Re: [Ace] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: (with COMMENT)

["Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa 

This commit
https://github.com/SanKumar2015/EST-coaps/commit/a45eda375f4b228b4bcb29e142e
393cddbaa4e6a tries to address your feedback. The full discussion is in
https://github.com/SanKumar2015/EST-coaps/issues/157 

Let us know if it does not make sense. 

Rgs,
Panos

-----Original Message-----
From: Ace <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 11:50 PM
To: Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ace] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: (with COMMENT)

Hi Alissa, 

Thank you for the feedback. 

> "It is also RECOMMENDED that the Implicit Trust Anchor database used 
> for EST server authentication is carefully managed to reduce the 
> chance of a third-party CA with poor certification practices 
> jeopardizing authentication."
> 
> This strikes me as a slightly odd use of normative language (what are the
exception cases when the trust anchor database should not be carefully
managed?).
> 

The blurb is directly from RFC7030. We reiterate it here to point it out as
a best practice and then we present a potential deviation from it for
constrained environments. 

To avoid this confusion we can rephrase it as 

    As discussed in Section 6 of [RFC7030], it is 
   "RECOMMENDED that the Implicit Trust Anchor database used
   for EST server authentication is carefully managed to reduce the
   chance of a third-party CA with poor certification practices
   jeopardizing authentication.  Disabling the Implicit Trust Anchor
   database after successfully receiving the Distribution of CA
   certificates response (Section 4.1.3 of [RFC7030]) limits any risk to
   the first DTLS exchange." [...]

Rgs,
Panos


-----Original Message-----
From: Ace <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 2:35 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [Ace] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17:
(with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-coap-est/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 10.1:

"It is also RECOMMENDED that the Implicit Trust Anchor database used
   for EST server authentication is carefully managed to reduce the
   chance of a third-party CA with poor certification practices
   jeopardizing authentication."

This strikes me as a slightly odd use of normative language (what are the
exception cases when the trust anchor database should not be carefully
managed?).


_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace

_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace