Re: [6tisch] Progress zero-touch document

Hello Pascal,

Are you suggesting that we should start working out the details on using EDHOC but keep an alternative as an appendix in the document? Since we have stalled on this work for some time for reasons outside of the working group control, I think it would make sense to catch up..

Let me know.

Mališa

> On 2 Apr 2019, at 15:34, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Malisa
> 
> Speaking for myself here, I'm happy that you start on that direction already; but would like to see the edhoc group formed and progressing before committing fully to it.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Pascal
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 6tisch <6tisch-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mališa Vucinic
>> Sent: mardi 2 avril 2019 14:55
>> To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
>> Cc: 6tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [6tisch] Progress zero-touch document
>> 
>> Michael, all,
>> 
>> With the EDHOC specification finally seeing progress (see [1]), it seems like a
>> good time to restart the work on zero touch and progress the adopted working
>> group document.
>> 
>> Reading the current version of draft-ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-zerotouch-join-03, it
>> seems that there are many options available, including the choice between
>> DTLS and EDHOC for authentication. Many available options may pose
>> interoperability challenges and also add unnecessary code complexity. Given
>> that the working group decided on using OSCORE during network access [2], as
>> well as for application purposes [3], the implementation of the 6TiSCH stack
>> includes the CBOR/COSE primitives in the footprint, as well as the support to
>> go through an application-layer proxy as specified in [2]. EDHOC protocol is
>> built on these primitives, can be easily carried within messages specified in [2]
>> for network access to go through an application-layer proxy, and is quite
>> efficient when it comes to the encoding overhead using CBOR resulting in a
>> small number of L2 frames to complete the key exchange. It seems as a natural
>> way forward for the working group to focus on using EDHOC in [4].
>> 
>> Therefore, I would like to propose to keep track of the EDHOC progress and to
>> work on a more streamlined zero-touch solution. Doing these changes in [4]
>> seems to make the most sense at this point.
>> 
>> What are your thoughts on this?
>> 
>> Mališa
>> 
>> [1]
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/Kz_6y6Jq4HsWxglsUHafWj
>> XIm0c
>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security/
>> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture/
>> [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-zerotouch-
>> join/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6tisch mailing list
>> 6tisch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch