Re: [netconf] ietf crypto types - permanently hidden

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 04:07:12PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
>         type enumeration {
>           enum permanently-hidden {
>             description
>               "The private key is inaccessible due to being
>                protected by the system (e.g., a cryptographic
>                hardware module).
> 
>                How such keys may be backed-up and restored,
>                if at all, is application specific.

Perhaps this should say 'implementation specific' instead 'application
specific'.

> My recommendation is to modify the "generate/install-hidden-key" (renamed to just "generate/install-key") actions to have a flag indicating if the key should be "permanently hidden" (perhaps by using a TPM) or not, in which case configuration is created, same as if the client had used <edit-config>, but without needing to touch the key.

I agree that having a flag to control the behavior is useful and I
think there should be explicit text how the action fails in case the
requested action cannot be performed.

I am not sure I understand install-hidden-key. The description says:

           "Requests the device to load the specified values into
            a hidden key.  The resulting asymmetric key values are
            considered operational state and hence present only in
            <operational>.";

So what is the persistence model of this? Does a key installed with
install-hidden-key survive reboots? If so, can I delete somehow such a
hidden key? (Is the answer that this key is tied to the lifetime of
the list element indirectly using this grouping?) Does invoking
install-hidden-key twice cause the first installed key to be
overwritten? Can the install-hidden-key action fail in any way?

This leads to related questions for generate-hidden-key: Does invoking
this action twice cause an existing key to be overwritten? Can I
explicitely delete a generated hidden key? Does deleting the list item
that directly or indirectly uses this grouping delete a hidden key?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>