Re: [lamps] Proposed Re-Chartering Text for CMP updates and lightweight profile (RE: Follow-up on lightweight CMP profile)

Hi Hendrik,

Long time since we talked.

With such a profile, I have a concern that what happened with SCEP, CMC, CMPv2, EST is likely to happen in constrained environments. Using two or more protocols (EST-coaps, a CMP profile over different transports, and others) that do similar things would lead to fragmentation and confuse vendors that want to pick one.

I am not sure I have heard a broad need for a CMP profile in ACE. If this is a single vendor need, does IETF even need to standardize this CMP profile?

Panos

From: Spasm <spasm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Brockhaus, Hendrik
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 5:10 AM
To: spasm@ietf.org; Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>; steffen.fries@siemens.com
Subject: [lamps] Proposed Re-Chartering Text for CMP updates and lightweight profile (RE: Follow-up on lightweight CMP profile)

Hi Russ, all,

as discussed at IETF104 and on this list we would like to spend further work on updating and profiling CMP focusing on industrial use cases.
To get input, feedback and support from LAMPS we propose the following charter text.

As certificate management gets increasingly important in industrial environments, it needs to be tailored to the specific needs. CMP as existing protocol offers a vast range of options. As it is already being applied in industrial environments it needs to be enhanced to more efficiently support of industrial use cases, crypto agility and specific communication relations on the one hand and profiled to the necessary functionality on the other hand to ease application and to better facilitate interoperable implementation.

Hendrik

Von: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com<mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Mai 2019 02:18
An: Brockhaus, Hendrik (CT RDA ITS SEA-DE) <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com<mailto:hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com>>
Cc: spasm@ietf.org<mailto:spasm@ietf.org>; Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com<mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com>>; Fries, Steffen (CT RDA ITS) <steffen.fries@siemens.com<mailto:steffen.fries@siemens.com>>
Betreff: Re: [lamps] Follow-up on lightweight CMP profile

Hendrik:

The current re-charter is about two weeks away.  You would need to propose text for the charter on this list, and see if there are people that will review and implement.

Russ

On May 3, 2019, at 4:52 AM, Brockhaus, Hendrik <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com<mailto:hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com>> wrote:

Hi all

Referring to the Email thread 'Seeking guidance on proceeding with question from IETF-104 presentation on lightweight CMP profile' and to the outcome of the WG meeting, we want to summarize the current state of the discussion.
The discussion we had with Jim motivate a split of the current draft into a CMP Updates and a CMP Profile document. The update of CMP is needed because we identified at least two point where a change to CMP is needed:
- Change the type of encryptedCert from EncryptedValue to EncryptedKey for ECC and post-quantum algorithm support
- Extend the RootCAUpdate announcement message to e request/response message to enable requesting the update from the client side
The remaining points from the initial email were seen as profiling topic and would therefore be handled in the CMP Profile document..

@Russ, how do you see the status of the current re-chartering process? Would you support to add both, or at least the CMP Updates, activities under the revised charter?

- Hendrik
_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
Spasm@ietf.org<mailto:Spasm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspasm&data=02%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Cb2dc4e66b2644d53d64308d6d34aa72c%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C636928715140199163&sdata=vbsWP%2FRwxnN6qgWKB2Qbq7aC5CFobDEJCTqJOBkSIJk%3D&reserved=0>