<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
Göran Selander wrote:
> In the same spirit there was support at the meeting [2] to specify
> protection of EST payloads profiled for use with OSCORE as
> communication security protocol, together with a suitable AKE for
> authentication. Following the adoption of EDHOC in LAKE this work has
> now been revived [5]. IMHO the reasoning above still makes sense.
> With this in mind, and taking into account recent discussion on the
> list, perhaps this part of the charter:
> ”The Working Group will standardize how to use Constrained Application
> Protocol (CoAP) as a Transport Medium for the Certificate management
> protocol version 2 (CMPv2). ”
Note that CMPv2 is being revised in LAMPS, and that the ANIMA
brski-async-enroll is specifying CMPv2 as an alternative for EST in an
onboarding flow.
I further expect to propose text to brski-async-enroll to do CMPv2 via
CoAP multicast + CORECONF.
I'd rather do this work in the proposed IOTOPS WG, but I don't really
understand how that is working out yet.
As such, there is no need to find another place for to do CMPv2/over CoAP.
> should be rephrased or complemented with the reasoning above, for example:
> The scope of the Working Group includes profiles of the Enrolment over
Secure Transport (EST) transported with the Constrained Application Protocol
(CoAP)”
Is this a re-interpretation of the charter, or a proposed charter change?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
