IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Last Call: <draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-20.txt> (Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI)) to Proposed Standard

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 02 June 2019 20:39 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 716ED1200F1 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 13:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ZZIp5hkPeKI9 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 13:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 450EB120047 for <anima@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 13:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8BC33808A for <anima@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 16:38:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A822560 for <anima@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 16:39:53 -0400 (EDT)
To: anima@ietf.org
References: <155847367546.2608.5031283783681425886.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E6C9F0E527F94F4692731382340B337826FA1C58@DENBGAT9EJ5MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <534d165e-536e-cc6d-f897-cb6f96a875fc@sandelman.ca>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2019 16:39:53 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E6C9F0E527F94F4692731382340B337826FA1C58@DENBGAT9EJ5MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/ADxPYtnyiyhX5Vcl8VgDgM5GRQM>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Last Call: <draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-20.txt> (Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI)) to Proposed Standard
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: Sun, 02 Jun 2019 20:40:00 -0000

On 2019-05-29 11:06 a.m., Fries, Steffen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As this is the last call, it may not be to late to ask the question. I read the draft a couple of times and was stumbling upon the following:
> 
> In Figure 1 of the BRSKI draft, for the communication between the Domain Registrar (RA) and the Key Infrastructure (CA), EST is stated.
>>From my understanding of the description EST as enrollment protocol between an RA and the CA is meant exemplary but not prescriptive? From the protocol flow for the enrollment itself I understood BRSKI describes the flow until the Domain Registrar but is open regarding the protocol applied between the domain registrar and the CA. It may be EST. 

Yes, it may. I don't think, other than the figure, we say anything else.
Would an "e.g." in the figure help?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email