Dear all:
Regarding the new charter, since ACE is considering the definition of
CoAP transport for CMPv2
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-00),
we were wondering whethere it could also consider specifying EAP
(Extensible Authentication Protocol) over CoAP.
In this sense, we proposed this some time ago and we have
implementations about this.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap-06
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/16/3/358
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/17/11/2646
The usage of CoAP can provide a very light and link-layer independent
(we even tested in LoRa networks) EAP lower-layer (transport for EAP)
suitable for IoT enviroment. We believe this would be really useful
since EAP provides flexibility for the authentication and it is a
well-known protocol.
Therefore, we would like to propose the following modification to the
charter:
"The Working Group will examine how to use Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP) as a transport medium for certificate enrollment
protocols, such as EST and CMPv2, *as well as a transport for
authentication protocols such as EAP*, and standardize them as needed."
This modification does not necessarily mean the adoption of our draft.
After all, we completely understand that this would happen only if there
is an interest in the WG. Nevertheless, we would like to avoid that the
charter is a barrier later if there is interest in the WG to work in
this transport of EAP over CoAP:
Any opinion about this?
Best Regards.
El 18/11/2020 a las 8:08, Daniel Migault escribió:
Hi,
Please find the proposed charter we agreed on during the interim
meeting. If you would like to propose any change, please use the
following URL by November 25:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY/edit?usp=sharing
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY/edit?usp=sharing>
Yours,
Daniel
The Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments
(ace) WG has defined a standardized solution framework for
authentication and authorization to enable authorized access to
resources identified by a URI and hosted on a resource server in
constrained environments.
The access to the resource is mediated by an authorization server,
which is not considered to be constrained.
Profiles of this framework for application to security protocols
commonly used in constrained environments, including CoAP+DTLS and
CoAP+OSCORE, have also been standardized. 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 in ecosystems with a substantial portion of
constrained devices).
In addition to the ongoing maintenance work, the Working Group will
extend the framework as needed for applicability to group
communications, with initial focus on (D)TLS and (Group) OSCORE as the
underlying group communication security protocols. The Working Group
will standardize procedures for requesting and distributing group
keying material using the ACE framework as well as appropriated
management interfaces.
The Working Group will standardize a format for expressing
authorization information for a given authenticated principal as
received from an authorization manager.
The Working Group will examine how to use Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP) as a transport medium for certificate enrollment
protocols, such as EST and CMPv2, and standardize as needed.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:47 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thanks for updating the draft charter at [1], Daniel!
I note that Michael raised the question of whether some other
group might
also be interested in working on CMP-over-coap, so the IESG will
be sure to
discuss that if CMP is still in the draft ACE charter when it goes
to the
IESG for review.
-Ben
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:16:48PM -0500, Daniel Migault wrote:
> Thank you all for the feed backs. For the purpose of driving the
charter
> discussion at the IETf 109, I have added the comments into the
proposed
> text [1].
>
> My current understanding is that it seems beneficial to add
CMPv2 over CoAP
> in the charter. I am happy to be contradicted.
> * I have not seen a clear cut to do one or the other.
> * EST and CMPv2 are two protocols that can be used for
enrollment or cert
> management while addressing different cases / needs / situations
-- maybe
> we can clarify that point. I can see leveraging the existing CMP
> infrastructure, but it seems that is not the only one.
> * I am not convinced that not having CMP over CoAP will not
prevent its
> deployment and as such I prefer to have it standardized - this
might be a
> personal thought.
> * Adding any piece of work require cycles, but it seems to me
that CPM will
> not have a major impact on the WG progress. The work will
probably include
> other WG such a LAMPS.
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
> [1]
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY/edit?usp=sharing
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY/edit?usp=sharing>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:02 PM Daniel Migault
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > 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 <
> > [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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" <[email protected]
<mailto:[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://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
<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/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2017-ace-03-201710191300/>
> >>
> >> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-selander-ace-eals/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-selander-ace-eals/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Daniel Migault
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ericsson
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Migault
> > Ericsson
> >
>
>
> --
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>
--
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
