Subject: [Anima] more ambiguities in BRSKI

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2017 16:43:28 -0400

As we have removed appendix D, and are about to post the -08 version,
we are now in the process of making sure that we didn't miss anything important!

Max, Section 4.2, we missed a reference to Appendix D.
It was literally in the text, not using an XREF, so xml2rfc did not complain:

   registrar-cert' are correct.  The registrar performs authorization as
   detailed in [[EDNOTE: UNRESOLVED.  See Appendix D "Pledge
   Authorization"]].  If these validations fail the Registrar SHOULD

I put the old text into the wiki, at:
  https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/wiki

and I'm fixing this section.

In particular, I also am unable to see anything in section 4.2 that tells me
whether to Pledge->Registrar should have a clientcert for the TLS connection!

I'm pretty sure that we are supposed to do that, and it seems like it's
MUST be mandatory if the voucher request is not signed.  In addition, the
attacks that we were calling MITM attacks, but for which a MITM is impossible
because the IDevID is verified by the JRC mean that the connection MUST be
anchored with a client certificate, so I'll see what text I can add to make
that clear.

In the case where the voucher request is signed, I think that the JRC should
verify the signature on the voucher request USING the key present in TLS, and
should essentially ignore any (and all) keys present in the PKCS7 blob.
It seems that finding the right certificate and verifying that it's memcpy()
equal to that in the TLS client certificate is just extra work with no value.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [