Re: [Anima-bootstrap] Max: voucher terminology / explanations in next draft round

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 17 December 2016 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A350E1296EC for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:50:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 JfQ1I0-lnwtz for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:50:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 884181293DC for <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:50:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (CPEbc4dfb402cc3-CMbc4dfb402cc0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [174.113.238.167]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 160DC1F905; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 19:50:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id F098731E7; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 04:50:33 +0900 (KST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
In-reply-to: <20161213165903.GA13281@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20161213165903.GA13281@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> message dated "Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:59:03 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:50:33 -0500
Message-ID: <11339.1482004233@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima-bootstrap/PIh74bhng6DqEzn0aZ-xdtHzdqY>
Cc: "Max Pritikin \(pritikin\)" <pritikin@cisco.com>, "anima-bootstrap@ietf.org" <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Anima-bootstrap] Max: voucher terminology / explanations in next draft round
X-BeenThere: anima-bootstrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the bootstrap design team of the ANIMA WG <anima-bootstrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima-bootstrap>, <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima-bootstrap/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-bootstrap>, <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 19:50:37 -0000

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
    > I think that the voucher terminology will be confusing as long as the
    > name "audit" (voucher) implies the use of a public key (line 144 in
    > etherpad), and the "ownership" (voucher) implies the use of a
    > certificate (via DN of certificate). audit vs. ownership are just

I agree.

I also think that the audit promise is orthogonal to how the owner is
indicated.  It might be that all combinations are not useful, but I'd like to
enumerate them anyway.


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