of a deployment and operational issue?
/Akbar
From: Ace [mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael StJohns
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 1:22 PM
To: kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com; Rene Struik <rstruik@gmail.com>
Cc: ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] Summary of ACE
org>
> Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
> <mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>>; Michael StJohns <mstjo...@comcast.net
> <mailto:mstjo...@comcast.net>>; Rene Struik <rstruik@gmail.com
> <mailto:rstruik@gmail.com>>; Tirumal
r Reddy
(tireddy) <tire...@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Summary of ACE Group Communication Security Discussion
Kathleen and all,
I believe all necessary drafts for a solution based on asymmetric keys are
already in place.
With "a solution based on asymmetric keys” I understand a solution where
truik <rstruik@gmail.com<mailto:rstruik....@gmail.com>>
Cc: Michael StJohns <mstjo...@comcast.net<mailto:mstjo...@comcast.net>>;
ace@ietf.org<mailto:ace@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Summary of ACE Group Communication Security Discussion
Is anyone willing to work on a dra
ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] Summary of ACE Group Communication Security Discussion
Is anyone willing to work on a draft to be ready in advance of the Chicago
meeting so we have a concrete proposal for asymmetric keys?
Thanks,
Kathleen
Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device
On Nov 17,
Is anyone willing to work on a draft to be ready in advance of the Chicago
meeting so we have a concrete proposal for asymmetric keys?
Thanks,
Kathleen
Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device
> On Nov 17, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Rene Struik wrote:
>
> Dear
Dear colleagues:
Just a reminder re perceived technical hurdles for using signatures:
a) time latency of signing:
One can pre-compute ephemeral signing keys, so as to reduce online key
computation to a few finite field multiplies.
Please see my email to the list of July 26, 2016:
Michael StJohns wrote:
> The multiparty (group) symmetric key solution is only wanted for a
> single corner of the solution space - low latency, no cost
> systems. E.g. lightbulbs. Given there is a worked example of the
> insecurity of multiparty symmetric
On 11/16/2016 9:08 AM, Kepeng Li wrote:
Hello all,
We had a long discussion about group communication security topic
since the previous F2F meeting.
Hannes and I have tried to make a summary about the discussion as follows:
· The solution needs to define both, symmetric and an
Hello all,
We had a long discussion about group communication security topic since the
previous F2F meeting.
Hannes and I have tried to make a summary about the discussion as follows:
· The solution needs to define both, symmetric and an asymmetric group
key solution.
· The
Michael StJohns wrote:
>> I'm less sure that I agree with the subsequent view that we can't
>> adopt this item until we have assurance; I'd say that asking for the
>> issue to be addressed as part of the adoption process is reasonable,
>> and objecting at
On 11/12/2016 5:11 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
I realize that this thread is months old: I haven't seen any newer
conversation, so I'll continue anyway.
I would concur with MSJ's view that having an informational draft might be a
way to let this work go forward, but I suggest instead the
see inline as well.
In the summary, it was unclear if I was against the symmetric method or not.
I will admit that I'm sitting on the fence here. I would prefer not to have
a standardized symmetric method.
My preference would be to start running code that shows the price/performance
of
On 9/26/2016 12:10 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi Mike,
Just one clarification:
On 9/26/16 5:41 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
With respect to Eliot's comment, it doesn't really matter if the key
management protocol is asymmetric if the multicast session keys are
symmetric and used for control.
This
This time as AD.
Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device
> On Sep 26, 2016, at 11:41 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
>> On 9/26/2016 8:30 AM, kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Without a hat on, you can add my support to Abhinav's proposal. Perfect is
>>
Hi Mike,
Just one clarification:
On 9/26/16 5:41 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> With respect to Eliot's comment, it doesn't really matter if the key
> management protocol is asymmetric if the multicast session keys are
> symmetric and used for control.
This doesn't really capture my position
16 matches
Mail list logo