[mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 7:30 PM
To: Roman Danyliw
Cc: Richard Barnes ; John Mattsson ;
secdispa...@ietf.org; Francesca Palombini ;
ace@ietf.org; Göran Selander
Subject: Re: [Ace] [Secdispatch] EDHOC
If I’m reading it correctly, it looks like I will be speaking at RSA
..@cert.org>>; John Mattsson
>> mailto:john.matts...@ericsson.com>>;
>> secdispa...@ietf.org <mailto:secdispa...@ietf.org>; Francesca Palombini
>> > <mailto:francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com>>; ace@ietf.org
>> <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
&g
en Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 12:30 PM
> To: Göran Selander
> Cc: Richard Barnes ; Roman Danyliw ; John
> Mattsson ; secdispa...@ietf.org; Francesca
> Palombini ; ace@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ace] [Secdispatch] EDHOC
>
PM
To: Göran Selander
Cc: Richard Barnes ; Roman Danyliw ; John Mattsson
; secdispa...@ietf.org; Francesca Palombini
; ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] [Secdispatch] EDHOC
Will there be an interim for this topic?
Thank you,
Kathleen
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM Kathleen Moriarty
Will there be an interim for this topic?
Thank you,
Kathleen
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:15 PM Kathleen Moriarty <
kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the very helpful message, Goran. A couple of comments inline.
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:31 AM Göran Selander <
> goran.sela
Thanks for the very helpful message, Goran. A couple of comments inline.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:31 AM Göran Selander
wrote:
> Hi Richard, Roman, all
>
>
>
> Thanks for kind welcome and for progressing the discussion. Apologies for
> a long email.
>
>
>
> *From: *Richard Barnes
>
>
>
> Summ
Hi Ben,
I replied to some of your comments in my previous mail to the list. Additional
comments inline.
On 2019-01-18, 18:27, "Benjamin Kaduk" wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:54:58AM -0500, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Let me provide some additional context. When the chairs and ADs
dis
Hi Richard, Roman, all
Thanks for kind welcome and for progressing the discussion. Apologies for a
long email.
From: Richard Barnes
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 equival
> From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk
> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 12:27 PM
> > To: Richard Barnes
> > Cc: secdispa...@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Ace] [Secdispatch] EDHOC
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:54:58AM -0500, Ri
> -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
> Cc: secdispa...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ace] [Secdispatch] EDHOC
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:54:58
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:54:58AM -0500, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Let me provide some additional context. When the chairs and ADs discussed
> this in BKK, it seemed pretty clear that EDHOC is not within the current
> charter of ACE — after all, ACE is targeted at authentication and
> authorizat
Sorry, I thought it was a continuation of a private thread that may also
benefit from transparency and additional input.
Thank you,
Kathleen
Sent from my mobile device
> On Jan 18, 2019, at 12:12 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> Not sure what you mean, Kathleen. This is a public mailing list :
Not sure what you mean, Kathleen. This is a public mailing list :)
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:06 PM Kathleen Moriarty <
kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can that be a public thread? It really should be.
>
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> > On Jan 18, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Richard Barnes
Can that be a public thread? It really should be.
Sent from my mobile device
> On Jan 18, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> Let me provide some additional context. When the chairs and ADs discussed
> this in BKK, it seemed pretty clear that EDHOC is not within the current
> chart
Let me provide some additional context. When the chairs and ADs discussed this
in BKK, it seemed pretty clear that EDHOC is not within the current charter of
ACE — after all, ACE is targeted at authentication and authorization, not key
exchange. Since ACE would need to recharter to accept this
Hi Kathleen,
Good question. Thanks for bringing continuity to this almost 2 years long
offline discussion. Indeed, lack of comparison with other protocols and formal
verification were at the time the arguments for not following up the in-room
consensus with an email confirmation. And, as you no
16 matches
Mail list logo
