Re: [Lake] Call for adoption of draft-selander-lake-traces

[John Mattsson <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

- I support adoption.

- I think it should be published as an RFC

- Regarding the scope. I think the scope should be narrow. My view is that the goal with the traces document is to increase understanding compared to the undocumented test vectors in https://github.com/lake-wg/edhoc/tree/master/test-vectors-11
Any additional test vectors can be provided in an undocumented JSON format. I agree with earlier comments that an ECDSA cipher suite should definitly be included. I think the ECDSA cipher suite should replace one of the current EdDSA traces. I don't really see that a third trace increases understanding very much, but I do not have a strong opinion. My suggestion would be two traces
     1. method 3 (static DH - static DH) with cipher suite 0
     2. method 0 (signature - signature) with cipher suite 2 or 3

Cheers,
John

From: Lake <[e-mail]> on behalf of Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca=[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 15:38
To: Mališa Vučinić <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Lake] Call for adoption of draft-selander-lake-traces
Hi all,

I support adoption of this document, that I have personally found useful
through the implementation/testing process.

I believe that publication as RFC is appropriate too. This would be
analogous to RFC8448.

The current level of details in the traces looks actually good to me. I
think additional traces should include cipher suite 2 (both with
authentication method 0 and 3). This would make the document useful also
for implementations supporting only cipher suite 2, which is admitted
for constrained endpoints.

Best,
/Marco

On 2021-10-18 12:52, Mališa Vučinić wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As discussed during the IETF-111 meeting and the last interim, this email triggers a 2-week call for adoption of draft-selander-lake-traces-01. The draft contains the EDHOC test vectors, previously part of draft-ietf-lake-edhoc.
>
> We are seeking the working group input on the following points:
> - Whether draft-selander-lake-traces should be adopted as a working group item, and if yes:
> - Whether this draft should be published as an RFC
> - What should be the scope of the document? The current version of the draft covers authentication methods 0 (signature - signature) and 3 (static DH - static DH). Should the draft cover additional methods and / or additional intermediary values? Anything else deemed useful from the implementers point of view?
>
> Please provide your comments by November 1st, 2021.
>
> Mališa and Stephen

--
Marco Tiloca
Ph.D., Senior Researcher

Division: Digital System
Department: Computer Science
Unit: Cybersecurity

RISE Research Institutes of Sweden
https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=3da572a9-623e4b95-3da53232-86b1886cfa64-0ab0da9f4cdc4e12&q=1&e=bb32162f-d970-495a-8ea5-4133e01804dc&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ri.se%2F

Phone: [phone]
Isafjordsgatan 22 / Kistagången 16
SE-164 40 Kista (Sweden)