From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qk1-f174.google.com (mail-qk1-f174.google.com [209.85.222.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E1BA36AF1 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 15:19:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="FXHjUvh+" Received: by mail-qk1-f174.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-77891c236fcso348629585a.3 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 08:19:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1698160790; x=1698765590; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=W6LZbJGilvOPC2JtasV/VsCXeELuJ7L3K+Vxi9wFIUQ=; b=FXHjUvh+DW0VvBerbxF2/r4Lz8KP3YG6xWBdLXz4aXZgg87Yp/ez5Gj5MmxMx+n0cg v7dF+RIgvUd+nBIRBWv/rPkGLR+ve+n9UzDO8iFPMyGPFfhpZWsoBUW4Wrt3BEQlhRsx qCPurK8UbZ/J75CxrBLj/JPZf1zykHZXbHWz+/CwOQUKO7BG8+Pb82+ku0zgNN+y245V wOkXuDXQIuNJsoND9or3EBssh/FgAgkffjPmOg1Snf3BoNi0ujEqaM4Bf1p4FjtFSZdP CmKeN3KVUoWTNpDmohoPnlyqTicmRNIZxrFMaZ4opYcq3JpbVHYTopPtFSxaoqwFISuz xi5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1698160790; x=1698765590; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=W6LZbJGilvOPC2JtasV/VsCXeELuJ7L3K+Vxi9wFIUQ=; b=Dn1hnq8L0kLqj4i6rJAQQYRojlwVb+evZkQCKMAcCZ/+6e//zwyrhENjcTJCq/1y5a ge/FBA7aixJ3oVofh7INE7wUNqUZOHzdJ7mBMa85BOz+OuT5SMnkIQjIEZTvZNVsJY/L cB9TK0ocvSOup8YDAxV7VJDiDjRGwlBEVBWKkmVOcsD+Fv6Dat/bADC91zc+2Vn1WCHI zS+JatwZodvsqPMmwVTP+1zaOzXo2inNjOOlTGyOd5bVkfxoJq57/JCynz7q7wa4mY3f zGNQAJWu2f/h/doUXO3legfMcJX6RNlfZSut1e83/eTyS1tcmiNY8mMYRiNpUh0lJACX o4Aw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxb3wtWNKG5lH1E0Rgr19o1b8sHUY2BZk4/ICmxAz5QwCx6VDyv D3RoUuVMHhHE5rdxYKKac5YvlMrn1Vs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGlmV1O8TSU/f67vWazflx3dShsc3ttp7uIqhQWY2fo3AN6v9eKmLLDrsdciSYcZiLmpWYKYA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2584:b0:779:dc90:ba1d with SMTP id x4-20020a05620a258400b00779dc90ba1dmr5931512qko.14.1698160789987; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 08:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.102.4.159] (50-78-19-50-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [50.78.19.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b1-20020a05620a118100b0077438383a07sm3508963qkk.80.2023.10.24.08.19.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Oct 2023 08:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <05ce203b-78ed-4032-9d35-e5ef43dc6397@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 08:19:47 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: iwd@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/21] doc: PKEX support for DPP Content-Language: en-US To: Denis Kenzior , iwd@lists.linux.dev References: <20231012200150.338401-1-prestwoj@gmail.com> <20231012200150.338401-12-prestwoj@gmail.com> <41078822-99da-466e-b612-91a8c223dbde@gmail.com> <0dd4a4a5-95aa-49c1-be77-e640862c3f82@gmail.com> <62d0c420-3bc5-45a8-80c6-c4c59db7ae2c@gmail.com> <035c5cb1-d5be-4c4b-a6f5-8c0941926225@gmail.com> <7de9faab-5863-48f5-8de6-28e1b543d2b8@gmail.com> From: James Prestwood In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Denis, On 10/24/23 8:03 AM, Denis Kenzior wrote: > Hi James, > >>> >>> Fair enough, lets explore whether we can provide this via some agent >>> API. >> >> Reading more about the identifier being used to distinguish a >> "plurality of devices" this is what I'm thinking as far as the agent >> interaction: >> >> It would make sense (on the configurator side) to query an agent >> _after_ the enrollee sends the PKEX exchange request. That way the >> configurator can look up the identifier/code, somewhat the same as >> RequestUserPassword. > > Possible.  But isn't the main use case to share the code and initiate on > both sides independently? That's kinda what I originally thought but the quote "where a PKEX implementation may be provisioned to connect to a plurality of devices and needs to know which code to use to process a received PKEX frame" Makes it seem like the implementation can lookup a code based on an identifier after receiving a frame. Like you mentioned, only a machine could do this while adhering to the spec so, eh? who knows what they intend here... I'd prefer to support this because it allows a unique exchange per-device (assuming each device sends a unique ID). Obviously, also support the human case, maybe two configure APIs? ConfigureEnrollee(code, identifier) (Though we have to make the identifier optional, either via a{sv} or an empty string) StartConfigurator(object agent_path) > > So.. > ConfiguratorEnrollee(code, identifier) > StartEnrollee(code, identifier) > >> >> I don't see much benefit of using an agent in StartEnrollee(), and >> would rather pass via the DBus arguments for simplicity. Adding an >> agent for this doesn't really gain us anything, it just adds >> complexity. The caller of the API can still change the code/id for >> each call it makes to StartEnrollee() as it sees fit. > > Okay, sounds fair. > >> >> So something like: >> >> StartConfigurator() >>      ... waits for PKEX exchange request ... >>      -> RX PKEX exchange request >>          if (id) >>              Agent.RequestUserPassword(id) >>          else >>              Agent.RequestPassphrase() >> >> (And if we want "SharedCode" Agent APIs, that's fine, these just fit >> the need) >> >> The one caveat here is the timing since the PKEX exchange response >> must come within 200ms, which isn't possible for a human user. A human >> configurator would need to establish the code/id completely ahead of >> time. > Well, that's why it says to retransmit 5 times.  But even then, that > isn't enough time for a human to process this.  Hence my point above, > that the use-case seems geared towards both sides entering the shared > code without any 'trigger' from the peer. > > What you propose here is using the Agent, but only for as a way to > machine generated a response.  Sounds like maybe: > > StartConfigurator(object shared_code_agent_path)? > > Regards, > -Denis >