Re: [Secdispatch] addressing Content-Type-Encoding errata on EST / RFC7030

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 16 July 2019 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F03D1207A4 for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 08:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 WAE4liC20WxK for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 08:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77123120791 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 08:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535B63808A; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:36:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC44CA1; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:36:13 -0400 (EDT)
To: secdispatch@ietf.org
References: <6535.1560786935@dooku.sandelman.ca> <10505.1560789112@dooku.sandelman.ca> <12718.1560790704@dooku.sandelman.ca> <040a01d5263c$6c51efa0$44f5cee0$@augustcellars.com> <16160.1560951514@localhost>
Cc: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <57b7caef-e814-947b-c705-6e02c35e2cd3@sandelman.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:36:13 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <16160.1560951514@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/DwMPFoPjDU34I2DIXJLOjMdlpZ4>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] addressing Content-Type-Encoding errata on EST / RFC7030
X-BeenThere: secdispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:36:26 -0000

On 2019-06-19 9:38 a.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Dear secdispatch Chairs,
> 
> I have written draft-richardson-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-02 to deal with
> the errata:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5107
> 
> it turns out that deployed code prevents us from having a signal that
> would let us remove the needless base64 encoding, but at least we can
> remove the deprecated CTE header which was not being used anyway.

Hi secdispatch, I don't think that I really need any in-person time next 
week on this.  I'm just looking for guidance on where/how such a 
document should proceed.  AD-sponsor? LAMPS? Something else?

The base64/Content-Type-Encoding situation definitely caused a lot of 
confusion for the BRSKI inter-operation testing that has occurred in the 
past few months.

> 
> I believe that we can deal with:
>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4384
>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5108
> 
> in this document as well, although I haven't yet done that.  The result would
> be a standards track document that Updates RFC7030.

There is an additional errata of a completely editorial from July 13.
I don't really speak enough ASN.1 to know if the ASN.1 errata is valid.

I'm told that Dan Harkins has other reasons to re-open RFC7030, and 
while I think we could satisfy the PS->IS step via interoperation and 
deployment experience, I'm not burning to do that work.

> 
> As an aside, I think that the errata needs to move from reported to accepted.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>   -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
>