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

"Fries, Steffen" <> Mon, 31 August 2020 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C596F3A1494 for <>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 07:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YjF87Nyk1Fc9 for <>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 07:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C6533A1492 for <>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 07:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAF70468019; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:41:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2B27163A0169; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:41:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2044.4; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:41:11 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:41:11 +0200
From: "Fries, Steffen" <>
To: Michael Richardson <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Anima] Handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE discussion today)
Thread-Index: AdZmfbkJ/iBKc9n1QAWzDvrnlpnz3///+0AAgAeRb4D//879sIACHpmA//7t5iCAFspqgP//3RWAAXKuHAD//zLWwP/8IcqA//OyUCA=
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:41:11 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <12431.1596541563@dooku> <> <11029.1596647559@localhost> <> <6058.1597841627@localhost> <> <11109.1598470952@localhost> <> <31381.1598639539@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <31381.1598639539@localhost>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_a59b6cd5-d141-4a33-8bf1-0ca04484304f_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_a59b6cd5-d141-4a33-8bf1-0ca04484304f_SetDate=2020-08-31T14:41:10Z; MSIP_Label_a59b6cd5-d141-4a33-8bf1-0ca04484304f_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_a59b6cd5-d141-4a33-8bf1-0ca04484304f_Name=restricted-default; MSIP_Label_a59b6cd5-d141-4a33-8bf1-0ca04484304f_SiteId=38ae3bcd-9579-4fd4-adda-b42e1495d55a; MSIP_Label_a59b6cd5-d141-4a33-8bf1-0ca04484304f_ActionId=93669f3a-0fdd-4c73-a901-2a2cf8091057; MSIP_Label_a59b6cd5-d141-4a33-8bf1-0ca04484304f_ContentBits=0
document_confidentiality: Restricted
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: 019F1BF88280A7308853DD009341419E7CBA96B5B122216702A1A245ACA3864B2000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE discussion today)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:41:18 -0000

Hi Michael,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <>
> Sent: Freitag, 28. August 2020 20:32
>     > Maybe I phrased it wrong. The intention is not to make the pledge more
>     > complex. The goal should be to keep the pledge simple and enhance the
>     > registrar to handle also other situations like unavailability of
>     > certain connections. The registrar should be the more capable
>     > component. The discovery was intended in situations, in which the
>     > registrar supports multipole options, but not all may be mandatory
>     > supported. In this case the discovery would help. Otherwise the pledge
>     > may do trial and error.
> While I appreciate the idea of having the pledge fail faster, and go onto to
> the next possible registrar, I think that the pledge should support one and
> only one mechanism, and it's up to the registrars to keep up.
Yes, this keeps the pledge simple, but would require the registrar to implement the other options mandatorily.

> If we are doing proper ACP ANIMA, then we can include the enrollment
> options for the Registrar into the GRASP DULL announcement, and this can
> inform the pledge's decision as to which Registrar to pick.
This would also be an option for a  discovery, but I have to dig deeper into GRASP.

>     >> I'd really like to have the PUSH part in scope.
>     >> I thought that it was just not done yet, but it seems to me that without
> the
>     >> PUSH part, that the protocol isn't async at all.  It is just
>     >> BRSKI-CMP.
>     > Async was meant that connectivity to certain components is not
>     > available at the time of the onboarding. For use case 1 it would be the
>     > issuing PKI and in use case 2 the registrar. To handle this signature
>     > wrapped objects were introduced. One way of addressing this during
>     > enrollment is using protocols supporting signature wrapped objects like
>     > CMP or EST with fullcmc as outlined. The goal is to be protocol
>     > agnostic.
> I don't yet understand how the voucher-request is done in async BRSKI.
I realize more an more that a pure "request-object" without considering the transport is probably too abstract. Implementing requires also the transport. 
> I thought that was what we were doing.. I have many ideas about this.
Yes, voucher-request and also certification-request would be collected by the pledge-agent. Good to hear you have ideas here, as we need to define the approach more precisely. 

>     > This was also a reason for the discovery option.
> I don't think it helps.
>     > Regarding PUSH. As outlined in BRSKI-AE section 5.2.4 the pledge would
>     > be queried by the pledge-agent for certain objects. It was intended to
> But, how is it queried?
The pledge essentially must be able to listen for the request. In industrial environments the embedded device is most often in a server role waiting for requests. This would have to be leveraged also for the PUSH interaction. 

>     > have it in the current document. The current description assumes that
>     > it would be sufficient to define just the signature wrapped objects to
>     > be exchanged between the pledge-agent and the pledge and not the
>     > transport of these objects to be open regarding the underlying
>     > media. This would allow to use the functionality of the domain
> okay, so I'm very interested in helping define this well enough to be used.
That sounds great. Your support is greatly appreciated here.. 
>     > registrar via the pledge-agent, even of the pledge utilizes a different
>     > network stack. But maybe this is to far fetched and it is easier to
>     > concentrate on the currently assumed pledge capabilities (in BRSKI) to
>     > do HTTP as a starting point. I think that this needs further
>     > discussion. Do you have a concrete use case in mind, which should be
>     > addressed?
> Well, I thought that the furnace in the basement where there is no
> connectivity was a really good use case.
> The furnace installer has a smartphone or dedicated comissioning device.
This was one of the point I concluded form the last meeting. The trust assumptions about the pledge and pledge-agent interaction is one of the points to be discussed further. 

> As for HTTP: I would tend to suggest that we should use CoAP.
> This works over WIFI as well as other technologies, and convergence here
> would be good.
Which may bring it closer to the constraint voucher than BRSKI. I was looking for the latter, hence HTTP as proposal. But this is open for discussion.

Best regards

> --
> Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-