IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Anima] use of CRLs in I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-26.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 01 July 2020 22:58 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 BDBB33A0F20 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:58:13 -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 E6DIjpPTK7oA for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 325CD3A0F1E for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8EC389CE for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:55:23 -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 wingDQdAdlHo for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F29E389CD for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927D862C for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:58:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <159363696301.1694.14970467680230111407@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <159363696301.1694.14970467680230111407@ietfa.amsl.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: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 18:58:10 -0400
Message-ID: <14763.1593644290@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/XxQVaGW-I87IMMHyHAL9E2PbKuY>
Subject: [Anima] use of CRLs in I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-26.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: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 22:58:14 -0000

the diff for 6.1.5.3.  Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs)
fixes some TLAs, but continues to seem to recommend long-lived certificates with CRLs.
I think that CRLs are not useful, and we should not use them.

6.1.3 is clear that OCSP/CRLs may not be available when connecting!

I think that use of STAR (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8739/ )
Short-Term, Automatically Renewed is the best recommendation!

If we have to do OCSP (via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4806/ )
then we nodes can download their staple and provide it when connecting.
New nodes can get this using the Join Proxy.

Perhaps this needs to be in a new document at this point.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email