IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Secdispatch] DANE IOT proposed outcome

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Fri, 27 November 2020 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 41EC03A0B5B for <iot-onboarding@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:13:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 eDK7oBAXA8BI for <iot-onboarding@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:13:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-f170.google.com (mail-yb1-f170.google.com [209.85.219.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD6F83A0B85 for <iot-onboarding@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-f170.google.com with SMTP id o144so2998632ybg.7 for <iot-onboarding@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:13:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=s7HHGjvTKzo0WT4T3FTHSzNqsA0qBv1V1UuHebeiKYw=; b=WFiDTJLv5f0uPYjZFvIunxClyTdN3N4ZkojfsCaxhe6A8gC9r9nayoCaJJPuVKPEQ4 owhhcOGuVdm/BSdExH13s45FPqbtEqe8ogk9N1LeBHSkQEb4XK8bxQ5f4VfMkPwdqsXm cvDdBjWk12GF8C9S/CFbHVCCFuSzD+lWP/kimeaXuQiytrqvHUmtmSbH1406zRT0bqfT JWKLjw/8JEOMmFPt7jPYdLWK/8JSUsQtLOUtKb/FDzGEJJ5W6e/rzJ/ic4ajLXYqid3E QRcISirt6DujiRMR6AzsvJPB9BaGRmyuj+M1E3H6BX7lyYX4IgZyd7Xh6S2VSu8naV2+ cjPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532YRRSPFmdhCC2re7lxuk46IOOu9gML9xRbHWxZstTHHy1gh8bz zv/dElvVJHjrYheUdx4Myp56pO8G6PHsPTZo65LvaHxDSmQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxM8XFbfIe6rtJIk8NiIAQ2kHLejrSs6RwE40atCB1ZPPohni7BXLTSI6k3SGVsrOlsgbVb7wuYbxHhdrZNOSU=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d04b:: with SMTP id h72mr8040345ybg.523.1606435980094; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:13:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2786E31F-2A4F-4901-8ECC-7AEF4B4D81E2@cisco.com> <b178d5066d6b4371a59ffe59bb6d6447@huawei.com> <3353.1606420713@localhost> <CAMm+Lwh8S0gCS_GhV7fRkznhNTT9VXACaPYXC4fJ0zcmx1SsJw@mail.gmail.com> <6fc266d3-def2-91a1-284d-058d32e08a0f@lounge.org>
In-Reply-To: <6fc266d3-def2-91a1-284d-058d32e08a0f@lounge.org>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:12:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiEZMVpg_XgygQrG42GoUk5ti+W=+5pTydh4uh0SYJpqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
Cc: iot-onboarding@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f2b62705b50b8571"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-onboarding/fu8uGZWD52bDhScQV-u8Qbyni3U>
Subject: Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Secdispatch] DANE IOT proposed outcome
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: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 00:13:11 -0000

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> wrote:

>
>   OK, I'll bite...
>
> On 11/26/20 2:17 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> Lets break this down.
>
> Does the proposed solution work with existing Browsers?
>
> If yes, fine. But since this is DANE based, it can't be. So we have to
> modify the browser.
>
>
>   Why do we care about browsers for IoT onboarding? If my thing has no
> UI then a browser is the last thing I care about.
>

If we aren't doing browser... manufacturer just issues an own label cert
with no expiry, job done. The custom client can use its own
pathmath validation.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email