IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] [Anima] /.well-known/brski reference to brski-registry

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Mon, 04 April 2022 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFEC3A1E0F for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.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 BxQqHTokwRBV for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 570A33A1E11 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id v2so6684733qtc.5 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=r8cbo8XrR3T306oW+ePzlE+esaEjEpdtECxy01woLE8=; b=VvzbFyJI+9BwpSxfQ0yEvBK14i7i82lRMjrU6ysFDYhcSNay3ApU+D/PvZMoN7Ghis FwSAvUsnzwz+ZF6frak9PvF9dhk4v2R4RGC7gH7xAxjR8pDBKXVZYJsUslM6Vgu9Y++b f3WWconNbb8i4dooLHwWpk0cxFUqyyTVymAws=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=r8cbo8XrR3T306oW+ePzlE+esaEjEpdtECxy01woLE8=; b=s/BYJ8MhPnVOaWRy8Y1gWYnrWyjY+YjjhN9FNMZRPzxRECCJC3Ta/VRbqu9yf1ibMT 9XWU+4PKfxi3Dydw4nLkWdeH5shkY5syUFE9saORGwkT25sGXm14g+ydEWElHkB0WHaT oRDxx0RsjiSQa2lLmvOQbzx69sCybF2HoByMy3AzadTX9QTjKXkMcTnZBsvDz481z5WA RGdaQMV7EQjXsoZw31BDnvhbj7AdLp51hwUm+luaT7hfaQwN+hmxUOw90mHMNfYBJGWj IgREWmKfFumH20LM1v0ySGIZyKrogRQAnelgBtDcNoObi8S0/SJObAlRz32BSQA7iY+b 4/NQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BvkVeJFGzyes8TGDohcGhAHDqb+5Yb481tXVn0N8382hPa+Fk PiaDFpN5ofxE8xI43Rk2Cj3t6A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxDKS2bBTBBcO4Jr3UDLs/35bH86MDurKD/DpuVNKnzhjtKq5djGeme3ghsfOAO9OOicCUfuw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:387:b0:2e2:277e:72a1 with SMTP id j7-20020a05622a038700b002e2277e72a1mr15504773qtx.658.1649039762824; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (pool-71-178-177-131.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.178.177.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f19-20020a05620a409300b00680c933fb1csm6363562qko.20.2022.04.03.19.36.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR1001MB1269630A63DBF8DF02BCCB6DFEE09@DB6PR1001MB1269.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 22:36:01 -0400
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "david.von.oheimb@siemens.com" <david.von.oheimb@siemens.com>, "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, John Gray <John.Gray@entrust.com>, "Fries, Steffen" <steffen.fries@siemens.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E2286164-E5F8-4563-BC69-C34B6D18B687@sn3rd.com>
References: <30686.1648741661@localhost> <DB6PR1001MB12691C71E28CF3AEB4603368FEE19@DB6PR1001MB1269.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <4ACC1227-F79D-42B8-B050-07FB0C2BC86A@vigilsec.com> <DB6PR1001MB1269630A63DBF8DF02BCCB6DFEE09@DB6PR1001MB1269.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: "Brockhaus, Hendrik" <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/AqM3ppl9O2xbDFpuZFP-YInlX3c>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 07:30:23 -0700
Subject: Re: [lamps] [Anima] /.well-known/brski reference to brski-registry
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 02:36:10 -0000


> On Apr 1, 2022, at 02:25, Brockhaus, Hendrik <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Von: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. März 2022 19:53
>> 
>>> On Mar 31, 2022, at 12:20 PM, Brockhaus, Hendrik
>> <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thank you Michael for rising the questions.
>>> 
>>>> Von: Anima <anima-bounces@ietf.org> Im Auftrag von Michael Richardson
>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. März 2022 17:48
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We were discussing the /.well-known/cmp that is in being proposed in
>>>> draft-ietf- lamps-cmp-updates, We were comparing it to
>>>> /.well-known/brski and /.well- known/est.
>>>> 
>>>> Question 2)
>>>>  Should the CMP document be establishing a registry or not?
>>>> 
>>> As discussed during IETF 113 I plan to do these things in CMP Updates
>>> - register 'cmp' in the "Well-Known URIs" registry
>>> - define a protocol registry group "Certificate Management Protocol (CMP)"
>>> - define a registry for "CMP Well-Known Arbitrary Label URI Segments"
>> defining 'p' to be followed by a <profileLabel>.
>>> In addition I would define a registry for "CMP Well-Known Operation Label URI
>> Segments" in Lightweight CMP Profile containing the path segments defined
>> three for http and coap use.
>>> 
>>> Does this makes sense?
>> 
>> Hendrik:
>> 
>> That is consistent with the discussion lat week.
>> 
>> Russ
> 
> Would it also be sufficient to have only one additional registry "CMP Well-Known URI Path Segments" containing the arbitrary label 'p' and the operation labels?
> 
> Hendrik

When the /.well-known/est/ was registered we only did the top level, i.e., /est/. There are no registries for the /.well-known/est/*this part*.  It’s not clear to me that you need to do anything more than get /.well-known/cmp.

What will be the registration policy [0] for the ‘p’ values? I assume FCFS (first come first served)?

spt

[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email