Francesca,
My first concern is that the messages being send around to do the group
communication setup should be, if not identical, highly coordinated in how
they are formatted. I don't really want two different sets of messages.
I understand, and indeed noted, that the current model of how the
Hi Jim,
I support Francesca's thoughts on this. Please, find inline a few more
comments.
Ciao,
/Marco
On 2017-10-20 15:20, Francesca Palombini wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> I don't think that your statement is correct: as far as I understood the
> oscoap-joining document, the RS is the group manager, wh
Hi Jim,
I don't think that your statement is correct: as far as I understood the
oscoap-joining document, the RS is the group manager, while in the pubsub
document (even generalizing it and making a group communication profile as
Carsten was suggesting) the entity that does group management is
On Oct 20, 2017, at 07:41, Jim Schaad wrote:
>
> The pub-sub document does initial key distribution, while this document does
> not. Neither document does any discussion of how subsequent key
> distribution is done to deal with forward and backward security of messages.
By being more explicit t
