Subject: [lamps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on charter-ietf-lamps-04-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 02:13:00 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lamps-04-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lamps/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not fully clear to me what is meant with "these environments". I guess
something with constraint devices...? Would be nice to be at least slightly
more concrete to make the charter less ambiguous/less open-ended.

---

From: "Brockhaus, Hendrik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 12:29:14 +0000

Hi Mirja

Thank you for your comment. You are perfectly right, the wording "theses environments" is quite vague.

> something with constraint devices...? Would be nice to be at least slightly more
> concrete to make the charter less ambiguous/less open-ended.
> 

As pointed out in the introduction of the I-D the CMP profile addresses machine-to-machine use cases and focusses on maximum automation of certificate management of such machine end entities as well as further communication of the involved PKI management entities.
-----------------------------snip-----------------------------
2.  Introduction

   This document specifies PKI management operations supporting machine-
   to-machine and IoT use cases.  The focus lies on maximum automation
   and interoperable implementation of all involved PKI entities from
   end entities (EE) through an optional Local Registration Authority
   (LRA) and the RA up to the CA. [...]
-----------------------------snip-----------------------------

I am happy to change the proposed charter text accordingly to make it more clear. Would this wording be better?
-----------------------------snip-----------------------------
3. The Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) is specified in RFC 4210,
and it offers a vast range of certificate management options.  CMP is
currently being used in many different industrial environments, but it
needs to be tailored to the specific needs of such machine-to-machine 
scenarios and communication among PKI management entities.  The
LAMPS WG will develop a "lightweight" profile of CMP to more efficiently
support of these environments and better facilitate interoperable
implementation, while preserving cryptographic algorithm agility.  In
addition, necessary updates and clarifications to CMP will be specified
in a separate document.  This work will be coordinated with the LWIG WG.
-----------------------------snip-----------------------------

Hendrik

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:29:41 +0100

Yes, I think that would be better. Thanks!

> On 5. Dec 2019, at 13:29, Brockhaus, Hendrik <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Mirja
>

---

From: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:00:47 +0000

This change is now reflected in the 04-02 version of the charter.

Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 8:30 AM
> To: Brockhaus, Hendrik <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [lamps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on charter-ietf-lamps-
> 04-01: (with COMMENT)
> 
> >> It's not fully clear to me what is meant with "these environments". I
> >> guess something with constraint devices...? Would be nice to be at
> >> least slightly more concrete to make the charter less ambiguous/less
> open-ended.
> >>
> >
> > As pointed out in the introduction of the I-D the CMP profile addresses
> machine-to-machine use cases and focusses on maximum automation of
> certificate management of such machine end entities as well as further
> communication of the involved PKI management entities.
> > I am happy to change the proposed charter text accordingly to make it
> more clear. Would this wording be better?
> LAMPS
> > WG will develop a "lightweight" profile of CMP to more efficiently
> > addition, necessary updates and clarifications to CMP will be
> > specified in a separate document.  This work will be coordinated with the
> LWIG WG.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:37:45 -0500

> On Dec 5, 2019, at 5:13 AM, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Perhaps it would be more clear to say:

   ... support of environments that include constrained devices and
    better facilitate interoperable implementation ...