Re: [netconf] [Anima] revising RFC8366 -- Re: BRSKI-AE enum issue -> empty, but what's he encoding ?

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Wed, 30 June 2021 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <0100017a5a6ac423-889b9d5b-51cb-4f86-8977-c5bac1e021ec-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 D7DEA3A0F4D; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 17:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 vMs_u5zLK8Gz; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 17:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a48-94.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a48-94.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.48.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1D573A0F4A; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 17:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1625014584; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=5o7AundQLPCa5GgKBTNBBgRhcgqoPo8U69O+tcSLsMc=; b=GJENVq/evMMhUSkmGMMtZLnIiQu5U5eHVSCtCGhJfBYivuKYjOlKEzUttTiyzSZc WxcL2Bh/PHOX/TLQ4UJEUAcOosu1f5K1psRHvXgRyRGUw8pFLGbDNwcUjObdSLApqca ysplwhDr6R2pGULnnkPAfKVCRJzaSKomZEJVULsM=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <0100017a5a6ac423-889b9d5b-51cb-4f86-8977-c5bac1e021ec-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C8690CC8-008F-4449-8584-4E2ACDD872F1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:56:24 +0000
In-Reply-To: <27560.1625013411@localhost>
Cc: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "Fries, Steffen" <steffen.fries@siemens.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <20210625190512.GB30200@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <5025.1624653668@localhost> <DM4PR11MB5438EE27158CDEAF63F89C97B5039@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <27560.1625013411@localhost>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
X-SES-Outgoing: 2021.06.30-54.240.48.94
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/xtfzFlwn5Ii9CJWTRGn2JoWhXeQ>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [Anima] revising RFC8366 -- Re: BRSKI-AE enum issue -> empty, but what's he encoding ?
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: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:56:32 -0000


> On Jun 29, 2021, at 8:36 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
>> An RFC8366bis is the right option.  If the changes are minor then I may
>> be able to ease the passage through the IESG, but I can't do much to
>> affect the elapsed time.

If considering a bis, can we consider changing the "pinned-domain-cert” node from a X.509v3 cert to a “choice” between that and a chain of certs?   

In particular, from:

   +---- pinned-domain-cert               binary

To:

   +---- (domain-cert-format)
      +---- pinned-domain-cert               binary
      +---- pinned-domain-certs              binary


Or, better, using ietf-crypto-types:

   +---- (domain-cert-format)
      +---- pinned-domain-cert               ct:end-entity-cert-x509
      +---- pinned-domain-certs              ct:end-entity-cert-cms





> I will prepare a draft for this week.
> 
> I thought I wrote a really nice ASCII art version of what documents inherit
> from RFC8366.  I can't find it in my outbox... I wonder if I nuked the draft
> by mistake.

Check this:

https://yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis/?modtags=ietf-voucher%402017-10-25.yang&orgtags=&recursion=0&show_rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=dependents <https://yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis/?modtags=ietf-voucher@2017-10-25.yang&orgtags=&recursion=0&show_rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=dependents>


K.