2018 04:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E6C20090; Mon, 14 May 2018 07:51:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 8C1782674; Mon, 14 May 2018 07:38:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889F8264F; Mon, 14 May 2018 07:38:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>
cc: "ace\@ietf.org" <ace@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0801MB21122D93F906F952E5E85C87FA9C0@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <VI1PR0801MB21122D93F906F952E5E85C87FA9C0@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 07:38:54 -0400
Message-ID: <13072.1526297934@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/bh2U5mQdieKu2Hdbk4aQ0_TOYFE>
Subject: Re: [Ace] EST over CoAP
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: Mon, 14 May 2018 11:39:17 -0000

Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>; wrote:
    > At IETF#101 Peter presented a list of open issues with the EST over CoAP draft, see
    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-ace-est-over-secure-coap-00


    > -          Operational parameter values
    > -          Server side key generation using simple multipart encoding
    > -          Explain trust relations for http/coap proxying

    > I have challenged the usefulness of the server-side key generation
    > during the meeting but in general I am curious where we are with the
    > document. It would be great to get it finalized. It appears that we are
    > adding new features and therefore will not be able to complete the work
    > in any reasonable timeframe.

Server side key generation is not the only way to use this, and I'm not
interested in it myself.

I don't think we can do http/coap proxying in any meaningful way if
we are using TLS/DTLS for the secure transport.  I have encouraged my
co-authors to either take it out, or realize that they are confusing
the EST link (over DTLS) with the Registration Authority<->Certificate
Authority link (over HTTPS).

    > So, do we have a plan for how to complete the document?

I am implementing at this time, with CoAP over DTLS using OpenSSL today,
and mbedTLS for the pledge side in a week or two.   I believe that we can
finish this document by the end of the summer.  I don't think we'd get to
WGLC before IETF102, and as August is a dead zone for IETF work, having a
WGLC before September 1 would seem pointless.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [