[Lake] New paper: comparing EDHOC and DTLS 1.3
Geovane Fedrecheski <geovane.fedrecheski@inria.fr> Wed, 31 January 2024 09:03 UTC
Return-Path: <geovane.fedrecheski@inria.fr>
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 9888AC1CAF2D for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 01:03:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.404
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.404 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_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=inria.fr
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jKwRp6JdVEMF for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 01:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85B49C1930B6 for <lake@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 01:03:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inria.fr; s=dc; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version; bh=dmOs6xCWWw7MNYBA+7Quz5A2utNUQevH9ePOaZCaBO8=; b=BQA7KEekO1sViraEzA2OB82cOpVZJvonj2KMj50+m7TOjoybmZEx23mt B2uPlasYN6oPAfVNy+Qehh0vGjg/MCd3bLFNNap6G6yElCiGQ7+vDI8/f Od8yG01HVQUU7Zv7z6MkEeMGCSAdpAnhu2JeCUtaQemy8oX1tNV9ozjGR M=;
Authentication-Results: mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=geovane.fedrecheski@inria.fr; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@zcs-store3.inria.fr
Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of geovane.fedrecheski@inria.fr designates 128.93.142.30 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=128.93.142.30; receiver=mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="geovane.fedrecheski@inria.fr"; x-sender="geovane.fedrecheski@inria.fr"; x-conformance=spf_only; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 include:mailout.safebrands.com a:basic-mail.safebrands.com a:basic-mail01.safebrands.com a:basic-mail02.safebrands.com ip4:128.93.142.0/24 ip4:192.134.164.0/24 ip4:128.93.162.160 ip4:89.107.174.7 mx ~all"
Received-SPF: None (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@zcs-store3.inria.fr) identity=helo; client-ip=128.93.142.30; receiver=mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="geovane.fedrecheski@inria.fr"; x-sender="postmaster@zcs-store3.inria.fr"; x-conformance=spf_only
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,231,1701126000"; d="scan'208,217";a="149528724"
X-MGA-submission: MDHrDC87nklHtBXfi9zSTqXp3UO6dJYD23GHRccfA1jVj6PYU+7ZTT7hV8ZKW4do//cvuzn6iDbSEG++/cH9Fd+nbP7cykaGVhF3w379oDfXQg7vpJBjqn22zMbpwG4p8tnUUtJZUPIY+DqUTuRyorOHVIHJuOHklJ/jwV/eDQ5NRA==
Received: from zcs-store3.inria.fr ([128.93.142.30]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2024 10:03:38 +0100
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 10:03:38 +0100
From: Geovane Fedrecheski <geovane.fedrecheski@inria.fr>
To: lake@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1905409273.1079226.1706691818173.JavaMail.zimbra@inria.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_6b5d3d48-7372-4d0b-8421-bc3517e5500d"
X-Originating-IP: [128.93.82.227]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_4581 (ZimbraWebClient - FF122 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_4581)
Thread-Index: 1By2vtC3rADU2bdilPHC4gkX7rPMDA==
Thread-Topic: New paper: comparing EDHOC and DTLS 1.3
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/uLb80lfSWWMEhvG-WargZssMjFo>
Subject: [Lake] New paper: comparing EDHOC and DTLS 1.3
X-BeenThere: lake@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:03:47 -0000
Hi all, I would like to disseminate a newly accepted publication [1] on the subject of EDHOC. It is entitled "Performance Comparison of EDHOC and DTLS 1.3 in Internet-of-Things Environments" and will be presented this April at the WCNC 2024 [2]. We evaluate how the reduction in message size of EDHOC vs. DTLS correlates with the usage of other scarce resources in IoT environments: time, energy, and memory. Results show that EDHOC achieves ×6 to ×14 reduction in packet sizes, ×1.44 improvement in handshake duration and ×2.79 reduction in energy consumed (Cortex-M4 devices communicating via IEEE 802.15.4 radios). Also, flash memory and RAM showed a ×4 improvement (WolfSSL vs. lakers [3]). For more details and results (including a LoRaWAN time-on-air simulation), feel free to check the full manuscript at [ https://hal.science/hal-04382397 | https://hal.science/hal-04382397 ] . Regards, Geovane Fedrecheski [1] [ https://hal.science/hal-04382397 | https://hal.science/hal-04382397 ] [2] [ https://wcnc2024.ieee-wcnc.org/ | https://wcnc2024.ieee-wcnc.org/ ] [3] [ https://github.com/openwsn-berkeley/lakers | https://github.com/openwsn-berkeley/lakers ]
- [Lake] New paper: comparing EDHOC and DTLS 1.3 Geovane Fedrecheski
- Re: [Lake] New paper: comparing EDHOC and DTLS 1.3 Kathleen Moriarty