Re: [Iotops] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-07

AKRAM SHERIFF <sheriff.akram.usa@gmail.com> Sat, 18 March 2023 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <sheriff.akram@gmail.com>
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 8029AC14CE3B for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KWz3MuHk_ERW for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19543C14CE36 for <iotops@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id bp27so8406051lfb.6 for <iotops@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1679097726; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=x8mq1iX19HAqQRfdfgwC4xGN0fM1nvTVA2uRQhJN5H8=; b=WEgpLjrl9sAZJC0Wi1rrDVAXToOCGQl7tsvnHigK4nW8yKusVi6c1TVTYj0+7T8/zZ IPoOVco+SDrluKC3iQ5xdFrYIp2OYAp5+/wh6Ws2IQ8li2MywsENwUU1qr9I8SX6JhLI fxf1Y//xQBO0jnMTJ4qiU3jVnk0ALis4YKJB4CmUbLjmu9K0QSdO0umCeYPoYlS1B9GC 3x8Nsul26pjoWq4P6XENRLMF2n6pUpVQamHuCnHbmluYIvk2K8bsz54YmmK10ej4R1j8 W1wfeUvYdk22cHv/kbHPoKkvcMM3+A0epQMwwvprO8kgSmciBaUaQtolqmtF+bjdfbfh F8lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1679097726; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=x8mq1iX19HAqQRfdfgwC4xGN0fM1nvTVA2uRQhJN5H8=; b=iG4d87VXkZVyURIskXbcwwxnXh7ZKTpKI9YHaRD5SSft5pofxjrmznC4UijGCWBlpt 8GF+tup9r3lDXw9xaIqLYnUeQlo1P/TxjMpkNofK+4EOPrKJsIQTFCxCe8jU1MYq+Pj7 BjlwgIFDUrBd5mUPTkNcqtVPwIExo6UxZ3Ic+YC2+Cjvk9eBn9BGFjscAy3gGd+53VU0 NbN10CkJrOmIUY0/2Oj8MUbcqnZplywT9HIQYM/ZSvB5ZtIcIfqCgmzR4hGyobrRxcDq ujYv6zO570CRk2FvmiK+LjtwLv/5OyLZ8+Ex4SON/zgQbyxKKLLyQ8RAHgqoD6277VoV n3Kg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKVRTyCRUBHBlt4pA2NvHFSvt5c7Xn2RWxUZ9IgLMf5c51mRDTuJ rBQn/vHRfVVkX2XOdrjDR5CNcuodaI0exFfCcdc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+V61R/62QtyUmeMEBtQ2BpZ206koH9gT2xdjTItaMAdRrZnNACDaL3AF/1VF78vJFvt/nwHFporFFVBnqnOVo=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:533c:0:b0:4d8:1c0e:bfc7 with SMTP id f28-20020ac2533c000000b004d81c0ebfc7mr4757769lfh.13.1679097725528; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20fe2d26-3edb-fb64-6e6f-08af72b8a969@sit.fraunhofer.de> <e7012cf0-5dd6-c3e0-7b4b-569260cead21@sit.fraunhofer.de> <5d61b09c-b6d6-d2b8-3471-356a7a78edfd@sit.fraunhofer.de>
In-Reply-To: <5d61b09c-b6d6-d2b8-3471-356a7a78edfd@sit.fraunhofer.de>
From: AKRAM SHERIFF <sheriff.akram.usa@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:01:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CANqCZ1Bv_PVdzDZ5DB5=ss4FT9tBT0dVU+3bsz-DitwG_nHw1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: iotops@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000792ea905f72167be"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/yE5NiZpXIofS4QJomKXUprtyN5Y>
Subject: Re: [Iotops] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-07
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 18 Mar 2023 00:02:12 -0000

Hi  Henk / Alexey,
                           Thanks,  I support this proposal
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-07
 adoption in  IOTOPS.  Since the EDHOC overhead is dependent on the key
identifiers used and included.  Is there a need to add and create a
separate 'Table'  with Sender ID's of  different lengths and then analyze
the "key size" overhead based on different Tag lengths ?


Regards
Akram


On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:38 AM Henk Birkholz <
henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

> Dear IOTOPS members,
>
> while OPSAWG might be in full support, in this case my recent WGAC
> conclusion was actually on behalf of Alexey and I - the IOTOPS chairs.
>
> Please excuse my hastily barrage of messages (including smaller and
> bigger nits), today.
>
> Viele Grüße,
>
> Henk (as one of the IOTOPS chairs)
>
> On 17.03.23 17:14, Henk Birkholz wrote:
> > Dear IOTOPS members,
> >
> > this email concludes the call for adoption for
> > draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-07. Reflecting previous
> > in-room consensus, there was only positive feedback and notions on
> > active use of the I-D.
> >
> > The chairs believe this I-D is appropriate for adoption in the IOTOPS WG
> > (i.e., migrating it from LWIG) and for the working group to work on.
> >
> > Authors/editors, please rename the I-D to
> > draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-00, keeping the content
> > as is, and resubmit.
> >
> >
> > For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
> >
> > Henk
> >
> > On 01.03.23 19:29, Henk Birkholz wrote:
> >> Dear IOTOPS members,
> >>
> >> this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
> >>
> >>>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-07
> >>
> >> ending on Wednesday, March 15th.
> >>
> >> As a reminder, this I-D describes experiences with message sizes for
> >> various configurations of security protocols. This can aid in
> >> selecting protocols for specific constrained environments.
> >>
> >> Previously, the I-D has been progressed in LWIG. There was rough
> >> in-room consensus at the IETF 115 meeting to make IOTOPS its new home
> >> and move forward with a WG adoption call, as is documented in
> >>
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-115-iotops-202211081300/
> >>
> >> Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments
> >> you may have.
> >>
> >>
> >> For the IOTOPS co-chairs,
> >>
> >> Henk
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Iotops mailing list
> Iotops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops
>