Thanks, I was about just sending them a note, but that is maybe not needed. Just for your information, the note is not part of the charter, but to our AD/IESG. Yours, Daniel
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 12:05 PM Brockhaus, Hendrik < hendrik.brockh...@siemens.com> wrote: > As the CMPoverCoAP draft was already discussed in LAMPS and Jim suggested > to consider it in ACE, I suggest to drop the Note and come back to a clear > statement as discussed at IETF109. > > > > Discussion on the LAMPS Mailing List from June: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/uyYCf5sMcxg6xoQFcbe1sPxqVLw/ > > > > Hendrik > > > > *Von:* Ace <ace-boun...@ietf.org> *Im Auftrag von * Daniel Migault > *Gesendet:* Montag, 7. Dezember 2020 14:43 > *An:* Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> > *Cc:* Ace Wg <ace@ietf.org> > *Betreff:* Re: [Ace] Charter discussion > > > > Hi, > > > > Please have a look at the latest version of the charter before we move it > forward by the end of the week - December 11. > > > > I added a note on potential WG that could host the CMPv2 over CoAP - > eventually. I am wondering if we should put a note to these WGs. > > > > 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, as well as a transport for authentication protocols such as > EAP, and standardize as needed. [Note that CMPv2 work may also be hosted in > LAMPS (which revisits CMPv2), ANIMA ( which defines CMPv2 as an alternative > to EST) or IOTPS. EAP work has been coordinated with EMU. In any case, if > the work is being considered in ACE, we will make sure the corresponding WG > will follow the progress.] > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:47 PM Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=04%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Ccb25631db9264d26e46608d89ab62bde%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C1%7C637429454498903919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=hWVvEAeTR35%2FlkhB8pzDyW6kc143Q%2B3Dc5Y0f90LnB0%3D&reserved=0> > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:02 PM Daniel Migault <mglt.i...@gmail.com> > 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 < > > > 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=04%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Ccb25631db9264d26e46608d89ab62bde%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C1%7C637429454498903919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=hWVvEAeTR35%2FlkhB8pzDyW6kc143Q%2B3Dc5Y0f90LnB0%3D&reserved=0> > > >> < > > >> > 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprotect2.fireeye.com%2Fv1%2Furl%3Fk%3D4f3d9c3b-118c475b-4f3ddca0-86e2237f51fb-627e48b069462d70%26q%3D1%26e%3D6924b2a6-e7e5-4ec1-a1af-c94637953dc5%26u%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fdocs.google.com%252Fdocument%252Fd%252F1RtxUSvUeBdZWoQkjSj2c3DtR8DuBwPM2BnBXhoDiptY%252Fedit%253Fusp%253Dsharing&data=04%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Ccb25631db9264d26e46608d89ab62bde%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C637429454498913878%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=T%2BREJEGJrn6QwtSlTU300gm4eQDkDf6k08zkdR5IYJc%3D&reserved=0> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> [2] > > >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2017-ace-03-201710191300/ > <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fminutes-interim-2017-ace-03-201710191300%2F&data=04%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Ccb25631db9264d26e46608d89ab62bde%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C1%7C637429454498913878%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=c9FRD3ieuDAHZRY1npHaAqV3SV1aMw%2FCFgoeGS%2BBWig%3D&reserved=0> > > >> > > >> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-selander-ace-eals/ > <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-selander-ace-eals%2F&data=04%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Ccb25631db9264d26e46608d89ab62bde%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C1%7C637429454498923833%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=KcvM1UChtpsBCe7y6%2Fs%2Bv0lEnFcp%2BDfwdjeJqPULeVw%3D&reserved=0> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Daniel Migault > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Ericsson > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Daniel Migault > > > Ericsson > > > > > > > > > -- > > Daniel Migault > > Ericsson > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ace mailing list > > Ace@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace > <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Face&data=04%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Ccb25631db9264d26e46608d89ab62bde%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C1%7C637429454498923833%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=TxU6PXpO86WQUUiQsl9Waa54%2F%2BWKPOCSEqO6xWmFi9Q%3D&reserved=0> > > _______________________________________________ > Ace mailing list > Ace@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace > <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Face&data=04%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Ccb25631db9264d26e46608d89ab62bde%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C1%7C637429454498923833%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=TxU6PXpO86WQUUiQsl9Waa54%2F%2BWKPOCSEqO6xWmFi9Q%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > -- > > Daniel Migault > > Ericsson > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
