Re: [Iotops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-04.txt

[John Mattsson <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

We have submitted version -04 of draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison. We think -04 addresses the comments in the iotdir early review. Additional changes can be found in the new change log.

Changes from -03 to -04:

   *  Added change log

   *  Updated to cTLS-09, which seems relatively stable.

   *  Explained key and certificate identifiers.

   *  Added a paragraph to introduce the section on underlying layers.

   *  Added text explaining the difference between AKEs and protocols
      for protection of application data.

   *  Added reference to RFC 7250, RFC 9547, and "Performance Comparison
      of EDHOC and DTLS 1.3 in Internet-of-Things Environments".

   *  Editorial changes.



Changes from -02 to -03:



   *  Security considerations linking to the security considerations for

      the protocols as well as newer recommendations and best practices.



   *  Moved "EDHOC Over CoAP and OSCORE" subsection to appendix.



   *  References for the algorithms.



   *  Editorial changes.

Cheers,
John Preuß Mattsson

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 4 March 2024 at 17:47
A new version of Internet-Draft
draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-04.txt has been successfully
submitted by John Preuß Mattsson and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:     draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison
Revision: 04
Title:    Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols
Date:     2024-03-04
Group:    iotops
Pages:    54
URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-04.txt
Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison/
HTML:     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-04.html
HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison
Diff:     https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-04

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 Secretariat