IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 04 April 2022 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 E52E53A0B89; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 07:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 knZ4lPHwapV6; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 07:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (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 371FD3A08D0; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 07:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B170215CEFA; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 10:29:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (pfs.iad.rg.net [198.180.150.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 839DF15CCB0; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 10:29:09 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR1001MB1269630A63DBF8DF02BCCB6DFEE09@DB6PR1001MB1269.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 10:29:09 -0400
Cc: "Roman D. 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: <AAA47D30-3696-4943-B8DE-8D0BF6F6CF4A@vigilsec.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 (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/n0etUpEvjbdzwTnXGzxyzr4uswA>
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 14:29:17 -0000


> On Apr 1, 2022, at 2:25 AM, 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

I think so.

Russ

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email