Re: [Iot-onboarding] OPC and BRSKI

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 07 August 2019 21:15 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 8417C1200DF; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:15:30 -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 ov8x98wfNhO7; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:15:28 -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 560A9120059; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9085D3818D; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 17:14:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D5A479; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 17:15:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "iot-onboarding@ietf.org" <iot-onboarding@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR08MB4903C95973435BA06FC3C080FAD40@BYAPR08MB4903.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BYAPR08MB4903F02A37ED9AE092A59B8EFAD50@BYAPR08MB4903.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <649C8221-5F33-4EC2-8E03-3EEAF4CAAB64@cisco.com> <BYAPR08MB4903129ECDEADF61E681DE0BFAD50@BYAPR08MB4903.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <46BF5F7B-5407-45A9-9C4F-EA553DF5814B@cisco.com> <BYAPR08MB49037C509717B409DE7B570BFAD50@BYAPR08MB4903.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <20190806223052.md5lp6yeleuvuf5l@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <BYAPR08MB4903CED7FFDB7D11EFDB49FAFAD50@BYAPR08MB4903.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR08MB4903E91A2E9FC117755443C1FAD50@BYAPR08MB4903.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <F5504CAE-85B7-43AF-B743-1E234A4B320E@cisco.com> <BYAPR08MB4903C95973435BA06FC3C080FAD40@BYAPR08MB4903.namprd08.prod.outlook.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: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 17:15:26 -0400
Message-ID: <1669.1565212526@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-onboarding/cqOohfqPXGSVFzMu3jtM3ptzb7Q>
Subject: Re: [Iot-onboarding] OPC and 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: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 21:15:31 -0000

Randy Armstrong (OPC) <randy.armstrong@opcfoundation.org> wrote:
    > Counterfeit devices are huge issue in industrial automation. We need
    > this infrastructure so the Operators can assure themselves that the
    > Devices they plug into their network are genuine.

So, just to inject some existential angst:
   If the MASA goes away or is compromised, then all the devices
   from that manufacturer can not be proved to not be counterfeit.

Note that the MASA going away is not the same as the Manufacturer going away.

    > OTOH, Operators don’t need to prove their right to use a Device. If an
    > Operator has a Device they are entitled to use it (i.e. Devices can be
    > sold/transferred without approval from the manufacturer).

I'm not sure you really mean to say it this way :-)
  That would lead to the conclusion that it is okay for the operator in the
  next suite (or next cabinet in a DC, or adjacent distillation tower in a
  refiner), to use the device in my suite/cabinet/tower.

The key problem is the verb "has" needs to be made very clear.

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