IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Danish] Proposed WG Charter

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 14 June 2021 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: danish@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: danish@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860FC3A281B for <danish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.178
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 SQb8z6Ql7yDl for <danish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:30:30 -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 F3BC93A2819 for <danish@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6571638C54 for <danish@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:31:32 -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 Mdu97y67Mrif for <danish@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:31:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9D838C52 for <danish@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:31:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C393236 for <danish@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:30:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
cc: danish@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <18269.1623628404@localhost>
References: <YMZwG/l/pne2tHJF@straasha.imrryr.org> <A7723DDA-3B78-46AD-9449-B6DF7F211706@nohats.ca> <18269.1623628404@localhost>
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: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:30:24 -0400
Message-ID: <6109.1623684624@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/danish/xthh4QX4cfpodk1ftq3KnOmWhGI>
Subject: Re: [Danish] Proposed WG Charter
X-BeenThere: danish@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <danish.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/danish>, <mailto:danish-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/danish/>
List-Post: <mailto:danish@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:danish-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/danish>, <mailto:danish-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 15:30:35 -0000

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

    > I think that the charter has too many words and too many goals.
    > I suggest leaving the DNSSEC-less stuff to a recharter.
    > Where was that github for this....

    > ==== I suggest the following shorter charter

    > -Objective

    > The DANE AutheNtication for Iot Service Hardening (DANISH) WG seeks to
    > extend DANE to encompass TLS client authentication using certificates.

    > The WG will also use DANE to establish identities for store and forward of
    > messages using sender identities.      [better wording sought]

I was asked offlist if we mean to speak about message security vs object
security.   I think that our community has some overlapping notions here.
The contrast was made between OSCORE (message) vs COSE (object).
I think, but I could be wrong, that the IETF MLS WG is actually creating
things with object security.  I think that this contributes to the confusion.

I think that the goal is probably best described as object security.
If others agree, then we should probably use that term in the charter.

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

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status