IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 21 July 2016 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 405BA12DCAD for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 03:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-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 h9tIa_eCtXdz for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 03:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC3C912DC9D for <Ace@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 03:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D5D200A3; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 06:28:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B7E638D1; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 06:19:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <57909559.2000805@tzi.org>
References: <578F4D59.8050005@gmx.net> <5E393DF26B791A428E5F003BB6C5342AB3716D64@OC11EXPO33.exchange.mit.edu> <23666.1469091857@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <57909559.2000805@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; 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-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 06:19:20 -0400
Message-ID: <9657.1469096360@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/SpuTQQ5ZDK19-K2d9OC2ufooJ6E>
Cc: "Ace@ietf.org" <Ace@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Adoption of Low Latency Group Communication Security Work in ACE
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 10:19:29 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> Why will ACE succeed when DICE failed?

    > Because DICE tried to hack something into TLS.  That had no support.

    >> Does ACE now have some knowledge or mechanism that DICE couldn't have
    >> created
    >> because it was out of scope?

    > ACE has COSE.

Good answer, and I agree. I just want to be sure that we understand how not
to rathole.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email