Re: [core] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 24 May 2017 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F62D12941C; Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 xB2kq0rKhb7K; Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6133A126CB6; Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4O3bXox016471; Wed, 24 May 2017 05:37:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [172.31.0.79] (athedsl-143215.home.otenet.gr [85.75.231.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3wXdPn2XGKzDH3f; Wed, 24 May 2017 05:37:33 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-893474F8-65B3-4B27-9EEB-9D52EC45631F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14F89)
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR21MB0084FB311CBA4EC02438B9E483FE0@BY2PR21MB0084.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 06:37:30 +0300
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "core-chairs@ietf.org" <core-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <0D86F872-62CE-4D06-AB4A-A18F94A1061D@tzi.org>
References: <149411155754.23175.15150224037348429928.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A1046D25-8D1A-4267-9705-16624E727D35@tzi.org> <28837957-421a-eeff-8304-cfafb80ca234@gmx.net> <BY2PR21MB0084BB12DF9C5C684857AD9F83FE0@BY2PR21MB0084.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <2ba93ff7-c2f2-c5e4-cd67-0f7c1d412051@nostrum.com> <BY2PR21MB0084FB311CBA4EC02438B9E483FE0@BY2PR21MB0084.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
To: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/SyIggXiVOqsmi6yvIyoz_Muhe2U>
Subject: Re: [core] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 03:37:41 -0000

Websockets is in the same document beause it is 95 % the same problem.  Of course, we could split off the 5 % into a separate document as a delta from TCP. I fail to see why (except maybe as a ploy to get more of the original authors accommodated).

Sent from mobile

> On 24. May 2017, at 05:56, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/23/17 6:22 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>>>     I can give you the motivation why we are interested in CoAP over TLS /TCP. We have an existing implementation of LWM2M,
>>>     which uses CoAP. We spent a lot of time getting that implementation rock-solid. Some enterprise deployments, which happen
>>>     to have interesting firewall policies, do not allow us to use UDP. Hence, we were interested to add a TCP-based transport to CoAP.
>>>     Making this enhancement turns out to be reasonably simple.
> 
>> I'll note that the rationale for using WebSockets for this purpose appears to be significantly less clear, and the combination of TCP and 
>> WebSockets into a single document even more so.
> 
> I agree with what Hannes wrote in his earlier response to you - https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg08729.html - 
> 
>    The authors of the document have different views about the inclusion of the support of WebSockets in the document.
>    I leave it to the responsible AD to decide what the best document structure is and what is indeed covered as part of the
>    CORE working group charter.
> 
> I would encourage the authors of draft-savolainen-core-coap-websockets (based on their specific domain expertise) to weigh in on some of the WebSockets questions/concerns raised arising during these reviews. 
> 
> ...Brian
> 
> 
> 
>