Hi, I do not see this as an issue but would like the WG to state their opinion.
Yours, Daniel ________________________________ From: Cigdem Sengul <cigdem.sen...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:01 AM To: Daniel Migault <daniel.miga...@ericsson.com> Cc: Daniel Migault <mglt.i...@gmail.com>; Ace Wg <ace@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Ace] MQTT, OSCORE, DTLS profiles - recommendation on RS - AS communication Hello Daniel, I should clarify: I did not mean it was not compliant - it was more asking whether anybody objects to registering ace+json when the framework talks about a different method. Kind regards, --Cigdem On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:50 PM Daniel Migault <daniel.miga...@ericsson.com<mailto:daniel.miga...@ericsson.com>> wrote: Hi, I am certainly missing something, but it is unclear to me why "application/ace+json" does not comply to "application/x-www-form-urlencoded". In other words, what would the update of the mqtt draft consist of to be aligned with the framework. I also have the impression that the use of "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" is a MAY and that the framework does not specify MUST. In general I am tempted to think it is better to be aligned with but It would probably need to understand better the issue and I am encouraging the WG to state rapidly their thoughts so we can move the draft forward. Regarding the second point, yes, the draft that introduces ace+json should register it. Yours, Daniel ________________________________ From: Ace <ace-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Cigdem Sengul <cigdem.sen...@gmail.com<mailto:cigdem.sen...@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:58 AM To: Daniel Migault <mglt.i...@gmail.com<mailto:mglt.i...@gmail.com>>; Ace Wg <ace@ietf.org<mailto:ace@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Ace] MQTT, OSCORE, DTLS profiles - recommendation on RS - AS communication Hello Daniel, One thing I didn't have a chance to ask yesterday in the interim was about the registration of the 'ace+json' application type. Francesca brought this up as the MQTT profile describes the HTTPS interactions differently than the core draft which says " When HTTP is used as a transport then the client makes a request to the token endpoint by sending the parameters using the "application/ x-www-form-urlencoded" format with a character encoding of UTF-8 in the HTTP request entity-body, as defined in section 3.2 of [RFC6749]." As I discussed with Francesca, we had discussions on the mailing list with Jim using ace+json as well. I recalled the view that the draft that introduces it should register it - I want to check if this is the general agreement, or you (or the group) has a different view - (1) registering this new type, or (2) MQTT draft is modified to comply with framework description - do we still agree that (1) it should be the MQTT profile registering it or (2) it should be done elsewhere? Kind regards, --Cigdem On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 1:58 PM Daniel Migault <mglt.i...@gmail.com<mailto:mglt.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks for the update, that works for me. Yours, Daniel On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:44 AM Cigdem Sengul <cigdem.sen...@gmail.com<mailto:cigdem.sen...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello Daniel, I propose the following change to clarify the TLS use - if you are happy with it, I will update the document: To provide communication confidentiality and RS authentication to MQTT clients, TLS is used, and TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] is RECOMMENDED. This document makes the same assumptions as Section 4 of the ACE framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] regarding Client and RS registration with the AS and setting up keying material. While the Client-Broker exchanges are only over MQTT, the required Client-AS and RS-AS interactions are described for HTTPS-based communication [RFC7230], using 'application/ace+json' content type, and unless otherwise specified, using JSON encoding. The Client-AS and RS-AS MAY also use protocols other than HTTP, e.g. Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] or MQTT; it is recommended that TLS is used to secure the communication channels between Client-AS and RS-AS." Since it is in this paragraph, one thing that Francesca brought up to do is to register the 'application/ace+json' content type. Kind regards, --Cigdem On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 9:11 PM Daniel Migault <daniel.migault=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hi, Now that the authz document is being consolidated, I do have some minor concerns regarding the recommendations mentioned in the profile documents, that might require an additional update. The update to the authz document indicates more more clearly than before that profiles need to provide some recommendations for the RS – AS communication. “”” Profiles MUST specify for introspection a communication security protocol RECOMMENDED to be used between RS and AS that provides the features required above. “”” It seems to me the MQTT profile text makes it pretty clear that TLS is recommended for all communications but I am wondering if additional clarification would be beneficial – see below. That said I agree this is a very minor point in this case that could be handled by the RFC editor. For the OSCORE or DTLS profiles, unless I am missing the RS – AS recommendations in the documents , it seems to me it has been omitted and needs to be added -- see below. Yours, Daniel ## MQTT - draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-10 “”” To provide communication confidentiality and RS authentication, TLS is used, and TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] is RECOMMENDED. This document makes the same assumptions as Section 4 of the ACE framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] regarding Client and RS registration with the AS and setting up keying material. While the Client-Broker exchanges are only over MQTT, the required Client-AS and RS-AS interactions are described for HTTPS-based communication [RFC7230], using 'application/ace+json' content type, and unless otherwise specified, using JSON encoding. “”” I am wondering if that would not be more appropriated to specify in the first line RS and AS authentication or simply authentication. * OSCORE draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-16 “”” This profile RECOMMENDS the use of OSCORE between client and AS, to reduce the number of libraries the client has to support, but other protocols fulfilling the security requirements defined in section 5 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] (such as TLS or DTLS) MAY be used as well. “”” * DTLS draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-15 “”” It is RECOMMENDED that the client uses DTLS with the same keying material to secure the communication with the authorization server, proving possession of the key as part of the token request. Other mechanisms for proving possession of the key may be defined in the future. “”” _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org<mailto:Ace@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org<mailto:Ace@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
