Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-39: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 01 April 2020 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF513A1851 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 12:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rnjua0BBkZXr for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 12:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30AB23A1850 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 12:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C62738981; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:44:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD2D9F8; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:45:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Esko Dijk <>
cc: Benjamin Kaduk <>, "anima\" <>
In-Reply-To: <AM5P190MB02751866462AE590EAD2EB14FDC90@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <> <4603.1585620652@localhost> <> <600.1585687336@localhost> <AM5P190MB02751866462AE590EAD2EB14FDC90@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
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: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 15:45:40 -0400
Message-ID: <5633.1585770340@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-39: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 19:45:56 -0000

Esko Dijk <> wrote:
    > Based on the discussion, trying to list some practical cases we can
    > have of the pinned-domain-cert:

I believe that we concur on the uses.
I'm not sure if you are saying the CA:TRUE is a requirement.
I do not want to mandate that.  CA:TRUE is, of course, acceptable.

I think that today's revised text supports all of your use cases.
If you find some fell out of bounds, then it's a mistake.

    > In the latter case, the self-signed limited-scope root CA will
    > typically be used as the pinned-domain-cert. And the EST server will
    > create certificates signed by this same root CA.

I believe that by number of Registrar's the self-signed private CA will be
the most common.   It is what I have suggested in

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-