IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Anima] towards using of MUST-/SHOULD+/SHOULD- in draft-ietf-autonomic-control-plane-24

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 26 June 2020 22:02 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 24EAC3A0CE3; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 DPijPFhR4b-B; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:02:37 -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 35EAD3A0CDD; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C76389A1; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:59:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id n3m027bpctID; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7D3389A0; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908BEF5; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:02:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, anima@ietf.org, Ben Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, saag@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <C71BDB46-A15A-48EC-BC4D-68CA9A7C1DFB@vigilsec.com>
References: <20200624023407.GA41244@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <C71BDB46-A15A-48EC-BC4D-68CA9A7C1DFB@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:02:31 -0400
Message-ID: <14352.1593208951@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/WKfEeNn_GpiECsHqiS56qSUfAuA>
Subject: [Anima] towards using of MUST-/SHOULD+/SHOULD- in draft-ietf-autonomic-control-plane-24
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, 26 Jun 2020 22:02:39 -0000

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
    >> <t>ACP nodes MUST NOT support certificates with RSA public keys of
    >> less than 2048 bits. They MUST support certificates with RSA public keys
    >> with 2048 bits and SHOULD support longer RSA keys. ACP nodes MUST
    >> support certificates with ECC public keys using NIST P-256, P-384 and
    >> P-521 curves.</t>
    >>
    >> <t>ACP nodes MUST support SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512 signatures for certificates with RSA key and the same RSA signatures plus ECDSA signatures for certificates with ECC key.</t>
    >> ---
    >>
    >> I don't understand whether your note about the key length of the curves is an indication of missing text. When i first reviewed with Ben, i had to enter the curves because thats as specific as necessary AFAIK, but given how the key length is implied, i wouldn't understand why i would need to write those down. I don't remember that i have seen that being done either in other RFCs i read through.
    >>
    >> In any case, specific text suggestions always welcome in case this text is not sufficient.

    russ> I was expecting you to make one of the curves MUST and the others
    russ> SHOULD. Making all three curves MUST is okay with me, but it will
    russ> increase implementation size.

    russ> Likewise, I was expecting you to make one of the hash functions
    russ> MUST and the others SHOULD.

I tried to convince Toerless to go with the MUST-/SHOULD+/SHOULD- terminology from
IPsecME's RFC8247.

It would be nice if SAAG lifted section 1.1 into a BCP14-like document, as I
think that it has widespread applicability throughout documents that want to
establish interoperable crypto.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email