Re: [Anima] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Michael.  I saw the proposed change in section 9.  I wonder if 
that is hiding the MUST, since the mechanisms are in section 7...
Having said that, I can live with it as you have proposed.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/16/2019 3:47 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > It allows someone who
>      > controls their network, and who physically controls a new device, to
>      > put that new device in their network without asking anyone's
>      > permission.
> 
> Right, get your "blue cable" out, connect it to the serial console, bring up
> minicom, and tell the device to enroll.  Verify the registrar's certificate
> when prompted, perhaps.
> 
> You can still use GRASP to find the Registrar, and all the rest of the ACP
> mechanism....  or not.
> 
> That's been in section 7.2, but the complaint was that it was not normative.
> So, we have added in section 9, for the ACP use case, that implementing
> something is a MUST.  I don't think it will work for lightbulbs, but whomever
> writes that Applicability Statement will have to cope with that.
> (it will be me: I have a document in 6tisch, which is that document. I would
> appreciate your thoughts on what might be acceptable there)
> 
> BTW: A number of router manufacturers have BRSKI-like mechanisms already, but they
> only really work when you drink all their koolaid, and build your network
> exclusively with their equipment.  At one ISP that I consult for, they wound
> up turning the super-duper auto-join management system off because it ate all
> of a very high end VM platform, and they just couldn't afford that at the
> time...   Maybe cross-vendor mechanisms will result in some competition and
> some better products.
> 
>      > Now it may be that the particular approach I suggested won't work.  But
>      > it seems to me that there needs to be a way for folks to keep using,
>      > and to keep re-selling, devices without the support of the vendor.
>      > That usage may not get all the zero-touch advantages that supported
>      > re-sale would get.  But it has to work.  And putting the onus for that
>      > on the original vendor does NOT seem an effective solution.
> 
> As long as vendors support blue cables, and are willing to provide firmware
> updates, I don't see any change.
>