IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] use of CRLs in I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-26.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 02 July 2020 00:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8D03A1259 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 M82kqZ05aTGd for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A57723A1258 for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56882389CD; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 20:27:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id u7f_Q3i1KgIv; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 20:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A346F389B6; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 20:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E0350E; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 20:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20200701234100.GC60049@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <159363696301.1694.14970467680230111407@ietfa.amsl.com> <14763.1593644290@localhost> <20200701234100.GC60049@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 20:30:36 -0400
Message-ID: <4988.1593649836@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/-ftDr5tHLIcdj5DWH41LjAbhpt0>
Subject: Re: [Anima] use of CRLs in I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-26.txt
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 00:30:41 -0000

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
    > The need to diligently document support for CRL/OCSP was done on
    > behalf of securiy reviews. It is not meant to be a recommendation.
    > There is mentioning of short-lived certificates in a few places in the
    > doc.

I didn't see an RFC8739 reference.  Oh. It's I-D.ietf-acme-star.
Your section 6.1.5.4 suggests CRLs are unnecessary when the lifetime is on
the order of hours,  while RFC8739 is less specific about what is short.
I think that a certificate lifetime on the order of a week would probably be
workable.

But, I think think we should get implementation experience.

    >> I think that CRLs are not useful, and we should not use them.

    > I think we agree.

Good.

    >> 6.1.3 is clear that OCSP/CRLs may not be available when connecting!
    >>
    >> I think that use of STAR (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8739/ )
    >> Short-Term, Automatically Renewed is the best recommendation!

    > In general yes, but the STAR use cases typically do not take into
    > account  connectivity problems that are longer than the lifetime of
    > a cert, whereas for the ACP this might be a problem.

yes, but the solution is to find a Join Proxy, reach out to the Registrar and
renew the certificate using the LDevID one has.
STAR even went into some detail about how one could renew expired
certificates, I think. (I recall a discussion, but I'd have to check the
document again)

    >> If we have to do OCSP (via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4806/ )
    >> then we nodes can download their staple and provide it when connecting.
    >> New nodes can get this using the Join Proxy.
    >>
    >> Perhaps this needs to be in a new document at this point.

    > Yepp.  I think to remember that MaxP was thinking of suggesting to
    > talk about dealing with expired certs for our cases in i think LAMPS too
    > but longer ago...

yes, the document wound up in ACME, and I think they did a good job, although
it is proscriptive for ACME only, while our end-client interface is assumed
to be EST.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email