IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ace] EDHOC standardization

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 06 November 2018 03:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 6342212D4EA for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:42:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Xlb6fgYJPGHz for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74139127333 for <ace@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:1998:a11:96ff:fe01:81e0]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 133051F8BC for <ace@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 03:42:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id DFF1EC17; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:11:43 +0530 (IST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "ace@ietf.org" <ace@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <20181105093807.GY54966@kduck.kaduk.org>
References: <379B1A31-1F7E-43A6-A518-4398570CBBC7@ericsson.com> <16572.1541199115@dooku.sandelman.ca> <20181103151621.GH54966@kduck.kaduk.org> <31833.1541384214@dooku.sandelman.ca> <20181105093807.GY54966@kduck.kaduk.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> message dated "Mon, 05 Nov 2018 03:38:07 -0600."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:41:43 +0700
Message-ID: <25002.1541475703@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/zJ3yAPlFX0ZISa8SMCXjHXmfgxI>
Subject: Re: [Ace] EDHOC standardization
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 03:42:15 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
    >> > Are you proposing that the management of the 0/1-to-algorithm mapping
    >> > be managed on a per-deployment basis or by the IETF?
    >>
    >> I think that the existing proposal was that 0 means "negotiated out-of-band",
    >> which implies that it's a per-deployment basis.
    >>
    >> I'm proposing that instead of having 0 mean "some local default",
    >> I'm suggesting that 0 mean, "some local default 0" and 1 mean, "some other
    >> local default 1", which lets the default be updated without a flag day.

    > That feels like a potentially awkward provisioning problem.  I guess the
    > idea is that any given node is only going to do 1 or 0 and not both?  Maybe
    > that helps.

I don't think you get it if you think it's awkward!
Any firmware implements 0 or 1, correct.
[I'm not a fan of such a system. I also don't think it is small enough for
LoRAWAN either]

When a new choice is hard coded into that closed vertical system (via
"out-of-band"), this choice would be baked in at the next firmware update.
(There are many ways to do this of course. Throw dip switches if you like)

Having both 0 and 1 lets the firmware be incrementally updated, otherwise the
operator either has a flag day, or has to keep track of the parameters on an
per-device basis.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email