[Ace] Summary of ACE Group Communication Security Discussion

"Kepeng Li" <kepeng.lkp@alibaba-inc.com> Mon, 26 September 2016 10:11 UTC

Return-Path: <kepeng.lkp@alibaba-inc.com>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B95E12B0EE for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 03:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.051
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.051 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12=1.947, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alibaba-inc.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PzKHHT-3yvEL for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 03:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out0-133.mail.aliyun.com (out0-133.mail.aliyun.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 368F312B0F9 for <Ace@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 03:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alibaba-inc.com; s=default; t=1474884659; h=Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Mime-version:Content-type; bh=d5ojsm++U8GDZ+iXJrqZ0l6peehKzl/PQtUME6I0WIc=; b=Q4++936gLJVo6PfID3fd1HTkvGQac1IE6upfZooPQ0t4EX34Qnp1eMeOiwkj4uM7YCj9YBRozSoy6/he1CjVtcO2Je+ddyTwSjCUrWA1HrlyAnjDWKXIpi65At6yhiyID88QiAT9RT8osJJVpNE7LO6BZpY2MShm5yE82MIHISQ=
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS; BC=-1|-1; BR=01201311R171e4; FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=e02c03289; MF=kepeng.lkp@alibaba-inc.com; NM=1; PH=DS; RN=3; SR=0; TI=SMTPD_---.7.AYqDv_1474884650;
Received: from ip: by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:10:54 +0800
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:11:01 +0800
From: Kepeng Li <kepeng.lkp@alibaba-inc.com>
To: ace <Ace@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D40F1535.451DD%kepeng.lkp@alibaba-inc.com>
Thread-Topic: Summary of ACE Group Communication Security Discussion
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3557758266_8360185"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/gST1T5CHYTKitphx7WVzjxwHqgA>
Cc: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Subject: [Ace] Summary of ACE Group Communication Security Discussion
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: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:11:05 -0000

Hi all, 

We went through all email exchanges again in order to see where we are.
Abhinav also proposed a way forward in his email to the list, see
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ace/current/msg01961.html, where he
proposed to standardize a solution based on public key as well as symmetric
key cryptography. 

Here is our impression of the views presented by various people.

Mike seems to think the only acceptable solution is to use messages signed
using public key crypto and is strongly against working on a symmetric key
group communication protocol.

Paul Duffy and Michael Richardson are in favor of defining a public key
crypto solution but it is not clear whether they are against specifying a
symmetric key solution as well.

Walter, Abhinav, Sandeep, Hannes are in favor of working on a symmetric key
group communication security protocols (as co-authors of the work). Oscar
Garcia (Philips) is also in favor of the work.

In this mail to the list, see
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ace/current/msg01931.html, Robert
Cragie (ARM) expressed a view that public key crypto is the preferred
solution but others based on symmetric crypto are still worthy of

Markus Grunwald (Osram) also appears to be in favor of the proposed
approach, see 
Akbar Rahman also seems to be in favor of working on a group communication
security protocol, see
Ned Smith also seems to be in favor of working on a group communication
security protocol, as expressed in his mail to the list:
The opinion of the following persons in the discussion appear unclear to me:
- Mohit Sethi
- Ludwig Seitz
- Carsten Bormann
- Stephen Farrell 
- Jim Schaad (offered clarifications regarding the use of COSE)
Pascal Urien and Rene Struik provided performance data but they didn't
appear to have expressed a strong view about the question regarding
symmetric vs. asymmetric crypto for group communication security.
Derek Atkins offered performance data for public key crypto but refers to
new techniques (rather than RSA/ECC).
Please correct us if we are wrong in our interpretation of your mail
Hannes & Kepeng