Re: [Emu] Provisioning, configuration, etc. and EAP

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Mon, 28 March 2022 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809AD3A1981 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 fgd8QYue4Dxk for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08F353A157C for <emu@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (24-52-251-6.cable.teksavvy.com [24.52.251.6]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A21A1168; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 21:37:18 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <93966.1648472199@dooku>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:37:17 -0400
Cc: EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <55A006E5-BD59-4A02-A449-3F4D1D156051@deployingradius.com>
References: <8C03CE4A-B987-4962-9AA3-5DF8FB32ECB5@deployingradius.com> <69074.1648310244@dooku> <88AA8004-A40E-44B1-AD00-E2F949F24F22@deployingradius.com> <93966.1648472199@dooku>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/mjT-9XlLESmF9ztywKvkDtFhXPk>
Subject: Re: [Emu] Provisioning, configuration, etc. and EAP
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emu/>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 21:37:27 -0000

On Mar 28, 2022, at 8:56 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> I understand.
> For mechanisms like BRSKI (and CSP/MATTER, and probably UPC UA) where the end
> product of onboarding is a certificate issued to the device, then the
> question about when to refresh is mostly given by the notAfter parameter.
> In most cases one should start refreshing those credentials at the 50% mark.
> 
> The ACME WG is discussing having the certificate renew point be better
> specified (in the ACME protocol), but I think that we will learn from this
> and wind up with something in the certificate if the protocol can't carry
> additional meta-data.

  That's a good chunk of what I'm proposing in my document.  There are often existing cert fields which contain the information needed for configuration.  It would be nice to use them.

> There are advantages of having renewals spread across time, but there are
> also disadvantages as it spreads the failure signal across time as well which
> makes it harder to see that there is a real problem.

  Generally if people can't renew, the server should log errors, or the end user device has a real network where it can report errors.

  Alan DeKok.