[pkix] MUD Draft - was Re: [saag] Fwd: Is it time for a pkix extensions (or similar) wg?

["Tom Gindin" <[e-mail]>]

        I think the MUD syntax part of your draft's section 2 would be 
more typical in PKIX, and no less clear, if it looked like this:
The MUD URI is a non-critical Certificate extension that points
 to an on-line Manufacturer Usage Description concerning the certificate 
subject.  This extension contains a single Uniform Resource Identifier 
(URI).  Internationalized Resource Identifiers must be represented as 
URI's in the way described in RFC 5280, section 7.4.  The semantics of the 
URI are defined in [I-D.lear-ietf-netmod-mud].
 
   id-pe-mudURI OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe TBD }



   MudURISyntax ::= { IA5String }


Tom Gindin
P.S.    The opinions above are mine, and not necessarily those of my 
employer



From:   Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
To:     Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Date:   02/05/2016 07:17 AM
Subject:        Re: [pkix] [saag] Fwd: Is it time for a pkix extensions 
(or similar) wg?
Sent by:        "pkix" <[e-mail]>



Hi Stephen, and thanks for this note.  Please see below:

On 2/5/16 12:58 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> We seem to be seeing a number of drafts that folks are
> writing that define new certificate extensions or that
> want to update/modify PKIX specs.
>
> Do folks think it is now time to form a working group
> to process those?
>
> If no, please say why.
>
> If yes, please say what draft(s) and propose any other
> scoping. If you know of people who are or would implement
> and deploy, that is very useful information. (It is fine
> to say "I think we should work on topic <foo>" but it is
> *much* better if you can point at a draft you've written
> about <foo> and say that you or someone is implementing
> that and that it'll get deployed.)

I've written draft-lear-ietf-pkix-mud-extension-00.txt that talks about
something called a manufacturer usage description.  The idea is to
provide a means for local networks to retrieve recommendations from
manufacturers on what sort of access their devices should have.  This
extension is intended for use in the context of IEEE 802.1AR.

It definitely could use a good set of eyes on it.  We are currently in
the lab with the concept now.
>
> If you think this requires face to face discussion at
> IETF95 (e.g. to tease out scope) please say that too.

I am personally okay with any approach to move forward, whether that's a
WG, doing something AD-sponsored, or something else.  I'm hoping that as
non-critical constraints go this one is not particularly controversial. 
If a working group is the best way, I would just ask that this draft be
included in scope ;-)

Eliot

[attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Tom Gindin/Watson/IBM] 
_______________________________________________
pkix mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix