[Ace] Comments on draft-tiloca-ace-oscoap-joining

After the interim meeting, I read this document through in order to produce a review. Instead you are going to get a meta-review. I am having a hard to seeing why this document exists in its current form and it is not some type of simple profile of the pub-sub security draft. While I am not sure

Re: [Ace] Minutes of ACE virtual interim meeting on 18th Oct about ACE roadmap

Thanks for your feedback. Please find the revised minutes here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2017-ace-02/materials/minutes-i nterim-2017-ace-02-201710181300/ Kind Regards Kepeng 发件人: Renzo Navas 日期: Thursday, 19 October 2017 at 4:33 PM 至: Hannes

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-08 - CWT CBOR Tag

The type of location where it might show up is where one does a value that is placed in an array where it can be either an A or a B and you use the tag to distinguish between the two options. This can be very useful in those cases. > -Original Message- > From: Carsten Bormann

Re: [Ace] multicast

No problem. Take your time. Ciao Hannes -Original Message- From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Beck, Stefan Sent: 19 October 2017 22:15 To: ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] multicast As mentioned in yesterday's call: give me/us some more time to work it out more

Re: [Ace] multicast

As mentioned in yesterday's call: give me/us some more time to work it out more precisely first. We have a meeting on Monday to verify and consolidate the current proposal - I believe I shouldn't speak up before that. (And I don't want to risk a shit-storm in case I get some parts wrong or

Re: [Ace] multicast

I totally agree with Mike. BTW, Hannes, this was "part a." of Idea #1 - the only added value I've seen was that the device could raise an alarm - so there is awareness of an attack at least "after the fact". However, it adds complexity to the constrained device - and alternatively, one could

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-08 - CWT CBOR Tag

I also agree that the spec already has this right. Typically no tag will be needed because the application knows the data structure is a CWT from context. The tag is available for any use cases where it's needed to resolve ambiguity that might otherwise be present.

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-08 - CWT CBOR Tag

On Oct 19, 2017, at 18:41, Jim Schaad wrote: > > • I already know that this is going to be a CWT so I save a byte. > • I don’t know so I waste a tag byte in that case. Right. In REST protocols, we usually have a media type, so we don’t need the CBOR Tag.

Re: [Ace] multicast

Hi Derek, The requirement roughly is: Assume a few light switches as multicasters and many luminaires as listeners - turning lights on / off via multicast The end-2-end processing (multicaster to encrypt the message, the network to transmit the message, and the listeners to validate the message)

Re: [Ace] multicast

Hi, "Beck, Stefan" writes: [snip] > even supporting the "low-latency" requirements we need, also considering the [snip] Could you provide some more concrete numbers for your definition of "low-latency" requirements? Thanks, -derek -- Derek Atkins

Re: [Ace] multicast

Yes, correct. Stevie > -Original Message- > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofe...@arm.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:52 PM > To: Beck, Stefan ; ace@ietf.org > Subject: RE: multicast > > Hi Stefan, > > I am trying to understand your ideas. > >

[Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-08.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments WG of the IETF. Title : Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)

Re: [Ace] Minutes of ACE virtual interim meeting on 18th Oct about ACE roadmap

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Hannes Tschofenig < hannes.tschofe...@arm.com> wrote: > Ø I don't see my votes recorder, (neither Ludwig's); > > > > We copied what was in the chat Window > > > Ok then probably was a comparibilitty issue? I was on Linux HTML version of Webex, and Ludwig too

Re: [Ace] Minutes of ACE virtual interim meeting on 18th Oct about ACE roadmap

Ø I don't see my votes recorder, (neither Ludwig's); We copied what was in the chat Window Ø I don't know if the consensus was that MQTT is mid priority (and pub/sub relegated to low), just that mqtt is rather new draft and we should discuss it more. I prefer to say that there are high

Re: [Ace] Minutes of ACE virtual interim meeting on 18th Oct about ACE roadmap

Hi Kepeng, all thank you for the resumé. I don't see my votes recorder, (neither Ludwig's); I strongly support OSCOAP; then pub/sub and Multicast OSCOAP. In any case, I agree with the conclusions 1 , 2. I don't know if the consensus was that MQTT is mid priority (and pub/sub relegated to

[Ace] Minutes of ACE virtual interim meeting on 18th Oct about ACE roadmap

Hello all, Please find the initial minutes from the link below: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2017-ace-02/materials/minutes-i nterim-2017-ace-02-201710181300/ Please take a look and let me know if you have any corrections. Thanks, Kind Regards Kepeng 发件人: Ace