Re: [Secdispatch] EDHOC Summary

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 11 April 2019 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 4A25A120604 for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 kHq1MKuMAZJn for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FAFE1205FB for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBE23826C; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:14:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 7F308708; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:15:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB24479; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:15:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "secdispatch@ietf.org" <secdispatch@ietf.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=B6ran_Selander?= <goran.selander@ericsson.com>, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgSr38a+PZu4Ttnr-RuMaTD3kE6ACWJDJjV3+Bgn2NNqAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B3311A9F@marchand> <012a4798-fc70-4b5d-b0da-373221c95d38@www.fastmail.com> <721B6044-8DA1-4173-BE73-87D37136DFEE@ericsson.com> <8e8873a9-2352-40af-8e60-370012393ccc@www.fastmail.com> <F7934212-2785-4D8C-992B-2C0572C2A889@tzi.org> <CAL02cgSr38a+PZu4Ttnr-RuMaTD3kE6ACWJDJjV3+Bgn2NNqAA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:15:00 -0400
Message-ID: <3822.1555010100@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/CNsFQdQPsGK90OhHot4lMHU06LA>
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, 11 Apr 2019 19:15:04 -0000

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
    > I'd like to push back on this point. It may be that EDHOC has been around for
    > a while and been well-socialized with the IoT crowd, but it is clearly
    > deficient in several other types of maturity, e.g., robustness of formal
    > analyses and state of implementations (AFAICT).

I want to be sure that I understand you.

Is it your opinion tha the IETF can not form a WG until after a protocol has
had formal analysis?  How many analysis?  How many years?  Which publications?

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