IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Russ: Re: rfc822Name use in Autonomic Control Plane document

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 01 July 2020 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 3CF7E3A0996 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 NPjg4qBLkJxf for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8EF53A0992 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id p3so10941027pgh.3 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JEaQCuddAw3u4qC5rFj4cy+xayvA/nLwa+30mE5Za6k=; b=tsht08HLrTzKwpnXRKTmX+E0ShCY98fvURGJRVLVYCJh6A6IMGGqLw3WqpnjalIXYE PC/0RLsGLlnhxwdbX9TIfGgrf+mxQ+U1gnAPsI13E4agtLjDs8xv6Kno8HH1ZXc+cSM2 kp2+tXDu2H8RrviKyZXuxwF6Blv7Py3nrdj84MqCWc+Viaf2vV1KjTComnOPbjgoq0pz JYE7mOUlq+a2pgkqBrrgSgn0u/sC4a9rbjlmlkvaXnbY0PvvYaxg+uvOte/r1n4V6g3C XJ6O+AuTe5Qd4N4s926AGJ3SQati0wxAWd9sLCnVZ+uWiUefTptOXUDdIKRDUdSAAMmz sTvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JEaQCuddAw3u4qC5rFj4cy+xayvA/nLwa+30mE5Za6k=; b=SS2e1pfi/rZuKPc0Ky9qr3cW+9E4XCG6IJnb01ylY2hoEBTv3l7TI0bFRf2EHAffni QN4Uiaz1ap3DYwZLX1mNb7ZbSEWer7edFeTGwenKGfU0FDfBpO/UccqeU3OPXLghVzgJ KP2THKVCBRa31bIBPqQqdFGWy8CjrKJBs5TWQZuh/ZeD3LIppznUqXtjb976uBwFp6E9 tBYPwYihQXT3u4mVDrWc7GNu2OFXM6vBY2JilEiWbw3n2j4piE3rurSY7swZ9rOMuaWg jMs3c/t5encTswuxUGepTqW+QnsrXKAfodxrzCtX0/gadQqfJ3y0Gaxlpl0oPUjY/BUq xu/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336oZ1hiopg2xQNMYtxdpSg5pWunyOHc3aSv4hZyHlguuXwJJc0 Ha78kz96tYfLrKgXTqZhd5NSCb7c
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz0iPYRDz9NIRGH/yAHpp4b6LN3L5T8pIQ9MKGlXQdrYT7DIKCajnnsoVfz430duGs0JUL93Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:a218:: with SMTP id m24mr23081810pff.156.1593571399943; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (102.124.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.124.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w9sm4051416pfq.178.2020.06.30.19.43.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
References: <FB6127DD-A111-4E40-A095-5E3C03AA6660@vigilsec.com> <9406.1592756905@localhost> <3A92516D-B980-4231-9059-EF7234BA8610@vigilsec.com> <20200627054056.GA35664@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <FF181E1F-2B93-47BB-AB45-7F66D880108B@vigilsec.com> <20200627224640.GA41058@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CABcZeBN_tQgH8ZZmVg82h8-cthm0uQ6b846N71G9NYFSxdUMRQ@mail.gmail.com> <e84cc89e-6503-7cd7-4281-9cf4629a7bb7@gmail.com> <3A5D70B2-B3F9-42A6-9219-F25D657A7A7F@vigilsec.com> <20200628161149.GA16571@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20200630161004.GA48194@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <69B9B7B6-4B75-4336-9F3F-45CD4FA51291@cisco.com> <23063.1593567251@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <108b7d1b-26b7-557a-f203-05f596550b13@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 14:43:16 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <23063.1593567251@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/XuYya1JBQuK-p1RPnadr3qqbKBY>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Russ: Re: rfc822Name use in Autonomic Control Plane document
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: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 02:43:22 -0000

I do agree that avoiding ASN.1 is a very desirable goal, for exactly
that reason: high probability of human error. So my gut feeling
is to go for a URI.

Regards
   Brian

On 01-Jul-20 13:34, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>     > I think either a URI or otherName are pretty much functionally
>     > equivalent.  I might go with URI for one particular reason, which is
>     > that the tooling – in particular OpenSSL – will handle it better.
> 
> Maybe the command line stuff, but for the API, it's an identical amount of
> effort. (I have running code).
> 
> I don't think an ASN.1 encoded otherName will be better for IoT (or BFRS)
> because it force the ACP application developers to learn something about
> ASN.1, and history says they will get it wrong. (Because, as Nico says, lack
> of access to ASN1 code generators).
> 
> I would prefer CBOR encoding, if there is consensus that it should not be a string.
> This also anticipates more modern certificate-like artifacts (CoID).
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status