[Anima] plans for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 14 September 2020 18:33 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 5FC193A0AF1 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:33:13 -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 E6dxsnq7XYPL for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FD5C3A0AE8 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B84389A2 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:11:52 -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 NoY5kK6jHGzm for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:11:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:103c:9eff:fecb:2eac]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0D838998 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:11:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A50F511A3 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:33:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org
X-Attribution: mcr
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: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:33:03 -0400
Message-ID: <18203.1600108383@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/5N4oJgFTn4uZf-WIL0qAEcE9LtE>
Subject: [Anima] plans for draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher
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: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:33:13 -0000

Hi, I'm finally watching the IETF108 ANIMA WG recording.

WG Documents slide asks about draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher.
As I said in email to the chairs, I was in secdispatch for the first half of
the meeting with idevid-considerations, so I didn't speak up.

1) draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher has suffered for lack of love for a
   few months.  Primarily this is due to BRSKI taking all my time, and my
   primary co-author, Peter, looking for work.
   It was never going to progress faster than BRSKI anyway.

2) The example COSE signed CBOR format vouchers in the document were *NOT*
   validated by others, and so I needed to revise them.
   I have, as of a week ago, started to again figure out what is going on
   with that, and I expect to update the document in the next week or so.

3) There is also draft-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy, btw,
   which I need to update.


As for *merging*.
I never exactly suggested that.
What I suggested was that brski-async-enroll might wish to dispense with CMS-sign-JSON,
and just use COSE-signed-CBOR, over CoAP.

The reason for doing this is because if the process will be driven by a proxy-registrar
(maybe not the correct term: the commissioning device), then it might well
want to be able to do a CoAP multicast resource discovery in order to find
all the devices which are available.

If some devices might be commissioned via BTLE or NFC, then using the smaller
protocols over that might also make a lot of sense.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide