[Dime] end to end security solution..

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 16 May 2016 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E9A12D927 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2016 11:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ENlCH5rZUfj6 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2016 11:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com (mail-pa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A14F612D92B for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2016 11:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id xk12so67716303pac.0 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2016 11:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=reply-to:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=T1kwYO66mozoOFh9LaNsb2qaHUNatzNN2Qzo/jt5tww=; b=Gf7Ks81A6cvMBKahnLF0mBvAXu70UZptGm4VvDc2YdZnBRARndFjk6eHAvvpkCS/g9 jaUq7BXHM9TuMIJ6RWS11apJThHnxE+kOULQqxtWr1deficitp6TrtVIx+fAMt60SYT7 7+exptX4peauxAkL8It/dQxOATmn8PAwiGOiIvIptqZYMndNbWj1KP775g34VMgd9CxT xB7rEXhs0/rWwDklj4Df8hOT5vpXMzwcGHfA8k1OOJq2gOImv3VAEiMQwVidyATnisfR pNyGPduS7WtmlyIWoeMwr0hZ5L/H6xAefqWAiyVLfrpt2r2TgbvpRHEXYrbl0k05/0zN m30A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:to:from:subject:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T1kwYO66mozoOFh9LaNsb2qaHUNatzNN2Qzo/jt5tww=; b=Crx9dGlyOOkx7x2eg20LDkcykSjr6oE3OAdTBaxInTaQeLqKJUptOl8IWLhCW4iQ+d tNgWUL3PmT4p186FC0Wy5GEFZ1r2Yk1DKs1vhRw99S9rl7uAp57Q/f90JHpxE9VUn8dT byNwcksQr6M2HhniB3273C2elNm0zg7+cBB4I2H6OsTSeAPOu2sBAF7kqB64E37dvHJ/ GRH1lW4cWvrAT7ZUF8ff1iEmXEDpxGzmvHeNv4yk3ufIxdJiGqKo3m2vkHqhYAOoPGFr HTZXSxDk+FfKkG5jiKewDEf/AvG2OEkttIJatY//QHksoqBskasWymcWrL6c4NBWy3xA OcmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXENnII1689OcsG5ej0NwzUL512lRpo4jqANO2KgEVVz1iUHUlX9nhGGN61JgTCHg==
X-Received: by 10.66.43.241 with SMTP id z17mr48072952pal.18.1463423869236; Mon, 16 May 2016 11:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.16.75.74] ([216.31.219.19]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 1sm48989936pah.7.2016.05.16.11.37.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 16 May 2016 11:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <573A1375.4020003@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:37:41 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/Hd3wM5HVHSNPTrALDPXxoEjyNlc>
Subject: [Dime] end to end security solution..
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:37:52 -0000

Folks,

In IETF95 we visited graveyard and reincarnated the discussion on e2e 
security. We do have one proposal on table: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-dime-e2e-security-03

Putting aside the JSON vs. CBOR/COSE topic (i.e., forget the encoding 
method), I'd like to have the discussion whether the framework presented 
in the draft is actually acceptable and could serve as a starting point 
for the WG solution. Yes, this means you actually need to read the draft.

Regards,
	Jouni