I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt
internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun, 25 December 2022 18:52 UTC
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: i-d-announce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D37C14CE47; Sun, 25 Dec 2022 10:52:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Cc: lwip@ietf.org
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 9.4.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lwip@ietf.org
Message-ID: <167199435326.48869.8834229265960037321@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2022 10:52:33 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i-d-announce/GjfL1szAKJV-Y2UjOSGQQuPE5wk>
X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Internet Draft Announcements only <i-d-announce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i-d-announce>, <mailto:i-d-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i-d-announce/>
List-Post: <mailto:i-d-announce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i-d-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>, <mailto:i-d-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2022 18:52:33 -0000
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG of the IETF. Title : Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols Authors : John Preuß Mattsson Francesca Palombini Mališa Vučinić Filename : draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt Pages : 45 Date : 2022-12-25 Abstract: This document analyzes and compares the sizes of key exchange flights and the per-packet message size overheads when using different security protocols to secure CoAP. Small message sizes are very important for reducing energy consumption, latency, and time to completion in constrained radio network such as Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs). The analyzed security protocols are DTLS 1.2, DTLS 1.3, TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3, cTLS, EDHOC, OSCORE, and Group OSCORE. The DTLS and TLS record layers are analyzed with and without 6LoWPAN- GHC compression. DTLS is analyzed with and without Connection ID. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-com… internet-drafts