Re: [Anima] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-05.txt
Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Wed, 25 January 2023 20:51 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 9082CC14CE24 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:51:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DZ5U45sUsMvz for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FA61C151534 for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:51:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723FD38993 for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 16:21:24 -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 QRUwXeCMZm7A for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 16:21:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4FDD38991 for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 16:21:23 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1674681683; bh=fdzmvU1eXrPV+gLRB6P1uZYvUgr/1YvBbZrnIVjB4cw=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=dr0wCd3KVb2VP91VjhC0HZpxXHxS3DfNBZkI5JF6gvPs9yyIydL25MymRTKNjkJHv /j+mFut2qXyHXdgimhED6ydupfycAfNQevaZGpv4Glp2N802zSfm5yJwa3LSVPjTn5 oQlotFmuXI0Ma/A+MbBYq8jLc2FFWr9pY+VIMaNC3l1OAYDKfSNV8/Y0xdhMEtxWH5 2/6WYeKEx4/M6QlNBR6VwUTJSDE+7+0qm82aSXXxRAXGyqsfdJBJMjf4I5KqoTaJKX JRBCuE63ykxc77xnvW43RR+cLe4WvP5CPhlTIkax1UiyFQHIBJGRjb0l1YpiejFmJQ YR+UzXMkIqSiQ==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75774504 for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:51:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <167467890750.40942.10235124805853704323@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <167467890750.40942.10235124805853704323@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8036.1674679907.1@localhost>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:51:47 -0500
Message-ID: <8037.1674679907@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/EXgFEqkF64ypH24n8uxfBDYmw9M>
Subject: Re: [Anima] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-05.txt
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 20:51:53 -0000
internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > Html: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-05.html > Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-05 Hi, Toerless asked for a clear Changes since RFC8366 section. I've added that as section 5, and I would sure appreciate review comments at: https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/pull/22 I asked Toerless for a WG Consensus Call on this approach to dealing with the problems that augment has gotten us into. There are threads in the archives on what the challenge is. We are looking for technical objections to this pull request and this approach. In addition to the section 5, I have replaced "bootstrapping" with "onboarding", and adjusted some of the other introductory text to include more of the other documents. I resisted the urge to describe {{PRM}} as "SneakerNet", since I was afraid to find a definition for that. I have been unable to use yanglint verify the example JSON that RFC8366 defined. It tells me it does not match I get no further details. I felt that I should first establish this before believing it about the YANG provided in this document. I see this as a critical thing for the document, but not for merging this pull request. (I redid Table 1 in kramdown, but I don't know how/if I can make a cell span multiple columns, so for now, I haven't) I see that I still have RFC8792 wrapping in the voucher-request YANG, while I did fix that for the voucher YANG. 5. Changes since RFC8366 [RFC8366] was published in 2018 during the development of [BRSKI], [ZERO-TOUCH] and other work-in-progress efforts. Since then the industry has matured significantly, and the in-the-field activity which this document supports has become known as _onboarding_ rather than _bootstrapping_. The focus of [BRSKI] was onboarding of ISP and Enterprise owned wired routing and switching equipment, with IoT devices being a less important aspect. [ZERO-TOUCH] has focused upon onboarding of CPE equipment like cable modems and other larger IoT devices, again with smaller IoT devices being of less import. Since [BRSKI] was published there is now a mature effort to do application-level onboarding of constrained IoT devices defined by The Thread and Fairhair (now OCF) consortia. The [cBRSKI] document has defined a version of [BRSKI] that is useable over constrained 802.15.4 networks using CoAP and DTLS, while [I-D.selander-ace-ake-authz] provides for using CoAP and EDHOC on even more constrained devices with very constrained networks. [PRM] has created a new methodology for onboarding that does not depend upon a synchronous connection between the Pledge and the Registrar. This mechanism uses a mobile Registrar Agent that works to collect and transfer signed artifacts via physical travel from one network to another. Both [cBRSKI] and [PRM] require extensions to the Voucher Request and the resulting Voucher. The new attribtes are required to carry the additional attributes and describe the extended semantics. In addition [cBRSKI] uses the serialization mechanism described in [YANGCBOR] to produce significantly more compact artifacts. When the process to define [cBRSKI] and [PRM] was started, there was a belief that the appropriate process was to use the [RFC8040] _augment_ mechanism to further extend both the voucher request [BRSKI] and voucher [RFC8366] artifacts. However, [PRM] needs to extend an enumerated type with additional values and _augment_ can not do this, so that was initially the impetus for this document. An attempt was then made to determine what would happen if one wanted to have a constrained version of the [PRM] voucher artifact. The result was invalid YANG, with multiple definitions of the core attributes from the [RFC8366] voucher artifact. After some discussion, it was determined that the _augment_ mechanism did not work, nor did it work better when [RFC8040] yang-data was replaced with the [RFC8971] structure mechanisms. After significant discussion the decision was made to simply roll all of the needed extensions up into this document as "RFC8366bis". This document therefore represents a merge of YANG definitions from [RFC8366], the voucher-request from [BRSKI], and then extensions to each of these from [cBRSKI] and [PRM]. There are some difficulties with this approach: this document does not attempt to establish rigorous semantic definitions for how some attributes are to be used, referring normatively instead to the other relevant documents.
- Re: [Anima] New Version Notification for draft-ie… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Anima] New Version Notification for draft-ie… Michael Richardson