Hi Ben,
On 2018-11-03, 22:16, "Ace on behalf of Benjamin Kaduk" <ace-boun...@ietf.org
on behalf of ka...@mit.edu> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 05:51:55AM +0700, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> John Mattsson <john.matts...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > of negotiation is still needed. The current plan for the next
version
> > is to introduce cipher suites and to let the cipher suite with
value 0
> > indicate that algorithms have been negotiated out-of-band.
>
> I agree with the idea that some common default should be very easy to
> refer to, but I don't like the idea that the gateway has to remember what
> the out-of-band "default" is on a per-device basis. I would say that we
need
> at least 0/1, so that we can say that it's the current vs the "new"
default.
>
> If you consider the case where the sensor is on very low bandwidth
> connection (I would say LoRaWAN, but I am not well qualified in that
space).
> The sensor gets visited every two or three years by a technician (if only
to
> make sure that the sensor is still where it is supposed to be). While
there
> new firmware updates are applied, and as a result the algorithm defaults
are
> updated. During the cycle, some devices are updated and some are still
old.
Are you proposing that the management of the 0/1-to-algorithm mapping be
managed on a per-deployment basis or by the IETF?
Michael may give his view, but the authors' proposal is to have a IANA register
enumerating ciphersuites, and where value 0 is reserved for "pre-established
ciphersuite".
BR
Göran
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
