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

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
_______________________________________