Re: [Lurk] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sheffer-lurk-cert-delegation-00.txt

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

> Hi Yaron,
>
> On 12/05/2016 22:10, "Lurk on behalf of EXT Yaron Sheffer"
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>> To solve the CDN-shouldn't-get-my-private-key scenario, I propose an
>> almost trivial REST API, where the CDN contacts the content owner once a
>> day and obtains a 3 day credential (private key plus short-term cert).
>>
>> Comments are welcome!
>
> Thanks very much for the draft.
>
> Your proposal has a few good properties:
> - It's very simple, with minimal impact on existing implementations and
> deployments;
> - It scales very well, because it drastically reduces the number of calls
> to the LURK box (somewhere about 10 orders of magnitude less than the
> other proposals), and because it removes the need for keeping the LURK
> box near the edge - and thus deploying more boxes as the CDN footprint
> grows -- if the application cares about time-to-first-byte, as it usually
> does;
> - It makes the CDN less dependent on the availability of the LURK box;
> - Lastly, it seems to provide the right ecosystem for solving the well
> known revocation issues ([1], [2]) -- very similarly to a proposal from
> Topalovic et al. [3].
>
> The only "minus" point is that the CDN still holds the content provider's
> private key.  In fact, in your proposal, the "Remote Keys" in the LURK
> acronym aren't remote at all :-)
>
> Cheers, t
>
> [1] https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/03/18/revocation.html
> [2] https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/04/29/revocationagain.html
> [3] http://www.w2spconf.com/2012/papers/w2sp12-final9.pdf
>

We could always rename the group LUCK - C for "cached"...

Or else we could decide that we have another use case for remote signing 
boxes, one that's better than CDNs.

Thanks,
	Yaron