Re: [Lake] Call for adoption for draft-selander-lake-edhoc - respond by June 22

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 22 June 2020 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809E93A0803 for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 eX3Ow6gFr8Xu for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FEB43A07E0 for <lake@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10230BE2C; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 01:51:15 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gn_yKuDCSTkT; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 01:51:11 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8843BE20; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 01:51:10 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1592787070; bh=8X9GF/Qzl6ebeIamu35JIP/zywZVN6ndxRoSL7MsLY4=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ga4qXI7ThjUPQdfUnt9qBRoL+1IoaTOhTMdSZtVLz3KEWDSDdIMDTEcQG4+m1mPDF YCrpHvyAaJ18SMFzSqbf+UJvwFMFOFHa29+sUh3CCxwi6NHAGFT686YYVywDRC9WfW F5cmK9CanfWa0ueujWi45xFtl+IwzY2i1TIFncdk=
To: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>, lake@ietf.org
References: <89EA6A63-AB99-4649-9F08-D6FBDE1DEF2F@inria.fr> <e86bb20d-8092-9b13-76b9-220de4f00e64@ri.se> <f8337bf9-40d2-557c-0e15-53571644900a@afnic.fr> <bfe96788-ec1a-2c9e-2fab-d52fb9fd8990@um.es> <640332b4-188d-4ca7-9c41-310a3d0a73ed@www.fastmail.com> <23d5f254-d1f3-81ae-8b43-bc0706f4a28f@cs.tcd.ie> <47465501-a826-44ea-a0c3-1e9e6efeb5ce@www.fastmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Autocrypt: addr=stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nemCP5PMvmh 5Cg8gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kTq0IqYzsEv5HI58S+ QtaFq978CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtEgvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKr EMjmL5VGuD/Q9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy+pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZU bUv0Q+DnQAB/4tNncejJPz0p2z3MWCp5iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqO Vz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqBwV+4uL9to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJg b097ZaNyuY1ETghVB5Uir1GCYChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k 4LyM2lp5FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWavACYEa7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK 7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8DVQu8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9tlyWxn5Xi HzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER8la5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQABtDJTdGVwaGVuIEZh cnJlbGwgKDIwMTcpIDxzdGVwaGVuLmZhcnJlbGxAY3MudGNkLmllPokCQAQTAQgAKgIbAwUJ CZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUCWj6jdwIZAQAKCRBasvrxexcr6o7QD/9m