Without a hat on, you can add my support to Abhinav's proposal. Perfect is ideal, but you often can not make any progress if you accept nothing less. The security considerations section will have to be thorough.
Kathleen Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device > On Sep 26, 2016, at 7:11 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> > wrote: > > I noticed that Eliot also expressed support for the approach presented by > Abhinav, see > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/ctCtj9QT0WwBDki7vxgVeYVzFaI > > Ciao > Hannes > >> On 09/26/2016 07:11 PM, Kepeng Li wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> We went through all email exchanges again in order to see where we are. >> Abhinav also proposed a way forward in his email to the list, >> see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ace/current/msg01961.html, >> where he proposed to standardize a solution based on public key as well >> as symmetric key cryptography. >> >> >> Here is our impression of the views presented by various people. >> >> >> Mike seems to think the only acceptable solution is to use messages >> signed using public key crypto and is strongly against working on a >> symmetric key group communication protocol. >> >> >> Paul Duffy and Michael Richardson are in favor of defining a public key >> crypto solution but it is not clear whether they are against specifying >> a symmetric key solution as well. >> >> >> Walter, Abhinav, Sandeep, Hannes are in favor of working on a symmetric >> key group communication security protocols (as co-authors of the work). >> Oscar Garcia (Philips) is also in favor of the work. >> >> >> In this mail to the list, >> see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ace/current/msg01931.html, >> Robert Cragie (ARM) expressed a view that public key crypto is the >> preferred solution but others based on symmetric crypto are still worthy >> of consideration. >> >> >> Markus Grunwald (Osram) also appears to be in favor of the proposed >> approach, see >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ace/current/msg01932.html >> >> >> >> Akbar Rahman also seems to be in favor of working on a group >> communication security protocol, see >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ace/current/msg01873.html >> >> >> >> Ned Smith also seems to be in favor of working on a group communication >> security protocol, as expressed in his mail to the list: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ace/current/msg01872.html >> >> >> >> The opinion of the following persons in the discussion appear unclear to me: >> >> - Mohit Sethi >> >> - Ludwig Seitz >> >> - Carsten Bormann >> >> - Stephen Farrell >> >> - Jim Schaad (offered clarifications regarding the use of COSE) >> >> >> >> Pascal Urien and Rene Struik provided performance data but they didn't >> appear to have expressed a strong view about the question regarding >> symmetric vs. asymmetric crypto for group communication security. >> >> Derek Atkins offered performance data for public key crypto but refers >> to new techniques (rather than RSA/ECC). >> >> >> >> Please correct us if we are wrong in our interpretation of your mail >> postings. >> >> >> >> Ciao >> >> Hannes & Kepeng >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ace mailing list >> Ace@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace >> _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
