Re: [Iot-onboarding] some straw-man charter text for an IoT Operational Security WG

Mohit Sethi M <> Mon, 16 September 2019 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0409C12002E; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9yvgAQKD4xlU; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 971D2120019; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901;; cv=none; b=G4Miq/1ToOFJm0aP3hBHYUXX/Dx5YLhfgbjWPttX7Mnv6YgZA011pSId0UVMgiwvqnYjU0A7HT/0437tZi55EkI5CIHVq0Dc1hIjqjj9XAlGeKJ3QyedGYIpLWe19+z1bfge+T0Vzq8BNO2usydmkzkUoSWAmPEH5Awz9Cp2rf8LcteuIzDBy8tiAwZ/JX6dIRb2ReDU/3DqjEYKW7TJZZE+saO8fKjX5nV4hcn0+Qr3QaFOPMPx/LtOLqgyMLyyYREXki6J8MhZJEbL5rKkxJOhPDZWynjeYb9AC/+RFfFpiUi+uVYm1x9ygi1nvQXU/BltsZ4uiQo8JCXDVdnnug==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tAYCQh5zFzHU8prBcPb91flKv96La4kPRD6bjM8fT88=; b=Y9lH33S72ojO3r7CIBe3E/gTJvqZD8gCdWoDNCvDwSEfD7pu8Vgbk3wZl+IlXu43ofQUeiMEPgkHx5iHsoeIdYUJA+E8IN/Um4FHWGrhBo3ZQB2t/6gzZAJX5ARvCv/26BvrMUzVq+8cY9KD911V/1bdNKJNYk7cDAamAS/4cL+QA+rfIGR2vX5t5DmP8lFr0xC6qLtWI1+01pQcgTD9/rvsRrNaZ1fvNIbF+JAZvGHItMpKm6s10KrPi9OPpROC84ffNftfGkojpsiTAXl4sU5H+m50j9aq4AS7JEWpeK2E8txP7JDCJC+DG33GGwNgXzF7WPUATaXf7LYORShgMw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; 1; spf=pass; dmarc=pass action=none; dkim=pass; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tAYCQh5zFzHU8prBcPb91flKv96La4kPRD6bjM8fT88=; b=D1NO19SncykQ4xzrj/PzAVyL3FYQbna8X+dk6r657rb2PgVaKRWcIoKR/JXEIRYDNbOD12TTHhmcS6Ctg1vHA7y1+eiWgXQbsS9pJqQOVwcC01OLdJM1Fma1HDyr9cNUBeZN8/7jcN5pdxNlSqowDZPf9bSfFNhOhSpc8AwbopI=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2284.17; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:19:54 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::758a:12ec:c6d:e8a9]) by ([fe80::758a:12ec:c6d:e8a9%10]) with mapi id 15.20.2284.009; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:19:54 +0000
From: Mohit Sethi M <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, Mohit Sethi M <>, Michael Richardson <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Iot-onboarding] some straw-man charter text for an IoT Operational Security WG
Thread-Index: AQHVaNYdpd2ivcpAw0yCVRFO+FMgJ6cm7z0AgAD66ACAAJVeAIAFjpyA
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:19:54 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 968367b3-7227-4945-4ff1-08d73a87093d
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600167)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2956;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR0701MB2956:|HE1PR0701MB2956:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:4125;
x-forefront-prvs: 0162ACCC24
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(346002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(31686004)(14444005)(256004)(966005)(2501003)(606006)(486006)(58126008)(110136005)(478600001)(316002)(25786009)(3846002)(6116002)(86362001)(15650500001)(7736002)(2906002)(14454004)(8936002)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(229853002)(66476007)(66946007)(64756008)(66556008)(6486002)(5660300002)(66446008)(26005)(76116006)(99286004)(6306002)(54896002)(6512007)(236005)(53936002)(102836004)(71200400001)(31696002)(71190400001)(6506007)(6246003)(65956001)(53546011)(66066001)(65806001)(6436002)(76176011)(446003)(11346002)(476003)(2616005)(186003)(66574012)(36756003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2956;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: jaAK/k6/uHu9c5uGAtYE8KUVcBOWJOfR/UKTRyP5yhVcGJk2ZEqaea6mYM22uhSWcWj/jlHjRh0wppXWpQFqP5CgZSsgM2KVAMd7iVmCcskK9BhbUNTsy/H+6lp1Hch7l3GHXGX7WDiTRUd2ok8Dg4SUBToH+h59kkyUxzjQSJg9RQIyao3ia3DjNLhi200GunpsRUn4Pri/DEuPxiVzXOsdyYB/m85G6Fw1iEpp9NLiO/oJvVDGnLmo4tGcEytiItH19OoQpSE6xw8BAXp+OhYHyNSXGAQxz30krH1paRWRXTlemGto/1eEBmthRPtpUCplkqEEgkv6dvVXZZEWPR7qJcJ7jw30GkHVsSNEakby7ddJt1OLjXnG3QV1Wp7EScipmev3yppMKPN/HqTWsFyLoV55YHAIWAWSij761Y0=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_202e4ac06bdb41401a84812390667b4dericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 968367b3-7227-4945-4ff1-08d73a87093d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Sep 2019 09:19:54.4834 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: VOxRhAlsIF4T1RgKcAQoKTjKj5Zo3xSGQHlv65G5V9S/b7BSpq/KgRgaJmUyTeCMd1mCDS8UwYx4aBoa1stUANExqn/9bwVuPOhr9+upo48=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0701MB2956
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iot-onboarding] some straw-man charter text for an IoT Operational Security WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IoT onboarding mechanisms <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:20:02 -0000

