Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 16 December 2019 22:55 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 E375012093E; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:55:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ugkxgtGITVSL; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:55:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30AEE12093C; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:55:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id d199so6411900pfd.11; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:55:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0ZpWp21jHSNKWvLvBhe8RmWRFimp+uFsUprBcixrD9A=; b=vhKTRHq3GnIxkaK+K0x4a38lTcR9SzI1o7V0rPSQU4MRUClTGctKTlT8KDWI4xjpFm jClwkO3eeMvWoWyAUatuwIeROFRrB2D5FvcmXbeWbqYfklpV2hzxJyyb/Bp5USviLo2q TkjP5eOpnyf8kdGGu2g4ieLoSk7OYGMCMegWXmnevuY+Q/mOqAxwD//Cm8x/k3ELapEA pr31GCYMM0eWJHhMKiLQJ+Pl9H3w7KILQ+4NGhNyzMrXd77u6RjQmx8zXbpWYZtyoRz9 i3e0ojl/HZ3mEOBWEGHzd2F72wgiBr7sgWXWgXbEOi3rK9G/J18QuUJyFTae12kGzo8w JuRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0ZpWp21jHSNKWvLvBhe8RmWRFimp+uFsUprBcixrD9A=; b=CZpCi65mlzkbl/BzKa0K6XV6uWI4UtqRrFF1ZZfwe3Pe0c2eEPZuNRs/0i/XFpBuEH JnV7WMnHR/e5hq1kEAnOpcNdxs4P3qDClIVyAWCmcaDqET8nlHsp9ttd6+D/f+eYoPqK a1D16oACJ/9af9KWfYcKnmE0Hr07EbY8p+S36nFJ8nJvqBhkp/0KyPN3BPuKjrIXuG3U Bg1f9Og8EGA/vDYZm2+hY0AL4mpEV6dFRLbCkepBk8tQI3tFNQRsk+L7KXgXVUZyum7x vI/MyClmunots6RZWVWdPOKKiDMyk3vR9ItEeFRWHB7T2tyajfXFhrGkkNLtPVYcepzd B3fQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVlA02VNttRU24bxQJTsLHPF6u+TbEMMtK6Ud2tPpIral4uF3RC Wp9E1cF0ebzivF5Js3C8mQJyhYf9
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxaMl4lQ0c3XO2/Am1wVX93M10Jh4XDKjxn/jzNHYkT47KB0rQ7hsxpG3YjVnAuMGKwYXLofA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4e0e:: with SMTP id c14mr21242065pgb.237.1576536909119; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:55:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.24.4.180] ([202.36.244.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x65sm20311906pfb.171.2019.12.16.14.55.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:55:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra@ietf.org, anima-chairs@ietf.org, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, tte+ietf@cs.fau.de, anima@ietf.org
References: <157123777786.7830.10713306244839546046.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9637.1574756997@localhost> <2FA2728E-6484-4A69-992A-479D8053354E@cooperw.in> <20062.1576526178@localhost> <E9ED3FC1-A36A-416F-8016-ED6D851A954B@cooperw.in>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <32602f31-70f5-e638-100b-e0f10a4c1125@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:55:01 +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: <E9ED3FC1-A36A-416F-8016-ED6D851A954B@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/PmnvHp28M2tq66jcLs4QWuIG1uY>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: (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: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:55:13 -0000

On 17-Dec-19 09:08, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Thanks Michael. Should Section 8.1 now be removed as well?

I think that's a good catch.

FYI and largely irrelevant, I did lash together some code at the
IETF106 hackathon using GRASP to communicate a MUD URL to the
network management system. So if we need to integrate MUD handling
into the ANIMA infrastructure, there's already a proof of concept,
without complicating BRSKI.

   Brian

> 
> Alissa
> 
>> On Dec 16, 2019, at 2:56 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> {Hi Tom, I don't quite understand, but I don't seem to get emails directly
>> From you.  Or perhaps it has to do with it being posted through the
>> datatracker.  This is not the first review I have missed in this way.}
>>
>> We had forgotten about the content of Appendix C, which is not normative.
>> It stems from an era when we were not sure how successful RFC8520 will be.
>>
>> I have issued version -31 in which we remove Appendix C rather than fix it.
>>
>> This extension could be added correctly at a later date, and at this point,
>> we don't see the MUD FILE->MASA URL flow as particularly important.
>>
>> Both URLs can be in the IDevID if needed, at the cost of bytes in the IDevID
>> certificate.
>>
>> I think that there are operational problems with embedding the MUD URL in the
>> IDevID relating to firmware upgrades, nor is that related to this appendix.
>> It is not a BRSKI issue, but it does mean that the likelyhood of a MUD URL
>> being the only extension that can be afforded an IDevID is significantly less
>> likely.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>