Re: [Ace] ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI

"Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com> Mon, 17 September 2018 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <pkampana@cisco.com>
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 2C886130EBD for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 Glm6pGKaDeQ7 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AF27130E80 for <ace@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3923; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1537204309; x=1538413909; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=nHhBIuVeZhAU6MPqW4D7flm/7k1DzakxFbnr4Csz+8g=; b=T1p8sG9dFQlaK3uFsVQDiYH9ZtH9GEMkfbnbhsg8Zzd7tTBgS523lUGG S18c8y3YjyPzP3wRRNDNriR+SCw6qLySIiHPfqcfYszlDCnv0b7cs/uZh 9l6kU6dkeXU2OB0lswEQiGCDvhqEHS9HZlCcFQbU3qG7ASz+3o4Y0BT+9 o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BMAAC8359b/4gNJK1cEwEBBAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYFTggVlfygKmCeCDZZfgWYLI4RJAoNyITcVAQMBAQIBAQJtHAyFOAEBAQEDgQUEAgEIBwoEAQEoBzIUCQgBAQQBEgiDGoIBD6cFigeKbReBQT+EJIMQgTYihW4CjiCFFog/TwkCiQU5hk0fgUONSohci0wCERSBJTMigVVwFYJzATMJhXiKUm+ML4EeAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,386,1531785600"; d="scan'208";a="450265959"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Sep 2018 17:11:48 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (xch-rcd-009.cisco.com [173.37.102.19]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w8HHBmEB015986 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:11:48 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) by XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (173.37.102.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:11:47 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-010.cisco.com ([173.36.7.20]) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com ([173.36.7.20]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:11:47 -0500
From: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>, "ace@ietf.org" <ace@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI
Thread-Index: AdRKqeFCUK1AzigFR5qvzUaQ2+R0GgAAdGzwAJTV7HAAalmT4A==
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:11:47 +0000
Message-ID: <fc396115e9a54f80babfe9a9f5ae9e74@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com>
References: <DB6P190MB005479015E3F02D4028541A9FD1B0@DB6P190MB0054.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <39ff6ec1903c4c3a9d333c41a38a1ad9@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com> <DB6P190MB00548845B38C0B0DF2380CD1FD180@DB6P190MB0054.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <DB6P190MB00548845B38C0B0DF2380CD1FD180@DB6P190MB0054.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.172.227]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.19, xch-rcd-009.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/l4lr065poyJ04jzzMCGqFws6quU>
Subject: Re: [Ace] ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 17 Sep 2018 17:12:01 -0000

Hi Esko,
Good point. We made this change to ensure the text is clearer. You will see it in the next iteration.
Thank you, 
Panos

-----Original Message-----
From: Esko Dijk [mailto:esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl] 
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 10:30 AM
To: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkampana@cisco.com>; ace@ietf.org
Subject: RE: ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI

Hello Panos,

Thanks - it's clear now that the "ArbitraryLabel" needs to be supported for this use case. The unclarity in the current text comes from the fact that the default /.well-known/est/<short-est> is missing ; which should be supported also as in RFC 7030. Also the usage of the discoverable root URI is missing here.

So we could update the text in Section 5 as follows:

------
The individual EST-coaps well-known server URIs differ from the EST URI by replacing the scheme https by coaps and by specifying shorter resource path names:

   coaps://www.example.com/.well-known/est/<short-est>
   coaps://www.example.com/.well-known/est/ArbitraryLabel/<short-est>

The ArbitraryLabel Path-Segment, if used, SHOULD be of the shortest length possible.

The optional additional EST-coaps server URIs, obtained through discovery of the EST root resource(s), are of the form:

   coaps://www.example.com/<est-root-resource>/<short-est>
   coaps://www.example.com/<est-root-resource>/ArbitraryLabel/<short-est>

------

The suggestion by Peter to add references to the corresponding EST RFC 7030 sections is also good.

Regards
Esko

From: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkampana@cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 17:31
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>; ace@ietf.org
Subject: RE: ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI

Hi Esko,

Thanks for the comment. 

Certificate authorities use the ArbitraryLabel in order to direct the CSR request and issue certificates based on a certain policy / cert profile. For example, if you are ClientX you get label ClientX198282 and when you hit the CA HTTP URI .well-known/est/ ClientX198282/sen the CA knows to use the policy for ClientX in order to issue a certificate. Of course, someone that has deployed an on-prem CA that has the same cert profile for all endpoints will not need an arbitrary label and the default EST namespace is enough.  

So, even though coaps://www.example..com/.well-known/est/<short-est> would work for many cases, we needed to keep the coaps://www.example..com/.well-known/est/ArbitraryLabel/<short-est> as well for cases where the client is getting a cert from a CA that serves more than on cert profiles. We may need to specify that the labl should be as short as possible, even though it is kind of self-explanatory. 

I hope it makes sense.

Panos


From: Ace [mailto:ace-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Esko Dijk
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 11:10 AM
To: mailto:ace@ietf.org
Subject: [Ace] ace-coap-est: unclear definition of /.well-known/est URI

Dear all/authors of ace-coap-est,

Section 5 of ace-coap-est-05 indicates URI discovery is possible to find the EST functions entry point URI. Also a well-known URI is defined:

coaps://www.example..com/.well-known/est/ArbitraryLabel/<short-est>.

This URI seems more complicated than needed? What if we simply define an always-available well-known URI, usable without any discovery:

coaps://www.example..com/.well-known/est/<short-est>

This re-uses the well-known EST namespace which is exactly defined to do EST functions. So using the short-est names within this namespace should be fine.
It is important that a well-known URI is available that is usable without discovery, just like EST RFC 7030 defines it for https.
The "ArbitraryLabel" only makes the URI longer.

best regards
Esko Dijk