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

[Carl Wallace <[e-mail]>]

 

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>