Hi Brian,

A protocol that has many dependencies (or gaps) is not ideal from my perspective. A protocol that requires V from chip vendor, W from the device manufacturer, X from certificate authorities, Y from the network administrator, and Z from the user is not a good protocol.

Note that this is a hypothetical protocol that thankfully doesn't exist.

I agree with your statement that IETF should not produce standards with gaps. But the solution is not to fill those gaps. A better solution is that our protocols shouldn't have too many dependencies in the first place.


On 9/12/19 11:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Hi Mohit,

With my limited
experience of IETF, I certainly don't think IETF is in the business of
building ecosystems

No, but the open source community that uses our standards definitely is in
that business, so interoperable standards need to help such work.

(and neither should it be).

However, the IETF should not produce standards with gaps that encourage
proprietary ecosystems that allow customer capture. That's exactly why ANIMA
includes a reference model as well as specific standards. It encourages each
vendor to provide a MASA and encourages network operators to mix and match
products from multiple vendors.

Whether the BRSKI/MASA model generalises beyond autonomic networks remains to
seen, but again: it was not designed for IoT.

   Brian Carpenter

On 12-Sep-19 23:33, Mohit Sethi M wrote:

Hi Brian,

IETF is in the business of building tools (i.e. open specifications with
running code) for developers. And these tools are best built in working
groups which have the expertise on them. Most people outside the ANIMA
community would not know what is a MASA. Similarly, most people outside
the EMU community would not know that Session-Ids for fast
re-authentication must be exported by all EAP methods.

I agree with folks that there may be multiple solutions that are
relevant to the bootstrapping problem. But each of those should
developed in working groups where the relevant expertise is present. One
could argue that that we would end up developing different solutions for
the same problem in silos. However this why we have the IESG ,the
directorates, and liaisons to other standards bodies. It ensures that we
are aware of related work ongoing in different fora. With my limited
experience of IETF, I certainly don't think IETF is in the business of
building ecosystems (and neither should it be).


On 9/11/19 11:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Hi Mohit,

On 12-Sep-19 07:21, Mohit Sethi M wrote:

Hi Michael,

I wonder why a new working group is needed and why this work cannot be pursued in some of the existing working groups?

I suppose ANIMA was recently re-chartered (and can be re-chartered again).

We've been very insistent that ANIMA is scoped for professionally managed networks. That is not, IMHO, a reasonable restriction for IoT; so the ANIMA scope is narrower. Also, ANIMA is scoped for autonomic management, with bootstrap and security being only part of the requirements; in that sense, the ANIMA scope is broader.

EMU is currently going over the re-charter text.

I know little about EAP, but it seems to me that although it may well be a primary tool for on-boarding, it is only a tool, and not a complete ecosystem. The "Thinking through onboarding" thread scopes the wider problem nicely.


Also, you write:

adopt a cloud-less (MASA-less, AAA-less) onboarding mechanism (possibly a version of EAP-NOOB),

There is clearly some misunderstanding about EAP-NOOB here. EAP-NOOB is specifically intended for registering new IoT devices on a server (and associating it with a user account). The fact that it provides network-access credentials is a bonus. Please have a look at slides 3-10 here:

You clearly see a AAA server in the figures. So calling it AAA-less doesn't make sense.


