We have written:
+
+ As per section 3.3 and section 4.4, the
+ mandatory cipher suite for DTLS in EST-coaps is
+ TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 defined in ,
+ and the the curve secp256r1 MUST
+ be supported ; this curve is equivalent to the
+ NIST P-256
on
implementations of crypto algorithms for IoT devices.
Ciao
Hannes
From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:e...@rtfm.com]
Sent: 07 June 2018 22:21
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] How to specify DTLS MTI in COAP-EST
TBH, I'm not a fan of SHOULD+, etc., and they're
We had that discussion at the SUIT hackathon earlier this week, as well.
To get actual interoperability there, of course, every test pair needs to
decide between P-256 and 25519 (and, maybe, use hash-based instead; but that is
more appropriate for firmware update than for other uses).
The
Eric Rescorla wrote:
> TBH, I'm not a fan of SHOULD+, etc., and they're pretty alien to TLS, so
> you should just use words if you want to convey these points.
> With that said, I don't really understand the objective here: we're
> generally moving towards the CFRG curves, so
TBH, I'm not a fan of SHOULD+, etc., and they're pretty alien to TLS, so
you should just use words if you want to convey these points.
With that said, I don't really understand the objective here: we're
generally moving towards the CFRG curves, so what's the reasoning for the
P256 MUST and why do
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> why don't you just reference https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7925?
Ignorance :-)
Thank you, I think that we will reference it then;
Section 4.4 includes:
At the time of writing, the
recommended curve is secp256r1, and the use of uncompressed
Russ Housley wrote:
> These words were first used by IPsec; see RFC 4307. They have gained
> broader acceptance. I see no problem just using them here.
Yes, but they aren't in an RFC2119-like document that we can simply cite, and
I'm
not sure if the TLS reviewers will like them. Ben
Olaf Bergmann wrote:
> Michael Richardson writes:
>> Curve25519 should be considered as an alternative
> As we had this discussion at IETF-101 regarding the profile coap_dtls:
> What where your reasoning for Curve25519? (Especially vs. Ed25519?)
AFAIK, Curve25519 is about the
Cc: Russ Housley; Michael Richardson; ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] How to specify DTLS MTI in COAP-EST
On Jun 7, 2018, at 18:30, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> why don't you just reference https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7925?
That describes the status of mid-2016.
Can we do something f
On Jun 7, 2018, at 18:30, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> why don't you just reference https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7925?
That describes the status of mid-2016.
Can we do something forward-looking?
Grüße, Carsten
___
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
that they also implement one themselves.
-Original Message-
From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: 07 June 2018 15:55
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] How to specify DTLS MTI in COAP-EST
Michael:
These words were first used by IPsec
Michael:
These words were first used by IPsec; see RFC 4307. They have gained broader
acceptance. I see no problem just using them here.
Russ
> On Jun 6, 2018, at 7:32 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> In draft-ietf-ace-coap-est, we would like to specify some mandatory to
> implement
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 07:32:13PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> In draft-ietf-ace-coap-est, we would like to specify some mandatory to
> implement algorithms for DTLS.
>
> We write:
>The mandatory cipher suite for DTLS in EST-coaps is
>TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 defined
Hello Michael,
Michael Richardson writes:
> Curve25519 should be considered as an alternative
As we had this discussion at IETF-101 regarding the profile coap_dtls:
What where your reasoning for Curve25519? (Especially vs. Ed25519?)
Grüße
Olaf
___
Hi Michael,
On Jun 7, 2018, at 01:32, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> We think that we'd like to use SHOULD+ for Curve25519 and MUST- for
> secp256r1,
Sounds good to me.
> but we aren't sure that the WG will like us to use so many
> words as IPsec to say so.
Can we just reference those words?
15 matches
Mail list logo
