Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate Deployment Automation with ACME using BRSKI
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 08 August 2019 20:50 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: iot-onboarding@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iot-onboarding@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C15120234; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 13:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 vCtfvIZD06By; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 13:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C623C120183; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 13:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BED73818F; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:50:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00E5FCC; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:50:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "iot-onboarding@ietf.org" <iot-onboarding@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <0100016c71fac426-ec2033bc-fe7d-4540-8ec4-0a2812b818ac-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <CAGL6epJRmAvDB4=M6RiQaC93wvy1XDgcbhOmuKUtqmEhBWC72w@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR11MB3385FD834E826E25160B53AADBD50@DM6PR11MB3385.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR11MB33851A9026943624FC5BD478DBD50@DM6PR11MB3385.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <0100016c6772e4e8-8ce5598b-2c2a-488e-b7c2-414d9003e46b-000000@email.amazonses.com> <3508.1565212944@localhost> <0100016c71fac426-ec2033bc-fe7d-4540-8ec4-0a2812b818ac-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 16:50:43 -0400
Message-ID: <16648.1565297443@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-onboarding/172qeqSKjMsHt6qtu6VNXdex92k>
Subject: Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate Deployment Automation with ACME using BRSKI
X-BeenThere: iot-onboarding@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IoT onboarding mechanisms <iot-onboarding.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iot-onboarding>, <mailto:iot-onboarding-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iot-onboarding/>
List-Post: <mailto:iot-onboarding@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iot-onboarding-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-onboarding>, <mailto:iot-onboarding-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 20:50:49 -0000
Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote: >>> Skimming quickly, I see now the direction to go to a cloud registrar to >>> be redirected to a local registrar. I feel compelled to point out that >>> this is exactly what SZTP (RFC 8572) does, or at least, supports. >>> Actually, as a more general statement, it was originally said that the >>> two WG's approaches were different, but they are now becoming more and >>> more alike. Well, since SZTP is published already, it's more like the >>> ANIMA approach is becoming more like SZTP, albeit seemingly with more >>> complexity. >> >> SZTP does not directly result in the same mutually authenticated TLS (EST) >> connection to a Registrar that BRSKI does. This was not an explicit SZTP goal. > It's true that EST isn't used, but there is a mutually-authenticated > TLS connection to the SZTP bootstrap server, which is effectively the > same as BRSKI's Registrar. It's not clear to me that this always occurs in the USB or DHCP cases :-) >> What it could do though, is to provide a source of (secure) bootstrap >> configuration in which such a connection could be initiated. In my mind, >> I see a fragment of signed JUNOS, IOS (CISCO, not Apple), etc. CLI >> configuration that initiates the connection. Such a thing would not be >> standardized. >> But, I would think that this is exactly the kind of thing that could >> be encoded in YANG. > Indeed, this what RFC 8572 describes (in section 5.6 and also in C.3, > item #3) and the primary motivation behind > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server> > and > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server>. Got it. >> My understanding of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-keystore >> is that it would provided for Registrar initiated (PUSH) updating of device >> certificates, but would not provide a way for a device to initiate (PULL) to >> a securely identified EST server. > Sounds correct, but clarifying: > 1) the current keystore model is all about enabling a controller/NMS > application to configure/set/push keys and associated end-entity > certificates to a device. > 2) there is a suggestion that the keystore model could/should be > extended to support ACME (or similar), in which case one might claim > that the device had "pulled" an end-entity certificate from a "securely > identified server" (dropping the "EST" part). > 3) the truststore model (draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors) can be used > by a controller/NMS application to configure/set/push trust-anchor > certs used, e.g., to verify a remote server's end-entity certificate. But, more interestingly, it can be used to update the trust anchors, to enable a resale/transfer of ownership! -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- [Iot-onboarding] Device Certificate Deployment Au… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] Device Certificate Deploymen… Owen Friel (ofriel)
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] Device Certificate Deploymen… Owen Friel (ofriel)
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Anima] Device Certificate D… Kent Watsen