Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Mud] Side meeting at the IETF Montreal - call for agenda items

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 30 June 2019 16:49 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 BCC4D12015E; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 09:49:46 -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 dUPmgMjA4w7W; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 09:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8784112015D; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85AC43818C; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 12:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C67D53; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 12:49:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
cc: mud@ietf.org, iot-onboarding@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <E060C2EE-56C8-4A4D-9EE7-F6C09D3C172A@cisco.com>
References: <E060C2EE-56C8-4A4D-9EE7-F6C09D3C172A@cisco.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: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 12:49:38 -0400
Message-ID: <29188.1561913378@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-onboarding/QMQLW4wyZTk_Trs6z_HK1CUqxHo>
Subject: Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Mud] Side meeting at the IETF Montreal - call for agenda items
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: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 16:49:47 -0000

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
    > A number of people have contacted me about meeting in Montreal, and
    > that they wouldn’t be available after Tuesday.  Conveniently, Monday
    > morning is reserved for side meetings.  I propose we take advantage of
    > this from 9:00 - 10:30 (yes, this bleeds into the 1st session).

It bleeds into teep, and I'm curious about the loops BOF, so I probably take
off at the appointed time.

    > I’ve combined MUD and IoT Onboarding, just to save time, as there is
    > substantial community overlap.  That’s because the spaces are clearly
    > related, one being authentication of the device the other being network
    > authorization.

Agreed.

    > This, then, is a call for agenda items.  I have a few of my own, but
    > would prefer to hear from others first.  Also, are you ok with the
    > Monday morning time slot and keeping these activities together?

    > Ps: reminder: side meetings are not “official” anything.  Just a
    > gathering of people with a common interest.  However, the meeting will
    > run under the IPR rules of the IETF, regardless.  All are invited.

So, I'm not sure if you are asking for BRSKI items, or IoT onboarding items in general.

1) Under BRSKI for non-ANIMA ACP uses, there is the question about open/closed
   registrars, and operational considerations of total sales channel integration
   (MASA knows the customers), vs retail integration (no knowledge of
   customers).  There are probably areas of grey in between that might be
   worth enumerating.

2) There is a similar question for MUD, which is how does the MUD controller
   arrive at trust criteria for the signatures.  This is the
   enterprise/customer side of the above story: do you know who you are
   buying from?
   This relates to the discussion we have had about controllers: I think if
   we could pin down the quality of the signatures, we could say more.

3) MUD Operational considerations for devices that can grow "skills"

Not really a topic exactly: but how do we get towards the point where we can test
MUD/BRSKI integration.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-