[Anima] LAMPS discussion about document signing and RFC8366bis
Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Mon, 29 November 2021 13:58 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@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 023CA3A09ED for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 05:58:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 xLF09bGDeqq7 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 05:58:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F8D03A09E9 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 05:58:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2596918090 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:01:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id f0ZMVuv5h0jU for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:01:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED25018059 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:01:23 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1638194483; bh=EJ3Zs7XoOpLOGaySwfJ0Wf6G9xqA6Du1NmuuUOVFXpA=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=hetV8L0L1CTEAoC/IAFyOfb0af3F1A5xIGG3fq+7KA5UVZYFeMullmAOhAMMLKqAJ CwwRoG5kOs/NCPObOEN9BglFziQlXvMxBS+3LkmRNFFr2YIoQN1woG5k1cMZ3Lv+Ra DsjtK134Jm7ngDzBrv5ydBdummeXO5+1bOP1nE9uPTP4poQVb4v4azX3GJEEyPKIlQ 77XWTrJz5iwg8zQIuJofilnbSjkIXxV6JqYrUxSKnx4rB2vay7Zimi93gV8SH4XLpU +eTjK9mm1hgdaam0vtnWHwYU3vBICIihO/Yu/yThEDvbmePyvwMkbXmMOcxInBbTXR ab3js+YPvoCHg==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8886055D for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:58:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <96bbfb0d-07b0-770c-656f-3efb9e3761e9@siemens.com>
References: <786aa041-fcfb-a18e-4651-736f40d8a989@aaa-sec.com> <CAErg=HFdxBZMRxx2AqTXHiXUxjF_c8VHz=Rmh5eSg4QrfavZaQ@mail.gmail.com> <f9f7cc66-432e-97cf-0c58-1e69c0524f21@aaa-sec.com> <96bbfb0d-07b0-770c-656f-3efb9e3761e9@siemens.com>
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, 29 Nov 2021 08:58:13 -0500
Message-ID: <15379.1638194293@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/DMfCdZ3fgfqpkKyf2ECgFmZNjtw>
Subject: [Anima] LAMPS discussion about document signing and RFC8366bis
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, 29 Nov 2021 13:58:24 -0000
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/bgPHxCFgvkb4gu2Lmx98-SgFMnE has a link into some discussion about the EKU documentSigning. I would contend that signing voucher-requests and vouchers is not a document signing, and that all we need is digitalSignature usage in the certificates. Could/should we say this in RFC8366bis? -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
- [Anima] LAMPS discussion about document signing a… Michael Richardson