Re: [Anima] rfc822Name "abuse" in Autonomic Control Plane document

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 16 June 2020 02:14 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 42BC53A0F93 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:14:33 -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 xn7fjTPUJt6x for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (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 A589E3A0F6F for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id h185so8764048pfg.2 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rfxxhA6kvhZ7EcdodqyDsyraX19HpBhuoVtchfOXHao=; b=fFx9wjZrlZ+hOL5n76mJfYeFBEq8ye5GPmItlleBsutfKq68ZeFaRSQ6H4mGYvpVkb ccKwMHXucBS29OCl6iZ649zKH7vjdRDYRgAGHQGKKtvRZirIfO/6UXhkMS7dG2HErBQc VX0yfBr0HiVc+v7QmX+lRjmzmDO8c2zIohPEp9xjolizWSreoIgbqPnP8fy9ZL4YMWLr kSRBxU1IXbsKOxUze+bvinJXCW+nvRwmdb0NZBQpKOXlDt9NyxI0NEDzKrnLK7VJ8kAB i2798uxWEGRatHtmruvu0UaqH9vv9doGOwcu8gGNTXBa/gL3gsDLOJDyIbZ+d7lNXy8T wG1g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rfxxhA6kvhZ7EcdodqyDsyraX19HpBhuoVtchfOXHao=; b=JmV6Zs9EwdN468AnBCiWTAs5NINxtV5DYx9k/lP0JOIEEbzGHAFPl7HNFAsy/BT7PY 0e3t8CgcQhFGoU9+0grScpzzj5t35WFVwcdMBb536uz6sGYC+h4+TIYYbbke4GNTYkWs 9VHzPUMFjixdaxZkH6pvmGu+FNVF2oyhQbUDYTyL2IPPbo1XPn/xPlaeHQY2aXtNvmMc fHJ0XQto+OSc6pbZuIWJNou2NNAB5uem98U4gU5GemqJ+j39fqoHuIZHcyZRrKd7aFkJ RZxS9lM1NTp6b1FA+1bXwptMFHWwGhpgsFBb6Vt7WpEVtOLrr6wVyVgAkeb5pfkpvse6 L5aA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319U00etk7Ln44sBRyB3zzYuax8FeqIWWQYAJpHqsn23HZkCCB+ BfovRapzUyTuipTjc2RkKs4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz+E95SBzU16JVBbPRJcW/3F21VA9vmS287wAEdBWwG7KpL4WYclBoKuLPrXs5hSfwU6oRNRA==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9052:: with SMTP id n18mr48039pfo.319.1592273670980; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.25] ([165.84.13.9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id hv15sm682017pjb.17.2020.06.15.19.14.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, anima@ietf.org
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, kaduk@mit.edu
References: <11428.1592266833@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a0face89-da68-f75d-4a57-4deb9d0f244d@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:14:24 +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: <11428.1592266833@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/tTmnE6GeZX1ZFyvwJYFVHUQdgHY>
Subject: Re: [Anima] rfc822Name "abuse" 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: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:14:33 -0000

On 16-Jun-20 12:20, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Hi, I have had a few conversations with Toerless who is trying to deal with
> the feedback on the ACP document.
> 
> An item that has come up is the use, or claimed abuse of the rfc822Name SAN.
> 
> We already had this debate.
> Some time ago.  The WG decided.
> Three or four years ago, I think.

Yes, this is relitigating an issue that was resolved a long time ago in discussing Ben's DISCUSS:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/lnZ-ykqas487qih86sYNVsUGbsc

The explanation is at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-24#page-26

I believe it is incorrect IETF process to rediscuss this point yet again.

   Brian

> 
> I sure wish that we could use something else.
> But, CAs and CA software make that very difficult.
> 
> Given that the era of publically anchored Enterprise CAs is dead, there are
> only two ways an (Enterprise) ACP Registrar is going to occur.
> 
> 1) by running a private CA.
>    Sure anything is possible if you are writing your own code, but
>    most will not be doing that. (I've supported otherName in my code for
>    other purposes, and it's not that difficult, but it's not trivial either)
>    My experience with COTS CA systems it that it's really hard to
>    get them to do it.    Please prove me wrong.
>    The most popular Enterprise CA software is the Microsoft CA.
> 
> 2) by using ACME to speak to a hosted CA.  Maybe WebPKI, maybe not.
>    Either way, getting otherName supported is even harder, because
>    nobody else uses it.
> 
> If we can't depend upon otherName being filled in, then we have to look for
> two things.  That means more code paths (two more) to test, more test
> vectors, and what exactly does an end point do when both are present, BUT
> THEY DO NOT MATCH?  So three more pages of text there.
> Remember, that just rejecting the certificate means that we have to send out
> a truck, which is what ACP aims to avoid, so that won't be popular.
> And of course, there could also be bugs (maybe even CVEs) in the code that
> tries to deal with the tie.
> 
> --
> 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
>