Re: [homenet] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 20 November 2015 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2B81B3D09; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:00:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.186
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Umf9sJtELU9; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 979571B39CA; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C99200A3; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:05:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id C7F7A63B40; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:00:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B144363745; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:00:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Markus Stenberg <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
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-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:00:52 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Mark Townsley <>,, The IESG <>,, Stephen Farrell <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 19:00:57 -0000

Markus Stenberg <> wrote:
    >> I'd like to chat about whether or not the DTLS recommendations
    >> are correct here. To me, the consensus stuff (from section 8.3
    >> of dncp) is not clearly baked (as I noted in iesg review of
    >> dncp). The PKI stuff is well known, even if it it is a PITA from
    >> many points of view. I don't think a SHOULD for the former and
    >> a MAY for the latter is appropriate now. If the consensus based
    >> stuff gets deployed and works, then it might be time to say
    >> what you're now saying, but I don't think we're there yet. (I'd
    >> be happy to look @ evidence that we are, and to change my
    >> opinion accordingly.)

    > Given bootstrapping PKI seems nigh impossible (home CA anyone?), I am
    > not sure I agree with you.  I have done that few of times and do not
    > recommend it to anyone. Of course, I guess at some point some products
    > may make it painless but I am not sure I will live long enough to see
    > that. (Especially so that the control stays still within home, and does
    > not stray to some American ‘cloud server’, cough cough.)

The IETF has chartered a group, ANIMA, which might produce something useable.
I don't think that homenet needs to invent something on it's own.

As long as HNCP *CAN* accomodate a one-level deep (no chains of trust) PKI,
then it should be good.  So the security has to be MTI, but MAY configure.

I do agree with Markus' here at present.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-