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

Mounira MSAHLI <> Mon, 26 April 2021 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1753A2072 for <>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uGTSsbHXbBpX for <>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6B2F3A2071 for <>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u20so24316383qku.10 for <>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WvkzVYd44HeEjHoyD2R0gW8/ay9uFZ/PWPq+dqzdcv4=; b=VZf6ncDPtZnRkvnJl9AoIn8YjvzfIJ+MXk7UlayqQQVbtBoUglH+4Vyb2/2K/w/8fP DvBPQC06FmjfIsWHTRdVvfBq8TPlI08x+z0/DAbAA7qjVvxqJF6ua3uGQRtxeEh7BjkN yQA+osdg+YbofuA+SgOwmb0mWNMAqmMdaxm09cbZxFaYAbcGryWmTbFqhmCPRWUarAX8 aaRMRVei0mLxt5mE5ww0IH4yveyA+titUgGyWEm9OHxcnleKqfDW01WbjN59MIEQ5ly9 jsXmbtlv5RXR8JfGNgqWd44FwzYQQyvj7kNYgBYQKwA4XqS6/FSfeZZzfuu8Ydzvyjpp DNHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WvkzVYd44HeEjHoyD2R0gW8/ay9uFZ/PWPq+dqzdcv4=; b=qQqAoJNsyMS78Q1Z/ESeyqTv3q8OOEFWe3rjnO6+3BDN4Q8xOfdn20SFERfhwx+ioE RczF9/UTT8nx0sJf6N5xcrytSIMbLN6Tvs2LfDlwdZrDKgg79yL3dS4P7Gq2oGJtvqK1 bT6WNJJ/cJ1okBPwyjb9C9+VZhMU7O7n7Qw0Xs6MiI9AhUmqHMO9w0kJpZ0RPp04JtKq lA68+qcf0d8FzQBszhJ2g+rzB36dGh2dfbKusMfAD2wNrASVxPyL3ZcJua7R8vo/409y B0GkRs3NnJ/cTrbAeoClyhOkrciet/zagUEj0IxoIjcjnvGgo0xQfN73/FbR9Nm+6ErX 04cQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531NVxl0bSehPBGqx7HSIpAS4I3MVCGxyPbeg4jOoN//RvAhFrlI p2gn8u+3XCGfGdQnQxeROK6ppdlc3KJ1dc9+I4EfFtsN4qY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOIi7PAqAG0indePHRfHA4pd/m5LhM+c8GtZz7Dx8Z7rE4fQ5Sz1yY6gRpMMsg+UHvYIFr8seuwdR7PevOhv8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1085:: with SMTP id g5mr17686082qkk.332.1619445250679; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <01d601d731e3$140e2ed0$3c2a8c70$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Mounira MSAHLI <>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:53:59 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e6652605c0e07a87"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] wish list for CAs for vehicular networks
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:54:16 -0000

> 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
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.