[Anima] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 11 July 2019 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: anima@ietf.org
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED73E120077; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra@ietf.org, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, anima-chairs@ietf.org, tte+ietf@cs.fau.de, anima@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Message-ID: <156285123896.32459.15810474411321920381.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:20:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/Ul0yfnf4UlQhoI0UtlJVZ9otY7M>
Subject: [Anima] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 13:20:39 -0000

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-22: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for this document. Despite comments/DISCUSSes raised, this was a good
read.

1) In Section 5:

   o  In the language of [RFC6125] this provides for a SERIALNUM-ID
      category of identifier that can be included in a certificate and
      therefore that can also be used for matching purposes.  The
      SERIALNUM-ID whitelist is collated according to manufacturer trust
      anchor since serial numbers are not globally unique.

I think now you are just inventing things. Please define what exactly
SERIALNUM-ID is. Cut & paste text from RFC 6125, if needed.

2) In 5.6:

   assertion:  The method used to verify assertion.  See Section 5.5.5.

Section 5.5.5 doesn't define syntax of this field in enough details to
implement. Can it contain one of the allowed values (like C enum)?

3) In 5.8

   This is done with an HTTP GET using the operation path value of
   "/.well-known/est/requestauditlog".

Here you say to use HTTP GET.

   The registrar SHOULD HTTP POST the same registrar voucher-request as

But you only define how to use POST. I think the first "GET" is supposed to be
"POST".

4) In 5.8.1:

Format of different fields is not defined, so this is not interoperable.

5) In 8.1:

   This document extends the definitions of "est" (so far defined via
   RFC7030) in the "https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/
   well-known-uris.xhtml" registry as follows:

   o  add /.well-known/est/requestvoucher (see Section 5.5 )

   o  add /.well-known/est/requestauditlog (see Section 5.7)

The .well-known URIs IANA registry doesn't list anything below the first level
(i.e. "est" in your case). So I think you really want to have 2 IANA actions
here:

a) Add the reference to this document as another reference for "est".

b) create a new registry of "est" URIs and add your 2 URIs above to it and also
populate other entries from the original EST RFC.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The first mention of HTTP 1.1 needs a Normative reference.

1.5.  Requirements for Autonomic Network Infrastructure (ANI) devices

   Upon successfully validating a voucher artiface, a status telemetry
   MUST be returned.  See Section 5.7.

"artiface" is an unfortunate typo. I think you meant "artifact" here.

In 2.3.2:

   As explained in [RFC5280] section 7.4, a complete IRI SHOULD be in
   this extension, including the scheme, iauthority, and ipath.  As a
   consideration to constrained systems, this MAY be reduced to only the
   iauthority, in which case a scheme of "https://" and ipath of
   "/.well-known/est" is to be assumed, as explained in section
   Section 5.

This is not a problem per se, but mixing absolute URIs and iauthority in the
same field makes me rather uncomfortable. Maybe you can define ABNF for this
field to make it crystally clear what is allowed here. This would also avoid
the need to use SHOULD and MAY above.

In 2.3.2: "https" URI scheme needs a Normative reference.

2.7.  Cloud Registrar

   If the pledge uses a well known URI for contacting a cloud registrar
   an Implicit Trust Anchor database (see [RFC7030]) MUST be used to
   authenticate service as described in [RFC6125].

Just referencing RFC 6125 is not clear enough, as there are lots of parameters
that need to be specified:

 a) which of CN-ID/DNS-ID/URI-ID/SRV-ID are allowed
 b) are wildcards allowed in any of these?

4.  Proxying details (Pledge - Proxy - Registrar)

   In order to permit the proxy functionality to be implemented on the
   maximum variety of devices the chosen mechanism SHOULD use the
   minimum amount of state on the proxy device.

What does this mean? How can compliance with this SHOULD be evaluated? I think
you want to use lower case "should" here.

In 5.7 (and a similar issue elsewhere):

   {
     "version":"1",
     "Status":FALSE /* TRUE=Success, FALSE=Fail"

This is not valid JSON, this is not even valid pseudo-JSON. Please move the
comment:

 TRUE=Success, FALSE=Fail

After this block to avoid confusion. Please add missing "," after each
attribute value

     "Reason":"Informative human readable message"
     "reason-context": { additional JSON }
   }