Re: [ipwave] permission

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 26 April 2021 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837613A298B for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 LovRw7YwKTap for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94FD73A297B for <its@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 13QHITDD026137; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:18:29 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id CD42A206D87; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:18:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A3C206D81; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:18:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.14.0.208] ([10.14.0.208]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 13QHIN43014703; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:18:24 +0200
To: William Whyte <wwhyte@qti.qualcomm.com>, Mounira MSAHLI <msahli1717@gmail.com>
Cc: "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
References: <acc0f475-7f7b-bfbe-1099-913f0cef4de6@gmail.com> <01d601d731e3$140e2ed0$3c2a8c70$@eurecom.fr> <0600020f-b6ca-4d6d-2499-817586bc3548@gmail.com> <CAMEeBw9eaPBRT26BqqmXdEpqFzSTGt8w46wmexfg7ax4aRP-pQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA2OGZCntE+FUtzKwxrsH7i_q70jjZuPoUjRG7cYmEVRHFJU8g@mail.gmail.com> <19dce5f5-8dca-55c2-4d46-bb83046562ab@gmail.com> <1ec103fe-7a50-cb2c-0763-30cc6362bf13@gmail.com> <e822da34-84df-bce0-6497-479ed1016898@gmail.com> <CAA2OGZA5-xr-mo7u7rtJvApu3XwFJLfmZsTz2Q=+RAxG=Rac6Q@mail.gmail.com> <f75e41a0-a86a-fa44-1183-28fcb0f626d9@gmail.com> <CAA2OGZDyBi1y48Smm1eA0Ogn78L_ck0-mTin+hMyzL9RUN1tJw@mail.gmail.com> <fc4cf84a-45ec-bc69-140a-998970a95b1c@gmail.com> <CAA2OGZA7i7dDU+6dv8RobT5TKFTkqxJ-PvbVYcCa=N9Xf2n4rg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR02MB6591ADE2799245EEFF7F7D1DF2429@MN2PR02MB6591.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c50aa38c-ab00-6ded-71e0-fd45d83c82dd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:18:22 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR02MB6591ADE2799245EEFF7F7D1DF2429@MN2PR02MB6591.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/BFqLk1lPLgZVr5fGwIHrHr_cCEQ>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] permission
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:18:38 -0000


Le 26/04/2021 à 16:29, William Whyte a écrit :
>>> - the specs of CA must be implementable independently of other
>>> paying
> sources such as (some) from IEEE or ISO.  For example, the ETSI ITS 
> spec that IMPORTS 1609.2 does not qualify because in the end it is 
> paying.  But the X.509 in RFC 5280 does not rely on other paying 
> documents in order to implement (I think?).
> 
>>> William could answer you this question better than me because it
>>> was
> already asked by ETSI.
> 
> Yes, 1609.2 needs to be purchased from IEEE. ETSI has reproduced the
>  ASN.1 (with permission from IEEE)

Is that permission from IEEE only for ETSI or is it for me too?

Because the text says: "This clause provides the relevant ASN.1 modules 
from IEEE Std 1609.2 [1] (and its amendments), reprinted with
permission from IEEE, Copyright © 2016."

To me, that means a permission to print, but not necessarily to put in code.

Alex

  but there are some subtleties of
> implementation and how the crypto operations are carried out that
> aren’t captured in the ASN.1 alone.
> 
> I’d note that Alex’s preference for standards to be freely available
> if they are to be referenced by IETF is a reasonable point of view,
> but it’s not IETF policy; IETF policy allows non-free standards to be
>  referenced.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> William
> 
> *From:* its <its-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Mounira MSAHLI 
> *Sent:* Monday, April 26, 2021 9:54 AM *To:* Alexandre Petrescu
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> *Cc:* its@ietf.org *Subject:* [EXT]
> Re: [ipwave] wish list for CAs for vehicular networks
> 
> Can you comment on this wish list?
> 
> Wish list for CAs for vehicular networks
> 
>>> - the CA must be reachable on IPv6, and their website too.
> 
> Could you please mention why not IPv4 ?
> 
> - the specs of CAs for vehicular networks must be available on IPv6 
> (e.g. on an IPv6 website, FTP directory, or GIT shared space).
> 
> You mean certificate policy. I have the same question. You are 
> specifying the IP protocol for the PKI website. I agree that document
>  must be published and available to PKI users but why IPV6 ?
> 
> - the specs of CA must be implementable independently of other
> paying sources such as (some) from IEEE or ISO.  For example, the
> ETSI ITS spec that IMPORTS 1609.2 does not qualify because in the end
> it is paying.  But the X.509 in RFC 5280 does not rely on other
> paying documents in order to implement (I think?).
> 
> William could answer you this question better than me because it was
>  already asked by ETSI.
> 
> - the CA must offer OCSP reachability on IPv6.
> 
> I find that all recommandations are related to the use of IPv6 not 
> really the
> 
> security or privacy in C-ITS. By analogy with what you are
> suggesting, I think  that you would prefer to use IPv6 for the upload
> of log and download of updates and all V2I communications not only
> V2PKI connexion.
> 
> Mounira
>