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

Hi Jaime,

Thanks for the pointer to earlier discussions on this topic.

Looking at the discussions from 2014 it appears that there is some misunderstanding of how this endpoint name interacts with the security protocol and what vulnerabilities are created by relying on an identifier that is unauthenticated.

I am curious what we lose if we remove this identifier altogether. The only thing that comes to my mind is a debugging capability where you might want to test your system without any security protocol. In any practical deployment I would not recommend to use RD without security.

Ciao
Hannes

From: Jaime Jiménez [mailto:jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com]
Sent: 05 April 2018 07:52
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: Jim Schaad; core@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [core] Endpoint Client Name / Endpoint Name in RD draft

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.
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.