Re: [netconf] question regarding key naming

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Thu, 09 July 2020 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <01000173340803ac-47ae5791-0b76-479d-8be2-b8904ca48535-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818D33A0C3D for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.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 87oe2QsaTPXT for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-31.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-31.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A00D83A0C34 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono; d=amazonses.com; t=1594305807; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=ecHUdQ/u97p6wSccFwC35hOBa3/PPrF6K39r9+LOX1M=; b=ieh3nfeM3fjLVeDZwLcON5fO/A5vF5IZmpxc6TXK13iX2MiFPOo2w7Xpap+wfrgy OBxRdqULMYCE5tZq+KNXoRQThsQA8MQQNu4cTN+wSoNllMgXwsbeZ1h/G2VpPQd6AKW qywu0mwxqXjwu4uFsodKxpwxw9dt058ytB56r3OI=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <01000173340803ac-47ae5791-0b76-479d-8be2-b8904ca48535-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1E1DD9BD-58C7-4189-923F-6A8E1531E0FA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:43:27 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20200709142715.6a3wqdeht2ipiryl@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
References: <01000173313a1282-63366836-4a52-453a-a111-fd3334b2506e-000000@email.amazonses.com> <0100017333ea7297-2838a6f2-40ad-4ca5-a83a-23d3014bef92-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20200709142715.6a3wqdeht2ipiryl@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.07.09-54.240.8.31
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/MqyNKbrjaMPDwfO9Zs0SVwzjg7A>
Subject: Re: [netconf] question regarding key naming
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 14:43:41 -0000

> I think longer names are a good thing here since the longer name may
> also serve as a warning.

Exactly.


> Perhaps raw-key (hidden-key, encrypted-key) and raw-private-key
> (hidden-private-key, encrypted-private-key) if you want shorter names?

“Raw” is not a bad option.   Semantically, the difference to “cleartext” seems very small.   Length isn’t a huge-issue either, being a programmatic API.  Maybe one is preferred from a historical-use perspective?  (Rich, maybe you can comment here?)

Here’s a couple relevant snippets from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-16#section-2.2.1: <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-16#section-2.2.1:>


     <symmetric-key>
       <name>ex-octet-string-based-symmetric-key</name>
       <key-format>ct:octet-string-key-format</key-format>
       <key>base64encodedvalue==</key>
     </symmetric-key>


     <asymmetric-key>
       <name>ex-subject-public-info-based-asymmetric-key</name>
       <public-key-format>
         ct:subject-public-key-info-format
       </public-key-format>
       <public-key>base64encodedvalue==</public-key>
       <private-key-format>
         ct:rsa-private-key-format
       </private-key-format>
       <private-key>base64encodedvalue==</private-key>
       <certificates>
         <certificate>
           <name>ex-cert</name>
           <cert-data>base64encodedvalue==</cert-data>
         </certificate>
       </certificates>
     </asymmetric-key>


The name is not visually prevalent in context --> any prefix would be fine...

K.