[saag] ACE meeting summary
Likepeng <likepeng@huawei.com> Thu, 13 November 2014 04:45 UTC
Return-Path: <likepeng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DB31A1B62; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:45:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.794
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.794 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 WdJ69uRUAn2G; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA8AD1A1B5E; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BLO58816; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 04:45:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.71) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 04:45:43 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.205]) by SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.71]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:45:37 +0800
From: Likepeng <likepeng@huawei.com>
To: "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>, "Ace@ietf.org" <Ace@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: ACE meeting summary
Thread-Index: Ac/+/KRmKDGKezptQZKSRX8bN7DYIw==
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 04:45:37 +0000
Message-ID: <34966E97BE8AD64EAE9D3D6E4DEE36F2581AF996@SZXEMA501-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.46.110.77]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_34966E97BE8AD64EAE9D3D6E4DEE36F2581AF996SZXEMA501MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/xcRqFci1cwX-_BJc4_JRV7oV5UY
Subject: [saag] ACE meeting summary
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 04:45:49 -0000
ACE WG Meeting IETF 91 - Honolulu Wednesday 12 November 2014, 13:00 - 15:00 HST Chairs: Kepeng Li, Hannes Tschofenig * Use Cases (Sandeep Kumar, 30 mins) - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-seitz-ace-usecases/ 7 use cases should cover most interesting IoT areas. Updates include the numerous feedback and change of focus, requirements removed. About 20 participants haves read the draft. There were some comments to remove the requirements from the document. Also there were some comments to add more use cases to cover industrial control, etc. Humm result is to adopt this document as WG document, and this will be confirmed in the mailing list. * Actors (Carsten Bormann, 25 mins) - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gerdes-ace-actors/ Several participants show interests to this draft. Open issues: 1) Should we reuse existing terminologies in other standards, or should we use new terminologies? 2) Should we keep CAM and SAM separately? 3) Should we move some terminologies into use case document, or keep this document standalone or move it to the solution draft? Continue the discussion in the mailing list. * Architecture Comparison (Bert Greevenbosch, 25 mins) - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-greevenbosch-ace-comparison/ This document compares several technical solutions for ACE on the table. Compared 5 different solutions in this draft. There were some discussions about Pull model, OAuth and DCAF solution. Continue the discussion in the mailing list. * Object Security (John Mattsson, 30 mins) - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-selander-ace-object-security/ There were comments about the reuse of CBOR and JOSE. There was a question about the additional overhead. Continue the discussion in the mailing list. * Wrap-up (Chairs, 5 mins) - Use case document was most important, audience voted for adoption, please still provide input on additional use cases. - We are not yet there to go for solutions, so no adoptions there. - Aiming for next IETF meeting to go into solution space. - Webinar on IoT hardware: another round specifically on energy-efficiency (Doodle). - Some data points on ECC performance will be sent around. Please refer to discussion details in: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ace/minutes Kind Regards Kepeng
- [saag] ACE meeting summary Likepeng