From nobody Mon Apr 26 06:54:17 2021 Return-Path: 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 AB1753A2072 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:54:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.847 X-Spam-Level: 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 uGTSsbHXbBpX for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6B2F3A2071 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com 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; d=gmail.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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$3c2a8c70$@eurecom.fr> <0600020f-b6ca-4d6d-2499-817586bc3548@gmail.com> <19dce5f5-8dca-55c2-4d46-bb83046562ab@gmail.com> <1ec103fe-7a50-cb2c-0763-30cc6362bf13@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Mounira MSAHLI Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:53:59 +0200 Message-ID: To: Alexandre Petrescu Cc: its@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e6652605c0e07a87" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [ipwave] wish list for CAs for vehicular networks 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:54:16 -0000 --000000000000e6652605c0e07a87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > 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 --000000000000e6652605c0e07a87 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can you comment on this wish list?=C2=A0
=C2=A0
Wish list for = CAs for vehicular networks

>> - the CA must be reachabl= e on IPv6, and their website too.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 Could you please mention why not IPv4 ?=C2=A0
=C2=A0
- the specs of CAs for vehicular networks must be availab= le on IPv6
=C2=A0 =C2=A0(e.g. on an IPv6 website, FTP directory, or GIT = shared space).

You mean certificate pol= icy. I have the same question. You are specifying the IP protocol for the P= KI website. I agree that document must be published and available to PKI us= ers but why IPV6 ?=C2=A0

- the specs o= f CA must be implementable independently of other paying
=C2=A0 =C2=A0so= urces such as (some) from IEEE or ISO.=C2=A0 For example, the ETSI ITS
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0spec that IMPORTS 1609.2 does not qualify because in the end i= t is
=C2=A0 =C2=A0paying.=C2=A0 But the X.509 in RFC 5280 does not rely = on other paying
=C2=A0 =C2=A0documents in order to implement (I think?).=

William could answer you this question= better than me because it was already asked by ETSI. =C2=A0

=
- the CA must offer OCSP reachability on IPv6.
=C2=A0
I find that all recommandations are relate= d to the use of IPv6 not really the=C2=A0
security or privacy in = C-ITS. By analogy with what you are suggesting, I think =C2=A0that you woul= d prefer to use IPv6 for the upload of log and download of updates and all = V2I communications not only V2PKI connexion.=C2=A0


Mounira=C2=A0

--000000000000e6652605c0e07a87--