Re: [Lake] 1 week 2nd WGLC on requirements and scoping text

"Eduardo Ingles (UM)" <> Mon, 01 June 2020 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6025B3A0DCE for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 00:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ytjlYNEPjVOh for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 00:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F11A3A0D5F for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 00:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 0517pVCu004623-0517pVCv004623 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:51:31 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609A620019 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:51:31 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by antispam in UMU at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tpiXDtwx7b83 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:51:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: eduardo.ingles) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 398DD1FE05 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:51:29 +0200 (CEST)
References: <>
From: "Eduardo Ingles (UM)" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:51:27 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9EC7D89D7A8724F3B9C617CA"
Content-Language: es-ES
Authentication-Results:; spf=pass ( domain of designates as permitted sender)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt;; s=DKIM; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:content-type; bh=zs90lvXhTcnaXLnO3nxjoEwTIs6pZEX8gO2jzTEEurg=; b=Ki2sx87XCB4flB+iUh/PX010Ixh3esDq31X71gXH6+PKYdMLaHIiQq12ZxH4JpgMfkD18CsqkAWh EFbKTx0Mdk66uhB7x3y3AkHEwTfU+OxdZtntd7rYXEYHG8yER8dpmPqnSDXhRiQ5Z3uG9Kq0iDY7 G8JY50o9Xtk0sJhcg8ZCPCN0zBG/qUb33st9cESbC5Yjiv88qvJS3z36SYByo9UuyICCJihU9Gin KvkOytzXtnjuuJ645RSkGp7CwQYLZEowmsYuiTDxnN6MuI6wWsQIZcVt5drFmSnQFdoozqu1+Qvf BJC09SZ1s6ak0xobIfWruSlaDWoeY//evHiRQg==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lake] 1 week 2nd WGLC on requirements and scoping text
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 07:51:36 -0000

Hi Stephen,

I'm happy with this text.
I support the working group moving forward.

Eduardo Inglés.

El 24/05/2020 a las 23:07, Stephen Farrell escribió:
> Hi all,
> First: my apologies for taking so long on this. (I got
> sidetracked by an unexpected project.)
> ISTM we have pretty good, if rough, consensus on enough of
> the text to proceed, but with one important part that needs
> checking. (See below.)
> I'd like to start a 1 week 2nd WGLC with the main focus
> being to establish whether we have rough consensus on the
> scoping text below. (Which can be see in context at [2].)
> That text was the main outcome of our virtual meeting last
> month.
> So, please send mail to the list saying if you are happy
> enough to proceed on this basis. If you are not, then I'd
> appreciate if you could suggest alternate text with as
> few changes as possible.
> This 2nd WGLC closes on June 1st. If I see rough
> consensus to proceed at that point, I'll plan to start a
> call for adoption for the edhoc draft. If not, we'll have
> to discuss how to proceed with our AD, as I think that
> would mean that the WG is very badly stuck.
> The scoping text added was:
>     As illustrated above, the setting is much more diverse
>     in terms of credentials and trust anchors than that of
>     the unconstrained web.  In order to deliver a timely
>     result, there is a need to initially focus on what is
>     considered most important at the time of writing: RPK
>     (by reference and value) and certificate by reference.
>     Information about validity of a certificate may be
>     omitted from the AKE if available over unconstrained
>     links.  The case of transporting certificate validation
>     information over the AKE may be specified in the initial
>     phase if there is a lightweight solution that matches
>     existing standards and tools.
>     A subsequent extension beyond the initial focus may be
>     inevitable to maintain a homogenous deployment without
>     having to implement a mix of AKE protocols, for example,
>     to support the migration path described above.  The AKE
>     needs to make clear the scope of cases analysed in the
>     initial phase, and that a new analysis is required for
>     additional cases.
> Thanks,
> Stephen.
> [1]
> [2]
Eduardo Inglés Sánchez

Department of Information and Communication Engineering
Faculty of Computer Science
University of Murcia
30100 Murcia, Spain