Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings

All,
The most popular date for meeting is Thursday 1pm Paris time. Let's meet
then.
Thomas

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr>
wrote:

> PS: please note that one of the first discussion items is to fix a
> discussion slot for possible periodic calls.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr
> > wrote:
>
>> Reminder, fill in http://doodle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5 in the next
>> hours.
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> wrote:
>>>     > Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the
>>>     > security
>>>     > call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the
>>> action
>>>     > items
>>>     > we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call.
>>>
>>> I had already proposed to have the meeting 45 minutes before the 6tisch
>>> call,
>>> but to do it weekly.
>>>
>>>
>>>     > Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for
>>> all?
>>>
>>> It would not work for me on a sufficient number of Thursdays that it
>>> would be
>>> a problem.
>>>
>>> Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> wrote:
>>>     > Would you agree that the agenda for the next sec meeting is to
>>> identify
>>>     > the potential for using Object Security for secure joining a 6TiSCH
>>>     > network, and that the homework to prepare is to read:
>>>
>>>     > - [high] draft-selander-ace-object-security
>>>     > - [med] draft-ietf-cose-msg
>>>     > - [low] draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe
>>>     > - [low] draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs
>>>     > - [low] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz
>>>
>>> I'm fortunate that I've read most of these documents in detail.
>>> I agree that this is an important thing to consider.
>>>
>>> I want to point out that OSCOAP does not have a clear session key
>>> exchange
>>> protocol as yet (several ideas proposed), and once it does, it still
>>> needs to
>>> do enough certificate processing and ownership voucher analysis to
>>> enable the
>>> security.
>>>
>>> I had proposed DTLS/COAP (are we calling this coaps yet.. rhymes with
>>> soaps?)
>>> with blockwise support.  From my point of view, sitting inside the
>>> unconstrained JCE, it matters little if it's OSCOAP (security inside
>>> COAP) vs
>>> DTLS/COAP (security outside of COAP).  They seem to have the same
>>> essential
>>> properties in the end.
>>>
>>> **to the constrained node it matters that we reuse as much code as
>>> possible**
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>>>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 6tisch-security mailing list
>>> 6tisch-security@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________
>>
>> Thomas Watteyne, PhD
>> Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
>> Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
>> Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
>> Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH
>>
>> www.thomaswatteyne.com
>> _______________________________________
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________
>
> Thomas Watteyne, PhD
> Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
> Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
> Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
> Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH
>
> www.thomaswatteyne.com
> _______________________________________
>

-- 
_______________________________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswatteyne.com
_______________________________________