Hi Sean,
That might be a good thing, yes. If so, it would be best to make that
relationship explicit with an "Updates: " header note, referencing DICE in this
document, and explaining how it is extending it.
thanks,
Gabriel
On Monday, July 11, 2016 7:35 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2016, at 03:36, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious as to the relationship between this TLS WG draft and the DICE
> profile for IoT (currently in Auth48):
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dice-profile
>
> The dice profile uses two TLS ciphershuites
>
> TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 (defined in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6655)
>
> TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 (defined in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7251)
>
> Notice that the DICE profile defines nothing (it has no IANA considerations).
> Instead, it reuses definitions established previously per the references
> above.
>
> This draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aeak claims to also define IoT-friendly
> ciphersuites, for example, TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256
>
> However, it does not reference the DICE profile draft.
>
> What is the difference between these?
There’s might be a relationship between the DICE profile and this draft in the
future.
The DICE draft profiles the existing set of cipher suites that are already
defined for IoT; the complete list can be found here:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-4
draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead is adding more algorithms to that list. The DICE
profile can be updated later to include these newly defined cipher suites if
that’s what the WG wants to do.
Make sense?
spt
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
