replying to three of your messages, and trying to repoint the thread at 6tisch-security.
peter van der Stok <stokc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> all in favor of one approach to merge the push/pull aspects. (I have to
> understand the protocol exchange below, but it looks feasibale)
> I am not sure about understanding EDHOC, but may be that is not important.
I think it is.
> I still see all the mime formats. is that phase 1?
They are HTTP content-types really.
That's part of of the phase 2.
> Is phase 2 then switching to OSCOAP with a single format containing binary
> encoding?
No, we would use EDHOC to create a secure session, and then we would run
our EST-CoAP-variant over that. No DTLS at all.
peter van der Stok <stokc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> I don't think EDHOC is meant to replace EST or the anima work.
EDHOC doesn't replace EST, it replaces DTLS.
peter van der Stok <stokc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> As discussed earlier, having a push/pull agnostic protocol would be
> nice. (and probably feasible)
> As stated earlier, I think that discovery and which node starts the
bootstrap
> protocol (BRSKI) is very much installation/technology dependent, and
should
> be done in another document.
I feel very much like I am the holdout for having the JCE initiate the join
protocol.
> My intention was to reduce the coding effort of the registrar by making 1)
> and 2) as similar as can be hoped for;
> while payload considerations are of secondary importance.
> My hope being that a manufacturer will deliver a registrar box supporting
> both coap and http versions.
> When the consensus is that adding coap is already such an extra effort
that
> code sharing between http and coap versions does not alleviate the effort,
> then any solution for coap that concentrates on payload reduction is fine
by
> me.
I can see an implementation where a front-end requests/processes the PKCS
format messages in traditional EST and the CoAP push/pull variants, and then
feeds it into the same engine.
I think that the biggest interoperability problem that we are going to have
is in the step where the Registrar/JCE tells the Pledge what to put in it's
CSR. This is because this part probably involves doing real ASN.1 work, and
pledges will want none of that.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list 6tisch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
