IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Secdispatch] EDHOC Summary

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 28 March 2019 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7360812004B for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 w2hJ-bsdsQAJ for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C72A120311 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (dhcp-8a7f.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.138.127]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50C391F47C for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:25:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 3699129A7; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:25:07 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: secdispatch@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <002701d4e55a$8e886db0$ab994910$@augustcellars.com>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B3311A9F@marchand> <002701d4e55a$8e886db0$ab994910$@augustcellars.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> message dated "Thu, 28 Mar 2019 12:36:57 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:25:07 +0100
Message-ID: <7565.1553790307@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/6vnv7ZTEHw1JAdldn7qQz17YxBw>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] EDHOC Summary
X-BeenThere: secdispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:26:07 -0000

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
    > I am strongly in agreement with doing this.

...
    >> Chartering a narrowly scoped, short-lived WG in this space with EDHOC
    >> as a starting point seems to be an attractive path forward, but we
    >> would like to
    >> receive community feedback on the degree of support for this approach.

I believe that that our experience with narrowly scoped short-lived WGs has
been poor.  I can't think of a positive, or really, any example.
I would dearly like this to not be the case... so maybe we can do better.
Maybe there is some RFC3999 we can try here.

I would propose (and will volunteer, unless you'd rather do this to yourself
Roman) to ask some past IESG chairs (Russ, Jari) about when we have done this
in the past, and then find out from relevant (past?) ADs if there are lessons
to be learned.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email