[Lwip] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-04.txt
internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon, 09 March 2020 17:36 UTC
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2907B3A13A0; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Cc: lwip@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.120.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lwip@ietf.org
Message-ID: <158377540409.5616.8463938444012769446@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 10:36:44 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/Xy8WOWE32duGzD3FoUkZhVHt5rw>
Subject: [Lwip] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-04.txt
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Lightweight IP stack. Official mailing list for IETF LWIG Working Group." <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lwip/>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 17:36:49 -0000
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG of the IETF. Title : Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols Authors : John Preuß Mattsson Francesca Palombini Malisa Vucinic Filename : draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-04.txt Pages : 40 Date : 2020-03-09 Abstract: This document analyzes and compares the sizes of key exchange flights and the per-packet message size overheads when using different security protocols to secure CoAP. The analyzed security protocols are DTLS 1.2, DTLS 1.3, TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3, EDHOC, OSCORE, and Group OSCORE. The DTLS and TLS record layers are analyzed with and without 6LoWPAN-GHC compression. DTLS is analyzed with and without Connection ID. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-04 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
- [Lwip] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-security-proto… internet-drafts