IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] coap discovery

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 18 August 2021 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 93E373A1D76 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PAAtE9E96GzY for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F1CF3A1D73 for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D34B389EC; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:53:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 6S6nU328egCB; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:52:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F260A389CF; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:52:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8301725; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:47:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ams=FCss?= <christian@amsuess.com>
cc: Peter van der Stok <stokcons@bbhmail.nl>, core@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <YRvvrdUIms4EHc+a@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <4795365b6cd768eb1b9500e0e96736b4@bbhmail.nl> <YRuwIjlxDtfygpq/@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <8819.1629217674@localhost> <YRvvrdUIms4EHc+a@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:47:50 -0400
Message-ID: <562.1629251270@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/i6jFI5CXXeJJS5DpDpixgb3wcGI>
Subject: Re: [core] coap discovery
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 01:48:07 -0000

Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> wrote:
    >> The "CBORUDP" provides for a stateless (i.e. stored in the network)
    >> record of where the packets come from.

    > So a bit like HTTP's CONNECT, and because there's CoAP as a transport
    > and since 8974 it has extended tokens, it can be stateless. Got it.
    > (Will this be specified for standalone use? I don't know to think of it
    > yet, but it's definitely intriguing).

It's not like HTTP CONNECT.
It's a reverse proxy.  The destination is forced by the proxy.
In order to remove the memory state of the proxy, we store in the network.
For (EDHOC)/PSK-OSCORE over CoAP, the proxy can mess with CoAP options.
But, DTLS keeps us from doing that.

    > If I've formed the right mental model here, there's two things that the
    > proxy can discover on the register (where 2001:db8:1:: might be the
    > actual network, and 2001:db8:2:: the network that's inside the UDP
    > tunnels -- may be the same addresses but may be not):

Just to clarify, there is no IP header inside the tunnel.

    > * The endpoint of the CoAP UDP service:
    > <coap://[2001:db8:1::1]/udp>;rt=cborudp (or ;rt=brski-yyy)

yeah.

    > If so, and if the analogy from 9031 holds, then what the proxy needs to
    > discover is the /udp endpoint.

    > To that endpoint, it does talk CoAP, so
    > it's perfectly legitimate to discover it as a CoAP resource. Of the
    > inside traffic, or its relation to the outside resource, no statement
    > even needs to be discovered.

No, that's not the case.  To the proxy, it speaks "cborudp".

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email