On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 5:05 AM Göran Selander <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Daniel, and all,
>
>
>
> Some comments on the proposed charter and your mail, sorry for late
> response.
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> ”The Working Group is charged with maintenance of the framework and
> existing profiles thereof, and may undertake work to specify profiles of
> the framework for additional secure communications protocols”
>
>
>
> I take it this text covers (should the WG want to adopt):
>
>
>
>    - draft-tiloca-ace-group-oscore-profile
>    - an ACE-EDHOC profile (i.e. the POST /token response and the access
>    token provision information to support authentication with EDHOC, e.g. raw
>    public key of the other party). Such a profile could provide good trust
>    management properties, potentially at the cost of a larger access token 
> etc.
>
>
>
My understanding is that it covers anything related to profiles.

>
>
> 2.
>
> ”In particular the discussion might revive a discussion that happened in
> 2017 [2] - when I was not co-chair of ACE -and considered other expired
> work such as [3]. Please make this discussion constructive on this thread.
> ”
>
>
>
> As I remember it, the outcome of this discussion was – in line with the
> mindset of EST – that it is beneficial to re-use authentication and
> communication security appropriate for actual use case. If coaps is
> suitable for a particular use case, then it makes sense to protect also the
> enrolment procedure with this protocol. But whereas the security protocol
> is coaps instead of https, the enrolment functionality and semantics should
> reuse that of EST, possibly profiled for the new setting: [4].
>
>
>
> 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).   ”
>
>
>
> 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)”
>

Thanks for the clarification. I added some text to add EST profiles.

> Thanks
>
> Göran
>
>
>
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-coap-est
>
> [5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-selander-ace-coap-est-oscore
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2020-10-15, 19:50, "Ace" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to start the charter discussion. Here is a draft of a
> proposed charter [1].
>
>
>
> It seems to be that additional discussion is needed with regard to the
> last paragraph related certificate management. In particular the discussion
> might revive a discussion that happened in 2017 [2] - when I was not
> co-chair of ACE -and considered other expired work such as [3]. Please make
> this discussion constructive on this thread.
>
>
>
> The fundamental question is whether we need certificate management at this
> stage. If the answer is yes, and we have multiple proposals, it would be
> good to clarify the position of the different proposals and evaluate
> whether a selection is needed or not before validating the charter.
>
>
>
> Please provide your inputs on the mailing list before October 30. Of
> course for minor edits, you may suggest them directly on the google doc.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY/edit?usp=sharing
> <
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=4f3d9c3b-118c475b-4f3ddca0-86e2237f51fb-627e48b069462d70&q=1&e=6924b2a6-e7e5-4ec1-a1af-c94637953dc5&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing>
>
>
> [2]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2017-ace-03-201710191300/
>
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-selander-ace-eals/
>
>
>
> --
>
> Daniel Migault
>
>
>
> Ericsson
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace

Reply via email to