IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lake] edhoc draft version to ask people to review...

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 18 November 2021 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 9060D3A09EF for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 08:36:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
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, 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=sandelman.ca
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 wEKm1V5G5cME for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 08:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 919D03A0A0D for <lake@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 08:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14441802E; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:38:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bjmGbeUKZSPv; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:38:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A16E1802C; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:38:47 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1637253527; bh=vvbdUOcdnSsxIGDJvBYqQdq0bA6m1paTuAtKwtPRryY=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=pk563CvhocZJUbhTzHsmK5mUyrFA38GITWoL8SJcIRIx7FKgAIPEn+AHB4Fn3co6D o80Ky6rzYfdx/r4+nwM8GGrzTEqiuaNtjxKEa7d8PS7+bTS/ZEh7tyVbYk10OOPJ6e yyhL77IHwO4Xovdr51L2r9yXv5eK/AusJ5vKJTFxK3DEVNqePJyPPLQwLOQHF0WEIm J6c53cBKmuPT1aA33G8e/705lBDw2AL/I31M0+JgdUVZ9jvrfHutm1dejfa3M96BZi V9yWTP4JR8/bciArxgSBUPy1dRqTf565+rLezKBdV73jRj05szbrrXcantl/9ug/Nn NZSo9KjMO1T2g==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F949E; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:36:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "lake@ietf.org" <lake@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <3ad5586d-b170-bd5b-2b07-bf50bfb62f76@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <3ad5586d-b170-bd5b-2b07-bf50bfb62f76@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:36:17 -0500
Message-ID: <10947.1637253377@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/z6YcvMPddz-AJIL9eKLSQ2bMNrQ>
Subject: Re: [Lake] edhoc draft version to ask people to 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: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 16:36:46 -0000

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
    > As discussed at IETF112 we plan to try get external academic
    > reviews of EDHOC in the coming months. Mališa and others have
    > produced a nice overview of EDHOC to try help people do those
    > reviews (he'll circulate that in the next few days).

    > One issue though before we start trying to get people to do
    > such reviews is that we don't want to keep changing the draft
    > on them in the middle of their work.

You want to declare an Implementation Draft :-)

    > So, a question for the WG is: what version or when should
    > we do that "freeze"?

    > We're at -12 now and have some issues for that so we could
    > decide to freeze the I-D for a few months and send out mails
    > asking for external review based on that.

    > Or, it might be better to allow the editors to resolve
    > more of the current issues we have now and freeze on -13
    > say.

I think that editorial fixes are fine.
I don't think you should lock down the drafts from changes, but rather make
sure that there are no bits on the wire changes.

I can't speak to whether -12 or -13, but time-wise, it seems that maybe
Dec.31,2021 would be the right deadline.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email