Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA communications

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 07 February 2020 03:42 UTC

To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: anima@ietf.org
References: <20200206205949.GD14549@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <23372.1581026131@dooku>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3777ab26-2a73-2cf6-75ea-7573681b64b7@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:42:13 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <23372.1581026131@dooku>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/KXrMzpyFjLTYRruA4YZsITTR8qU>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA communications
Precedence: list

Yes, this is certainly a gap, and it's why I put register_asa and register_objective in the API, thinking that when we add some kind of trust/authorize magic dust, this would be created when registering the ASA to (a) run and (b) manage certain GRASP objectives. I feel quite far from having a complete model in my head though. I guess we should start with understanding what threats we are protecting against.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 07-Feb-20 10:55, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
>     > I just got reminded through ongoing ACP spec review about something that
>     > would be good to write into the appropriate ASA spec, but not sure which
>     > one:
> 
>     > One of the fundamental problems we have to solve longer term is how we
>     > can establish better than "Any ANI peer is equally trusted" notion.
> 
> I agree.
> But, at this point, all the ANI peers are equal.
> 
> None do anything special yet... Once we have protocol(s) that can do
> something different, then we need to figure out what the requirements for
> that protocol.
> 
> Putting the trusted-to-do-foo bit into the certificate is probably unwise.
> 
> It seems that in an autonomic network that there ought to be a service that
> can be used to ask, "should I trust node FOO to do X?".
> That could be the (cmc)RA or another node so designated.
> It seems that GRASP can pretty much do all of this.
> 
> COSE can be used to sign answers.
> That is probably a thing we need to add.
> 
>     > I think DINRG is working in this direction, but have failed to track.
>     > Maybe there is a way to collaborate on this, aka: see if/when they might
>     > have output we could think to adopt/leverae.
> 
> I don't know what they are doing either.
> 
>     > Right now we expect objective announcements from any node to be equally
>     > trustworthy and decide on selecting one only on announced parameters
>     > (also subject to equal trust) and network parameter comparison.
>     > And of course, this goes beyond trust into performance vetting by
>     > others and so on.
> 
> At some level, if you are looking for resource X, and some node can provide
> X, and it works and does what you need... then maybe it is reasonable to
> trust it.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>

[Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA communic… Toerless Eckert
Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA comm… Michael Richardson
Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA comm… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA comm… Toerless Eckert
Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA comm… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA comm… Michael H. Behringer
Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA comm… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA comm… Michael Richardson
Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA comm… Michael H. Behringer