IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [coman] are we there yet?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 12 March 2013 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: coman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9E711E8119 for <coman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.393
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nIraCPAk7KNL for <coman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E570811E80A3 for <coman@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [130.129.16.118]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AEB222060 for <coman@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:43:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB4ACA0C8 for <coman@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:14:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: coman@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <34966E97BE8AD64EAE9D3D6E4DEE36F21EDDDF18@szxeml525-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <22677.1363008722@sandelman.ca> <E4DE949E6CE3E34993A2FF8AE79131F80655D7@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net> <CAK=bVC8CuqxsPo+5ihHeJrfY6S5=jhpQz5oDf0L_qybg5r_B5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CANF4ybt0MmnQXR0ZQKSPJ8AjW-wF-hduyysmzVq9ebj2jsfsQw@mail.gmail.com> <34966E97BE8AD64EAE9D3D6E4DEE36F21EDDDD20@szxeml525-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20130312014021.GA64284@elstar.local> <34966E97BE8AD64EAE9D3D6E4DEE36F21EDDDF18@szxeml525-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Likepeng <likepeng@huawei.com> message dated "Tue, 12 Mar 2013 01:55:39 -0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:14:52 -0400
Message-ID: <8177.1363104892@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Subject: Re: [coman] are we there yet?
X-BeenThere: coman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Management of Constrained Networks and Devices <coman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/coman>, <mailto:coman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/coman>
List-Post: <mailto:coman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:coman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman>, <mailto:coman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:43:53 -0000

> To do what exactly?

for a LLN which has been *provisioned* with a layer-2 set of keys,
and has an existing security infrastructure based upon those keys
(i.e. the key is not compromised), I would like a protocol that
is capable of rekeying all or a subset of nodes/motes.

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status