Re: [CGA-EXT] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-rgaglian-csi-send-ski-ta-nametype-00

Roque Gagliano <roque@lacnic.net> Tue, 06 October 2009 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <roque@lacnic.net>
X-Original-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0802828C1F6 for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hlPwlU5xBWzF for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1451D28C17B for <cga-ext@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:64:42:225:ff:fe4b:94a8] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:64:42:225:ff:fe4b:94a8]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5284C3084EC for <cga-ext@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 17:18:29 -0200 (UYST)
Message-Id: <7113AD42-CE2D-442E-9DCC-28679E322633@lacnic.net>
From: Roque Gagliano <roque@lacnic.net>
To: cga-ext@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4ACB8D2A.9010208@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 20:18:16 +0100
References: <20091006112313.4514728C167@core3.amsl.com> <3459FB4F-F275-4436-ADBE-B35EF8FD88F7@lacnic.net> <4ACB4BF5.8090102@it.uc3m.es> <6ADE5FD5-0981-44C2-ACA6-C943F1466AAC@lacnic.net> <4ACB8D2A.9010208@it.uc3m.es>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail d55 (v55, Leopard)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck:
X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: roque@lacnic.net
Subject: Re: [CGA-EXT] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-rgaglian-csi-send-ski-ta-nametype-00
X-BeenThere: cga-ext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: CGA and SeND Extensions <cga-ext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cga-ext>
List-Post: <mailto:cga-ext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:16:57 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marcelo,

On Oct 6, 2009, at 7:32 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> ah, perfect then!
>
> I guess i got confused by the title of the section that reads:
>
> 3.  SEND SKI trust anchor identifier option
>
> But you are not defining a SEND SKI trust anchor identifier option  
> but you are defining a SKI NAME TYPE, correct?
>

correct.

> If so, i don't think we need to update rfc3971, we just need to  
> publish this document as STD RFC, correct?
>

The problem that I described in the original email was that RFC 3971  
does not define a registry for name type. We issue this document just  
to point out that we believe that this new name type is needed. What  
we could do is to modify the draft to create this registry and add the  
SKY name type to the ones defined in RFC 3971.

What does the group feel about this?

Roque.

> Regards, marcelo
>
>
>
> Roque Gagliano escribió:
>> Marcelo,
>>
>> What is being propossed is exactly that, a new Name Type of the  
>> Trust anchor Option:
>>
>> Name Type  TBD SHA-1 Subject Key Identifier (SKI)
>> To be added to the ones already defined in RFC 3971in sectin 6.4.3
>> "The type of the name included in the Name field.  This
>>      specification defines two legal values for this field:   
>> 1        DER Encoded X.501 Name  2        FQDN"
>>
>> Regards,
>> Roque
>>
>> On Oct 6, 2009, at 2:53 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My take on this one.
>>> I think we need a way to distinguish TAs across different CAs. I  
>>> think that using the Hash of the public key is a reasonable option.
>>>
>>> Now, what i am not sure i understand is why do we need a new option.
>>> I mean, wouldn't be possible to define a new Name Type of the  
>>> Trust anchor Option defined in section 6.4.3 of RFC3971, the new  
>>> Name type being the SKI?
>>>
>>> People that are using multiple Tas should use this Name Type to be  
>>> certain that they identify the right TA accors multiple TAs.
>>>
>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>
>>>
>>> Roque Gagliano escribió:
>>>> Dear WG,
>>>>
>>>> At the "cert" team we have identify a problem with RFC 3971 and  
>>>> the trust anchor name types defined there. The RFC defines as  
>>>> possible name types a X501 subject name or a FQDN. The problem we  
>>>> have is that subject name may not be unique across CAs in a PKI.
>>>> As we decided to adopt SIDR WG certificate profile, the Subject  
>>>> Key Identifier extension is mandatory now. Consequently, we can  
>>>> use this hash of the subject public key to identify the host TAs  
>>>> even if we need to search across several CAs.
>>>>
>>>> We are issuing this draft to document the problem. However, RFC  
>>>> 3971 did not set a Registry for name types in the TA ICMP option,  
>>>> which means that the only way to implement this new name type is  
>>>> to modify RFC 3971 that I understand was already part of the  
>>>> plans for this WG.
>>>> How do the group feels about taking this path?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Roque, Suresh, Ana.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>> *From: *IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission@ietf.org <mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org 
>>>>> >>
>>>>> *Date: *October 6, 2009 12:23:13 PM GMT+01:00
>>>>> *To: *roque@lacnic.net <mailto:roque@lacnic.net>
>>>>> *Cc: *suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com <mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com 
>>>>> >,ana.kukec@fer.hr <mailto:ana.kukec@fer.hr>
>>>>> *Subject: **New Version Notification for  draft-rgaglian-csi- 
>>>>> send-ski-ta-nametype-00 *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-rgaglian-csi-send-ski-ta- 
>>>>> nametype-00.txt has been successfuly submitted by Roque Gagliano  
>>>>> and posted to the IETF repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> Filename: draft-rgaglian-csi-send-ski-ta-nametype
>>>>> Revision: 00
>>>>> Title: Subject Key Identifier (SKI) name type for SEND TA option
>>>>> Creation_date: 2009-10-06
>>>>> WG ID: Independent Submission
>>>>> Number_of_pages: 10
>>>>>
>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>> SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) Utilizes X.509v3 certificates for
>>>>> performing router authorization.  This document specifies a SEND  
>>>>> name
>>>>> type to identify trust anchor X.509v3 certificates based on its
>>>>> Subject Key Identifier.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The IETF Secretariat.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Roque Gagliano
>>>> LACNIC
>>>> roque@lacnic.net <mailto:roque@lacnic.net>
>>>> GPG Fingerprint: E929 06F4 D8CD 2AD8 9365  DB72 9E4F 964A 01E9 6CEE
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CGA-EXT mailing list
>>>> CGA-EXT@ietf.org <mailto:CGA-EXT@ietf.org>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
>>>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> Roque Gagliano
>> LACNIC
>> roque@lacnic.net <mailto:roque@lacnic.net>
>> GPG Fingerprint: E929 06F4 D8CD 2AD8 9365  DB72 9E4F 964A 01E9 6CEE
>>

- -------------------------------------------------------------
Roque Gagliano
LACNIC
roque@lacnic.net
GPG Fingerprint: E929 06F4 D8CD 2AD8 9365  DB72 9E4F 964A 01E9 6CEE

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrLl/gACgkQnk+WSgHpbO5GRQCfQnc72yzvMDbwj+Sd5kRfu1PD
CBMAoKgpH6jz9UbiMcfzAJ/SVzjDWaUR
=Qwfu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----