Re: [art] [Teep] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-teep-architecture-16
Mingliang Pei <mingliang.pei@broadcom.com> Mon, 11 April 2022 18:30 UTC
Return-Path: <mingliang.pei@broadcom.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAD83A1982 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com
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 yO2LFLhYYq2c for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa1-x34.google.com (mail-oa1-x34.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C54203A197F for <art@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa1-x34.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-de3ca1efbaso18214063fac.9 for <art@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JBFnIxmIc0dogA6nbUaYc472i586/+ioDwqALnUPLOQ=; b=c2mxDYXM+GI9cLQBd7IuG6KekjX6LUPPS5kxB+KYE5HUXnPVY/xQmmpuIsXr/lvmnX 37mA4hDBVYj0O1UUC9ybArxubfqwLLsEDGV0xFYOIBl6/hnYmBcMnkdKRNTQ4klvlfM3 viYHShdPoWKpUiVhhFph0YE6awuodr2wEMsQ4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JBFnIxmIc0dogA6nbUaYc472i586/+ioDwqALnUPLOQ=; b=b4rsLv7AVsqL/6txA++gOIEMyPGQwjxhK+Llr719X4EJRVJZ14azzF0SL/jDXrJC4l KyGtmKI0NlJZewbS8hbPKWTSVWDZSFiFdkU49JSA0tmI7867e3fNXiYjQEPdQX2gZ3h8 KPS4v0aRHvztpYdJMQo1leRiv+t1sQcX286NsSoGk4Hysw/p9i/9goMniUMQ33+0tg/j hOZ0CyrlLNOGHODpYKQw+UtMNxrA17aQ7XLNRnOTKun9+i661rL7y0jHrdI7NehXc6FE ty7SCfyt3gjxKw02ASOiLGQoy9L2uLuxuvWqlUma15KrtntW6M1H+FJsWX/X6N5QuRcw ERBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533tmbZuPQhCpj70dftwQePBn5RyHQYnuSrvqeuYnB7vNScLRl59 giiX/SU9JerGGKjQGZTIxssEHjmj69enslSZlEqJXoq5Hn7hWYy0d7wz0wjpsjpDb8HdMDZoY3i /RML3cobfsg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJybRkpj0FBdR6D+Q4XYu42anVwC2DJV4MUWKRKavr9BD8FQB+aXnMYq9+1cJ0ThaTrzTFNwyTQaCrzQA4EzXQE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:68f:b0:e2:b7bb:6424 with SMTP id l15-20020a056871068f00b000e2b7bb6424mr287316oao.43.1649701806902; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <164850526406.21554.6982960206540476351@ietfa.amsl.com> <DBBPR08MB5915B3398715EE22DF06BEBFFA1E9@DBBPR08MB5915.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CABDGos6QOEabsz1YfQ_X2uQkQm+9L1WdynksTsTD+T26y_UNXQ@mail.gmail.com> <F88F6DC2-B2AE-45AF-B68E-1A1C75C575EA@vigilsec.com> <CABDGos4QOf+GS5JFbK50D6PORFb=UqpfAzjxSp5xcQLCSoub6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABDGos5fBpe8eLNB1xtZM_qo4gxkUQMBiFNqFh=ag+tvW2gOkw@mail.gmail.com> <05D72290-98A8-4DA9-9E90-88AC12E76D63@redhoundsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <05D72290-98A8-4DA9-9E90-88AC12E76D63@redhoundsoftware.com>
From: Mingliang Pei <mingliang.pei@broadcom.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:29:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CABDGos7mcpK212tHZRUZ7dQOdJiN5d+74voiM3LzYFdjTHXHTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "teep@ietf.org" <teep@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teep-architecture.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teep-architecture.all@ietf.org>, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="00000000000034b07205dc6522d3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/oYMkLjekpMN4Q0qkWu_MW74rwNU>
Subject: Re: [art] [Teep] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-teep-architecture-16
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:30:15 -0000
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 <carl@redhoundsoftware.com> wrote: > > > *From: *TEEP <teep-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Mingliang Pei > <mingliang.pei=40broadcom.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Date: *Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 8:40 PM > *To: *Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> > *Cc: *Mingliang Pei <mingliang.pei=40broadcom.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, " > art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, " > teep@ietf.org" <teep@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teep-architecture.all@ietf.org" > <draft-ietf-teep-architecture.all@ietf.org>, Hannes Tschofenig < > Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com> > *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.
- [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-teep-… Russ Housley via Datatracker
- Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-t… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-t… Mingliang Pei
- Re: [art] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of … Russ Housley
- Re: [art] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of … Mingliang Pei
- Re: [art] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of … Mingliang Pei
- Re: [art] [Teep] [Last-Call] Artart last call rev… Carl Wallace
- Re: [art] [Teep] [Last-Call] Artart last call rev… Mingliang Pei
- Re: [art] [Teep] [Last-Call] Artart last call rev… Mingliang Pei
- Re: [art] [Teep] [Last-Call] Artart last call rev… Carl Wallace
- Re: [art] [Teep] [Last-Call] Artart last call rev… Carl Wallace
- Re: [art] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of … Paul Kyzivat