IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tm-rid] BOF Schedule

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 25 October 2019 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7080C1208F8 for <tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 FVn1Imp_zqCm for <tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60D78120902 for <tm-rid@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3FFD3897D; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:31:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440976EF; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:33:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
cc: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>, "tm-rid@ietf.org" <tm-rid@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5C2E5839-269D-47E6-9621-FDE150223F0B@tzi.org>
References: <a0aea6e3-6f04-9ab8-6917-b9aafbdab1e6@labs.htt-consult.com> <5C2E5839-269D-47E6-9621-FDE150223F0B@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:33:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4260.1572024818@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tm-rid/Wlvlz5OnR0OgJx6nsuRAsNPr-kM>
Subject: Re: [Tm-rid] BOF Schedule
X-BeenThere: tm-rid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Trustworthy Multipurpose RemoteID <tm-rid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tm-rid/>
List-Post: <mailto:tm-rid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:33:43 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> On Oct 23, 2019, at 04:22, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> Canning             SEC     lake            Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange WG
    >> Olivia              SEC     suit            Software Updates for Internet of Things WG
    >>
    >>
    >> I hope there are no important conflicts there

    > If you want to make sure that there will be no IoT-minded people in
    > attendance at the BOF…
    > (The suit/lake conflict already is difficult.)

It's unfortunate, but it's probably tolerable, as this is a WG-forming BOF,
I think that 60% of the time will need to be spent on background material to
convince the non-IoT minded people of why it's a problem not easily solved
with TLS 1.3.  (or cTLS. Or even EDHOC)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email