The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) Cloud Registrar' (draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-19.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud/ Technical Summary Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures defines how to onboard a device securely into an operator-maintained infrastructure. It assumes that there is local network infrastructure for the device to discover and help the device. This document extends the new device behavior so that if no local infrastructure is available, such as in a home or remote office, the device can use a well-defined "call-home" mechanism to find the operator-maintained infrastructure. This document defines how to contact a well-known Cloud Registrar, and two ways in which the new device may be redirected towards the operator-maintained infrastructure. The Cloud Registrar enables discovery of the operator-maintained infrastructure, and may enable establishment of trust with operator-maintained infrastructure that does not support BRSKI mechanisms. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? >From Shepherds Review: This document was called draft-friel-anima-brski-cloud prior to its adoption. There was unanimous support for it in favor of adoption and none against), so this document was adopted in May, 2021. It is a follow-up document of RFC8995 "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI)", which published May 2021. There was interest in this work posts since its adoption. There was never any opposition for this work. This document went through a relevant long document development period (20 months for individual document period, 31 month for WG document period). It is partly because of global COVID-19 and slow process of its prior dependent document and parallel brother documents. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel The Document Shepherd for this document is Sheng Jiang. The Responsible Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani. >From Shepherds Report: This document went through multiple reviews by ANIMA WG participants, which did receive comments to help improving the document. So far, there is no existing implementations. IANA Note This document makes no IANA requests. _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
