Re: [6tisch] [Ace] EST over CoAP in ACE wg

peter van der Stok <> Thu, 08 December 2016 08:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42395129CB3 for <>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 00:12:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A3N5PgTFXKMn for <>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 00:12:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 836A312956A for <>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 00:12:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id HLCE1u0034CYHle01LCEJ8; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 09:12:14 +0100
Received: from 2001:983:a264:1:e4b5:c90e:f42d:52ed by with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 08 Dec 2016 09:12:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 09:12:14 +0100
From: peter van der Stok <>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Message-ID: <>
X-Sender: (hXPlVLSW7/ja0OkiFMaSjBRy1n/Lryw4)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [Ace] EST over CoAP in ACE wg
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 08:12:24 -0000

Hi Michael,

> As such, what we would really like is an EST-like mechanism which runs
> over OSCOAP with EDHOC keying.  Ideally, it would also permit the 
> process
> to be managed/initiated from the new device (the pledge), or from the 
> (Registrar, which might also be the AS in ACE terminology).
About yesterday I started to understand the approach you suggest.
Just some more information, to be absolutely sure about what you 

Do you propose to keep the content formats used by EST unchanged?
and keep all the different modes specified in EST RFC?