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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 22/06/2020 22:49, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I oppose adoption of EDHOC, for both process and technical reasons.

I don't see how your process reasons add up tbh, but
maybe I'm wrong...

> 
> At the process level, it is ridiculous to move for adoption immediately
> after declaring consensus on the requirements.  

That is kinda funny tbh. This topic has been discussed for
a significant duration. IMO people have clearly reached
their reasoned conclusions either way well before now. I
see no real possibility that more time will change
positions and no new information being offered that might
have that effect.

> Unless you're going to use
> the requirements to evaluate solutions, there's no point having them, and
> there has been no discussion on this list as to how the two solutions
> compare in light of the agreed requirements.

It seems clear to me that both edhoc and cTLS can meet the
requirements. Feel free to correct me as to why that is
wrong.

> 
> Mališa, Your call for adoption also incorrectly suggests that because cTLS
> has been adopted by TLS and no other drafts have been submitted to LAKE,
> then EDHOC is basically the only option.  That is not true -- the group
> could declare consensus that the focus should be on cTLS, declare victory,
> and close down.  That would also fulfill the charter.

If the consensus were to not adopt edhoc, I will be arguing
to close the WG as it'd be pointless. That seems to me to
amount to the same decision that you argue for above.

To be clear about something I've said before: as a chair, I
am not personally willing to put up with procrastinating
further on what is a clear choice that needs to be made and
on which I believe all informed participants have reached
their own considered decisions. There are non-trivial
arguments on both sides, but I don't see that there have
been any new arguments nor information for some time. It
is time to pick or get off the picking-pot.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> I continue to believe that cTLS is a better option for solving this
> problem.  From the beginning, those of us involved in cTLS have pointed out
> that having more choices for security protocols in the ecosystem has
> costs.  We have also put forward concrete protocol proposals, backed by
> implementation, that show that cTLS can meet the requried constraints.
> Neither argument has been addressed by the EDHOC proponents.
> 
> More directly, it is hard to evaluate whether EDHOC is a suitable starting
> point given that it has been a very dynamic target over the last several
> versions, and earlier iterations have had security issues.  Starting from
> the thoroughly-vetted baseline of TLS is a safer approach than designing
> from whole cloth.  One can focus on specific questions around the things
> that are being changed, rather starting analysis all over again.
> 
> I also believe that the IETF should focus its work on protocols that will
> have real-world impact.  It is clear that EDHOC is popular among
> academics.  Opinion appears much more split among people who work on
> shipping code for real IoT devices.  Until we can get some real consensus
> among actual implementors, we should not move forward.
> 
> --Richard
> 
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:54 AM Mališa Vučinić <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Since we now have a rough consensus on the requirements document, we are
>> proceeding with the selection of the LAKE for OSCORE our working group is
>> chartered to work on. Given:
>>
>> - the LAKE working group charter,
>> - a wide community support over an extensive period of time for
>> draft-selander-lake-edhoc,
>> - adoption of the cTLS draft by the TLS working group where it will be
>> further developed,
>> - that no other drafts have been submitted for consideration of the LAKE
>> working group,
>>
>> we are now launching a call for adoption for
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-selander-lake-edhoc-01.
>>
>> Please reply to this thread whether you support the adoption, and indicate
>> if you are ready to review if this draft becomes a working group document..
>>
>> The call for adoption ends on June 22nd, 2020.
>>
>> Your LAKE chairs.
>> --
>> Lake mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake
>>
> 
>