[Anima] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: (with COMMENT)
Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 16 October 2019 10:51 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: anima@ietf.org
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6AA3120043; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 03:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra@ietf.org, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, anima-chairs@ietf.org, tte+ietf@cs.fau.de, anima@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.105.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Message-ID: <157122308193.7928.3899842894004508765.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 03:51:21 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/5YrFwelSO0H8fLeecg0UWCYhSBQ>
Subject: [Anima] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:51:22 -0000
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS points. Some comments below were still applicable to -27, but some might be out of date. In 2.3.2: As explained in [RFC5280] section 7.4, a complete IRI SHOULD be in this extension, including the scheme, iauthority, and ipath. As a consideration to constrained systems, this MAY be reduced to only the iauthority, in which case a scheme of "https://" and ipath of "/.well-known/est" is to be assumed, as explained in section Section 5. This is not a problem per se, but mixing absolute URIs and iauthority in the same field makes me rather uncomfortable. Maybe you can define ABNF for this field to make it crystally clear what is allowed here. This would also avoid the need to use SHOULD and MAY above. In 2.3.2: "https" URI scheme needs a Normative reference. 2.7. Cloud Registrar If the pledge uses a well known URI for contacting a cloud registrar an Implicit Trust Anchor database (see [RFC7030]) MUST be used to authenticate service as described in [RFC6125]. Just referencing RFC 6125 is not clear enough, as there are lots of parameters that need to be specified: a) which of CN-ID/DNS-ID/URI-ID/SRV-ID are allowed b) are wildcards allowed in any of these?
- [Anima] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-i… Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker
- Re: [Anima] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on dra… Michael Richardson