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

Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylo@ackl.io> Mon, 01 June 2020 12:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ivaylo@ackl.io>
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 4727A3A0FCB for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 05:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ackl-io.20150623.gappssmtp.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 mbehStFSENDw for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 05:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (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 A22483A0FCD for <lake@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 05:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id t18so11278445wru.6 for <lake@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 05:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ackl-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=+CYdaxReYk99nn8+nggWwgUTT2ZTZYjF6ic3nz3GAs4=; b=NT6DHqYUKD8/at3oUIgK4gnH5ZsCuZGFtiSNJSkzCJn4ywGY4UKtjXgbGm8Zsd1GdD gbwGUEtQQnRbMSFEXj0Ja0xM3W2ed5xfThA3JE0mhBH3ujeMkLkxXg6yiFsw6bkhaYt6 PzL7aXNIFQHK134MozblFGBYyEfRibZOL0Id3Ki58xbQoHO1Dwho0jsbkWFZpnJsu01m ydbSnWdkEnYylYY+OC0GPkBlgVvAK/iheWnailAfpqReRzdAeeYbUDB29vV1Nc5/aWSV +YaOc6dCNRmed24laDE/xT8AD2I4dR3mLc7+czmNMkH+h5u5/L3pALmCsvfyFFFeIKlP GRNg==
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; bh=+CYdaxReYk99nn8+nggWwgUTT2ZTZYjF6ic3nz3GAs4=; b=EGq1GZAIO+bPORVG6eFdWivkrNBj+JqTdBXZ2bcgKHi3DxhY9Frkh5ipsZKbJKsXN6 06uqBll4shG+Alqaaq/NgsqVBvSW74ZeWomyjwEOci/A3v5oL/agC1A5vcmyjAJp1v8t 0jd/yAaN+RAztJoa5fDKGaHmbmXAtNXKk+wWKK0ta+hI+fo6ncTWoE227f7HATpOOjv7 GQVBMBiEbv/DRSm326GCfyzamOLKXngft95eddFV6LrXfcMwJZmtuO4+yAklHlnR6OiB 6O5epQqjWGKt7pbUgUul3kA1xZyf1KlIBJokOWRQ4rOhXt/LqylOvYZc5sSi39q/XzUg /S7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530kohGciqQ2NY9b/9m4sh9meW3dP3eCnm6ROunBMEwPZOoXdp06 mwbvU6B8hAIgvyLNJRrRrK1Gpnp5ia2bx3n6J+OIDQMdjLs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw6OJehYOKmLNMe8X8dv+vZdOGYz4pb2dSEmf1rlhESohxrRN6PLWIBTh/viaUZ4GEc53siByIrcL1OTqluTWo=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:ee47:: with SMTP id w7mr21126791wro.171.1591013609651; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 05:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3ca570db-8509-04cf-1878-291b28e00842@cs.tcd.ie> <0235d569-b6b4-1096-446e-759a03623ec2@um.es>
In-Reply-To: <0235d569-b6b4-1096-446e-759a03623ec2@um.es>
From: Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylo@ackl.io>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 14:13:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJFkdRyd9nvmjLovi0dcoEFwJPCG9tZy=r4C2+r2SVWBJ6nj4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: lake@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000954f005a704b943"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/ZFqjiP-7HOGyfP_WTIObIzlJLIY>
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 12:13:34 -0000

Hello Stephen,

I am also happy with this text and I support the working group moving
forward in the proposed way.

Best regards,
Ivaylo


On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 9:51 AM Eduardo Ingles (UM) <eduardo.ingles@um.es>
wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> I'm happy with this text.
> I support the working group moving forward.
>
> Regards,
> Eduardo Inglés.
> El 24/05/2020 a las 23:07, Stephen Farrell escribió:
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> Eduardo Inglés Sánchezeduardo.ingles@um.es
>
> Department of Information and Communication Engineering
> Faculty of Computer Science
> University of Murcia
> 30100 Murcia, Spain
>
> --
> Lake mailing list
> Lake@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake
>