Re: [Anima] [lamps] Long-lived certificates, but frequently renewed certificates

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Sat, 20 March 2021 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 B8DDA3A2A0B; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 snKpJEIhFh1D; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dormouse.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (dormouse.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 939F13A2A0A; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1B37E141E; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 20:37:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-16-31.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.16.31]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A09AE7E1730; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 20:37:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.16.31 (trex/6.1.1); Sat, 20 Mar 2021 20:37:04 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Madly-Continue: 42858be1796b6990_1616272624066_2226843089
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1616272624066:2984615136
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1616272624066
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E8185D14; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=4lIMcdaOTctdaJtdNwzGD4HOxvk=; b=QigOVJcevt5 q0pindF1AVfi9Ye0rdxOBn8BMi4Qcd4AfMH+B5ECBM8+GLBI6qXKgLMny/2JEVRC xBgpsD+5cfqDLucrCg8461rRHWIrCu5CMuwuOjbRa7kKadHeFqAH1D4OPDWI3yCP LxG4MDiVXzXOGWU4dyjyLAkBG0f3czHI=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7744D7E38E; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 15:36:56 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a55
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>, netconf@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210320203655.GR30153@localhost>
References: <20210318165455.GM8957@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20210318183001.GN30153@localhost> <2113.1616093888@localhost> <718D80AD-8F12-4AA0-9D2A-2D8806B487C2@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <718D80AD-8F12-4AA0-9D2A-2D8806B487C2@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/XX96L95YWv-W6PNHyroX-G18emE>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [lamps] Long-lived certificates, but frequently renewed certificates
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: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 20:37:08 -0000

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 08:22:44PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > On 18 Mar 2021, at 19:58, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> > A pity that EST (and I think SCEP, but I haven't read it all), just returns
> > the resulting certificate, and not something more useful, like a JSON dict
> > that includes the certificate.
> > 
> > RFC7030 has a 202, Retry-After, which could be used to tell the holder to
> > go away and come back later, but the intended use is not to say not now,
> > but rather, "I'm working on it".
> 
> This is definitely a problem in a number of deployments.  One aspect
> that people have to deal with is not so much the gross expiry time,
> but when it is convenient to take a risk of moving to a new cert.  Of
> course you’re going to want to make that operation as bullet-proof as
> possible, but in some environments they want multiple levels of
> resilience.  So scheduling does become an issue.

Can you elaborate on this?  Is the issue validation path construction in
complex PKIs?

Nico
--