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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

> Kent: I am feeling a bit of "my protocol vs your protocol" in your reply.

Fair point.  I just want to ensure what you say at bottom...


>      It is not my intention to do that.  I think that we did an awesome
>      job getting to the commonalities with 8366.  I'm not sure that this
>      is as visible to others.

Indeed, as witnessed by the plethora of activity brought forth since.  :thumbs-up:


> Yes, but is that really appropriate?  Are the right people there in ANIMA,
> and is it actually disruptive to the ANIMA effort beyond onboarding?
> In particular the constrained document is not getting enough attention.

Unsure.  It's a blurred line to me where ANIMA stops and this might begin...



> Sure.  I put it there so that people could find it.

Okay, but folks should know that, while produced by NETCONF WG, it really has nothing to do with NETCONF protocol.


>> and later the text says that it's "not limited
>> to just that protocol" (being BRSKI), but the general tone, and
>> specifically the Milestones, are very BRSKI-specific.
> 
> I would very much like to have more, but I don't know what the next steps for
> SZTP are.

Mapping to DTLS, CBOR, CoAP, and MUD would be a good milestones.  Unsure how many drafts that might entail.  Each topic is likely a small document, since it's mostly mapping onto other existing work.



> I actually rather believe that SZTP is probably a better starting point for a
> cloudless solution.
> If SZTP can do a better job for constrained environments, it is *precisely*
> this kind of stuff that I'd like to have in this group.

Yes, it would be good if this group could cast a wide net.



> I'm okay with the WG producing 3 or 4 mechanisms

Perfect.   Importantly, some of these mechanisms can be run in parallel, as they offer similar level of security, and hence a DoS doesn't result in a degradation attack.


> (and then, of course, an
> n+1th in four years to converge them, applying
> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/927:_Standards)
> Some have attributed this method to Scott Bradner, imaging a meadow of
> many wild flowers.

Never heard the meadow part before, but the "wild" part seems apt.  ;)


Kent