On 9/4/19 10:45 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:

I wrote this last week, and passed it around for obvious objections.
You can use the crayon/edit button on github to suggest changes, or email.

Charter for Working Group

The words "Internet of Things" or IoT have come to mean anything and
everything to a wide group of technology players. The IETF has been working
on a wide variety of protocols for use by machine to machine
communication. This include CoAP, CBOR, 6TISCH, ROLL, SUIT, NETCONF SZTP,
T2TRG, ANIMA's BRSKI onboarding protocol, and most recently RFC8520, the
Manufacturer Usage Description.

The IETF has tried to focus on categories of what limited things can do, and
this has resulted in a number of useful documents from the Light-Weight
Implementation Guide (LWIG). RFC7228 is a key product, having provided
terminology and scaling understanding to the entire industry. All of this has
been about scaling the Internet technologies to small devices and constrained
networks. In aggregate, these devices on small networks present a significant
operational risk to the Internet as a whole, and even to individual
Enterprise, simply due to their numbers, and lack of opportunity for regular
human supervision.

IoT devices already exist today in vast numbers. Most devices that people are
personally familiar with are in the BlueTooth Connected devices, or
Web-Connected devices that use WiFi to reach servers on the Internet ("the
Cloud"). Increasingly, the IETF view of machine to machine communications are
colinizing new greenfield situations. The IETF notion of autonomous networks
of devices is still a minority view compared to the market IoT industry of
cloud-only connected devices, but the transition is occuring.

RFC8520 was created to bridge the gap between devices wholly controlled by a
local operator (such as Enterprise IT), and devices which can not assume any
infrastructure at all, and must rely entirely on cloud communications for
command and control.

This working group concerns itself with Operational Security of IoT systems.

This includes:

* factory provisioning of devices
* onboarding of devices
* access control of devices to network resources
* administrative control of devices
* asset management of devices, as it pertains to software/firmware versions
* isolation/quarantine of devices
* remediation of broken devices
* end of life management of devices

The WG is chartered explicitely to work on MUD (RFC8520) and extensions to it.

The WG is chartered to work on onboarding protocols, specifically including
derivaties of BRSKI (RFC-tbd), but not limited to just that protocol.

The WG is not expected to pick a winner, and is encouraged to work on a
multitude of use-case specific protocols: better to get one use case right,
than to be too-complex jack of all trades.

The WG is expected to articulate clear applicability statements for each
protocol. The WG is expected to produce concise Roadmap documents that
explain how a variety of IETF (and other) protocols can work together to
satisfy the Operational needs of specific IoT areas. These roadmap documents
needn’t result in RFCs.

Neither the WG nor the IETF has exclusivity here, and an ideal document would
be one that the WG helps to start, but a specific industry alliance becomes
the lead editor for.

There will be coordination with many other WGs beyond the list above, and
this WG may accept applicability statement work from other WGs about specific
ways to deploy their protocols.

The WG will operate through a series of virtual interim meetings. This is
driven by a need to interact regularly with other industry grouops, and due
to the variety of topics which will not always be able to get quorum as a
committee of the whole.

{unusual, maybe not charter appropriate, but rather saag-like}
During in-person meetings, the WG will deal with typical status and document
progress issues during one hour (or less) of the time, and during another
hour, will be open to slideware presentations and tutorials on current IETF
or other-SDO IoT efforts. The goal of these presentations is to quickly
communicate current IoT systems state to the rest of the IETF.

It is acknowledged that part of the value is in YouTube content, and some
content should be done at IAB tech plenaries rather than at the WG.

The initial set of work items is included below as milestones, which only
require AD approval.


* adopt the constrained-voucher/constrained-BRSKI work from ANIMA.
* adopt the dtsecurity-zero-touch work from 6tisch, which can not finish before a LAKE finishes.
* create a list of a series of MUD extensions, and revise this milestone
* adopt a cloud-less (MASA-less, AAA-less) onboarding mechanism (possibly a version of EAP-NOOB), that can be used at the retail level.
* negotiate with EMU WG on how to proceed with TEAP-BRSKI, and revise this milestone.
* adopt a cloud-driven onboarding mechanism that can be used in completely offline situations without requiring renewals (perhaps revising RFC8366).