x9DPJetmW794RXmNTrbTJ44zc/tJbcLdRBh0KBn9OW/EaAqjDmgNJeCMyJTKr1ywaps8HGUN hLEVkc14NUpgi4/Zkrbi3DmTp25OHj6wXBS5qVMyVynTMEIjOfeFFyxG+48od+Xn7qg6LT7G rHeNf+z/r0v9+8eZ1Ip63kshQDGhhpmRMKu4Ws9ZvTW2ACXkkTFaSGYJj3yIP4R6IgwBYGMz DXFX6nS4LA1s3pcPNxOgrvCyb60AiJZTLcOk/rRrpZtXB1XQc23ZZmrlTkl2HaThL6w3YKdi Ti1NbuMeOxZqtXcUshII45sANm4HuWNTiRh93Bn5bN6ddjgsaXEZBKUBuUaPBl7gQiQJcAlS 3MmGgVS4ZoX8+VaPGpXdQVFyBMRFlOKOC5XJESt7wY0RE2C8PFm+5eywSO/P1fkl9whkMgml 3OEuIQiP2ehRt/HVLMHkoM9CPQ7t6UwdrXrvX+vBZykav8x9U9M6KTgfsXytxUl6Vx5lPMLi 2/Jrsz6Mzh/IVZa3xjhq1OLFSI/tT2ji4FkJDQbO+yYUDhcuqfakDmtWLMxecZsY6O58A/95 8Qni6Xeq+Nh7zJ7wNcQOMoDGj+24di2TX1cKLzdDMWFaWzlNP5dB5VMwS9Wqj1Z6TzKjGjru q8soqohwb2CK9B3wzFg0Bs1iBI+2RuFnxLkCDQRaPVAyARAA+g3R0HzGr/Dl34Y07XqGqzq5 SU0nXIu9u8Ynsxj7gR5qb3HgUWYEWrHW2jHOByXnvkffucf5yzwrsvw8Q8iI8CFHiTYHPpey 4yPVn6R0w/FOMcY70eTIu/k6EEFDlDbs09DtKcrsT9bmN0XoRxITlXwWTufYqUnmS+YkAuk+ TLCtUin7OdaS2uU6Ata3PLQSeM2ZsUQMmYmHPwB9rmf+q2I005AJ9Q1SPQ2KNg/8xOGxo13S VuaSqYRQdpV93RuCOzg4vuXtR+gP0KQrus/P2ZCEPvU9cXF/2MIhXgOz207lv3iE2zGyNXld /n8spvWk+0bH5Zqd9Wcba/rGcBhmX9NKKDARZqjkv/zVEP1X97w1HsNYeUFNcg2lk9zQKb4v l1jx/Uz8ukzH2QNhU4R39dbF/4AwWuSVkGW6bTxHJqGs6YimbfdQqxTzmqFwz3JP0OtXX5q/ 6D4pHwcmJwEiDNzsBLl6skPSQ0Xyq3pua/qAP8MVm+YxCxJQITqZ8qjDLzoe7s9X6FLLC/DA L9kxl5saVSfDbuI3usH/emdtn0NA9/M7nfgih92zD92sl1yQXHT6BDa8xW1j+RU4P+E0wyd7 zgB2UeYgrp2IIcfG+xX2uFG5MJQ/nYfBoiALb0+dQHNHDtFnNGY3Oe8z1M9c5aDG3/s29QbJ +w7hEKKo9YMAEQEAAYkCJQQYAQgADwUCWj1QMgIbDAUJCZQmAAAKCRBasvrxexcr6qwvD/9b Rek3kfN8Q+jGrKl8qwY8HC5s4mhdDJZI/JP2FImf5J2+d5/e8UJ4fcsT79E0/FqX3Z9wZr6h sofPqLh1/YzDsYkZDHTYSGrlWGP/I5kXwUmFnBZHzM3WGrL3S7ZmCYMdudhykxXXjq7M6Do1 oxM8JofrXGtwBTLv5wfvvygJouVCVe87Ge7mCeY5vey1eUi4zSSF1zPpR6gg64w2g4TXM5qt SwkZVOv1g475LsGlYWRuJV8TA67yp1zJI7HkNqCo8KyHX0DPOh9c+Sd9ZX4aqKfqH9HIpnCL AYEgj7vofeix7gM3kQQmwynqq32bQGQBrKJEYp2vfeO30VsVx4dzuuiC5lyjUccVmw5D72J0 FlGrfEm0kw6D1qwyBg0SAMqamKN6XDdjhNAtXIaoA2UMZK/vZGGUKbqTgDdk0fnzOyb2zvXK CiPFKqIPAqKaDHg0JHdGI3KpQdRNLLzgx083EqEc6IAwWA6jSz+6lZDV6XDgF0lYqAYIkg3+ 6OUXUv6plMlwSHquiOc/MQXHfgUP5//Ra5JuiuyCj954FD+MBKIj8eWROfnzyEnBplVHGSDI ZLzL3pvV14dcsoajdeIH45i8DxnVm64BvEFHtLNlnliMrLOrk4shfmWyUqNlzilXN2BTFVFH 4MrnagFdcFnWYp1JPh96ZKjiqBwMv/H0kw==
Message-ID: <b3975525-bec5-19b7-a545-c31f4581044c@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 01:51:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <47465501-a826-44ea-a0c3-1e9e6efeb5ce@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vxvONTaF9NTVFuY6Q82dPO8LfgZYt4hW4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/JKyoJ6xalgGkun8ZgbZ2Zm6fB6Q>
Subject: Re: [Lake] Call for adoption for draft-selander-lake-edhoc - respond by June 22
X-BeenThere: lake@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange <lake.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lake/>
List-Post: <mailto:lake@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 00:51:20 -0000

