Re: [art] [Teep] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-teep-architecture-16

[Mingliang Pei <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carl,

Considering "associated data" is already described in the first part of the
definition for "used to constraint the types", I think your wording is fine.
The revised full definition will look as follows.

*Trust Anchor*: As defined in {{RFC6024}} and
{{I-D.ietf-suit-architecture}},
    "A trust anchor represents an authoritative entity via a public
    key and associated data.  The public key is used to verify digital
    signatures, and the associated data is used to constrain the types
    of information for which the trust anchor is authoritative.
    The Trust Anchor may be a certificate, a raw public key or other
structure,
    as appropriate. It can be a non-root certificate when it is a
certificate.

I made this to the PR now. Please review.

Thanks,

Ming


On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:29 AM Mingliang Pei <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Carl,
>
> Good point, thanks. A trust anchor intends to allow associated constraint
> information, which is implementation specific, along with the main
> underlying key material being a public key or a certificate. For the
> revised definition, instead of allowing "other structure as appropriate",
> how about we still call out the core key material being a "certificate or
> public key", and other information along with them as appropriate? In other
> words, how about the following?
>
> The Trust Anchor may be a certificate or a raw public key with optionally
> other constraint information or extensions. The structure of Trust Anchors
> is implementation specific."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ming
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 6:08 AM Carl Wallace <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> *From: *TEEP <[e-mail]> on behalf of Mingliang Pei
>> <mingliang.pei=[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 8:40 PM
>> *To: *Russ Housley <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *Mingliang Pei <mingliang.pei=[e-mail]>, "
>> [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
>> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "
>> [e-mail]" <
>> [e-mail]>, Hannes Tschofenig <
>> [e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Teep] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of
>> draft-ietf-teep-architecture-16
>>
>>
>>
>> See PR: https://github.com/ietf-teep/architecture/pull/236, thanks, Ming
>>
>>
>>
>> [CW] Is it a certainty that constraints will not be needed for trust
>> anchors? The trust anchor definition references “associated data”, which
>> would be used constrain use of the trust anchor. An option other than
>> certificate or public key may would be needed if constraints may be defined
>> (because constraints can’t be added to the certificate without breaking the
>> signature and a raw public key has no means to express constraints).
>> Perhaps, "The Trust Anchor may be a certificate, a raw public key or other
>> structure, as appropriate." might be better to leave open the possibility
>> of constraining a trust anchor. RFC5914 defines syntax that allows for
>> associated data to be packaged alongside a public key or a certificate, as
>> an example of an alternative.
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>

-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.