Subject: [core] Bootstrap in draft-ohba-core-eap-based-bootstrapping and draft-garcia-core-security

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:08:37 -0700 (PDT)

Hi all,
  It seems that the word bootstrapping has been used and overused in so many 
drafts (including draft-ohba-core-eap-based-bootstrapping and 
draft-garcia-core-security) and I suggest that we clarify this.

Colin had a draft on 
Initial Configuration of Resource-Constrained Devices
called draft-oflynn-6lowapp-bootstrapping submitted on Jan. 2010 in which he 
defined bootstrapping ashow to initially    configure the network.

Later on we continued this work on where Colin left 
indraft-sarikaya-core-sbootstrapping.

I think that the definition Colin gave to bootstrapping is the right one. It 
matches with the historical use of bootstrapping in computers: you bootstrap 
your computer to initially configure it by a physical action (pressing a button) 
which loads a small record to the memory which when executed bootstraps (brings 
the whole OS to the memory) the system.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:28:01 +0300

Hi Behcet, 

I agree with you that the term "bootstrapping" is not very helpful.

There are three cases: 

a) Key Distribution and Key Derivation

Here an existing keying material is used to derive other keying material or to use securely distribute keying material. 
draft-ohba-core-eap-based-bootstrapping and 

b) Bootstrapping (in terms of operating systems procedures)

See description in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_%28computing%29

draft-garcia-core-security seems to refer to this aspect, I believe. 

c) Establishing initial keying material in a leap of faith style. 

Example: Bluetooth pairing protocol
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pritikin-ttimodel-01 also discusses these aspects. 
Here the terms used are imprinting, pairing, enrollment, and introduction are used to describe 

Ciao
Hannes

On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:08 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:25:55 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Hannes (Kelly and Rene who replied to me only),

Let me clarify.

I checked the Wiki page, it is about what I talked, i.e. bootstrapping your PC. 
I am OK with it.

In Core WG drafts, draft-ohba is about "bootstrapping" CoAP applications, 
establishing a secure channel between the CoAP client and CoAP server.

As such it assumes a secure IP communication which is what we cover in 
draft-sarikaya.

I think that establishing a secure channel between the CoAP client and CoAP 
server should not be called bootstrapping.

OTOH, draft-garcia is totally chaotic about "bootstrapping". In Section 3 it 
talks about  trust bootstrapping between nodes of
   different vendors. Then it talks about bootstrapping phase/procedures.
Later on they mention the bootstrapping of security keys.

Section 5.2 Bootstrapping of a Security Domain
In Section 5.2.2 it tries to give a definition to bootstrapping.

My suggestions are:

for draft-ohba: please do not use bootstrapping, otherwise your draft is clear 
enough.

for draft-garcia: This draft talks about so many things. In most places, what it 
refers to as bootstrapping and the description match what is covered in the 
original document which is draft-sarikaya. I suggest removing all those sections 
about bootstrapping because they are mostly repeating what we already had. Stay 
with whatever remains and see if it is worth to have such a document.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:13:15 +0900

Hi Hannes, Bahcet,

Please see my comments below.

> establishing a secure channel between the CoAP client and CoAP server.

Yes.

> server should not be called bootstrapping.

For example, RFC 4640 discuss "bootstrapping MIPv6", and in its abstract:

"A mobile node needs at least the following information: a home
address, a home agent address, and a security association with home
agent to register with the home agent.  The process of obtaining this
information is called bootstrapping."

This means that bootstrapping MIPv6 security is part of bootstrapping
MIPv6.

Following the same logic, I think bootstrapping CoAP security can be
considered as part of bootstrapping CoAP application.

> for draft-ohba: please do not use bootstrapping, otherwise your draft is clear

Since the term bootstrapping is already used for MIPv6 case, I think
it can still use the term, but I agree that the draft should say
bootstrapping CoAP security instead of bootstrapping CoAP application.

Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:33:57 +0300

Hi Yoshi, 

it was a mistake to use the term "bootstrapping" in mobile IPv6 context as well. 
There was no good reason to create a new term given the existence of already well-established terms. 

Time to change that.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:26:22 -0700 (PDT)

> There was no good reason to create a new term given  the existence of already 

+1

Behcet

> >>> Here an  existing keying material is used to derive other  keying material 
>or  to
> >>> use securely distribute keying material.
> >>> 
> >>> See description in   
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_%28computing%29
> >>> 
> >>>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pritikin-ttimodel-01 also discusses   
>these
> >>> aspects.
> >>> 
> >>> Here the terms  used are imprinting, pairing, enrollment, and  introduction  
>are
> >>> used to describe
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Ciao
> >>> Hannes
> >>> 
> >>>> your computer to initially configure it by a physical  action  (pressing 
a
> >>> button)

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 16:30:54 +0300

Yoshi, I would also like to add that my comment regarding Bahcet's suggestion for a terminology change does not lower the value of your contribution in any way. 
In fact, I find your document a very interesting discussion contribution regarding the envisioned smart object security architecture. 

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 03:52:59 +0900

Thanks, Hannes.

I agree to change the terminology.

Chairs: I request a slot to discuss my contribution in IETF81.

Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba