Re: [ipwave] wish list for CAs for vehicular networks

[William Whyte <[e-mail]>]

>> - 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) 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 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mounira MSAHLI
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 9:54 AM
To: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
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