IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Iotops] New draft draft-lear-iotops-onboard-intr-00.txt

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 24 February 2021 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5A63A1BDC for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:48:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 2SBC--2c3GPN for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:48:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F257B3A1BD6 for <iotops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:48:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1532; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1614199683; x=1615409283; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=KFqs2gChsoK0X8jvYCiJzZG21cAc5HiQDyqmPh/yWaA=; b=i+lK36SVhb+y99ZPBYPoAqKow2Vmbph0Ehd22VDDMG68jz6vefkYQ41b nDUr/ySMQhAXWD5S7jDFV/Syc9vCKe0wRdVLuFrmlV37CU5gP9GA4CdqT oonl0KN2MfbLhnP3KtC65dwR6zxdT/ssdEdIUvv/qPs+UBctKNeg68aQq 4=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IPAS-Result: A0BZAABIujZglxbLJq1iHQEBAQEJARIBBQUBgX4FAQsBg3YBJxKEcokEpSoEBwEBAQoDAQE0BAEBhkcmNwYOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAQEBAQGGQ4ZugTMCg2IBgwagfI4cdoEyij4QgTgBgVKMMYIDgREnHIJXhUmCSTSCKwSDBiiDOJxwnE+DBgSDK4E8ly8DH4MioCiybINzAgQGBQIWgWoigVkzGggbFWUBgj89EhkNjjiOMEADZwIGAQkBAQMJjBMBAQ
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,203,1610409600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="33705727"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 24 Feb 2021 20:47:58 +0000
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp5137.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp5137.cisco.com [10.61.84.16]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 11OKlwTP020794 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <iotops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 20:47:58 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EB273466-064A-4E14-A7F8-9DF1328B959C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Message-Id: <CCC78175-EFD9-494E-8C0D-0F68F19EA565@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 21:47:57 +0100
To: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.84.16, ams3-vpn-dhcp5137.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/M1voBCymV5rICNTth9vKZlnCdgs>
Subject: [Iotops] New draft draft-lear-iotops-onboard-intr-00.txt
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IOT Operations <iotops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iotops/>
List-Post: <mailto:iotops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 20:48:26 -0000

Hi everyone,

I’ve written a bit of a discussion about some of the blockers for IoT onboarding, particular around real zero touch.  Two different onboarding technologies – BRSKI and DPP – have two different gaps that need to be filled to get to zero touch.  BRSKI has one key gap- how the registrar is known by the MASA to be associated with a particular customer.  DPP has one gap: how to get that key into the configurator.  If we view the configurator as a registrar.  These problems can reduce to the same one.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email