Re: [Anima] [Iot-onboarding] Device Certificate Deployment Automation with ACME using BRSKI

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>> Skimming quickly, I see now the direction to go to a cloud registrar to
    >>> be redirected to a local registrar.  I feel compelled to point out that
    >>> this is exactly what SZTP (RFC 8572) does, or at least, supports.
    >>> Actually, as a more general statement, it was originally said that the
    >>> two WG's approaches were different, but they are now becoming more and
    >>> more alike.  Well, since SZTP is published already, it's more like the
    >>> ANIMA approach is becoming more like SZTP, albeit seemingly with more
    >>> complexity.
    >>
    >> SZTP does not directly result in the same mutually authenticated TLS (EST)
    >> connection to a Registrar that BRSKI does.  This was not an explicit SZTP goal.

    > It's true that EST isn't used, but there is a mutually-authenticated
    > TLS connection to the SZTP bootstrap server, which is effectively the
    > same as BRSKI's Registrar.

It's not clear to me that this always occurs in the USB or DHCP cases :-)

    >> What it could do though, is to provide a source of (secure) bootstrap
    >> configuration in which such a connection could be initiated.  In my mind,
    >> I see a fragment of signed JUNOS, IOS (CISCO, not Apple), etc. CLI
    >> configuration that initiates the connection. Such a thing would not be
    >> standardized.
    >> But, I would think that this is exactly the kind of thing that could
    >> be encoded in YANG.

    > Indeed, this what RFC 8572 describes (in section 5.6 and also in C.3,
    > item #3) and the primary motivation behind
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server
    > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server>
    > and
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server
    > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server>.

Got it.

    >> My understanding of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-keystore
    >> is that it would provided for Registrar initiated (PUSH) updating of device
    >> certificates, but would not provide a way for a device to initiate (PULL) to
    >> a securely identified EST server.

    > Sounds correct, but clarifying:

    > 1) the current keystore model is all about enabling a controller/NMS
    > application to configure/set/push keys and associated end-entity
    > certificates to a device.

    > 2) there is a suggestion that the keystore model could/should be
    > extended to support ACME (or similar), in which case one might claim
    > that the device had "pulled" an end-entity certificate from a "securely
    > identified server" (dropping the "EST" part).

    > 3) the truststore model (draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors) can be used
    > by a controller/NMS application to configure/set/push trust-anchor
    > certs used, e.g., to verify a remote server's end-entity certificate.

But, more interestingly, it can be used to update the trust anchors, to
enable a resale/transfer of ownership!

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-