IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-39: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 05 April 2020 02:01 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 262143A106E for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 19:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 rl2svV7Gaja6 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 19:01:37 -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 597603A1075 for <anima@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 19:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E30253897D; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 21:59:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5D3AA9; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 22:01:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <AM5P190MB027524F2D1530746DD48C4DDFDC60@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <158561301296.11367.9776561744635554098@ietfa.amsl.com> <4603.1585620652@localhost> <20200331150202.GH50174@kduck.mit.edu> <600.1585687336@localhost> <AM5P190MB02751866462AE590EAD2EB14FDC90@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <5633.1585770340@localhost> <AM5P190MB027524F2D1530746DD48C4DDFDC60@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 22:01:28 -0400
Message-ID: <13227.1586052088@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/NMV87P9GFYTN5YQP56uy2wIA7LQ>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-39: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 05 Apr 2020 02:01:41 -0000

Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote:
    > The current BRSKI text to me suggests that CA:TRUE is a requirement for
    > the pinned-domain-cert. But I'm okay with not having CA:TRUE for this
    > certificate, as you propose, in which case I think the BRSKI text needs
    > some minor updates on the wording.

    > For example, if it's just a Registrar cert with CA:FALSE and RA:TRUE
    > then it shouldn't be called a "domain CA" cert or "domain cert".

    > If the Registrar is not a CA, it does need to be a Registration
    > Authority (RA). (See Section 2.5.3 / 2.5.5 / 5.5.4 /
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6402#section-2.10 )

    > So the requirement for the pinned cert is that it is either RA or CA.
    > (Both seems also possible to encode in the cert, although that seems
    > equivalent to a CA.)

I think you that you are likely correct: every entry in a chain which is not
the EE, has CA:TRUE, and the last one, is the Registrar which ought to have
cmcRA set.

If I were to locate a PKIX-lawyer hat, I would say that the Pledge SHOULD
check this.   Given that there is a strong desire to operate registrar's
using only certificates obtained via ACME (LE), and it will be difficult to
get cmcRA set... I don't know what to do here.
  <Please insert long EMU Thread here>

We have written in the ACP document that a device SHOULD verify the cmcRA bit
is set on any EST server that the device speaks to to renew it's certificate.

Please note that I am saying "device" and not pledge!
We did not insist on cmcRA be set in section 5.1, specifically because we
didn't know if RA:TRUE was something we could insist upon here.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email