Re: [Anima] pinned-domain-certificate and other BRSKI comments
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 13 July 2017 17:15 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@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 0BC6E131938 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 KB-jeqyOcD5N for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96287129AFF for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (ip-94-113-76-12.net.upcbroadband.cz [94.113.76.12]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAD0D1F906 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:15:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id AE2F1694; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 13:15:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
to: anima <anima@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <16456.1499937698@dooku.sandelman.ca>
References: <9183.1499933298@dooku.sandelman.ca> <16456.1499937698@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> message dated "Thu, 13 Jul 2017 11:21:38 +0200."
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:15:24 +0200
Message-ID: <3103.1499966124@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/29nfMf9WbuuA1429n3oTghA6904>
Subject: Re: [Anima] pinned-domain-certificate and other BRSKI comments
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 13 Jul 2017 17:15:29 -0000
> The Registrar MUST use a certificate that chains to the pinned- > domain-cert as its TLS server certificate. I wonder if it should say: + The Registrar MUST use a certificate that chains from the pinned- + domain-cert as its TLS server certificate. Or maybe we want "descends"? Perhaps "server certificate" should be ServerCertificate, which is the name of the actual payload. next paragraph: > The Pledge's PKIX path validation of a Registrar certificate's > validity period information is as described in Section 2.4. > Once the > PKIX path validation is successful the TLS connection is no longer > provisional. Is there some way we can call the the last sentence out louder? UPPERCASE it all? I dunno. I think people might really need to be hit over the head here. section 3.5, I changed: - <t>To indicate Pledge status regarding the Voucher the client + <t>To indicate Pledge status regarding the Voucher, the pledge I think this is clear. I'm not certain about the comma :-) section 3.6: > The registrar MUST HTTP POSTs the same Voucher Request as when > requesting a Voucher. It is posted to the /requestauditlog URI > instead. The "idevid-issuer" and "serial-number" informs the MASA It seems to me that a Registrar should also be able to post any voucher. Even an expired one. So not just a voucher request. (The distinction being who signed it). While generally a Registrar is going to consult the audit log before asking for a voucher, it could well do so afterwards. I think this has value in the Pledge is offline case: a Registrar on the Internet side of the air-gap firewall (with the USB drive...) could take responsability to consult the audit log periodically. [StatsCanada's airgap firewall used UUCP via 9-track tapes to move email cross their airgap firewall] I think section 3.7 should be 3.6.1, as it's the reply to 3.6. (I'm gonna do that in the XML) Section 3.7 needs to say what to do if version!=1. Could we remove the version from the response and change the URL to /requestauditlog/v1 ? (I read to the end of the diffs, and found nothing else that stirred me) -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- [Anima] pinned-domain-certificate and other BRSKI… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Anima] pinned-domain-certificate and other B… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Anima] pinned-domain-certificate and other B… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Anima] pinned-domain-certificate and other B… peter van der Stok
- Re: [Anima] pinned-domain-certificate and other B… Michael Richardson