Re: [Iotops] [Danish] [Iot-directorate] SCVP
Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Tue, 16 February 2021 14:00 UTC
Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Original-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6762B3A098D; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:00:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 iYJ1nxsVBQ4g; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8DF53A098A; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4B54327889; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:00:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: "iot-directorate@ietf.org" <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, iotops@ietf.org, danish@ietf.org, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <49163B0D-3952-4DE8-8915-6DC6D50F851C@vigilsec.com> <1182.1613430019@localhost>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:00:21 -0800
In-Reply-To: <1182.1613430019@localhost> (Michael Richardson's message of "Mon, 15 Feb 2021 18:00:19 -0500")
Message-ID: <yblim6si03u.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/4EYMUfcCgSPmrIAWu0MVBFpbGpI>
Subject: Re: [Iotops] [Danish] [Iot-directorate] SCVP
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IOT Operations <iotops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iotops/>
List-Post: <mailto:iotops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:00:23 -0000
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> writes: > > however, it may very well be less battery than doing the > > certification path construction itself. > > There are three considerations in the analysis in my opinion: > 1) the network energy cost of connecting. > 2) the local energy cost of being awake to receive the reply. > 3) the network energy cost of retrieving the relevant certificate chains. I think that's a great point. DANE is likely far less energy intensive than full PKI -- but you probably need data to prove it (number of CPU instructions needed or something for full validation via both certificate verification approaches) -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI
- Re: [Iotops] [Iot-directorate] SCVP Michael Richardson
- Re: [Iotops] [Danish] [Iot-directorate] SCVP Wes Hardaker