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

Shahid Raza <aazaan@gmail.com> Mon, 01 June 2020 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <aazaan@gmail.com>
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 130AC3A157F for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 14:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.076
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.076 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 7mGu1F-_Qp0G for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 14:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x233.google.com (mail-oi1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::233]) (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 745173A138C for <lake@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 14:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x233.google.com with SMTP id j189so2685073oih.10 for <lake@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:22:10 -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:cc; bh=d8nUI3Q5VB4lqqTtg1fD0hcjWXg6jv305mwbrhULc60=; b=FSju9WJsZwBTC4Iqom0Kq3pQzbClGhbLfu+hJeOekXil2SrQ5v/eab2lQY3r47T8af QC9PbhbAb3FKeOWQKouXt0R56EUoY5Xar3NMWc0BnYnGAN7FILJzGdrzbJ2+euaME8vF CMlgusRwpyL3zrW0QNxueRRo9DKlp1ubKukum8ZV1g5msj3gSpIFrMfDg0YrlwN/bvmF WxYEzXcOXXdCGPGPRldxuxg4tIekSV2o8LcjsTqFCx2/CxoFu8tgsWOjeC1cpqzi3UJH 3VCXoFGMy6JtmD0zt/EPuxtfB9shGGdnKksEpMuyLQzTR/XjZfyQS+SO58bYuYBzfnTc CIsg==
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:cc; bh=d8nUI3Q5VB4lqqTtg1fD0hcjWXg6jv305mwbrhULc60=; b=I0kp+UnSLOB1nM6kRFPw8sz/QNPZdQO75VoeQ4surTfcv8dyok8XF8vtCKvvWi5bBE +F3LqqxMu27fsAYxIeykkpm+jsGXUBe6chN1onKTjilhw1Ky2FzIxS83Z+pHVn0sXylV uXogKC/Do5gXVcBBPQo0RRgznefKcvH9m9inmM4JQl5Cgh0KjZ+2ycqnalZ+jmX+bXnb jOgBCIOsHE0tuN+IBjyIjqt2Y/X/QKHBvkMvFKo+iD8yTCeg4K1iqSPP7W34RfoJGyhZ icD8RVJWI3IkIyJR5SIUK/+jXDCRYCDVguk0CrHTIqn0wAxk9TNn5uoMH5FTsJdDUoO4 r30g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533GRgl3vt43hau0Fp2CeD32YN2c0jujPo2vDHy8sdcUIfjigpQd c1VcSbrGxS4kHzBggIrT8facv2CcigAvb9xobq52q0qChm8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwcdC1tZ1MzOelHsQ+TJEUZD+UbcSzwMh6cymFQN1Pn2FnUZAb2ivsQXgu6P0Ib9xbqqzz836muOo5PoduwLXE=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:62c5:: with SMTP id w188mr774530oib.119.1591046529373; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3ca570db-8509-04cf-1878-291b28e00842@cs.tcd.ie> <0235d569-b6b4-1096-446e-759a03623ec2@um.es> <CAJFkdRyd9nvmjLovi0dcoEFwJPCG9tZy=r4C2+r2SVWBJ6nj4A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJFkdRyd9nvmjLovi0dcoEFwJPCG9tZy=r4C2+r2SVWBJ6nj4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shahid Raza <aazaan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:21:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM6rze_mHxtqf74bTmvhcAmeOB7yVeV_k6QuhdnUKE4gQwfoXw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: lake@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000345dbf05a70c635e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/iiNXMqWst5ehJGDilCVKhVIp9OA>
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 21:22:12 -0000

Hi Stephen,

I also support this requirement document go forward. I work on lightweight
PKI for IoT (enrollment, CBOR certs, and to-be-submitted revocation), and
plan to integrate our work with  the proposed LAKE solutions.

Best,
Shahid Raza
Head of Cybersecurity @ RISE
Associate Professor, Uppsala University


On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 14:13, Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylo@ackl.io> wrote:

> 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 <eduardo.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
>>
> --
> Lake mailing list
> Lake@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake
>