Re: [Anima] Handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE discussion today)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 30 July 2020 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 4CFFE3A0CB9 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 24dqSZBNAO0K for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102f.google.com (mail-pj1-x102f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D49533A0CBE for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102f.google.com with SMTP id t15so5684562pjq.5 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NpSZelfnD1bFYVkW4qpzVeGhP5ZzEXwieap53GuuDtg=; b=SQ7s2KsPT5ZqUTkEvU5TsVGzB5PWyiyaHkp9eBO5ElXZ/Nsdh4RfhQqt2yRL4SYUmm YLTblncwCluHSmlPBX7CY/ms8CG4qKf0kMbcDIY5J98O7LIDtZhtqjuIlMel5MXtiOE+ 4v+h+TKaSIwkhr3MYrycjcouGbPORhCrk1deByUhByS2JdSZbwmPGaUX2tx9idqsFGJC Uj1WEy0FrDpPbLZHFkaGdYAvoWGIgANrxWLH5lwRsPtOhCO6C0rtUnJXLZXTDvSc2RyY bbxK7ke6brI0Tvy0v+GcoLL07sZ4nZmkTHGVde9kRpoP19RqzbZj0sG8gpnKhfnhqGmG SeCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NpSZelfnD1bFYVkW4qpzVeGhP5ZzEXwieap53GuuDtg=; b=kiWN/wtsX6VvKAIgX1YZ3VCf8d3HmFE4xPATXnS+1eBtJCaxBe0V4lpyueDRPmlMrM RMQ4V4CII/WvfqjuhbzUSZK41GuDwQquNcdx4cYB56hAvP1szryiSNQ/PBN9ViwhSOKh Holy89MfX/musHOxuk3I3HKwN/idhAtF62QEG1itqoLI0i45hWvHjU4CdBt1h69NFDV8 ZMLACPh4Iiq7v6xWF0qWQx/16cwNVQ1QuOZ/NR0hCtcr4jse/9d8BDYvJ8cR7J5Nkedk VZRcmuM0PTq/khJ33IhHiicL9HFwfRmVH9XpJfz1h2KIlEJcwSCAqvflIb0NKPd/ML/E PpIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532XsPVvH64/weaJvVvXtUTYPEsKU6YwUuzo8MKXlA5UKojhy7Rz ecci6OLY6uQT8RN79pYU/svVtclodZ0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxnGle9oAB8C4Ph4eEempxdEol03s3/vOL4W3pL7vPYsCzjJZXV0iDeSecLiAbgw5TY4x3Z3Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:7802:: with SMTP id t2mr669615pgc.421.1596142748859; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w2sm6487266pjt.19.2020.07.30.13.59.07 for <anima@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
To: anima@ietf.org
References: <3f2d1790efb44ac39405a23dc592dd89@siemens.com> <2ABF0BD6-8084-46C4-8E96-4772582BDA01@cisco.com> <20200730163211.GC62130@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <DB8PR10MB31628CAD0634A031B19C3AD6FE710@DB8PR10MB3162.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9c1fe8a-29a7-5cf6-6672-b82b0c5bb275@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:59:05 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB8PR10MB31628CAD0634A031B19C3AD6FE710@DB8PR10MB3162.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/3Ov2s8XxQ6pnQMp6PTd9_yDc-D0>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE discussion today)
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, 30 Jul 2020 20:59:14 -0000

On 31-Jul-20 05:14, Brockhaus, Hendrik wrote:
> Toerless
> 
> I have one question to better make up my mind.
> How long do you thing would the change to the BRSKI document delay the approval process? 

That is utterly unpredictable. Since this is a real technical change, we'd need the chairs
to formally establish WG consensus and then, as far as I can tell, we have invalidated the
IETF Last Call and so we're back to that and a Security Area review etc. After recent
experience, I have no idea whatever how long that would take.

So I *strongly* believe that we should make a separate document. It's an extension, not
a change, so it really doesn't need an Updates: tag.

