[Iotops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt
internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu, 21 March 2024 04:15 UTC
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: iotops@ietf.org
Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83F9C15152E; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 21:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
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: iotops@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.8.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: iotops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <171099453780.41692.15045291261855613872@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 21:15:37 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/iGgku42eIC5Va5-K95anABpp6qY>
Subject: [Iotops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 04:15:37 -0000
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt is now available. It is a work item of the IOT Operations (IOTOPS) WG of the IETF. Title: Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols Authors: John Preuß Mattsson Francesca Palombini Mališa Vučinić Name: draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt Pages: 54 Dates: 2024-03-20 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 Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-06.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
- [Iotops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-iotops-security-p… internet-drafts