[Secdispatch] Quick summary of Virtual Interim on 03/05/2019
Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Wed, 06 March 2019 12:27 UTC
Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 234BF1286D8 for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 04:27:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 wcPDOz75vQw2 for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 04:27:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (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 E59691292F1 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 04:27:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x26CRHXa021529 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:27:17 -0500
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu x26CRHXa021529
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1551875237; bh=ZYG5veaLoFINy+QdnoEtORgZF2Pih25eXYqfZaggCEA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=Cv0QKey+JUfX8QlxzWSQinziE019yH6oUtjpCO2G047Umwu5YSWWw6xMu36+ArTnJ QMjqOLV9MXrW2yE5Ws0SeyVvp56/ob8kALdjI+4gWGLSQ6j3vC0shAjSQ3FjdC2qYN FlY37Yzq7UWBuIKgi5FK+xLBQ4hzfizWrXKb76nE=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x26CRFeB018300 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:27:15 -0500
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:27:15 -0500
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "secdispatch@ietf.org" <secdispatch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Quick summary of Virtual Interim on 03/05/2019
Thread-Index: AdTUF+66qLObNSSDRFyyL0UytfFRCw==
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 12:27:15 +0000
Message-ID: <A419C4C0-C96C-4D2B-8F42-C86602440751@cert.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A419C4C0C96C4D2B8F42C86602440751certorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/qSRu1OHg45yVO5FGLhDk0tkNeOA>
Subject: [Secdispatch] Quick summary of Virtual Interim on 03/05/2019
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 12:27:21 -0000
Hello! Thanks to all who joined us for the virtual interim meeting on March 5, 2019. The slides for the meeting are now posted at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2019-secdispatch-01/session/secdispatch Full minutes and a pointer to the recording are forthcoming. Until then, a summary is below. ==[ Summary ]== draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe-12 :: further discussion required on list (1) the WG agreed that there was a problem to solve around key exchange in a constrained environment (2) the WG heard how EDHOC makes a substantial improvement on some axes over the existing technologies to solve the stated use cases in (1) (3) the WG didn’t have clear agreement on the exact constraints of the use cases in (1) to evaluate whether existing work could also address the needs of (1) (4) the WG received useful input supporting EDHOC’s claimed security properties ==[ end ]== Regards, Roman and Richard
- [Secdispatch] Quick summary of Virtual Interim on… Roman Danyliw
- Re: [Secdispatch] Quick summary of Virtual Interi… Roman Danyliw