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 =-