Re: [Anima] Logging vouchers use case

2019-02-19 Thread M. Ranganathan
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 6:55 AM Toerless Eckert  wrote:

> Ranga,
>
> It depends ;-)
>
> Pledge P registers at a specific registrar B. B examines the audit log and
> determines that P was previously registered at another registrar A. Now
> B can see from theidentity of A in the audit log if A belongs to the
> same trust domain as B. If yes, then B would likely happily re-register
> P. Use-case: A failed and was replaced by B, or multiple registrars in
> the trust domain. Alternative, A is not known to be in the same trust
> domain by B, so B would refuse to register P, probably raise an
> exception to operations. In this case, i could come up with a range of
> use case examples what operations would do next.
>
> Does this help ?
>
> Cheers
> Toerless
>


HI Toerless,

Yes that clarifies things and in line with the mental picture I had built
in my mind. Perhaps it would be a good idea to clarify the document with an
explanation like you have stated above.

Thanks,

Ranga


> P.S.: Experimenting if the old alias for the co-authors still work. I
> think IETF tools keep it alife for a few years.
>
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 02:21:57PM -0500, M. Ranganathan wrote:
> > Clarification on question below:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:22 AM M. Ranganathan  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am reading the voucher artifact RFC 8366. I am confused about how the
> > > "audit voucher" (page 6) is supposed to be used. Specifically, the text
> > > says  " The registrar mitigates a MiTM registrar by auditing that an
> > > unknown MiTM registrar does not appear in the log entries. " How can
> it do
> > > this? Any concrete example that clarifies this use case would help me
> > > understand.
> > >
> > >
> > What is confusing me is the interpretation of the term "Man In The
> Middle"
> > (MiTM). Am I correct in assuming that this refers to previous registrars
> > where the device may have successfully registered?
> >
> >
> > > I am not sure if this is the correct mailing list for this question.
> > > Thanks in advance for your help.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Ranga
> > >
> > > --
> > > M. Ranganathan
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > M. Ranganathan
>
> > ___
> > Anima mailing list
> > Anima@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>


-- 
M. Ranganathan
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima


[Anima] Logging vouchers use case

2019-02-08 Thread M. Ranganathan
Hello,

I am reading the voucher artifact RFC 8366. I am confused about how the
"audit voucher" (page 6) is supposed to be used. Specifically, the text
says  " The registrar mitigates a MiTM registrar by auditing that an
unknown MiTM registrar does not appear in the log entries. " How can it do
this? Any concrete example that clarifies this use case would help me
understand.

I am not sure if this is the correct mailing list for this question. Thanks
in advance for your help.

Regards,

Ranga

-- 
M. Ranganathan
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima