Hi Goran, I added the text to the charter we will discuss later.
Yours, Daniel On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:26 AM Göran Selander <goran.selan...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > > > Here’s another input to the charter. > > > > The current group key management solutions addresses the problem of > authorized access to group keys and public keys of group members. > > > > A related problem is authorized access of public keys of other devices not > necessarily part of a security group, in the sense of sharing a symmetric > key used to protect group messages. > > > > Authorized access to raw public keys serves an important function in > constrained settings where public key certificates may not be feasible due > to the incurred overhead, e.g. for when authenticating using EDHOC > (draft-ietf-lake-edhoc). > > This functionality is thus a subset of what is already supported, but > since the current solution is geared towards groups a different solution > may be needed (although it is probably possible to reuse parts from the > existing schemes for provisioning and requesting public keys). > > > > With this in mind, I propose the following change (highlighted in boldface > below): > > > > OLD > > 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 (that are not > necessarily limited to constrained endpoints, though the focus remains on > deployment ecosystems with a substantial portion of constrained devices). > > > > NEW > > 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 *and **for > additional **support services **providing* *authorized access to crypto* *keys > *(that are not necessarily limited to constrained endpoints, though the > focus remains on deployment ecosystems with a substantial portion of > constrained devices). > > > > Göran > > > > > > > > On 2020-10-15, 19:50, "Ace" <ace-boun...@ietf.org> 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 Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
