IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] Draft agenda timing

Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> Mon, 09 March 2015 05:59 UTC

Return-Path: <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8911A6FF7 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 GZcJzsPb9PCF for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A605D1A6EF1 for <acme@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wivr20 with SMTP id r20so17228515wiv.5 for <acme@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 22:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1Xco5moWqvVNbEHyAbC34IMKrKe/0xc1+sfSrGRRcQ8=; b=WgXOqXJrNUudvLrFyqiC/DG2NBqWog6/GMzXWUxnCCbBbea3FL8ZBGAbkVUkGdxAlw FpW69aW+f1O3vKAoBtXkp408rfVlPhUFLlMEo38XMOUes6BUnODFkptlZKnM4bTsbj52 hT9+LTn3QYP4xPpGMwB+/uY7ekIlu/iULW9eB3kltTSJTZSbkQ4/ECdeWUOmJX9tyu6H yQFaF/Fp7VkENvn3miuJTocXWW8858KAlAgYAw2MiKCVIxk3lQnfFdOb2nOhYzLMYclw bF+kkDBJuT1cD3IOuYDEheDKJfjCWsvfJ8DuwqAZY/WxprfUFGablWzmi9FRLYHXtG/Y 1L4w==
X-Received: by 10.180.206.13 with SMTP id lk13mr9609762wic.35.1425880795414; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 22:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.79] (4.197.130.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.130.197.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gt4sm13960754wib.21.2015.03.08.22.59.53 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 08 Mar 2015 22:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54FD36CB.1060607@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 06:59:39 +0100
From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Songhaibin (A)" <haibin.song@huawei.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBzrr6=7TtTrOHTCXQA6WKdCHvTEiLFjx252pv2xuASNg@mail.gmail.com> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F65246E87@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F65246E87@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/xC-FAssQjdEseVNRCMlFDXqsYt8>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Draft agenda timing
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 05:59:58 -0000

On 2015-03-09 04:08, Songhaibin (A) wrote:
>
> Both ETSI NFV community and ONF SDN community are working on certificate management, and they also want automated certificate management to the VNF or logical/physical switches. I think although in draft-barnes-acme DV (domain validation) is the initial use case for ACME to address, NFV/SDN certificate management could be the next step. They need a different way to challenge the certificate requester.
>

I guess one major difference is (or should be) that network devices are identified by a device certificate rather than a domain.
Such devices may also provide end-to-end security through attestation keys.

Anyway, there is another big use-case as well and that is providing mobile devices with credentials for authentication, payments etc.
This is my line of work.

Unfortunately I won't be at the IETF meeting.

Anders

> Best Regards!
>
> -Haibin
>
> *From:*Acme [mailto:acme-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ted Hardie
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 07, 2015 5:34 AM
> *To:* acme@ietf.org; Salz, Rich
> *Subject:* [Acme] Draft agenda timing
>
> Rich and I are thinking of this as the breakdown of how we'd spend the hour we have; comments welcome.
>
> ACME BOF
>
> IETF 92
>
> Time: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1520-1620​
>
> ​Location: Venetian Room​
>
> ​Administrivia: 5​
>
> Motivating requirements: 10
>
> ​Possible additional requirements from industry​: 10
>
> Review of draft-barnes-acme: 15
>
> Discussion: 20
>
> regards,
>
> Ted and Rich
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email