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

Eric Rescorla <> Tue, 02 June 2020 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233A13A07B3 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 18:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 ibQVdg68og7g for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 18:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 981683A07AE for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 18:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s1so10565415ljo.0 for <>; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 18:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QSTsCX+bpD4mn9DrrlaszHc/ePx+FqmemcjjS5yxSVs=; b=xGcaAVVKnNELbF5QFZ6JULklgehN7bfV4b8gZ1YSNYI4DcIoIfz5Egocf4l1g6diYo 6IWkkY3Walgx9MnH/s0m3Ln/CLWZApRwe7/4T31EtN5sbabBixQRkQrFkcw/cwQIM220 h4Dsw+S+Zsiy7n3pjdwD1lrPyrjTIZ6SeRd/m/IdhA0vhefCGZVKB0QYKOgm8yEOnFwJ ckyaKSGGOUeuneO9LX3XewmdiPDqmDDBIAzWxE2UFrH4QvvGGBbRFI7bhvqLdB/9tU/o zrjIKiQE+hMn8L6JorH7DbfgNkBMrGhTTkAtBl+yq95STShKM4VPw9cukGtPbXKBfVzp i8Kg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QSTsCX+bpD4mn9DrrlaszHc/ePx+FqmemcjjS5yxSVs=; b=F/Zqp7pdm2rlLHiJ4cHHOEVB0W7QzXimufYBmSq7KuRBzhcElT96fdxUyYSg4rIiUa UjAtjSl+YFvNQWkqqaNVTDuaLVm56uitYAr8iPKXidL5m4JMZ+Wl6atTQf82D7aElr5+ H/Xp7NoFtK0kxQVM5cFaSS69+rvJMBlcuh5mIPnFxbkv2H1x7V74aRQ5lIl50ZnWL/TS FxAY/bbd8d6/XEND9rOFTfCxTb+wo8lsCZXaD5zC1XUCs6k0eBgJdqz4BktDjNBQjs/w fye205BVHtYlMfYAH119eHTr2t1WuO8HG6RfyGLeR3LPNwAv99TTMgwxb0UtIxrzGros Ph+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532WWSuAiZR0jgaF1GjkCLU4zA0YZFri8osGihO3jfuzUhW3tpGx VA7h0twBg3a9ZtsHI9q8a7tcKPhtTRk0nsDGDpIvVFCcsOthrg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzE+sXROXsKHxMMDAGx2hQyR/cNeczGHPF9Sj/+fVJckEOzS+toTbUb7FXxkSqkOV37ZOs9eZzIqSmwkwUxQVg=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8897:: with SMTP id k23mr11795049lji.184.1591060753527; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 18:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 18:18:37 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000007c9bd05a70fb3ca"
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 01:19:19 -0000

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 2:08 PM Stephen Farrell <>

> 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.


It's not clear how to read this in the context of other parts of
the document, for instance:
which says:

   In order to allow for these different schemes, the AKE must support
   PSK- (shared between two nodes), RPK- and certificate-based
   authentication.  These are also the schemes for which CoAP is
   designed (see Section 9 of [RFC7252]

How is one supposed to interpret this text?


> Thanks,
> Stephen.
> [1]
> [2]
> --
> Lake mailing list