IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net> Mon, 22 June 2020 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <caw@heapingbits.net>
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 EAC4F3A083B for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=heapingbits.net header.b=jMhpgcID; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=TzlnmQOI
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 8PncFNDO6Jo3 for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D302E3A0805 for <lake@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84861B61; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:53:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap4 ([10.202.2.54]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:53:23 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heapingbits.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=GLNnBATQapH4Cz9q+mXKcHctj2dN6hL X6+LtBATcyS0=; b=jMhpgcIDq1fWkwRAquvu1lnmQoSjMVgZQUEvniZPZyQnFKl pbA9X+riA51BBGa3AdJw6zhOoiATdU687nRY6laY2j+CmFieCscqMR1idYoDIrXb icc5Mqp+QiPzP4JK8t/Dy/U5AiI5kfL1IJWde9lY1aFKbQ2r7LNp+ch2PdoVIr74 4cA1Wp2aDWVsqRxykXQS7bEp6PApg200Vqkb3PMEzz+QKLM+82o2MdjO//qf/ZPW gESh7A4YGSI28S0kpArBkS7meTb4xej3NUrWK/nZhg9rtG/R0IQqKRpQHlEoC37j stjOkDmvGdMWmup3N5/adHF6zp2PJxlTkLQsfVQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=GLNnBA TQapH4Cz9q+mXKcHctj2dN6hLX6+LtBATcyS0=; b=TzlnmQOIhP35biKeyxUmik U9dVqD2/ElJwUYMlE0P0JRIDKRpv+qoNMbyzT+NSmK4TnsqP+9HqW1PpjyRUXP5G 5G//7bFX/7AZ/wAkDOH80P1iRtsGxPYAhtU80A0MBzsXW/wtawkEfd+yXrLzsWRx ig48oaSTMlbzgCIWmcQATVR1+zVxWAPY3s4rXVbp8dS4lvPqVhNZgPf1ZQV850K/ 9hHK9G92lJzvUpFFlmmiiLIXledE3JLxUZBtUXnKblZLNukX8UDd4pZFKtn9vUkV E5I9qgLDGEp+m76JP3qVouE5uw4Q+WHuhfHjmBFczWdy1H9uYuIOklk9a5ZTbT7g ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:AQHwXpw3mh_c-Lh-XtFoLiMv7yyTklerdq21h0zOIjgfPkfnmfNIhQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudekuddggedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdevhhhr ihhsthhophhhvghrucghohhougdfuceotggrfieshhgvrghpihhnghgsihhtshdrnhgvth eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudegffekkeelgfejteffheeigeelgfeludffkedutefh heeiheejjeeuieeileejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomheptggrfieshhgvrghpihhnghgsihhtshdrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:AQHwXpTxZdbPNQq2B_c0kn7E1N_AbC8suB2lYykhNHy_4mOIhS7Vzw> <xmx:AQHwXjUsQ-RoEdGmaxZb7AvzgelyiTFze-pE1jcr3pCCnDhd7o25qg> <xmx:AQHwXrjcEIYHeemQl0WLFMHkQPIJDDWCq-ejRpAkcsyO9MSILTmwXQ> <xmx:AgHwXuN5R1UHBlYY7NecVGELEBfmm54CdAW_EKwFWb_s7vQ_oXAwoA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id B3B733C00A1; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:53:21 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-543-gda70334-fm-20200618.004-gda703345
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <118bc77b-6ba0-4c8b-9b31-327bf834583d@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b3975525-bec5-19b7-a545-c31f4581044c@cs.tcd.ie>
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> <b3975525-bec5-19b7-a545-c31f4581044c@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:53:01 -0700
From: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, lake@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/OrYOphyajFyCVMAulr70lMfhWL0>
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 00:53:25 -0000

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020, at 5:51 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 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? 

If this is the case, why are we already considering adopting and moving forward with EDHOC?

Best,
Chris

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email