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

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
>