ACE use cases
draft-ietf-ace-usecases-07

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ace WG)
Last updated 2015-10-02
Replaces draft-seitz-ace-usecases
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document (wg milestones: Oct 2014 - Submit "Use cases an..., Sep 2015 - Optionally, submit "... )
Document shepherd Hannes Tschofenig
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Kathleen Moriarty
Send notices to "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
ACE Working Group                                          L. Seitz, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       SICS Swedish ICT AB
Intended status: Informational                            S. Gerdes, Ed.
Expires: April 4, 2016                           Universitaet Bremen TZI
                                                             G. Selander
                                                                Ericsson
                                                                 M. Mani
                                                                   Itron
                                                                S. Kumar
                                                        Philips Research
                                                        October 02, 2015

                             ACE use cases
                       draft-ietf-ace-usecases-07

Abstract

   Constrained devices are nodes with limited processing power, storage
   space and transmission capacities.  These devices in many cases do
   not provide user interfaces and are often intended to interact
   without human intervention.

   This document includes a collection of representative use cases for
   authentication and authorization in constrained environments.  These
   use cases aim at identifying authorization problems that arise during
   the lifecycle of a constrained device and are intended to provide a
   guideline for developing a comprehensive authentication and
   authorization solution for this class of scenarios.

   Where specific details are relevant, it is assumed that the devices
   use the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) as communication
   protocol, however most conclusions apply generally.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

Seitz, et al.             Expires April 4, 2016                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                ACE use cases                 October 2015

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 4, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Container monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Bananas for Munich  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.2.  Authorization Problems Summary  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Home Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.1.  Controlling the Smart Home Infrastructure . . . . . .   7
       2.2.2.  Seamless Authorization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.3.  Remotely letting in a visitor . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.4.  Selling the house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.5.  Authorization Problems Summary  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.3.  Personal Health Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.3.1.  John and the heart rate monitor . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.3.2.  Authorization Problems Summary  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.4.  Building Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.4.1.  Device Lifecycle  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.4.2.  Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       2.4.3.  Authorization Problems Summary  . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     2.5.  Smart Metering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.5.1.  Drive-by metering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.5.2.  Meshed Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       2.5.3.  Advanced Metering Infrastructure  . . . . . . . . . .  17
Show full document text