Re: [Anima] Handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE discussion today)

On 02-Sep-20 15:22, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Fries, Steffen <steffen.fries@siemens.com> wrote:
>     >> -----Original Message-----
>     >> From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
>     >> Sent: Freitag, 28. August 2020 20:32
>     >> > Maybe I phrased it wrong. The intention is not to make the pledge more
>     >> > complex. The goal should be to keep the pledge simple and enhance the
>     >> > registrar to handle also other situations like unavailability of
>     >> > certain connections. The registrar should be the more capable
>     >> > component. The discovery was intended in situations, in which the
>     >> > registrar supports multipole options, but not all may be mandatory
>     >> > supported. In this case the discovery would help. Otherwise the pledge
>     >> > may do trial and error.
>     >>
>     >> While I appreciate the idea of having the pledge fail faster, and go onto to
>     >> the next possible registrar, I think that the pledge should support one and
>     >> only one mechanism, and it's up to the registrars to keep up.
> 
>     > Yes, this keeps the pledge simple, but would require the registrar to
>     > implement the other options mandatorily.
> 
> *A* Registrar has to implement the right options.
> There could be more than one system with the same CA behind them.
> I way prefer to just let the pledge implement one thing.
> 
> Maybe that will cause significant bifurcation in the BRSKI-capable thing
> market, but I suspect that most registrars will implement it all.
> 
>     >> If we are doing proper ACP ANIMA, then we can include the enrollment
>     >> options for the Registrar into the GRASP DULL announcement, and this can
>     >> inform the pledge's decision as to which Registrar to pick.
> 
>     > This would also be an option for a  discovery, but I have to dig deeper into GRASP.
> 
> okay.

Let me know if you want to try to specify that. At the moment the only defined
value for the "AN_join_registrar" objective is the string "EST-TLS", but we
could trivially extend it to define another method, or a set of methods.
Also the syntax already allows for multiple announcements in one M_FLOOD
message, so I'd be surprised if we can't do whatever you want. (I had demo
code for announcing a set of methods a long time ago, but I actually
simplified it to only announce "EST-TLS" as BRSKI converged.)

    Brian

> 
>     >> I don't yet understand how the voucher-request is done in async BRSKI.
> 
>     > I realize more an more that a pure "request-object" without considering
>     > the transport is probably too abstract. Implementing requires also the
>     > transport.
> 
> Yes, okay, I thought that this was in scope for this document.
> Or, when I agreed to adopt, I thought that.
> 
> I have quite a few ideas on how to do this: we really ran through them all
> during BRSKI/6tisch-zero-touch/SZTP and we settled on a compromise.
> 
>     >> I thought that was what we were doing.. I have many ideas about this.
> 
>     > Yes, voucher-request and also certification-request would be collected
>     > by the pledge-agent. Good to hear you have ideas here, as we need to
>     > define the approach more precisely.
> 
>     >> > Regarding PUSH. As outlined in BRSKI-AE section 5.2.4 the pledge would
>     >> > be queried by the pledge-agent for certain objects. It was intended to
>     >>
>     >> But, how is it queried?
> 
>     > The pledge essentially must be able to listen for the request. In
>     > industrial environments the embedded device is most often in a server
>     > role waiting for requests. This would have to be leveraged also for the
>     > PUSH interaction.
> 
> Cool.
> I can also see BT and NFC being used for the push.
> 
>     >> Well, I thought that the furnace in the basement where there is no
>     >> connectivity was a really good use case.
>     >> The furnace installer has a smartphone or dedicated comissioning
>     >device.
> 
>     > This was one of the point I concluded form the last meeting. The trust
>     > assumptions about the pledge and pledge-agent interaction is one of the
>     > points to be discussed further.
> 
> Good.
> 
>     >> As for HTTP: I would tend to suggest that we should use CoAP.
>     >> This works over WIFI as well as other technologies, and convergence here
>     >> would be good.
> 
>     > Which may bring it closer to the constraint voucher than BRSKI. I was
>     > looking for the latter, hence HTTP as proposal. But this is open for
>     > discussion.
> 
> :-)
> 
> --
> 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
> 