IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Last Call: <draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-20.txt> (Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI)) to Proposed Standard

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 10 June 2019 14:49 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 168791201A2 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 dN4pqtiyzCID for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD79C12006A for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189AF38187; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:48:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id C6D78BB8; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:49:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C485614; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:49:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPcJN9eweSW8ayVAbyehjizycpLN2=dDe1txZEh8dm7QQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <155847367546.2608.5031283783681425886.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <02DFBB01-F7BA-4BCA-B8C5-CF14E8B7A6F4@cisco.com> <20190604192843.gbavqofsq4btcgx3@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <045A7809-CB6F-493E-B9F2-FBF563AD5378@cisco.com> <20190607211720.y63ysayeqtkgi3lj@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <60BB0A11-A12B-4EA5-9379-12C75100D64C@cisco.com> <77dc7db3-e281-2475-6909-c9c5a982f973@gmail.com> <CABcZeBPcJN9eweSW8ayVAbyehjizycpLN2=dDe1txZEh8dm7QQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:49:48 -0400
Message-ID: <6636.1560178188@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/w4Xn1ldFlfF71zuJiJ_e2qn9b5E>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Last Call: <draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-20.txt> (Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI)) to Proposed Standard
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: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 14:49:53 -0000

{I've clipped the CC list}

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
    >> On 09-Jun-19 01:37, Eliot Lear wrote:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >> On 7 Jun 2019, at 23:17, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> Ok, now i got you (i hope ;-).
    >> >>
    >> >> I really liked the c1sco example (not sure if we should mention a real
    >> >> company name in such an rfc someone not reading the draft might take
    >> >> offense, maybe examp1e.com insted though).
    >> >
    >> > This is a bit tricky with the glyph attack, but certainly the base
    >> should be
    >> > example.com.
    >>
    >> Can you use null.example.com and nu11.example.com?
    >>

    > That's a little unfortunate from the perspective of this attack because
    > ..com is a public suffix [0] whereas example.com is not.

    > -Ekr

    > [0] https://publicsuffix.org/

okay, I'm trying to understand the relevance of this from the point of an
example in an RFC.

We need to put the example under example.*, but we can't use examp1e.com,
because it's not an example domain.

Brian suggested the example null vs nu11.
This is not about super-cookies, etc. and it doesn't suggest any kind of
process involving the list of publicsuffixes.

I've opened issue:
     https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/issues/131

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email