Re: [Anima-bootstrap] alternate to domain-certificate-identifier missing from voucher yang

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 24 March 2017 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 8CCFC128CD5 for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 3PvlDIbepZWY for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
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 DF11E12762F for <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18DAE19B for <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:31:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AAF0636E0 for <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:07:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
to: anima-bootstrap@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <32445.1490371740@dooku.sandelman.ca>
References: <32445.1490371740@dooku.sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+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: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:07:29 -0400
Message-ID: <13359.1490396849@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima-bootstrap/lICDIAeKIO018r8Tdxyql538BKE>
Subject: Re: [Anima-bootstrap] alternate to domain-certificate-identifier missing from voucher yang
X-BeenThere: anima-bootstrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:07:31 -0000

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    > Or can I?  I don't think we got the reference in trusted-ca-certificate
    > correct (and I don't have 5280 on the plane with me. Bad me, disk space
    > is cheap) to check.  I think that: An X.509 v3 certificate structure as
    > specified by RFC 5280, Section 4

Shouldn't it refer to:
          4.2.1.2.  Subject Key Identifier

We can include the literal DER encoding of the the public key, if we want
a *KEY* here.

    > is too much, I think we just wanted the subjectKeyInfo as suggested by
    > Sean Turner.


This is a hash of public key info. It was, again:
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7093

abstract:

   This document specifies additional example methods for generating Key
   Identifier values for use in the AKI (Authority Key Identifier) and
   SKI (Subject Key Identifier) certificate extensions.

I think that domain-certificate-identifier could be specifying RFC7093 DER.
We have said DER and binary, and when translated to JSON, that results in
base64 encoding, and we sign that with PKCS7, I think.

Note that if we specify hash of public key, we have to use TLS
key agreement processes that include the public key itself. That's not a big
deal, but it would be wirth making sure that we can all of this for RPK.


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