Subject: [Anima] draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-03: Concern - MTI

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:15:49 -0700

Would like the list to express opinions about one (IMHO core) issue
brought up yesterday during the WG meeting:

What is the MTI (Mandatory To Implement) (aka: "MUST") set of protocols
in support of ANIMA bootstrap:

- Right now the draft suggest "MUST" for CoAP and SHOULD for TLS if i am not mistaken.

- Fair warning: As a contributor i am biased towards TLS because i know this 
  is sufficient for all the enterprise/SP ("well managed networks" as we say in our charter)
  use cases. I hope this still allows me to be objective enough to help drive this
  question to a conclusion as a WG-chair ;-):

- For progress -> IESG of bootstrap as a WG charter item, i am somewhat concerned
  about MUST against CoAP because it seems to create a good amount of more
  work for use to get a first round of bootstrap "out the door" (RFC):

  - We would need to make the work of draft-pritikin-coap-bootstrap-00
    part of the mandatory first charter round deliverable (whether through
    folding the text back into the bootstrap draft or separately).

  - We would need to wait for I-D.ietf-core-block to become RFC

  - We would need to resolve the open issues around operations of the proxy
    for CoAP (will describe in separate thread).

To give a more conservative option:
 - Move all CoAP text from bootstrap draft into CoAP draft.
 - Make CoAP draft WG item for bootstrap charter item.
 - Bootstrap mandates (MUST) TLS.
 - CoAP draft describes derived (CoAP) version of bootstrap:
   - CoAP is MUST , requirement to do TLS is reduced to MAY

So i hope this would allow us to pace the work on CoAP based on resolving
the items listed above, and give the industry the option later on to implement
against what they need in their use-case:
  - Product that only is interested in TLS just claims support for bootstrap RFC
  - Product intereested in only CoAP claims support for just coap RFC
  - Product supporting both TLS and CoAP claims support for both.

Thought / opinions / suggestions ? If not yet, pls. have them on thursday ;-)

Thanks!
    Toerless