IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] Comments on crypto types presentation

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Mon, 06 April 2020 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <J.Schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 040FD3A0A2F for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=jacobsuniversity.onmicrosoft.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 lObM9Gd0yIa8 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR05-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-vi1eur05on2059.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.21.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C16B03A0A2E for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=aW8A4Gqu+ffMhfj9+vlXthXUwGi3zhDyz3AMCTzEfBRS2gZP6jWpBgdY89wVBrRcZHJvgTjTy0F1hYSyE4PQBz1NUy+sB7cFqu30CIrBeOIctFwQbIWNWpKYZL/criddSOAB0gzLYJR2sP9r0nDw7KCCJKBUoqaxV9hPeRY7rlM/fCd8Be+Cp+lQQBaZwPmyQnuY9jAjFDLM9PUU6sUW4Q2OVQRlF3FN3uNvk5DODQPLo9m2FvCBSI2/senJoKTDCBN1WGGcQ6rHSowK18q1Gytob8BCTJAeC/XPNalqPkxfWrzf51F7KHpAlRURhdMvXSHwNnegsma7tyCsW3QAsA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=X/MoT4XnvtRe2/iTp+wHzkFMHe1FVhMR2qbBXEjsQA4=; b=GEO6r0l0DyfK9ffMA7LN5CqeD5aCcRb0tx2rBaL6W4GNqthEoHlQdBVTGuaWVJ2lRjBvuqBxSfc0mGP5U5wbDxRjVPJIqB7vu4kWAL1X6S442mDUtvFFWO9svJYxkLH0JFNGZ+Guqp3qSrwkzavDb37chO+k8zIDAsF43bVk4u0ostkADfdNUHOtkZTJ5QQQnLgf0PhtTqgtbpOf3EOHSrrKnWyyKMY19O5P3MGI/why/TzMDUQ8oVpIxmdtJzz6rF/6+lXsGtVfULXWP8tdT3S1SbhIlJtofCF6a+UDTUluHqSuhc6K/+xgQlfcn5ocWgAYlrFH9IkrjKxxq3q8jg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jacobs-university.de; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=jacobs-university.de; dkim=pass header.d=jacobs-university.de; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jacobsuniversity.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-jacobsuniversity-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=X/MoT4XnvtRe2/iTp+wHzkFMHe1FVhMR2qbBXEjsQA4=; b=dmcYaTPa1OVLrYBS/BKQMye53Wf9XDdXzF2mCp5D/hznKBfBcFuG1pW7fYxs9dLc3/T4ZwsXQwpNHH7newrMpXu+OurX6VO+nf8Q5/feGN5EzSXCb9SxJImJd9ZFOTakbOoFjr50xp8r3NmXNfa8BlsseBhbT/4tnmztFeSu96U=
Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=J.Schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de;
Received: from DB6P190MB0310.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.165.186.141) by DB6P190MB0279.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.165.186.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2878.15; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 15:33:39 +0000
Received: from DB6P190MB0310.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::b999:3826:8a06:8653]) by DB6P190MB0310.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::b999:3826:8a06:8653%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2878.021; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 15:33:40 +0000
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 17:33:38 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200406153338.dgh5zlbdomctzbop@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <DBB45843-C6AC-476E-93CD-2631A2573F3B@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DBB45843-C6AC-476E-93CD-2631A2573F3B@cisco.com>
X-ClientProxiedBy: AM4PR08CA0043.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:205:2::14) To DB6P190MB0310.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:6:3e::13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Received: from localhost (2001:638:709:5::7) by AM4PR08CA0043.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:205:2::14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2878.15 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 15:33:39 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [2001:638:709:5::7]
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: c0fea8a1-4770-42c3-fee0-08d7da3fe189
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: DB6P190MB0279:
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-Forked: True
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <DB6P190MB02798EED55C0BDDBECBA2C63DEC20@DB6P190MB0279.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:8882;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0365C0E14B
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DB6P190MB0310.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(346002)(39850400004)(396003)(376002)(136003)(4326008)(8676002)(6486002)(6496006)(5660300002)(52116002)(66946007)(186003)(786003)(3450700001)(81156014)(81166006)(2906002)(8936002)(478600001)(66556008)(316002)(66476007)(1076003)(16526019)(966005)(86362001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: jacobs-university.de does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: qbr8YtI4UCF6OC0JMCjeybp/9RwSr+K3rr3/q9a5FLCPVqFExwP2YilVfPHH1Gk9cQ+UjWvv+7DhLR43XHoU9GmkgWKqb/JnQq/hsuboE4NfaongruFKc/ozJj8x9Mm0FtLFlUKRzgqeGS+CY00+dCugnsoKclRSeYCydqwNCh4=
X-OriginatorOrg: jacobs-university.de
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c0fea8a1-4770-42c3-fee0-08d7da3fe189
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2020 15:33:39.9885 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: f78e973e-5c0b-4ab8-bbd7-9887c95a8ebd
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: yxp+dAO6UtL7jjs8zqau4SR5IeN8li2er8avxA+NLEP/IAgcnOKcvHGVzIEqnUs7G/cmUjstzsHjSV0QdNBzJDq25GA0hoC59qWC6sq1LYI=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6P190MB0279
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/XPz_sBfygBMWHgJJyP5zwzNfQjs>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Comments on crypto types presentation
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: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:33:47 -0000

Just for clarification: If we do #3 now, we can still do #2 later?

If the answer is 'yes', then option #3 is attractive as we gain time
and hopefully implementation experience and we can add protocol
specific key generation RPCs in a second step. Otherwise, option #2
seems more attractive to me. In a TPM world, it seems key generation
on the device is somewhat essential to have.

/js

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:39:08PM +0000, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
> Since we are running short on time at the VI, I want to register some comments on the list.
> 
> * I ultimately like option #3 to progress the base client-server work and see if the key gen feature is desired down the road (enough to pick it back up).
> 
> * Second, I prefer option #2 for the reasons discussed as well as because of the comment Jason raised that I think the identityref approach makes sense.
> 
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email