[Lake] Re: EDHOC implementation status
Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr> Tue, 28 January 2025 14:37 UTC
Return-Path: <malisa.vucinic@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 B17B5C180B6D for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 06:37:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=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_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 IDJukVCsYkYd for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 06:37:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1340C180B6B for <lake@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 06:36:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inria.fr; s=dc; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=IGsdsbDeDGQKv4P9wX6vzt2kH1rBFVhyNo+iGrZFRRI=; b=M+We/Ryc0krEI2UlNpnVHVK89yaa8X/v2/gDxMoU6KNMgfthnLOz/szR hNbrLOFMKw2WCpnaSqU+O50jRSDEKsC4LLWJwYdUVMzc5by+edxkqEv+N 2G2WiXO+zbPanew71G3uiePz+PaHihR1SBalHBcezECOGaHT6kjRWtd/b 4=;
Authentication-Results: mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=SoftFail smtp.mailfrom=malisa.vucinic@inria.fr; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) d=inria.fr
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,241,1732575600"; d="scan'208,217";a="107564263"
Received: from mp341-pro.paris.inria.fr (HELO smtpclient.apple) ([128.93.66.233]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Jan 2025 15:36:59 +0100
From: Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <B517AFD6-BB3A-4C99-B2C1-A3AD14A9BA67@inria.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D20661A6-A783-456C-8458-E82A45565058"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.300.87.4.3\))
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:36:47 +0100
In-Reply-To: <826d246421234cc7a8c880b2faf0a63b@jhuapl.edu>
To: "Sipos, Brian J." <Brian.Sipos@jhuapl.edu>
References: <826d246421234cc7a8c880b2faf0a63b@jhuapl.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.300.87.4.3)
Message-ID-Hash: TCC2AUPVJEHJEY7UPXKVZRYFE7ZTXRHY
X-Message-ID-Hash: TCC2AUPVJEHJEY7UPXKVZRYFE7ZTXRHY
X-MailFrom: malisa.vucinic@inria.fr
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "lake@ietf.org" <lake@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Lake] Re: EDHOC implementation status
List-Id: Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange <lake.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/zoTCkBNeQ8ojtAyHFeThXFuiXiU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lake>
List-Help: <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:lake-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:lake@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:lake-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:lake-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Brian, FWIW, we currently don’t have plans on maintaining py-edhoc and this implementation is quite outdated, as you could notice yourself. However, we are actively maintaining lakers and have plans on extending it with cipher suite support beyond the currently supported cipher suite 2. lakers implementation is up to date with RFC 9528. Mališa > On Jan 28, 2025, at 15:20, Sipos, Brian J. <Brian.Sipos@jhuapl.edu> wrote: > > WG, > I am working on an embedding of EDHOC into a larger protocol, and very much appreciate the design decisions which easily enable its embedding. Part of my work is to validate the embedding with some examples and I would like to base them off of the examples from RFC 9529 [1] for simplicity. In searching for existing implementations I came across py-edhoc [2] and lakers [3] (with its C and Python APIs). It appears that these are both based on earlier draft revisions, behind the published EDHOC RFC, and seem to lack support for some/many of the currently defined ciphersuites (specifically those for less-constrained devices). > > Is there any motivation for updating the Python-native implementation [2] from others in the group (or elsewhere)? > I know I can always fork and edit myself but I’d rather only touch source that is expected to have a longer lifetime than just my example generator tooling. > > Thanks for any info, > Brian S. > > [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9529.html > [2] https://github.com/openwsn-berkeley/py-edhoc > [3] https://github.com/openwsn-berkeley/lakers > > -- > Lake mailing list -- lake@ietf.org <mailto:lake@ietf.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to lake-leave@ietf.org <mailto:lake-leave@ietf.org>
- [Lake] EDHOC implementation status Sipos, Brian J.
- [Lake] Re: EDHOC implementation status Mališa Vučinić