Re: [core] OSCORE: Questions about Section 5.2

Jaro Fietz <> Thu, 11 October 2018 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31907130E58 for <>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 05:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5tr2mkS6XJFu for <>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 05:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 748AD130E60 for <>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 05:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2HGAQDWQ79b/xmnZsBiGgEBAQEBAgEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEHAgEBAQGBZQKBUwUqgVOMR12LV4FoJZcBgXkNhGwChFYhPwMMAQMBAQIBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?CAmkohTsBBTIBBUEQCxguVwYNAQcBAYMcggKnUIR3hGIJAYs7gVg/gREBJwyCX?= =?us-ascii?q?4RoAoVsAp4QBwKBCoEBBI4/BheJIAWGbJYSgXALgVUzGiSDPIIiGnsBCASNEos?= =?us-ascii?q?CgkwBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,368,1534802400"; d="scan'208";a="6519236"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Oct 2018 14:41:36 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,368,1534802400"; d="scan'208";a="16528042"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 11 Oct 2018 14:41:32 +0200
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:41:30 +0200
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_Ams=c3=bcss?= <>
CC: <>, <>, <>, <>
References: <> <>
From: Jaro Fietz <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:41:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--8.031700-8.000000-31
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] OSCORE: Questions about Section 5.2
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:41:45 -0000

Hello Christian,

thanks for your quick answer, it clarified the second of my questions.

On 10/11/18 1:09 PM, Christian Amsüss wrote:
> The expectation is that the shortest (zero-length) ID would be used in
> cases wherever that's beneficial, eg. when a constrained device
> primarily utilizes one context in which it is addressed as a server.
This is an interesting optimization. I'm not too sure about the actual 
benefits though. To me this would only result in the constrained nodes 
being able to shave off a few bytes of allocation when constructing the 
response and saving their sender_id to persistent storage.
> You briefly had me worried I got it wrong myself -- but the
> left-trimming that's happenign is on the sequence numbers, not on the
> sender IDs.
Sorry, I must have skipped incorrectly over the tuple construction. 
Reading through it again, your code is, of course, correct :)
> Slightly off topic: Would that happen to be a freely licensed
> implementation? If so, I know of an embedded operating system project
> that would love to hear about this.
I'm implementing OSCORE on top of zephyr (not integrated into it) for an 
embedded board. Currently it isn't open source, but I asked my advisor, 
who'll forward the request to the supervisor.
Judging from your github history I expect you ask for RIOT-OS? :)