<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > A. This is really a discuss discuss. With to little time to dig into > the details it appears that this protocol is making i hack of its > interface towards the its transport. It appears to attempt to use an > HTTP rest interface, but then it is also have a lot of talking about > requirement for the TLS connection underlying the HTTP. So to > illustrate the issue I see here is what happens if one like to use QUIC > as the underlying transport for the rest interface rather than TCP/TLS? > So can this document achieve a clearer interface to the lower layers so > that it will be simpler to move the protocol to another underlying > version of the HTTP "transport"? Between the JRC (Registrar) and the MASA, we can support any HTTPS, including HTTP/2 with QUIC (with the 'normal' corporate firewall issue with UDP). Between the Pledge and the Registrar, we support any HTTPS that works over a single TCP connection. We can not support QUIC, since the Pledge is behind an intentionally limited proxy. We had some discussion about this a year or so ago, please see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/ml1OSEKhR4-ICS0Bd0zfuzn8uw4 You are certainly right: we have linkage between the TLS layer and the application layer, and we expect TLSClientCertificates and TLSServerCertificates to have meaning at the application layer. None of the connections could go through TLS "forced proxies" of the kind that are apparently common in Enterprises. I am open to suggestions on how to make the document clearer about how it interfaces to TLS. We have a sections: 5.1. BRSKI-EST TLS establishment details . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.4. BRSKI-MASA TLS establishment details . . . . . . . . . . 38 > B. Section 5.6: > The server MUST answer with a suitable 4xx or 5xx HTTP [RFC2616] error > code when a problem occurs. > Referencing RFC 2616 that has been obsolete by RFC 7230 and > companions. I do note that there are no normative reference for that > part in this document. Fixed to 7230. Yes, that wasn't even a real reference, just a literal [RFC2616]. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
