[lamps] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-16: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Thanks for this document.  I just have a couple of comments:

(1) p 7, sec 1.5.  Use of CMP in SZTP and BRSKI Environments

   In Secure Zero Touch Provisioning (SZTP) [RFC8572] and other
   environments using NETCONF/YANG modules, SZTP-CSR
   [I-D.ietf-netconf-sztp-csr] offers a YANG module that includes
   different types of certificate requests to obtain a public-key
   certificate for a locally generated key pair.  One option is using a
   CMP p10cr message.  Such a message is of the form ietf-ztp-types:cmp-
   csr from module ietf-ztp-csr and offers both proof-of-possession and
   proof-of-identity.  To allow PKI management entities to also comply
   with this profile, the p10cr message MUST be formatted by the EE as
   described in Section 4.1.4 of this profile, and it MAY be forwarded
   as specified in Section 5.2.

Given the MUST statement above, should this document "update"
ietf-netconf-sztp-csr?

(2) p 7, sec 1.5.  Use of CMP in SZTP and BRSKI Environments

   In Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) [RFC8995]
   environments, BRSKI-AE: Alternative Enrollment Protocols in BRSKI
   [I-D.ietf-anima-brski-ae] describes a generalization regarding the
   employed enrollment protocols to allow alternatives to EST [RFC7030].
   For the use of CMP, it requires adherence to this profile.

Similar to my comment above, should the "requires adherence" be "MUST adhere",
and should this document "update" (BRSKI) [RFC8995]?

Thanks,
Rob