Re: [Secdispatch] EDHOC Summary

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:26 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> On Apr 10, 2019, at 04:57, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> [GS] There is no competing solution to the problem statement. As been
> >> witnessed, people have waited for years for this to progress. Therefore
> >> I don't see anything premature with assuming EDHOC to be a starting
> >> point for the WG.
> >
> > So you would prefer to disregard the work done by Eric and Jim
> completely?
>
> I can’t answer that question for Göran, but personally I really like that
> there are now fresh proposals for addressing TLS handshake size.  Those
> proposals already do have a natural WG to do the work on them, the TLS WG,
> so no new WG is needed for those; if some rechartering of the TLS WG is
> required for that, I’m all for picking up that work there.
>
> We also need a low-resource authenticated key agreement protocol that we
> can use now, and EDHOC is the only one I’m aware of that is in a stage of
> development where it can meet the timelines of the protocols depending on
> it.

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).

--Richard

> The main problem that we have had in completing the work was that there
> was no WG to assign this work to, and we need to fix this now.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> Secdispatch mailing list
> Secdispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch
>