From nobody Tue May 5 02:16:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE671A0217 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 02:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nCuPny7wKksg for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 02:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1718F1A020D for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 02:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t459FtUk017581 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 11:15:55 +0200 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4ABC4200DF1 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 11:17:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38426200808 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 11:17:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t459Fk5F001282 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 11:15:55 +0200 Message-ID: <55488A42.4020200@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 11:15:46 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "its@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [geonet/its] C-ACC advancements at ETSI ITS X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 09:16:02 -0000 Hello, ETSI ITS is advancing the TR 103 299 V0.0.2 of April 2015. "Intelligent Transport System (ITS); Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (C-ACC); Pre-standardization study" The standard is not ready for universal download, but ETSI participants may find it. In it, C-ACC is considered to be an application. I think in practice it is possible to transmit the application-layer messages of C-ACC over an IPv6 subnet of neighbors which are close to each other (meters or tens of meters), on an 802.11p media. How would you expect a C-ACC application to act on IP networks? Alex From nobody Thu May 7 01:48:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF3F1ACD3C for ; Thu, 7 May 2015 01:48:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sRlvGQqShzq2 for ; Thu, 7 May 2015 01:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22d.google.com (mail-qc0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 970D81A8F48 for ; Thu, 7 May 2015 01:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcbgu10 with SMTP id gu10so17632651qcb.2 for ; Thu, 07 May 2015 01:48:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QgQW8j5n8KcZCrKnBYW5TbS+/LghHb3yfbdmC1sdmWk=; b=T+84jS6CirPhrtk5vAktxgHF8n/Yj79F00JDiisO+hrbzC+gD+sZWbV/Y3l9f1CbRD 8SIEzOabY5uyYB1XTpJ85FXN3/FuJGzyOd+Bxus191GMKrthpdkQT6NqnXtbTjNLVFoJ UaGQ0iW7jCJEuYiPhTw3U+wPqbDwJ1R9aQxUdu76CbXe10yCfAfNuh+1lDBMl4JJC+Zd 1BrUCa1eqigXNpV9JR3OUCZPQzH8xh+n1UudKNEuuttvrjeALIuW5U5zyo1ZUFkQ0z9o QkTLk+JaU9/0glGCISrpUTdJbSlOuTShVrRmGgLaL3WuKazGa7YHP1vXem1XDNXaouv8 R0Kg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.148.215 with SMTP id 206mr3807591qhu.62.1430988498874; Thu, 07 May 2015 01:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.84.105 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 01:48:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55488A42.4020200@gmail.com> References: <55488A42.4020200@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 10:48:18 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Alexandru Petrescu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135dd56273906051579f980 Archived-At: Cc: "its@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [geonet/its] C-ACC advancements at ETSI ITS X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 08:48:21 -0000 --001a1135dd56273906051579f980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, Alexandru Petrescu > > > How would you expect a C-ACC application to act on IP networks? I expect using cross layering, and separating control and data communication planes. AB --001a1135dd56273906051579f980 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>=C2=A0
How would you expect a C-ACC application to act on IP networks?

=C2=A0I expect using cross layering, and separating co= ntrol and data communication=C2=A0planes.=C2=A0

AB=
--001a1135dd56273906051579f980-- From nobody Thu May 7 04:58:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312B21A87B8 for ; Thu, 7 May 2015 04:58:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.983 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5IGWxw_5qwZo for ; Thu, 7 May 2015 04:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F2481A87A2 for ; Thu, 7 May 2015 04:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t47Bw5kZ022868; Thu, 7 May 2015 13:58:05 +0200 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B271B202997; Thu, 7 May 2015 13:59:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAF7202943; Thu, 7 May 2015 13:59:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t47Bw4Dm004665; Thu, 7 May 2015 13:58:04 +0200 Message-ID: <554B534C.4030008@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 13:58:04 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "its@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: hosnieh.rafiee@huawei.com Subject: [geonet/its] Standards about PKI models for vehicular networks X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 11:58:15 -0000 Hi, What are the standards that treat of PKI models in the particular case of vehicular networks? Alex From nobody Thu May 28 01:45:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7A51A9060 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 01:45:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id arg6PXt3L4Go