Re: [Lake] WG process beyond requirements

["Blomqvist, Peter" <[e-mail]>]

We are are also interested in the continuation of OSCORE as mentioned 
earlier by RISE and therefore we support the view to prioritize 
finalizing requirements to be able to move forward in LAKE WG.


Best
Peter

On 2/2/20 07:26, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:08:53PM +0000, Göran Selander wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2020-01-28, 16:03, "Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>      Just as an alternative to consider (i.e., I'm not saying I
>>      think this is best, just that it's a possibility), the lake
>>      wg could also adopt a draft e.g. if only one (like edhoc)
>>      were on offer, but remain open to e.g. ctls turning up later,
>>      whenever work on that is completed by the tls wg, which is
>>      likely some time ahead I'd say.
>>      
>>      IOW, adopting a draft soonish (when the requirements are done
>>      WGLC), doesn't mean that we need all possible designs that'll
>>      ever meet the lake requirements to be at the same stage of
>>      development in the very near term.
>>      
>>
>> GS: I'm all in favor of adopting a candidate fulfilling the requirements as a start and decide on other candidates later. But this is a new turn. One year ago in Secdispatch we were requested to define relevant benchmarks and then to formulate requirements, both of these activities were intended for making comparisons between different protocols. Perhaps that is water under the bridge now.
> I don't think the sole (or even primary) reason for desiring
> benchmarks/requirements was to have a comparison between protocols, but
> rather to ensure that we (collectively) understand the problems we are
> trying to solve and that any/all proposed solutions are fit for purpose.
>
> -Ben
>