Re: [Anima] Handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE discussion today)

Toerless Eckert <> Thu, 30 July 2020 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E2B3A03ED for <>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.118
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kBoxZAZx8pWk for <>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C0A13A0141 for <>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9951548068; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:32:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10463) id DD02C440043; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:32:11 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:32:11 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
Cc: "Fries, Steffen" <>, Michael Richardson <>, "Brockhaus, Hendrik" <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE discussion today)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:32:19 -0000

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 06:06:09PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Steffen
> I enjoyed today???s discussion.  My suggestion is a short document that does not CHANGE endpoints but simply creates new ones that have the same functionality as the old ones.  That doesn???t require an ???Updates??? header, and based on that I think you might even keep these in the same document.  Would people be ok with that?

Right. So the question is keep it in the document or put it into a separate
small one. The small one would allow other derivative work not to have to
have BRSKI-AE as a normative reference, which may be better if its got nothing
to do with BRSKI-AE.

I guess we can delay the decision up to the point when we do see such other
derivative work coming up, and then decide whether to separate out the
new /brski naming from the doc. As long as there is no such additional doc,
we keep things in BRSKI-AE as they are right now.


> Eliot
> > On 30 Jul 2020, at 17:46, Fries, Steffen <> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Based on the discussion of splitting up the voucher handling endpoint naming issues from BRSKI-AE today, I just wanted to ensure I got the way forward right. 
> > From the Etherpad discussion I understood Michael that he would not be too happy with having a BRSKI update right after BRSKI publication as RFC. I think finalizing the discussion on the list was advised.
> > 
> > What we discussed in the WG meeting was to have a separate short document, basically defining a renaming or alternatively an alias for the current endpoints, which allows to keep the current implementations as is. 
> > Hence, the draft would relate to all of the endpoints defined in section 5 of BRSKI for the domain registrar facing the pledge (and potentially also the MASA), which are: 
> > /.well-known/est/requestvoucher	used by pledge to registrar but also from registrar to MASA
> > /.well-known/est/voucher_status	used by pledge to registrar
> > /.well-known/est/requestauditlog	used by registrar to MASA
> > /.well-known/est/enrollstatus		used by pledge to registrar
> > 
> > From Toerless I understood that he would like to not change the current draft as it is already in the final state and rather provide an update as separate document.
> > From Michael I understood he would not be keen on having a fast update for the BRSKI document. At least not for a renaming of the defined endpoints. Also the IESG may view this as too fast. 
> > Eliot stated that there are already implementations out there that utilize the /est approach. So having aliases could be one way of dealing with it, but this would double the endpoints at least for the four stated ones above. 
> > 
> > Both approaches have there merits. Having the endpoints distinct from the beginning allows a clearer separation of the functionalities, for the pledge and for server side handling. Specifically if we later on allow for alternative enrollment protocols in BRSKI-AE and define the discovery approach, it will lead to less confusion to align the naming with the corresponding functionality. From that perspective, my gut feeling would be that an integration into base BRSKI may be more appropriate. On the contrary, it will slow down the process, but somebody stated that there are examples that these changes have been also done in the past and could be done fast. 
> > 
> > What do you suggest as way forward? 
> > 
> > Best regards
> > Steffen
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Steffen Fries
> > Siemens AG, Corporate Technology
> >
> >