Re: [MLS] [new-work] WG Review: Messaging Layer Security (mls)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

FWIW,

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:23 AM Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 5/24/18 8:05 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Two points:
> >
> >     1. It would be helpful to specify the expected capabilities of
> devices
> >     on which the resulting protocol might be deployed, such as only
> personal
> >     devices (e.g., phones and tablets) or also Internet of Things
> devices.
> >     If IoT devices are in scope (I hope they are!), then citing RFC 7228
> >     would be good:
> >
> >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7228/
> >     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7228/>
> >
> >
> > I think the default is we assume reasonably powerful general purpose
> > computers,
>
> Constrained devices are indeed hard to design for (and there are many
> dimensions of constraint - code size, memory, storage, battery, etc.). I
> wouldn't necessarily argue for supporting Class 0 devices (which
> according to RFC 7228 are "very constrained sensor-like motes"), but
> Class 2 devices (which are "fundamentally capable of supporting most of
> the same protocol stacks as used on notebooks or servers") would be
> great. I'm not sure where to draw the line and whether to include Class
> 1 devices (which "are quite constrained in code space and processing
> capabilities, such that they cannot easily talk to other Internet nodes
> employing a full protocol stack such as using HTTP, Transport Layer
> Security (TLS), and related security protocols and XML-based data
> representations").
>
> > so if people want IoT to be designed for -- which it
> > shouldn't, IMO -- then that would have to be stated in the charter.
>
> No matter what we decide, it would be good to make that explicit in the
> charter.
>

I'd agree with Peter in general, but especially in this case - it seems
unhelpful to the working group to make them figure out whether to include
Class 1 devices in their work, after they've been chartered.

Spencer


>
> Peter
>
>
>