Re: [Ace] Adoption of Low Latency Group Communication Security Work in ACE

["Kumar, Sandeep" <[e-mail]>]

Because sometimes a lightswitch can have more than two states.

[http://images.philips.com/is/image/PhilipsConsumer/6916431PH-IMS-en_GB?wid=494&hei=435&$pnglarge$]

The color dial on this switch (src: http://www.philips.co.uk/c-p/6916431PH/livingcolors-remote-control) can set the color of lights one chooses. That would be quite some precomputations.



Sandeep





-----Original Message-----
From: Ace [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 9:26 PM
To: Somaraju Abhinav; Michael StJohns; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ace] Adoption of Low Latency Group Communication Security Work in ACE







On 25/07/16 17:59, Somaraju Abhinav wrote:

> we essentially have 50-100 ms for the signing+verification process and

> I do not know of a solution that does this



Just a clarifying question: why can't the signing possibly be done asynchronously? E.g. the private key holder could sign a value that will only be sent later - as long as it has one of those ready to emit whenever needed one can ignore the signing time. That can have power consumption consequences but I'd guess that's ok for a lightswitch.



If signing can be done ahead of time, then only verification time has to be considered.



S.





________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.