Re: [Lake] 1 week 2nd WGLC on requirements and scoping text

Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr> Mon, 01 June 2020 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>
X-Original-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 516F93A11B0 for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 08:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 iURFrjUN7Sx3 for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 08:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (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 26A213A116B for <lake@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 08:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,461,1583190000"; d="scan'208";a="350201540"
Received: from unknown (HELO meganisi.t-com.me) ([37.122.176.171]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Jun 2020 17:30:59 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: =?utf-8?B?TWFsacWhYSBWdcSNaW5pxIc=?= <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <3ca570db-8509-04cf-1878-291b28e00842@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:30:58 +0200
Cc: "lake@ietf.org" <lake@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <102FC0C5-55BB-4007-BE72-C9938ACD06BD@inria.fr>
References: <3ca570db-8509-04cf-1878-291b28e00842@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/BRy8TJayvbquGH4cTgKnLmtpHkk>
Subject: Re: [Lake] 1 week 2nd WGLC on requirements and scoping text
X-BeenThere: lake@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange <lake.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lake/>
List-Post: <mailto:lake@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:31:22 -0000

(chair hat off)

The scoping text fits the zero-touch network access use case we’ve been working on as a follow up work of the 6TiSCH protocol suite, documented at [1]. Therefore, I support it being adopted by LAKE.

Mališa

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-selander-ace-ake-authz/

> On 24 May 2020, at 23:07, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> First: my apologies for taking so long on this. (I got
> sidetracked by an unexpected project.)
> 
> ISTM we have pretty good, if rough, consensus on enough of
> the text to proceed, but with one important part that needs
> checking. (See below.)
> 
> I'd like to start a 1 week 2nd WGLC with the main focus
> being to establish whether we have rough consensus on the
> scoping text below. (Which can be see in context at [2].)
> That text was the main outcome of our virtual meeting last
> month.
> 
> So, please send mail to the list saying if you are happy
> enough to proceed on this basis. If you are not, then I'd
> appreciate if you could suggest alternate text with as
> few changes as possible.
> 
> This 2nd WGLC closes on June 1st. If I see rough
> consensus to proceed at that point, I'll plan to start a
> call for adoption for the edhoc draft. If not, we'll have
> to discuss how to proceed with our AD, as I think that
> would mean that the WG is very badly stuck.
> 
> The scoping text added was:
> 
>   As illustrated above, the setting is much more diverse
>   in terms of credentials and trust anchors than that of
>   the unconstrained web.  In order to deliver a timely
>   result, there is a need to initially focus on what is
>   considered most important at the time of writing: RPK
>   (by reference and value) and certificate by reference.
>   Information about validity of a certificate may be
>   omitted from the AKE if available over unconstrained
>   links.  The case of transporting certificate validation
>   information over the AKE may be specified in the initial
>   phase if there is a lightweight solution that matches
>   existing standards and tools.
> 
>   A subsequent extension beyond the initial focus may be
>   inevitable to maintain a homogenous deployment without
>   having to implement a mix of AKE protocols, for example,
>   to support the migration path described above.  The AKE
>   needs to make clear the scope of cases analysed in the
>   initial phase, and that a new analysis is required for
>   additional cases.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stephen.
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lake-reqs-03
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lake-reqs-03#section-2.2.1
> 
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>-- 
> Lake mailing list
> Lake@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake