Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

Jaime Jiménez <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com> Thu, 05 April 2018 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C601A124234 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 22:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 V8D_nEXbp_dy for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 22:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B90E0124207 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 22:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1522907536; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=IYqunMxTsQ7fVgu0yNFsUCMCBpqB1x0VqJvAPT6CfDk=; b=AIWLPnElVMri9R49vpFc4DS9PlyJWTcdWIUelHGjJzAOvrlRvWxzppYzsKPwvg1D Q/uz2dpahsOlfDY2rn91dcd8LIlP+hPvm4IvgNcKDQDkPWZOKkAd2LZrgFo7tM9X t1quYBKsbj99eeVYDBe9nEQf5atA3dRc80Mz4fx+z7Y=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-1ff859c000005d56-78-5ac5b99084c8
Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.78]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F4.28.23894.099B5CA5; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 07:52:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB107.ericsson.se ([169.254.7.243]) by ESESSHC020.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 07:52:15 +0200
From: Jaime Jiménez <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>
CC: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft
Thread-Index: AdPMGk8Ajq5nOeuWRv+BrgbskCDzwf//7S4A//+qDBCAAJG2gIAAD5eAgADXWe4=
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 05:52:14 +0000
Message-ID: <7BA9B091-F489-4ED4-B6EC-5AD7D971D6F7@ericsson.com>
References: <VI1PR0801MB2112B52094B182F5D44C4F64FAA40@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <A484D917-677C-4B29-BBAD-DDDE34B50303@ericsson.com> <VI1PR0801MB21128EA2B70DEEE7C5775A62FAA40@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <070801d3cc3f$8d59e0c0$a80da240$@augustcellars.com>, <VI1PR0801MB2112FB25797DCB8F546C148DFAA40@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0801MB2112FB25797DCB8F546C148DFAA40@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: es-ES
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7BA9B091F4894ED4B6EC5AD7D971D6F7ericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprMIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7n+6EnUejDM6v07HY93Y9s8XNGaeY LFZP/87mwOyxZt4aRo+Nc6azeSxZ8pMpgDmKyyYlNSezLLVI3y6BK+P7ApWC/m2MFXMmrWBu YDy2gLGLkZNDQsBE4sue78wgtpDAEUaJFcdjuxi5gOzFjBLXH85nA0mwCbhKdCy9yApiiwgY SuxtPgRmMwt4SPQ1fwKzhQVcJCZM64aqcZXofveYEcL2k9iz/SeYzSKgItH+5RnYTF4Be4nb rV8YIRb/YJI4+MgCxOYUSJS4N/UrWJxRQEzi+6k1TBC7xCXuTelhhThaQGLJnvPMELaoxMvH /6DuSZZ413OcEWK+oMTJmU9YJjAKz0LSPgtJ2SwkZRBxA4n35+YzQ9jaEssWvoay9SU2fjnL iCy+gJF9FaNocWpxcW66kZFealFmcnFxfp5eXmrJJkZgVB3c8ttqB+PB546HGAU4GJV4eJ2m HY0SYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMLL2gwU4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjNwaIkzuuUZhElJJCeWJKa nZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYGR5Oj0i+cezpa1J3Cmfvv0XZq27Xl6z+0M0h+19rakPits9t/7avOm1 2lmdR73X3zSslRVa9Uql6Me2u6c9bzJP330nw6d/mplIn87bHq8Arh1KDEq3VWc/n/4nrESj pSa7ymaipoVVQfymy7/YWBymn9qiyLlreZOwWu2d9U12ZYwWhmHB/5VYijMSDbWYi4oTAZJS rF6mAgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/AHwmMcTp9uJrigDyritOWdyi44o>
Subject: Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 05:52:22 -0000

Hi,

You mean we should remove the “endpoint name” altogether, so not using URNs to identify CoAP endpoints for example?

The rationale for using endpoint name was at least discussed in 2014, back then it seemed useful in the context of LWM2M.

http://ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg05645.html

Ciao!

El 4 abr 2018, a las 22:01, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com<mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>> escribió:

Hi Jim,

I had various comments:

First, I argue that the LwM2M spec and the RD draft should be in sync regarding the name of the parameter.

Second, I believe that the security consideration section is correct in the threat description but came to the wrong conclusion regarding the use of the parameter. In essence, the parameter should be optional and probably only used for debugging.

Third, I went as far as saying that the endpoint name parameter should actually be removed altogether. I can already see how those deploying it will get it wrong and will introduce security problems.

Ciao
Hannes

From: Jim Schaad [mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com]
Sent: 04 April 2018 21:06
To: Hannes Tschofenig; 'Jaime Jiménez'
Cc: core@ietf.org<mailto:core@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

Hannes,

I am not completely clear.  Are you saying that the RD should not have the endpoint name parameter as a defined property or something else?

Jim


From: core <core-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:core-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 10:41 AM
To: Jaime Jiménez <jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com<mailto:jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com>>
Cc: core@ietf.org<mailto:core@ietf.org> WG <core@ietf.org<mailto:core@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

Hi Jaime,

using IP address and port for an endpoint (client) name would not be a good idea.
In general, it was not a good idea to have this parameter defined in the first place. It might actually be better to remove it altogether.

Ciao
Hannes

From: Jaime Jiménez [mailto:jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com]
Sent: 04 April 2018 17:32
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: core@ietf.org<mailto:core@ietf.org> WG; Carsten Bormann
Subject: Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

Hi,

Note that endpoint can refer to both source and destination, being and IP:port in its simplest form:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252#page-6

The fact that LWM2M swaps those role names might actually add to the confusion, probably OMA LWM2M should be the one changing the terminology as the device is mostly a “server” hosting resources and only is a “client” during bootstrapping and registration. We could have used terms like “servient” instead but it might be too late for that.

Ciao!
- - Jaime Jiménez

On 4 Apr 2018, at 16.41, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com<mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

I noticed that the term “endpoint name” is used in the IETF RD draft while the OMA LwM2M spec uses the term “endpoint client name”. Endpoint is a confusing term since it is used differently in the CoAP spec than in the Web environment.

For this reason I believe it would be better to use the term “endpoint client name” also in the RD draft. This would improve alignment between the two specs.

Ciao
Hannes

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________
core mailing list
core@ietf.org<mailto:core@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.