Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-coap-est

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 04 March 2019 21:55 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 C19B313108F for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:55:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 RMvi__11ld8e for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:55:17 -0800 (PST)
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 8F765131084 for <ace@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:55:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E9038263 for <ace@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:55:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 071F3B52; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:55:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B15B3D for <ace@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:55:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "ace\@ietf.org" <ace@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <bffe2da1b435462d9acc2b03b969714e@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com>
References: <003701d4abbe$0cfab580$26f02080$@augustcellars.com> <CAAzbHvYwEY8TGgNbVPpwo03gQ-j6M4xkVLTZJaSYiLYhZhKMaQ@mail.gmail.com> <9c257f8ffa27435fbe8a24a8c7c25c31@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com> <CAAzbHvZHfgRTpNWNjg98HXokXCeLECLA13O-RG49woZ1u8QPiQ@mail.gmail.com> <bffe2da1b435462d9acc2b03b969714e@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.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-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 16:55:16 -0500
Message-ID: <30162.1551736516@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/nUFD7id9OTmljSFmgzL9Bi3C83k>
Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-coap-est
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, 04 Mar 2019 21:55:20 -0000

Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkampana@cisco.com> wrote:
    >> But can't the client just be configured out-of-band with the URIs directly?

    > That is right. We could mandate only .well-known URIs. But I think we
    > ought to let a deployment use non-default URIs. For example some
    > usecase might not want to send the .well-known in the URI to save
    > transmission bytes and thus use a custom short URI. If the URI change
    > takes place after deployment client will find that out with a
    > discovery. Similarly, a usecase might initially not support one of the
    > optional requests like server-side keygen. If the server adds support
    > sometime in the future, the client could find out using discovery. And
    > we ought to let the client be able to recover in case the well-known
    > request URI fails for some reason and he wants to see what is supported
    > by the server.That is why we thought it is still worth to keep the
    > .well-known URIs along with the discovery.

also, EST-COAP is a building block for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher
(containing constrained BRSKI) so preconfiguration won't work.   While
constrained BRSKI can operate on .well-known the LDevID renewal might occur
with a different server, and so discovery might be worthwhile.

There are two reasons for doing the resource discovery:

1) to get a multicast response when looking for a registrar.
2) to get a shorter name to save some bytes.

I think that (2) contributes negatively to code-complexity, and so if not
for (1), I'd prefer to live on /.well-known only.  But, I don't object
to having shorter URLs available for those that want to spend the code.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-