IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] MichaelR/Rob/*: RFC8995 errata concerns

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 07 August 2021 23:16 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 BBA4A3A0B91 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 16:16:02 -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 3ClqklCXnSHb for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 16:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED3CE3A0B8F for <anima@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 16:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8679389C5; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 19:20:20 -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 sNYokWlKUJOd; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 19:20:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70BCC389BC; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 19:20:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501F825; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 19:15:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
cc: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210806003134.GA47840@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20210805211714.GC57091@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9465.1628200645@localhost> <20210806003134.GA47840@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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: Sat, 07 Aug 2021 19:15:47 -0400
Message-ID: <7466.1628378147@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/iUM2Peef1Cmv-ZcSM5SxKUEzhjc>
Subject: Re: [Anima] MichaelR/Rob/*: RFC8995 errata concerns
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, 07 Aug 2021 23:16:03 -0000

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
    >> The other bit is that Registrars MUST IGNORE SNI when accepting Pledge
    >> connections.    Pledges ought to not send it, since they don't really know
    >> what to put.

    > Are there never methods by which pledges or proxies discover registrar
    > DNS names ? Isn't that at least commonly expected for BRSKI cloud ?

BRSKI-cloud pledges are code to connect to their cloud register by some
method.  A DNS name + DNS-lookup + RFC6125 DNS-ID validation (with SNI)
against WebPKI, sounds reasonable.
But, it could also be via TLS-PSK authentication to a hard coded IP address.
(That would be stupid, and maybe even seriously insecure, but you could do it)

But, the BRSKI-cloud connection is not the prospective TLS connection that
section 5.1 defines.

    > If this was a problem, it should be a problem already with a lot more
    > TLS use-cases ?!

    > Aka: I'd opt for not having to require an additional MUST IGNORE SNI..

What does a Registrar called "frank.example" do when it receives a BRSL-EST TLS
connection for "jones.example"?   Fail it?   That's silly.

For all we know, the pledge did a mDNS discovery to find a join proxy and
that's why it's using the wrong name.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status