On 21/05/2025 22:35, Michael Richardson wrote:
Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker<[email protected]> wrote:
     > 3. Please could you add text to explain “no transport layer security
     > between Registrar-Agent and pledge..” e.g., please explain: Is this
     > something that users ought to add to a design? how? why? is it a
     > desirable property? Why? ...  or is this intended to be explained more
     > in the next subsections? ...  Especially since 7.1 speaks of optional
     > use of TLS.

The new (pledge) device:
a) has no internet. If it has IP at all, it's via a Soft-AP or an p2p ethernet
    cable.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftAP

b) the device has an IDevID, but that's a long-term certificate with no SAN
    that TLS could verify.  So, you can't do DNS-ID verification, so at most 
any TLS
    that would be there would be unable to verify anything.  A lot of effort
    for almost no security.
    The device has no name for any SAN.
    The device might have only an IPv6-LL address, which might be randomly 
generated.
    At most, the Registrar-Agent, which also might have no connectivity, would
    be able to validate that the IDevID is from a trusted manufacturer.  Not
    every deployment has such a list.  
Seehttps://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8995.html#section-11.5

c) might be connected via USB. BTLE.  HTTP-ish/CoAP can run across BTLE using 
GATT.
    In theory, the entire Registry Agent could live in a mobile browser.
    No, we haven't explained this; it would be another document.

This is why the PRM mechanism includes so much *object* security including
having the pledge sign the Registrar Agent's nonce in the

Section 6.2 and 7.1 says a lot about the process expected around HTTP.
For instance, the registrar-agent can't put anything useful into the HTTP
Host: header either.

--
Michael Richardson<[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

OK. So, I am trying to work out what that sentence could read like if it were to help people understand what you explain. Could it be something like:

/potentially no transport layer security between Registrar-Agent and pledge/use where there is no transport layer security between Registrar-Agent and pledge/

- this comment relates only to not seeing what is being said, not to a deeper problem.

Best wishes,

Gorry
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to