IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-40.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 10 April 2020 00:20 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 E21973A168C for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:20:49 -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 iFkSwvyMlDRP for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:20:47 -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 803E33A1689 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962213897F; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:19:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7491002; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:20:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
cc: "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <AM5P190MB02758EC376F90508572AB99DFDC70@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <158585811816.26641.249532267918234026@ietfa.amsl.com> <AM5P190MB02758EC376F90508572AB99DFDC70@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: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 20:20:43 -0400
Message-ID: <9947.1586478043@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/WDKL5icxYKpTMgtATC6PpJAssIs>
Subject: Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-40.txt
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: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 00:20:50 -0000

Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote:
    > The new text looks good now. I was still wondering about the pg 12
    > requirement in RFC 8366 ; which amounts  to:

    > The [domain certificate supplied to the pledge separately by the
    > bootstrapping protocol] MUST have [pinned-domain-cert] somewhere in its
    > chain of certificates.

    > It looks like the "domain certificate" here is then not meant as (1)
    > the EE certificate that the EST server will hand to the Pledge later on
    > (as I thought), but rather (2) the Registrar's certificate that is
    > supplied to the Pledge in the initial handshake.

Can you explain "later on"  here?

The Registrar's TLS Server Certificate could be a different PKI hierarchy
than the resulting PKI.

    > If one interprets it like (1) then BRSKI may violate the requirement;
    > if one interprets it to be (2) then all is fine.

    > A few remaining nits found during reading:

Thanks. I have updated my copy of the XML, and I'll pass this on to the RFC-editor.
Nothing is going forward until the ACP LC ends and the IESG does it's reviews.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email