IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Secdispatch] EDHOC Summary

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 29 March 2019 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 41F47120229 for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 01:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 mtv7D28j87tr for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 01:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3977112021B for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 01:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x2T85IEY008942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 04:05:20 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 03:05:18 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, secdispatch@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190329080517.GA67070@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B3311A9F@marchand> <002701d4e55a$8e886db0$ab994910$@augustcellars.com> <7565.1553790307@dooku.sandelman.ca> <44712CC3-F8FC-48BD-AB5A-8108FFBC0B5F@isode.com> <8697.1553846179@dooku.sandelman.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8697.1553846179@dooku.sandelman.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/GQ0wN26Xez-eH_DvdhJf7a3ZiZk>
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 08:05:25 -0000

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 08:56:19AM +0100, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
>     >>>> 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.
> 
>     > This can vary by area, but we had several examples in ART, with a
>     > single document deliverable. One example is IMAPMOVE.
> 
> That's very good to hear.
> I've never heard of IMAPMOVE, which means it ran short enough that I didn't
> notice it :-)
> How do we repeat that kind of success?

A focused set of participants and WG chairs that actively push to keep the
pace up.

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email