IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on charter-ietf-lamps-04-01: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Thu, 05 December 2019 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 C05EC12004A; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:00:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 gOBflLn3oPEc; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEEB2120013; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id xB5E0qlN042024; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:00:52 -0500
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu xB5E0qlN042024
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1575554452; bh=ZddW4RUGjIxUFZn1btYHXkUMIPit6PlJxrfYda4Wc90=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=UbbcyCL+gqXWBPSbyykvA3eufgU376MmKU3KCHE8evmGrkx8Ex/lcLOWpWeciX/3h lN8zjZeYLExPD0gPNQagVNbgTqRy/ueqh5heAbWijqPCpUV8MP18sfS3finYSMacDp cG1xCnudMIsiX7RU+yQeubQ8JmJnW1y+jQIDOImo=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id xB5E0miG011402; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:00:48 -0500
Received: from MARCHAND.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.251]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:00:48 -0500
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "Brockhaus, Hendrik" <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com>
CC: "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>, "lamps-chairs@ietf.org" <lamps-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [lamps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on charter-ietf-lamps-04-01: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVq1SZdPUfUhsuTkC3P2c1NohRZKerzF0AgAAQ5ID//7SukA==
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:00:47 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01E70CF0D1@marchand>
References: <157554078098.16478.1397974597271236050.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <DB7PR10MB2411107229A695EFAEFDEA2EFE5C0@DB7PR10MB2411.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <891A01E6-631D-4DCD-9145-FCCCB9077B47@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <891A01E6-631D-4DCD-9145-FCCCB9077B47@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/BU3juUonZvH97VP4cHUR7o4ggnM>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on charter-ietf-lamps-04-01: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:00:56 -0000

This change is now reflected in the 04-02 version of the charter.

Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 8:30 AM
> To: Brockhaus, Hendrik <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com>
> Cc: spasm@ietf.org; lamps-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [lamps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on charter-ietf-lamps-
> 04-01: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Yes, I think that would be better. Thanks!
> 
> > On 5. Dec 2019, at 13:29, Brockhaus, Hendrik
> <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Mirja
> >
> > Thank you for your comment. You are perfectly right, the wording "theses
> environments" is quite vague.
> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >> COMMENT:
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >>
> >> It's not fully clear to me what is meant with "these environments". I
> >> guess something with constraint devices...? Would be nice to be at
> >> least slightly more concrete to make the charter less ambiguous/less
> open-ended.
> >>
> >
> > As pointed out in the introduction of the I-D the CMP profile addresses
> machine-to-machine use cases and focusses on maximum automation of
> certificate management of such machine end entities as well as further
> communication of the involved PKI management entities.
> > -----------------------------snip-----------------------------
> > 2.  Introduction
> >
> >   This document specifies PKI management operations supporting machine-
> >   to-machine and IoT use cases.  The focus lies on maximum automation
> >   and interoperable implementation of all involved PKI entities from
> >   end entities (EE) through an optional Local Registration Authority
> >   (LRA) and the RA up to the CA. [...]
> > -----------------------------snip-----------------------------
> >
> > I am happy to change the proposed charter text accordingly to make it
> more clear. Would this wording be better?
> > -----------------------------snip-----------------------------
> > 3. The Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) is specified in RFC 4210,
> > and it offers a vast range of certificate management options.  CMP is
> > currently being used in many different industrial environments, but it
> > needs to be tailored to the specific needs of such machine-to-machine
> > scenarios and communication among PKI management entities.  The
> LAMPS
> > WG will develop a "lightweight" profile of CMP to more efficiently
> > support of these environments and better facilitate interoperable
> > implementation, while preserving cryptographic algorithm agility.  In
> > addition, necessary updates and clarifications to CMP will be
> > specified in a separate document.  This work will be coordinated with the
> LWIG WG.
> > -----------------------------snip-----------------------------
> >
> > Hendrik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email