   Brian

> Finally this change is quite easy to explain. And from my point of view, doing this change to BRSKI before approval, would be, from a standardization point of view, the clearest solution.
> 
> Hendrik
> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2020 18:32
>> An: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>> Cc: Fries, Steffen (CT RDA CST) <steffen.fries@siemens.com>om>; Michael
>> Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>ca>; Brockhaus, Hendrik (CT RDA CST SEA-DE)
>> <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com>om>; anima@ietf.org
>> Betreff: Re: Handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE discussion today)
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 06:06:09PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>> Steffen
>>>
>>> I enjoyed today???s discussion.  My suggestion is a short document that does
>> not CHANGE endpoints but simply creates new ones that have the same
>> functionality as the old ones.  That doesn???t require an ???Updates??? header,
>> and based on that I think you might even keep these in the same document.
>> Would people be ok with that?
>>
>> Right. So the question is keep it in the document or put it into a separate small
>> one. The small one would allow other derivative work not to have to have
>> BRSKI-AE as a normative reference, which may be better if its got nothing to do
>> with BRSKI-AE.
>>
>> I guess we can delay the decision up to the point when we do see such other
>> derivative work coming up, and then decide whether to separate out the new
>> /brski naming from the doc. As long as there is no such additional doc, we keep
>> things in BRSKI-AE as they are right now.
>>
>> Cheers
>>     Toerless
>>
>>> Eliot
>>>
>>>> On 30 Jul 2020, at 17:46, Fries, Steffen <steffen.fries@siemens.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Based on the discussion of splitting up the voucher handling endpoint
>> naming issues from BRSKI-AE today, I just wanted to ensure I got the way
>> forward right.
>>>> From the Etherpad discussion I understood Michael that he would not be
>> too happy with having a BRSKI update right after BRSKI publication as RFC.. I
>> think finalizing the discussion on the list was advised.
>>>>
>>>> What we discussed in the WG meeting was to have a separate short
>> document, basically defining a renaming or alternatively an alias for the
>> current endpoints, which allows to keep the current implementations as is.
>>>> Hence, the draft would relate to all of the endpoints defined in section 5 of
>> BRSKI for the domain registrar facing the pledge (and potentially also the
>> MASA), which are:
>>>> /.well-known/est/requestvoucher	used by pledge to registrar but also
>> from registrar to MASA
>>>> /.well-known/est/voucher_status	used by pledge to registrar
>>>> /.well-known/est/requestauditlog	used by registrar to MASA
>>>> /.well-known/est/enrollstatus		used by pledge to registrar
>>>>
>>>> From Toerless I understood that he would like to not change the current
>> draft as it is already in the final state and rather provide an update as separate
>> document.
>>>> From Michael I understood he would not be keen on having a fast update
>> for the BRSKI document. At least not for a renaming of the defined endpoints.
>> Also the IESG may view this as too fast.
>>>> Eliot stated that there are already implementations out there that utilize
>> the /est approach. So having aliases could be one way of dealing with it, but
>> this would double the endpoints at least for the four stated ones above.
>>>>
>>>> Both approaches have there merits. Having the endpoints distinct from the
>> beginning allows a clearer separation of the functionalities, for the pledge and
>> for server side handling. Specifically if we later on allow for alternative
>> enrollment protocols in BRSKI-AE and define the discovery approach, it will lead
>> to less confusion to align the naming with the corresponding functionality. From
>> that perspective, my gut feeling would be that an integration into base BRSKI
>> may be more appropriate. On the contrary, it will slow down the process, but
>> somebody stated that there are examples that these changes have been also
>> done in the past and could be done fast.
>>>>
>>>> What do you suggest as way forward?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Steffen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Steffen Fries
>>>> Siemens AG, Corporate Technology
>>>> mailto:steffen.fries@siemens.com
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> tte@cs.fau.de
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>