Re: [Lake] EDHOC Review
Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 14 December 2021 16:34 UTC
Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
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 D0E203A0E38 for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:34:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 jmgkKtyZ3LIH for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:34:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92e.google.com (mail-ua1-x92e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1F3F3A0791 for <lake@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:34:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92e.google.com with SMTP id t13so35795797uad.9 for <lake@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:34:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=44BMDr06nXj4lCDxie+n0h3n3lS9LP/WCz3KuvSuxMA=; b=QbPs9fuY+pleKNAQbv6gVg/XDNm/Wk0My7FHNtRznzkHvcAQatQw3b8GekmkndW7eW qYO7B1M2cAmgPicM54RqYBP1FYFX1WkjJGvGZvuqBtKTrUG463qWu7wB+ZXqWYu17DUV n9rf4a6YnSEc5wrqmixNL/pWP5YfqS65sKkrHFNcwnjnJTVI3Eg3N6MjxboMMc6poH5n qMc2kdjdM+G4BVGJmHPK7k8JgDcryBMZrNhp2C/gLI/b7VccOtiWtRNTY8eW9LXGwztF V4sZ3aZk4dQEMG4kb574nAkUAfonbGs9JYf4sHLwcgpZGhwZn/MBfcL1cEa1TMlhkVKM 4zfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=44BMDr06nXj4lCDxie+n0h3n3lS9LP/WCz3KuvSuxMA=; b=etwEgashZihr0qVY/liS4awk73nwBfk4i0+r2wmKScWJFu0lgVxR8E+ycAukbmNVx5 VWZZ1ZcCS6w9+8djhX7YVDLyEvglaey3vgl9rHP3Ncs0O28fBD3nYUJ6EHk6cBr9R6R0 K5dn+b5ZbktQ0oVducgU1TNOLmqetvOm8Oxvojb51vd4kstfjdletUDI0RjUFPAljGio +L+aqjWHe+M2Ob+clCaugcwtPTw6iUA/BOiFZhqQDpGWCJWC/lCdqXiq7I4DlhbQD0pw Ty+tLZGgF5Bmm7FZoWaPTSIJ7ySTgfzToVKLDbEdMW3ejproSU1vpTnwdTB2LbnzT7Nk yzDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531IbppSpQqaMFjUnptsMfitPPUn68G3Ouij1gi0k2ctiI2wY/sa CN9kqLl3cKPO3FMgEWHe4t5lmyoJ5lw1sqmMdXw2OeMp
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxCMrkL74gq3Q//WPYFCwgCg5mWnxs238ITPRlAOZqL0XTX8ixL9NEHKhOr10HEDsSHzYz9OuWkqhWvEj0Tyg=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:4405:: with SMTP id m5mr6518674uam.11.1639499650720; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:34:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHbuEH7Jm6vZkWNORO+jEXi6wVfUyhtv1t_Q+ouSphTHiFVM0Q@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR0701MB2195459D179BD54C7937F04BF4749@AM4PR0701MB2195.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0701MB2195459D179BD54C7937F04BF4749@AM4PR0701MB2195.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:33:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH4UFa-e1P=sCdg9nDUiYWo5BjQzit+3E=+8hGaxquNY_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Göran Selander <goran.selander@ericsson.com>
Cc: "lake@ietf.org" <lake@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004a67ca05d31dc2b6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/ig7egwXx9qpy9r5lloyruHtI7-4>
Subject: Re: [Lake] EDHOC Review
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: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 16:34:20 -0000
Thank you, Goran! Congratulations, it's great to see the work at this point. Best regards, Kathleen On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 8:52 AM Göran Selander <goran.selander@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi Kathleen, > > Thanks for the review. It is recorded as github issue #196 and the updates > have already been integrated in the master branch: > https://github.com/lake-wg/edhoc/commit/a4b182a > except for the last comment: > > > IANA Registries > > > > I see for the registries created that Expert review [RFC8126] is > required. > > What documentation is required? Is it also Specification required or is > > here other guidance for the experts when considering updates? > > I see this is discussed in 9.14, but perhaps adding specification > recommended > > in each of the places a registry is created would be helpful. > > We discussed documentation at the Oct 5 interim and the conclusion was > that expert review would be sufficient as a general scheme for these > registers (see also github issue #167 [0] which was therefore closed). But > your comment made us take another look at the registers. In particular for > the EDHOC method type registry it does really make sense to require a > specification. Therefore we reopened the issue and will revisit the topic > on the interim meeting tomorrow. > > [0] https://github.com/lake-wg/edhoc/issues/167 > > > Thanks! > Göran > ________________________________________ > From: Lake <lake-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Kathleen Moriarty < > kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 8:36 PM > To: lake@ietf.org > Subject: [Lake] EDHOC Review > > Greetings! > > I had offered to contribute a review at the last interim and am very glad > to see this document come to this part of the process after the large > efforts that went into its development and demonstrating it's value for use > with constrained devices. > > Here are a few nits to consider: > > > Section 1.1 Nit > > OLD: > > EDHOC does > > currently not support pre-shared key (PSK) authentication as > > authentication with static Diffie-Hellman public keys by reference > > produces equally small message sizes but with much simpler key > > distribution and identity protection. > > > NEW: > > EDHOC does not > > currently support pre-shared key (PSK) authentication as > > authentication with static Diffie-Hellman public keys by reference > > produces equally small message sizes but with much simpler key > > distribution and identity protection. > > > Section 1.2: > > > The intent of the following sentence is to convey that these libraries are > already in use for OSCORE, but the wording of the following sentence could > be a bit more clear: > > OLD: > > By reusing existing libraries, the additional code size can be kept very > > low. > > PROPOSED: > > In using libraries already in the code base for OSCORE, the additional > code size can be kept very > > low. > > > > Section 3.8 > > S/enrolment/enrollment/ > > > Section 4.3 > > S/kan/can/ > > In the following sentence: in most encryption algorithms the same key kan > be > > > IANA Registries > > > I see for the registries created that Expert review [RFC8126] is required. > What documentation is required? Is it also Specification required or is > there other guidance for the experts when considering updates? I see this > is discussed in 9.14, but perhaps adding specification recommended in each > of the places a registry is created would be helpful. > > > Thank you for your work on this document and protocol! > > -- > > Best regards, > Kathleen > -- Best regards, Kathleen
- [Lake] EDHOC Review Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [Lake] EDHOC Review Göran Selander
- Re: [Lake] EDHOC Review Kathleen Moriarty