Re: [Hipsec] Status of draft-ietf-hip-dex

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rene,

if you do not hear anything against your explanation before, please
engage with Terry and Eric so that we can move forward. Thanks!

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 16-Jan-19 01:25, René Hummen wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo, Bob, all,
> 
> sorry for being unresponsive. 
> 
> I have been working extensively on the draft in the past since becoming
> co-editor of draft-moskowitz-hip-dex-01 back in March 2014, but I have not
> been following HIP-related emails lately in accordance with Bob. I also want
> to take this opportunity to note that I will not have any significant amount
> of time for contributions in the future.
> 
> That said, I still would like to briefly explain the high-level rationale
> behind our choice of cryptographic primitives for HIP DEX, which are Eric's
> key points as I see it:
> In 2014 and beyond, many (Industrial) IoT devices often did not offer
> communication security or relied on fixed symmetric keys, potentially
> resulting in overuse of these keys. This was - and to my understanding still
> is - a direct result of the relatively high cost (ROM, RAM, CPU cycles,
> network usage) of public key cryptography on many microcontroller-based
> embedded devices.
> 
> Taking HIP BEX as a starting point, the idea therefore was to reduce the
> overhead of the cryptographic primitives by omitting public-key signatures
> and hash functions as the main overhead drivers regarding the above cost
> factors. That also meant losing some cryptographic properties such as PFS
> and SIGMA-compliance, many of which are taken for granted for traditional
> Internet security.
> 
> This is the trade-off that we were willing to accept for HIP DEX in order to
> improve on deployed state of the art and our approach is to be very open
> about these trade-offs. This is why we added text to that direction right to
> the start of the document
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-dex-06#section-1).
> 
> I suggest for the WG to decide whether this rationale and these trade-offs
> are still valid and acceptable in 2019 and to proceed accordingly.
> 
> @Bob: Please comment if your view differs.
> 
> Regards,
> René
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hipsec <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
> Sent: Dienstag, 15. Januar 2019 15:28
> To: HIP <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Hipsec] Status of draft-ietf-hip-dex
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I want to give the group a status update on the HIP DEX draft. Terry, our
> AD, had to remove it from the agenda of the telechat where it was going to
> be discussed (in May) because of security-related concerns about the draft
> (from the Security ADs). We have been periodically pinging Rene and Bob
> (authors of the draft) since then (9 months!), but we have not been able to
> get any response from them... note that we had added Rene as a coauthor of
> this draft because Bob's lack of cycles.
> 
> Terry would like to get this done by the end of February. Any proposals on
> how to proceed?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>