Re: [Ace] EST over CoAP

Michael Richardson <> Mon, 14 May 2018 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3888812DA13 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 04:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JxBxg1epLxWC for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 04:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECEBA12DA2C for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 04:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E6C20090; Mon, 14 May 2018 07:51:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 8C1782674; Mon, 14 May 2018 07:38:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889F8264F; Mon, 14 May 2018 07:38:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <>
cc: "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [Ace] EST over CoAP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 11:39:17 -0000

Hannes Tschofenig <> wrote:
    > At IETF#101 Peter presented a list of open issues with the EST over CoAP draft, see

    > -          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  [ 
]        |   ruby on rails    [