Hiya,

On 22/06/2020 01:38, Christopher Wood wrote:
> Top-posting, since I think clarifying will help answer the comments
> below.
> 
> As observed below, cTLS is underway elsewhere in the IETF. That does
> *not* mean this WG needs to pick an entirely separate AKE. On the
> contrary, this WG ought to evaluate -- per the charter -- whether
> cTLS meets the needs of LAKE. If it does, and if folks favor that
> AKE, then the primarily outcome of this WG seems to be in formulating
> requirements which led to that decision. (That would be a fine
> outcome as far as I'm concerned. The success of a WG is not
> predicated on how many documents it produces.)

Hmm. I think both edhoc and cTLS could, in their final
incarnation, meet the requirements and that that's fairly
clear. What am I missing? I don't get what work needs to
be done to establish that, and assume that WG participants
can do whatever evaluation is needed for themselves.

> In sum, I think this adoption call is premature and goes against what
> the charter lays out. Let's do our due diligence here. 

I'm still confused about the basis for the above TBH.

> I strongly
> believe Introducing yet another AKE into the standards pool is
> something we should not do without serious contemplation.

That, however, is quite clear and seems to me a valid
basis from which to argue against adopting edhoc. (Noting
that "valid" does not mean "winning.")

Cheers,
S.


> 
> Best, Chris
> 
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> 
>> Hiya,
>> 
>> I've a couple of questions below as I don't quite get the basis for
>> your conclusion. (I'm not trying to argue your conclusion but I
>> don't understand it and would like to.)
>> 
>> On 22/06/2020 00:51, Christopher Wood wrote:
>>> I do not support adoption.
>>> 
>>> The charter of this WG states:
>>> 
>>> draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe is a candidate starting point for
>>> the LAKE produced by the WG. Any work available from TLS or other
>>> WGs that satisfies the determined requirements will also be
>>> evaluated for suitability, but does not preclude the WG from
>>> freely selecting its preferred LAKE for OSCORE.
>>> 
>>> Unless I missed it, work from TLS was not seriously evaluated
>>> for suitability.
>> 
>> I don't understand what work you mean. cTLS has been adopted by the
>> TLS WG and will be developed there. I don't understand what useful
>> thing this WG could do about that.
>> 
>>> In fact, it seems we jumped right over it and landed on 
>>> draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe.
>> 
>> Yes. That is the only other serious proposal of which I'm aware.
>> 
>>> The cTLS authors demonstrated that this variant of the protocol
>>> can indeed meet the requirements set out in
>>> draft-ietf-lake-reqs-04, without compromising any of the benefits
>>> that the TLS ecosystem brings to the table. (Support for
>>> different server authentication modes, for example, is something
>>> TLS is well equipped to support.)
>> 
>> That's fine, but doesn't seem to speak to this adoption call.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I understand that the TLS WG adopted cTLS and will continue its 
>>> development there. However, that does not seem relevant for what
>>> this WG chooses.
>> 
>> I really don't understand that. We have 2 serious proposals. One
>> will be processed elsewhere. The question before us now is whether
>> to pursue the other one or not. It seems entirely relevant to me
>> that we are left with one or zero things to work on in this WG.
>> 
>>> By analogy, this would be similar to QUIC developing its own key
>>> exchange protocol since UDP is just slightly different from TCP.
>>> 
>> 
>> I don't find that analogy that useful tbh. QUIC is a transport area
>> WG chartered to develop a transport protocol. This WG was chartered
>> to do work on the topic of key exchange, so I don't think the
>> analogy holds.
>> 
>>> Clearly, that was not the path chosen, and I think it would be a 
>>> mistake to do that here without seriously considering cTLS.
>> 
>> Again - I've no clue what "seriously considering" might mean. cTLS
>> is being worked on. If we do not adopt edhoc then what would this
>> WG be doing? I don't think is makes much sense for a WG to exist
>> merely to "seriously consider" a work item in another WG:-)
>> 
>> Cheers, S.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Best, Chris
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020, at 1:13 PM, Jesus Sanchez-Gomez wrote:
>>>> Hello All,
>>>> 
>>>> I support the adoption of this document.
>>>> 
>>>> I've worked with the technology in research projects/papers 
>>>> yielding good results.
>>>> 
>>>> There are several use cases where this technology is a good 
>>>> solution for different research projects at the University of 
>>>> Murcia and Odin Solutions.
>>>> 
>>>> While I've practical experience with this technology working 
>>>> specifically in LoRaWAN, its design makes it a good fit for any
>>>>  constrained radio link/LPWAN.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, it has potential to be implemented beyond LPWANs, like
>>>> more generic IoT scenarios with large scalability.
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- Jesús Sánchez Gómez Contratado predoctoral // Phd Student. 
>>>> Fundación Séneca. Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia +34
>>>> 868 88 96 74 +34 635 33 26 09 jesus.sanchez4@um.es Department
>>>> of Information and Communication Engineering Faculty of
>>>> Computer Science University of Murcia 30100 Murcia, Spain
>>>> 
>>>> -- Lake mailing list Lake@ietf.org 
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Attachments: * 0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc * signature.asc
>