IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ace] draft-selander-ace-eals vs. draft-vanderstok-ace-coap-est

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 15 September 2017 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 D4150132F76 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 04:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 bUzqLZWtoeYE for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 04:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A91DC133020 for <Ace@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 04:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2311; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505473617; x=1506683217; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=ynD+Q67gHi5kTBaTPKvdgMMF7QMWA6p0SYkKlvsUchk=; b=MPd5TQOXSFZ0xecqxwsGDKxOUoqSckGKw4KZy+rZk8ufYKB801gvLWP7 ZUgqmD8PtPMs/J9ANEEJgeNKrSfaJ52SjIYVCA6Pcy1A8g73MiUeRs9pL oywEDRAT36Ehs0xhUmfPFEhK7ZZUoca6tsoC4qUy3ZSLthl8RWws7UASD 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C+AQAPs7tZ/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBhD5uJ4N1ixSQSiuWJ4ISBwMYC4UZAoRsFgECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkBAQEDAQEhSxsLGCoCAicwBgEMBgIBAYovEKs7gieLMgEBAQEBAQEDAQEBAQEBEwoFgyuFYAuCcogLgmAFoQSEOYIhjXuLV4chlTKBOSYBMIENMiEIHBVJhx4+NokRAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,396,1500940800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="657483489"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Sep 2017 11:06:55 +0000
Received: from [10.61.216.42] ([10.61.216.42]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8FB6srN009386; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 11:06:55 GMT
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, "Ace@ietf.org" <Ace@ietf.org>
References: <e5f4cf2f-b394-6466-ea76-7c1a83d1837f@gmx.net>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <32a4273e-5797-5fc5-63a0-db7e82023c1a@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:07:02 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e5f4cf2f-b394-6466-ea76-7c1a83d1837f@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LbRDOT3btXkEnfFFDna92ioQ2hpQoGhh7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/vxpdenNdx8HEzTCnalVepH_bRdg>
Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-selander-ace-eals vs. draft-vanderstok-ace-coap-est
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 11:07:00 -0000

Hi Hannes,

To keep things simple to understand, what would be best is the closest
analog to EST/HTTP.  I don't object to other work going on, however.

Eliot


On 9/13/17 5:42 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> in previous IETF meetings we had presentations on these two documents
> and it appears that there is an overlap. So far we haven't had a lot of
> discussions on these proposals on the list but since there seems to be
> interest from the folks attending the IETF meetings I am recommending to
> have a discussion about the direction we should go with this work.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> Ace@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email