Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

The ACE charter has been approved. Please move the draft to WG document that is rename it to draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap and publish it. Our current milestone is : Aug 2021 - Submission to the IESG of "EAP-based Authentication Service for CoAP" The document will be discussed during interim and

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Hi, I would like to close the call for adoption. As far as I can see, 5 strong support for adoption in addition to the coauthors and one objection. The objection for the draft adoption was a lake of a use case or a description of a specific use case - that requires EAP over CoAP. On the other

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Eduardo Inglés (IMT) wrote: > Regarding the writing of the draft, I agree with Michael Richardson > that it can be improved to facilitate the understanding of some > concepts. For example, I would rewrite this sentence to understand it > on a first reading: "EAP requests go always

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Hello, I have used EAP over CoAP in implementations with different constrained devices and I have seen the performance of this protocol together with various EAP methods. I also worked with the PANAtiki implementation. Therefore, I present my opinion based on my experience and the follow-up

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Hello, my name is Pedro Moreno-Sanchez. As this is my first post to this list, let me give some background about myself. I am the main developer of PANATIKI (https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/13/11/14888 ), a lightweight version of PANA as EAP Lower

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Daniel Migault Thu, 21 January 2021 13:13 UTC Hi, The charter approval by the IESG is expected to be approved in the coming weeks. In the meanwhile, this email starts a call for adoption on work that has been included in the charter. Of course, adoption is contingent on the rechartering

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

+1 Devices supporting CoAP and EAP based infrastructures are parts of two disjoint ecosystems both of which we consider important. The specification of CoAP as low layer transport of EAP is one component that can be added as upgrade to both systems which enable their combination. This is not

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Dear members of the ACE working group, I am pleased to be subscribed on this mailing list and follow the activities of this WG. We have been informed about the call for adoption of the draft ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap-07) We found it very interesting due to our

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Hi, I believe this document should be adopted. * CoAP will benefit from a successful and highly extensible authentication framework that today supports many different forms of authentication, increasing the range of use cases that can be supported * it will enable CoAP-based

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Dan Garcia Carrillo wrote: > I hope the last email answered your questions. Are you talking about this answer: > - Well known protocol thas provides flexible authentication with diffrent > methods and counting. > - It integrates well with AAA. > - It has a standard and very well known Key

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Hi Michael, I hope the last email answered your questions. Best Regards, Dan. El 22/01/2021 a las 17:38, Michael Richardson escribió: Mohit Sethi M wrote: > Is your concern only in the context of IoT or do you think in general > we are better off using protocols directly without

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Hi Michael, El 21/01/2021 a las 16:26, Michael Richardson escribió: I reviewed the document before, and my concerns were not really answered. I can not understand what the applicability is. Did you check the last version of the use case? The use case is a bit more ellaborate than the

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Mohit Sethi M wrote: > Is your concern only in the context of IoT or do you think in general > we are better off using protocols directly without the EAP framework > overhead? EAP is designed to be used within a protocol, to interact with AAA infrastructure. Use within 802.1X, and

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Hi Michael, I guess the question you are asking is: what is the benefit of adding the overhead of EAP. For EAP-TLS, you could directly use TLS. For EAP-pwd (which is a PAKE) one could use any PAKE without the EAP encapsulation overhead? Is your concern only in the context of IoT or do you

Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

I reviewed the document before, and my concerns were not really answered. I can not understand what the applicability is. The document starts off with: The goal of this document is to describe an authentication service that uses the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748].

[Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Hi, The charter approval by the IESG is expected to be approved in the coming weeks. In the meanwhile, this email starts a call for adoption on work that has been included in the charter. Of course, adoption is contingent on the rechartering succeeding. The document called for adoption is