IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch-security] slides you presented

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 24 February 2017 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8968F1296E1 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:31:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kkw4yWctN1Sf for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:31:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 137A2129702 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CE6E1E7; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:53:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7E26381A; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:31:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: 6tisch-security@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <f6dbdaf79dc7f3dd5a27eb5d07c39ba1@xs4all.nl>
References: <D4D2C251.76751%goran.selander@ericsson.com> <f6dbdaf79dc7f3dd5a27eb5d07c39ba1@xs4all.nl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:31:15 -0500
Message-ID: <3614.1487943075@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch-security/-9HYLQGyKA9-9LlqtsiCnie8OsI>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=B6ran_Selander?= <goran.selander@ericsson.com>, consultancy@vanderstok.org
Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] slides you presented
X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch-security>, <mailto:6tisch-security-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch-security/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch-security@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-security-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security>, <mailto:6tisch-security-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:31:19 -0000

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
    > Let me ask very high-level questions about the presented slides.  Is
    > the diffie-hellman part a replay of the EDHOC draft? or an optimized
    > extension, or completely new?  Is the SK part an OSCOAP scenario?

It's EDHOC.  This is all OSCOAP.

    > Will the use of CoMI be described in the minimal security draft?

Ugh. There seems to be much resistance to doing that.
I am preparing text to say two things, and I need help with the second
part.

Part 1) saying that rekey is out of scope.

Part 2) explaining how to use the exchange to key additional OSCOAP
     channels.

Originally, I was going to point to rfc5295, until I realized that HKDF was
embedded in things already, no point in going further.

Goran, is there some way to specify that one runs section 6 (Derive Traffic
Secret) with different inputs to get additional traffic secrets for
additional applications?

Could COSE_KDF_Context include one final, optional element, which might be
called "subapplication_name"?  I'm not sure if that belongs after
SuppPubInfo, or within it.

We *could* just continue to use the traffic secret derived for
6tisch-minimal, but that seems too intricately linked from a specification
point of view.  (I notice that OSCOAP totally supports using the same keys
with a CoAP client/server role reversal)

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email