Summing up where I believe the conversation stands now, it seems like what folks are asking for is either:
1. An analysis that shows that EDHOC is equivalent to an existing AKE (e.g., IKE or TLS), or 2. An argument that a new AKE is necessary (vs. a re-encoding of an existing AKE) Göran et al: Do you have thoughts on those points? It seems like it could be a productive use of an hour or two of virtual interim time to help the group understand one of those lines of argument. --Richard On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 6:03 PM Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk > > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 12:27 PM > > To: Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> > > Cc: secdispa...@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Ace] [Secdispatch] EDHOC > > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:54:58AM -0500, Richard Barnes wrote: > > > If it would be helpful to keep this moving, we could certainly arrange > > > a virtual interim on this topic. > > > > That seems likely to be useful, though I suppose we should wait to see > more > > indication that people would show up and have a productive discussion. > > IMO, the common thread between both of these practical suggestions is that > the complexity of the topic can't entirely fit into the time that would be > allotted during secdispatch during the IETF 104 meeting. Let's start this > conversation on list now. > > Roman >
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
