Richard Barnes ; wrote:
>This is the part that worries me. It would be helpful to be very crisp
>about what assumptions are being changed here, and why it's OK for them to
>be changed. Especially given that the Bruni et al. paper seems to have
>found flaws.
As explained in Stanislav's CFRG cryp
Hi Valery,
On 2019-02-19, 19:02, "Valery Smyslov" wrote:
> When done over CoAP, the message would be sent with CONfirmable, so it
> would be ACK'ed. I would make the first message CONfirmable too.
>
> That makes it much like IKEv2 is, where all messages are ACKed and the
>
Hi Michael,
> When done over CoAP, the message would be sent with CONfirmable, so it
> would be ACK'ed. I would make the first message CONfirmable too.
>
> That makes it much like IKEv2 is, where all messages are ACKed and the
> initiator is responsible for all retransmits.
Sure, there must be
Valery Smyslov wrote:
>> Current version of EDHOC is 3-pass to allow traffic data after one round
trip,
>> which reduces latency in many applications.
>> A 4-pass version has also been discussed:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/ZDHYEhvI0PenU6nGrhGlULIz0oQ
>>
Hi Göran,
> Current version of EDHOC is 3-pass to allow traffic data after one round trip,
> which reduces latency in many applications.
> A 4-pass version has also been discussed:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/ZDHYEhvI0PenU6nGrhGlULIz0oQ
>
> When EDHOC is used as key exchange for O
Hi Valery,
On 2019-02-18, 08:07, "Valery Smyslov" wrote:
Hi,
> Richard Barnes wrote:
> > Finally, to be totally honest, I find the EDHOC spec pretty
inscrutable. A
> > little more prose to explain what's going on would go a long way
toward
> > helping thi
Hi Michael,
On 2019-02-18, 02:35, "Ace on behalf of Michael Richardson"
wrote:
Richard Barnes wrote:
> Finally, to be totally honest, I find the EDHOC spec pretty
inscrutable. A
> little more prose to explain what's going on would go a long way
toward
> helping t
Hi Richard,
From: Richard Barnes
Date: Friday, 15 February 2019 at 17:19
To: Göran Selander
Cc: "secdispa...@ietf.org" , "ace@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transports
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:13 AM Göran Selander
mailto:goran.selan...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi
Hi,
> Richard Barnes wrote:
> > Finally, to be totally honest, I find the EDHOC spec pretty
> inscrutable. A
> > little more prose to explain what's going on would go a long way toward
> > helping this discussion be productive.
>
> Sure.
> Find a WG to adopt it, and we can make the
Richard Barnes wrote:
> Finally, to be totally honest, I find the EDHOC spec pretty inscrutable. A
> little more prose to explain what's going on would go a long way toward
> helping this discussion be productive.
Sure.
Find a WG to adopt it, and we can make the text beautiful.
The p
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:13 AM Göran Selander
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>
>
> Thanks, that is a fair question to ask on behalf of those who are new to
> the subject.
>
>
>
> The short answer is: Yes, we have counted every byte of the TLS handshake
> and, no, we don’t think it is possible to support
Hi Richard,
Thanks, that is a fair question to ask on behalf of those who are new to the
subject.
The short answer is: Yes, we have counted every byte of the TLS handshake and,
no, we don’t think it is possible to support the same radio technologies as
EDHOC do, unless you change some assumpti
Hi Hannes,
On 2019-02-14, 11:50, "Hannes Tschofenig" wrote:
Hi Göran,
I will obviously not be able to convince you to change your research
strategy. So, I will not even try.
This is not just a research topic, but if this means that you respect that
different companies may have d
Göran: When these metrics talk about DTLS 1.3, do they mean that protocol
directly, unmodified?
One alternative approach people have had in mind is the idea of re-encoding
/ profiling down DTLS so that although it is syntactically different and
maybe has fewer options, it encodes the same underlyi
Hi Göran,
I will obviously not be able to convince you to change your research strategy.
So, I will not even try.
Anyway, thanks for the performance measurements your co-workers created in the
Excel sheets. I will take a closer look at them.
One item worthwhile to respond is the choice of the M
Hi Hannes, secdispatch, and ace,
(It seems Hannes original mail only went to secdispatch.)
Apologies for a long mail, and late response. I had to ask some people for help
with calculations, see end of this mail.
On 2019-01-25, 15:15, "Secdispatch on behalf of Hannes Tschofenig"
wrote:
F
16 matches
Mail list logo
