[Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transports

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Fri, 25 January 2019 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
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 44259131016 for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:31:28 -0800 (PST)
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 KfO22cT__V1t for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:31:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F071D13100F for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:30:59 -0800
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: secdispatch@ietf.org
References: <00ac01d4b46c$00f9de30$02ed9a90$@augustcellars.com> <23627.7865.796955.746573@fireball.acr.fi>
In-Reply-To: <23627.7865.796955.746573@fireball.acr.fi>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:30:57 -0800
Message-ID: <00c201d4b4dc$1ea67fe0$5bf37fa0$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQISHjo9/BRwb3VmC0XN/Msem1f46wMYsmVapSy2FtA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/YL87cuiakGP2UtlaEsfZR8CPe10>
Subject: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transports
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, 25 Jan 2019 18:31:28 -0000

Move to the list I meant it to be on.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 6:36 AM
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Cc: secdir@ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] EDHOC and Transports

Jim Schaad writes:
> 3. 6LoPan over IEEE 802.15.4:  This has a packet size of 127 bytes.  
> The maximum frame overhead size is 25 bytes allowing for 102 bytes of
message
> space.   If one assumes 20 bytes of overhead for CoAP then this means a
> protocol packet size of 82 bytes.  If one needs to break the message 
> across multiple packets then the maximum data size is going to be 64 
> bytes using CoAP blockwise options.

IEEE 802.15.9 which provides framework for providing key management for IEEE
802.15.4 do provide its own fragmentation and reassembly service, thus
allows bigger packets to delivered between devices. When
802.15.9 was being specified we saw that support for larger packets in KMP
is needed than what 802.15.4 provides (note, that in some cases the phy
layer limits the packet size even more), and thats why we did define a
fragmentation and reassembly protocol there too. 

Currently specified key management protocols for 802.15.9 include
802.1X/MKA, HIP, IKEv2, PANA, Dragonfly, 802.11/4WH, 802.11/GKH, ETSI TS 102
887-2. Someone would need to write specification how to use EDHOC over
802.15.9 to make it usable there too. Another omission in the KMPs provided
by the 802.15.9 is the TLS, as nobody wanted to write that specification. In
the IEEE there is some plans of doing amendment to the 802.15.9 which could
include some new key management protocols, depending who would be
interesting to write the text...
--
kivinen@iki.fi