[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
- [Secdispatch] FW: EDHOC and Transports Jim Schaad
- [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transports Hannes Tschofenig
- [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transports Jim Schaad
- Re: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transpor… Göran Selander
- Re: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transpor… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transpor… Richard Barnes
- Re: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transpor… Göran Selander
- Re: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transpor… Göran Selander
- Re: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transpor… Richard Barnes
- Re: [Secdispatch] [Ace] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Tr… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Secdispatch] [Ace] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Tr… Valery Smyslov
- Re: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transpor… Göran Selander
- Re: [Secdispatch] [Ace] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Tr… Göran Selander
- Re: [Secdispatch] [Ace] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Tr… Göran Selander
- Re: [Secdispatch] [Ace] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Tr… Valery Smyslov
- Re: [Secdispatch] [Ace] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Tr… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Secdispatch] [Ace] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Tr… Valery Smyslov
- Re: [Secdispatch] [Ace] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Tr… Göran Selander
- Re: [Secdispatch] FW: [secdir] EDHOC and Transpor… John Mattsson