Re: [Lake] checking we're not missing any draft inputs...

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

On 04/07/2019 14:54, Dan Brown wrote:
> Perhaps ECMQV might be part of solution meeting of the LAKE goals (less bits 
> sent, less time spent).

I guess that'd be a solution-detail rather
than an alternative input draft or is there
a draft that people can look at? If the
former, then it's maybe more of a thing to
consider later rather than at the BoF?

In case it helps others, the first relevant
thing I found was RFC5753 which defines ways
to use ECMQV in CMS, but I'd be surprised if
CMS were proposed as being most of the answer
for LAKE.

Cheers,
S.

BTW, while I was looking I noticed 5753's
IPR declaration [1], refers to an earlier IPR
declaration [2] that in turn refers to [3]
which now re-directs me to a generic web
page [4]. Could be something to fix if one
wanted to propose ECMQV I guess.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1485/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1154/
[3]
http://www.certicom.com/images/pdfs/certicom%20-ipr-contribution-to-ietfsept08.pdf
[4] https://blackberry.certicom.com/