IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Interest to standardize PKI REST APIs?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 07 June 2019 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 1C4C8120092 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 13:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.44
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Myub5IG71iPQ for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 13:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.249.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB823120140 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 13:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580F23818B for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 15:58:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 32DB2F60; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 16:00:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30724B22 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 16:00:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR10MB2402726EDDA7074FEDFF917DFE100@AM0PR10MB2402.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <AM0PR10MB24028210BCE560C64195A74EFE320@AM0PR10MB2402.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <AM0PR10MB2402B5BB06E4FB59A8ECB16BFE060@AM0PR10MB2402.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <AM0PR10MB2402C7C1AAA09EABF047F0CEFE1D0@AM0PR10MB2402.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <29FAEBF1-2D67-469F-BE78-AF58F78D055E@vigilsec.com> <BN7PR11MB2547D526E00CE7C5DDCDB3E9C91E0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <17374.1559083024@localhost> <HE1PR0701MB24447D45A6A7461DEC49FE7B9B1F0@HE1PR0701MB2444.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <12129.1559329924@localhost> <7f83213b-2e63-57f5-5a1a-956d47b58683@primekey.com> <AM0PR10MB2402726EDDA7074FEDFF917DFE100@AM0PR10MB2402.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 16:00:12 -0400
Message-ID: <6992.1559937612@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/VXiR7v3wvYo46AHzw81Kxqcwjr4>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Interest to standardize PKI REST APIs?
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: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 20:00:16 -0000

Brockhaus, Hendrik <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com> wrote:
    > I think we need to first collect the required certificate management
    > use cases and check if they are addressed by existing protocols.

I don't want to do that.  It's boiling the ocean.

I'm okay with making a list of RESTful APIs (proprietary ones, most of them
have public specifications though), if only so that we know who to invite.

    > Then I see two approaches:
    > - Develop a new certificate management protocol using standard
    > functionality of REST frameworks and learn from or even copy parts from
    > existing protocols.

sure, but: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/927:_Standards

    > - Take an existing certificate management protocol, e.g. CMP, adapt the
    > transport to REST APIs and adapt the transaction concept slightly to
    > allow a state-less server.

I think that this is what we should do.

    > As already said, I dislike to develop further certificate management
    > protocols. I think there are enough around already. Therefor I would
    > prefer the second approach. But finally the solution must be acceptable
    > to the target audience of developers asking for REST APIs for
    > certificate management.

Good, we agree :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email