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

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 12:15 AM Göran Selander <goran.selander@ericsson.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From: *Lake <lake-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Eric Rescorla <
> ekr@rtfm.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 2 June 2020 at 03:19
> *To: *Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> *Cc: *"lake@ietf.org" <lake@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lake] 1 week 2nd WGLC on requirements and scoping text
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 2:08 PM 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.
>
>
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> It's not clear how to read this in the context of other parts of
>
> the document, for instance:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lake-reqs-03#section-2.2
>
> which says:
>
>
>
>    In order to allow for these different schemes, the AKE must support
>
>    PSK- (shared between two nodes), RPK- and certificate-based
>
>    authentication.  These are also the schemes for which CoAP is
>
>    designed (see Section 9 of [RFC7252] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252#section-9>).
>
> How is one supposed to interpret this text?
>
>
>
>
>
> [GS] Since OSCORE is an extension to CoAP it is expected to support the schemes for which CoAP is designed. But in the discussion following the virtual IETF 107 LAKE WG meeting we restricted the initial focus, leading to the addition of section 2.2.1 and the following text in the paragraph after the one you quoted:
>
>
>
> ”In order to provide a clear initial effort, Section 2.2.1
> <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lake-reqs-03.html#initial-focus>
> lists a set of credential types of immediate relevance; the mechanism for
> selecting credential scheme is presumed to enable future extensibility if
> needed.”
>
>
>
> The ability to extend beyond the initial focus is also repeated in the text
> from Section 2.2.1 which Stephen quoted in his mail:
>
>
>
> ”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.”
>

Yes, my point is that these three paragraphs together contradict each
other. One says the AKE MUST support PSK and the other says it's not part
of the initial focus. Does that mean that the AKE as published will or will
not support PSK?

-Ekr

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