Re: [lamps] CMPv2/LightWeiight-CMP profile over CoAP transport

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Sat, 06 June 2020 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.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 89AF73A083F for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 vKlFQuAECvDs for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7BD23A0841 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:19:05 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Mohit Sahni' <mohit06jan@gmail.com>
CC: 'LAMPS WG' <spasm@ietf.org>
References: <CAEpwuw1+u8RvXmvBn5zRa2gUYKN28Joh7nfteoU+bUeyhS0HHg@mail.gmail.com> <1978e1d6-ae62-1b85-1e70-062aee0fcc89@primekey.se> <CAEpwuw0OzW+Y4omJpM44XWX+u-usNy72vOKx94HiBF9WZbPatQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEpwuw0OzW+Y4omJpM44XWX+u-usNy72vOKx94HiBF9WZbPatQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 19:19:02 -0700
Message-ID: <000101d63ba8$d9cd4020$8d67c060$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01D63B6E.2D6F2B70"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIFJAWnONllgwTy/fIIRAQ8KldUkgEREqChAUsuCcCoWiaT4A==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/CeXLll9RnMYHSKvNIGgakAyvdNw>
Subject: Re: [lamps] CMPv2/LightWeiight-CMP profile over CoAP transport
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: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 02:19:14 -0000

I suppose that this could go into the ACE working group, but it will require a charter change to do so.  

 

I would suggest that you review the EST document with special attention to the sections on DTLS and proxying.  It would also help to have some idea of guidance for when coap or coaps is going to be used.  I am not sure that this strongly exists in CMP as my very vague memory was that it was assumed that all transactions where going to be done over TLS with server validation as a minimum.

 

Jim

 

 

From: Spasm <spasm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mohit Sahni
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:49 PM
To: Tomas Gustavsson <tomas@primekey.se>
Cc: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lamps] CMPv2/LightWeiight-CMP profile over CoAP transport

 

Hi Tomas

Thanks for the feedback, I was trying to write it in a way so that it can work for both CMPv2 and LightWeight CMP, I have noted it your feedback and I will try to make it more clear.

 

-Mohit 

 

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:40 PM Tomas Gustavsson <tomas@primekey..se <mailto:tomas@primekey.se> > wrote:

Hi,

I noticed that section 4, Proxy Support (good section btw), mentions
Announcement messages. These are excluded from the Lightweight
specification. Since the LIghtweight specification is mentioned in the
beginning, I'm not sure if that's worth mentioning here?

Cheers,
Tomas

On 2020-06-04 20:03, Mohit Sahni wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> There were some discussions about using CoAP as transport for the
> Lightweight CMP profile in the last LAMPS WG meeting. After having some
> discussions with Hendrik, David, and Andreas I have written an
> internet-draft for using CoAP as transport for CMPv2 / Light Weight CMP
> Profile. If I am not mistaken, the recommendation was to present this
> draft to ACE WG for the review instead of Lamps group, can you please
> advice on that?
> 
> Here is the link to the internet-draft that I wrote
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-msahni-tbd-cmpv2-coap-transport-00.txt 
> 
> Thanks
> Mohit  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org <mailto:Spasm@ietf.org> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
> 

_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
Spasm@ietf.org <mailto:Spasm@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm