IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch-security] meeting times

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 19 January 2018 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 E9C9612D94D for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 06:41:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 JCVZlg7-8Jul for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 06:41:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63D4F12D942 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 06:41:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8DD20096; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:47:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1957280653; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:41:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
cc: 6tisch-security@ietf.org, "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com>, sandeep kumar <sandeep.kumar@philips.com>
In-Reply-To: <952ea900c9f815996601298f9e32a8e2@xs4all.nl>
References: <ec0dc702a4cb72aeba948c2284736f82@xs4all.nl> <499916683ba341268848f31b46ce2e3f@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com> <22011.1511821577@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <c64f69f2bebe906e196e08e466f13e6f@xs4all.nl> <40fd399ef8264e3ebe1cba74c5af6bac@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com> <b7b1bc59ed9de89f0c6cc523925cde71@xs4all.nl> <07de0548d9954c2df2b6ad1a247785b1@xs4all.nl> <23861.1511974106@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <e99d662cd20cba53846877a56b9e4c7f@xs4all.nl> <13418.1512586584@dooku.sandelman.ca> <ca8c00d9fea462d6e057b951e261e775@xs4all.nl> <24079.1515518266@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <36205600728426ff473158f58cffcc35@xs4all.nl> <16387.1516137308@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <952ea900c9f815996601298f9e32a8e2@xs4all.nl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; 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, 19 Jan 2018 09:41:43 -0500
Message-ID: <13504.1516372903@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch-security/Svhz6YHORsHyHq4YJ7pB3bHB-M8>
Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] meeting times
X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 19 Jan 2018 14:41:47 -0000

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
    > I just printed a version.
    > I was confused by the difference between
    > (1) Voucher request artifacts, and
    > (2) Voucher artifacts

    > I assumed that (1) related to the voucher request extensions to EST which had
    > been removed from est-coaps.

The voucher request artifact is how the pledge communicates the proximity of
the registrar.  It also can provide the nonce which provides for the
freshness of the voucher.  It can be signed, or just secured inside the
secure channel.

    > I certainly like to have a section (will write it) that describes the EST
    > extensions removed from est-coaps.

    > Concerning the proxy text: where else do you want to put that?

I don't know either.
I'm still going to write up the IPIP mechanism; I guess I will write it as a
seperate draft for now.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email