Re: [Anima] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: (with COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 17 October 2019 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C3A120143; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1mIi2eniTBbN; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8299A120115; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02A581F455; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:07:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1932A10B6; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 10:08:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>
cc:,, Toerless Eckert <>, The IESG <>,
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <> <>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Retana <> message dated "Thu, 17 Oct 2019 00:09:48 +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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 10:08:13 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:07:25 -0000

{fixing quoting. I had no idea what Alvaro wanted to say otherwise}

Alvaro Retana <> wrote:
    alvaro> (3) s/The serialNumber fields is defined in [RFC5280], and is a
    alvaro> SHOULD field in [IDevID]./The serialNumber field is defined in [RFC5280], and is a
    alvaro> recommended field in [IDevID]. Note that SHOULD is not used
    alvaro> properly here because it does not have a Normative quality (as it
    alvaro> refers to the other document). I'm assuming that the replacement
    alvaro> is "recommended" (per rfc2119), but it may be "required".

    mcr> 802.1AR says it is SHOULD. We need to increase this to MUST.
    mcr> RECOMMENDED is a synonym for SHOULD according to 2119.
    mcr> REQUIRED is a synonym for MUST, so if I changed it to REQUIRED then it would
    mcr> still be a problem according to your thinking...?

    mcr> So I could reword as:

    mcr> IDevID certificates for use with this protocol are REQUIRED to
    mcr> include the "serialNumber" attribute with the device's unique
    mcr> serial number (from [IDevID] section 7.2.8, and [RFC5280] section
    mcr>'s list of standard attributes).

    mcr> which might be an easier read. Please let me know if I am mis-understanding
    mcr> you.

    alvaro> The original text sounded as if you were characterizing the field
    alvaro> specified in rfc5280.

    alvaro> The new text specifies that the serialNumber MUST be there.  If that is
    alvaro> what you meant from the start, then I’m ok with it. :-)

So you prefer the reworded text, and I will use that in -29.

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