IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 25 July 2016 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 09FF612D924 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.588 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 2upMllFKKnBf for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F7EB12D576 for <ace@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4DFBE50; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:25:57 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yUX4LB5iw1b3; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:25:55 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F0F0BDCA; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:25:55 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1469474755; bh=NyyEMlsYm813UIxfhBq/qDoUT29T2cye51uD5/Nc4+g=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=CXzCtiqVcaLOAzzrS1SnyWutJ8xTRCUEsQs+q66gWZ/HWydAXZaw69i9bNa0ZfFQ2 VBqbf+abkGAzdfSktYoBomhQn+dV7rJNHGZ/mIUfs7jAH0xW7xbE3zH8HcdkrZrsKx UKHngsRPlVbrBKKCYBEgfPTboPyr/Q6jpKMwPXuY=
To: Somaraju Abhinav <abhinav.somaraju@tridonic.com>, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, "ace@ietf.org" <ace@ietf.org>
References: <578F4D59.8050005@gmx.net> <5E393DF26B791A428E5F003BB6C5342AB3716D64@OC11EXPO33.exchange.mit.edu> <23666.1469091857@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <95b0103c-ba2d-6cd8-6241-228df46e530b@sics.se> <8ca27108-a8b9-7b07-e752-656247716708@comcast.net> <HE1PR0601MB22030003D2913DA6096CB3E4FC0D0@HE1PR0601MB2203.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <a318cda7-ebf2-5a5c-d86a-9d67fb41a82f@comcast.net> <HE1PR0601MB2203D1C2C96278B23D71AD31FC0D0@HE1PR0601MB2203.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <f293e325-bea2-5c27-c677-563f05c60da0@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:25:55 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0601MB2203D1C2C96278B23D71AD31FC0D0@HE1PR0601MB2203.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms030003020700070304030408"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/zX4gnKsnUnN3wX_TppNDg4km7rE>
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: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 19:26:00 -0000


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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email