Note takers: Tim Wicinski with tale backup
Viktor Dukhovni: using DANE TLSA for ongoing maint
dkg: Didn't understand "maintenance". Please clarify.
VD: folks publish TLSA and don't keep correct.
dkg: Use Cases. Not convinced client auth is required. Think on non-client authenication. Why is this "the" Use Case
Wes: Intent isn't really to establish this as "the" Use Case but one of several to be thinking about
BW: blinded certs not tied to identities.
dkg: is it a design goal here to include role authentication and blinded certs?
Wes: it's a design goal to build a flexible framework that can enable multiple future forward paths with the resulting technology. It's not within scope to select individual ones and DANCE outputs would map to them now.)
- Device-to-cloud - Ash Wilson - 10m - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/slides-112-dance-dance-https-00.pdf
Ben Schwartz: client ship complete DANE cert chain?
WH: So you mean sending all DNSKEYs and RRSIGS up to the root?
BS: Client should not have to do any network to validate. Should not cache anything
VD: Agree with Ben but maybe optional
Shumon Huque: TLS chain extension can do this, configure to go the other way. (RFC 9102)
- EAP-TLS use case - Ash Wilson - 10m - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/slides-112-dance-dance-eap-tls-00.pdf
dkg: How client selecting which identity to present to the network?
AW: For many IoT devices they'll only be able to have one identity to present. Will have to think more for the generalized user case.
(Ben, in Jabber: I think IoT is not a good use case for DANCE until we have a "re-provisioning" system so the owner can change the name of the device.)
Viktor: skeptical of this use case (edit note: which one? What is "this" [chair: I believe he meant EAP/clients at all])
Shumon: SMTP Client use case absent.
Viktor: SMTP client is MTA. MTA<->MTA work hard to be identified as legitimate. Audit trails and reputation.
One thing we are not talking about cred exchange - start with DNS, once authenicated, switch to something else?
Wow on interesting Kerberos scale - must go to recordings.
Bob Moskowitz (chat): BTW, I am looking at this approach for DRIP's unmanned aircraft certs that are behind the whole HHIT methodology. Aviation is/has built a bridged PKI (on my bridge PKI model from back in '98), but I have gotten their CP to include federated PKI. So by putting UA certs in DANCE/DANE format and federating this to the IATF I meet the ICAO goals and mine.
Paul Muchene: question on scalability. possibility of fallback solution?
Ash: up for discussion. Fallback mode useful
Viktor: fallback sounds like using DANE for enrollment.
Wes, relaying from chat, that client IDs (especially IOT) is privacy-leaking. Should we use just TLS 1.3 and skip 1.2?
dkg: Client Hello marked with DANE client ID?
Shumon: Not in first request...
dkg: no need for extension if you know client id is visible, let server figure it out.
Ben from jabber: it is request-response, but in the opposite direction
Robin Wilton (chat): relevant also to Viktor's previous comment about scalability:
if you want to use DANE for the enrolment request/reply but not for every subsequent connection request,
don't you need this kind of "bootstrapping" step in the protocol?
dkg: what we really need is just a way to identify that a cert is a dane cert
Roman: Can we go to TLS1.3 only but check use cases, thought we were using greenfield.
Shumon: something must regenerate the chain
Ben: shipping a chain servers can require (profile)
Viktor: client needs to regenerate to send a chain. most essential is RRSIG of TLSA record.
Validity at most 4 weeks. could be embedded in existing chains(?).
Viktor: could use OID for specifying name space within TLS certificates
- The server presents a list of valid CAs, which could be used to select a client credential - providing the CA identifier can point to a DANE entrypoint
Olle super hard to hear, but was trying to make a point about discussing namespaces with dnsop? In Jabber clarified: The DNS namespace needs to be discussed so that we build a tree instead of a flat name space We have a potential for very large amount of clients, especially in the IOT space
Poll to adopt both solution docs.
raise hands: 20
don't raise hands: 1
total participants: 21
dkg: wants to hear why docs are not ready from one person
- No one voiced opinions about being against