for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 01:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E58A1A9058 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 01:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by paza2 with SMTP id a2so18697018paz.3 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 01:45:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2ZKlECWnshk9Pox9JGU+cdnZbXAm4U5xEvs1kS/yhtI=; b=dCgJWMBcXBENX3YbAJFkdR+EY3IkETm0FK3CNZPmLYBvZckvi0bCdx7T8DDhA3KpJ+ 4df7NAZlpFxBEzYrxo5ucY3CScXKYYg9jpJEhKZNKqN0OziC8F0PTW8jP/mGu9USqgCI aoKNcUnMWebS8DQ+5BgguDzdRnncsXZAvBeTzCyaoI3LvXjPLe53tOCEShlLe4d1i/e0 jaJKcB/SPvc4xdKwG1d9GMrqJSeNYN6h5w1VC8JtRXluJBajVdMHnBAbqqLRF1woZMki MLAszVcjEB/+ueU6i5c5rn/653NeZig3FEIw/iVBmnEpdqsSpLVFoJt4ZlPNkZETFj4x X05Q== X-Received: by 10.66.132.81 with SMTP id os17mr3418371pab.153.1432802755170; Thu, 28 May 2015 01:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.103] ([203.230.193.47]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u10sm1585596pbs.30.2015.05.28.01.45.53 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 May 2015 01:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jong-Hyouk Lee In-Reply-To: <554B534C.4030008@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:45:54 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2AE9D409-2CC8-4ABB-90C4-92D6D2BDCF6A@gmail.com> References: <554B534C.4030008@gmail.com> To: Alexandru Petrescu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Cc: its@ietf.org Subject: Re: [geonet/its] Standards about PKI models for vehicular networks X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:45:56 -0000 I am not sure other standard models, but ETSI ITS security groups = published related documents and the European CAR 2 CAR Communication = Consortium (C2C-CC) also had internal documents. As I am no longer = active in them, I do not know the latest status.=20 Cheers. -- Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University #email: jonghyouk@gmail.com #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon > On May 7, 2015, at 8:58 PM, Alexandru Petrescu = wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > What are the standards that treat of PKI models in the particular case > of vehicular networks? >=20 > Alex >=20 > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its From nobody Thu May 28 02:22:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E305A1A0282 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 02:22:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.983 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0wwCs1wfz2Bw for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 02:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF5F61A0266 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 02:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t4S9MmOp009305; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:22:48 +0200 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id F3177205541; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:25:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6FE20550F; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:25:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t4S9Mfbq025081; Thu, 28 May 2015 11:22:47 +0200 Message-ID: <5566DE61.7040907@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 11:22:41 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jong-Hyouk Lee References: <554B534C.4030008@gmail.com> <2AE9D409-2CC8-4ABB-90C4-92D6D2BDCF6A@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2AE9D409-2CC8-4ABB-90C4-92D6D2BDCF6A@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: its@ietf.org Subject: Re: [geonet/its] Standards about PKI models for vehicular networks X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 09:22:53 -0000 As for ETSI ITS there is this document publicly available which describes architecture and includes PKI (although not a "PKI model"). ETSI TS 102 940 V1.1.1 (2012-06) "ITS communications security architecture and security management" Recent ETSI ITS security discussions talk about certificate formats and how to sign messages. ETSI organizes a Security workshop on June 24 and 25 on "Security Assurance in ITS" thematic stream: http://www.etsi.org/news-events/events/870-security-week Alex Le 28/05/2015 10:45, Jong-Hyouk Lee a écrit : > I am not sure other standard models, but ETSI ITS security groups > published related documents and the European CAR 2 CAR Communication > Consortium (C2C-CC) also had internal documents. As I am no longer > active in them, I do not know the latest status. > > Cheers. -- Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and > /dev/random Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University > > #email: jonghyouk@gmail.com #webpage: > https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon > >> On May 7, 2015, at 8:58 PM, Alexandru Petrescu >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> What are the standards that treat of PKI models in the particular >> case of vehicular networks? >> >> Alex >> >> _______________________________________________ its mailing list >> its@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its > > > From nobody Thu May 28 04:47:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399B31A0161 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 04:47:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.379 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z-sSVy8oj_mg for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 04:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x234.google.com (mail-qg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F42E1A1A59 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 04:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgf2 with SMTP id 2so14709491qgf.3 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 04:47:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=securityinnovation.com; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:thread-index:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Smhp1Ryjixl11eipnI38FJ8oCjKvEJZ6NgEspfJfIOs=; b=aJ4YP4phpqRfbmjKdc2zx56avf0IZw8KO0J7gvgQ8eVa+sGcwtP6+CGRmayOjOve0v h2XE2WGy3hjR4CxQZHDxwXByZB7QeqCt4QrwZqa0l//SO0upfe9SpascIVeS5nwJZpfO vYX2PzHf95VhH/ssolsylQVbLDRtkUh6tN+NE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Smhp1Ryjixl11eipnI38FJ8oCjKvEJZ6NgEspfJfIOs=; b=TsCwGMmsZIxNMvl5hWHOsouCzAHWASxl4mf0lplYm9fd3Xw6328u7MmwqvIqWd32YP BXXWqYpT4aatrb1uYJBrf2I0NAkZzS6y6HrkAp7BK95EDRN5wGe99OWCKHsQr8NILiAO eYmJVrVFnGqXLUY9hwM1t7ENvAr3oYK+kOWdMDzrzPzSs7IHV81YAuHZi4I52mnuorO6 z/QP1pYZnB1vqtt3+9543rGg4GPJz/RRnsQ+vkNjvmp2/OlKIcZQiQJwciEMN+OuhHzJ oNms4L/k7J9RYYCTJAJSrV6jgpU5iAkjrXTrFRXGUC0obxmYYZTrDo6cf1v+33ti7C7w 7Pbg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmkClLg+BGpthGb3MKJSCf9b0CJ/sYhOs6XXgb0xMKyHvQzFv1QVeBrJBhHEMiySDEodTl+ X-Received: by 10.55.25.42 with SMTP id k42mr4143318qkh.79.1432813639568; Thu, 28 May 2015 04:47:19 -0700 (PDT) From: William Whyte References: <554B534C.4030008@gmail.com> <2AE9D409-2CC8-4ABB-90C4-92D6D2BDCF6A@gmail.com> <5566DE61.7040907@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5566DE61.7040907@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQItMEh0jq0bqgfNXn2lfZmiWKdsnQIv3AHnAxLm9N6crf7ZkA== Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 07:47:18 -0400 Message-ID: <4941dbc0340c3da6765df68a4b0df698@mail.gmail.com> To: Alexandru Petrescu , Jong-Hyouk Lee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: its@ietf.org Subject: Re: [geonet/its] Standards about PKI models for vehicular networks X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GeoNet BoF discussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 11:47:22 -0000 I'm editor of IEEE 1609.2, which specifies some security mechanisms for use in V2X and which will be used in the US. Note that there's no particular "PKI model for vehicular networks", at least not in the US. In the US there are ITS applications which have security requirements and those requirements are in general met by application-specific mechanisms, as in the case of V2V safety or tolling, or by security mechanisms that work over IPv6 such as TLS or IPSec. In the US we've done a lot of work on making the system somewhat privacy-preserving, even against insider attacks at the CA, while at the same time allowing revocation; there's a description of those mechanisms in William Whyte, Andr=C3=A9 Weimerskirch, Virendra Kumar, and Thorsten Heh= n, =E2=80=9CA Security Credential Management System for V2V Communications=E2= =80=9D, 2013 IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC 2013), December 16-18, 2013, Boston, USA, which you can get a copy of at http://www.cvt-project.ir/Admin/Files/eventAttachments/A%20Security%20Cree ntial%20Management%20System%20for%20V2V%20Communications%20-%20VNC%20Confe rence%202013_514.pdf. Those mechanisms are being incorporated in the current working draft of 1609.2, not yet complete. The US approach doesn't have multi-hop at the network level, and there are no security mechanisms below Layer 7 other than IPSec. We've been considering link-layer encryption for single-hop services but are waiting for 802 to come up with a fast-setup encryption mechanism. I may be in Prague and would be happy to discuss in person. Cheers, William -----Original Message----- From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 5:23 AM To: Jong-Hyouk Lee Cc: its@ietf.org Subject: Re: [geonet/its] Standards about PKI models for vehicular networks As for ETSI ITS there is this document publicly available which describes architecture and includes PKI (although not a "PKI model"). ETSI TS 102 940 V1.1.1 (2012-06) "ITS communications security architecture and security management" Recent ETSI ITS security discussions talk about certificate formats and how to sign messages. ETSI organizes a Security workshop on June 24 and 25 on "Security Assurance in ITS" thematic stream: http://www.etsi.org/news-events/events/870-security-week Alex Le 28/05/2015 10:45, Jong-Hyouk Lee a =C3=A9crit : > I am not sure other standard models, but ETSI ITS security groups > published related documents and the European CAR 2 CAR Communication > Consortium (C2C-CC) also had internal documents. As I am no longer > active in them, I do not know the latest status. > > Cheers. -- Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and > /dev/random Protocol Engineering Lab., Sangmyung University > > #email: jonghyouk@gmail.com #webpage: > https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon > >> On May 7, 2015, at 8:58 PM, Alexandru Petrescu >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> What are the standards that treat of PKI models in the particular >> case of vehicular networks? >> >> Alex >> >> _______________________________________________ its mailing list >> its@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its > > > _______________________________________________ its mailing list its@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its