[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ietf-saag
Subject: [saag] IETF#90 DICE WG Summary
From: Dorothy Gellert <dgellert () silverspringnet ! com>
Date: 2014-07-24 16:30:34
Message-ID: CFF6ACE9.13E6E%dgellert () silverspringnet ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
DICE IETF-90 WG summary for SAAG
The Dice WG met on Tuesday, July 22nd at 13:00.
Hannes Tschofenig presented slides on the DTLS Profile draft (draft-ietf-di=
ce-profile-03)
This revision addressed several issues on the data tracker thanks to input=
from Russ, Mike St Johns and Sean Turner
The current model for the profile draft is that of a constrained device/cli=
ent connecting to cloud based Infrastructure/server that is not constrained=
. Remaining issue regarding depth of Certificate Chain. Mike SJ said th=
e depth of the chain should be dependent on the application, and suggested =
4 is reasonable but the number should be constrained. Sean suggested the =
draft provides a recommendation and language here is (SHOULD).
Reviewers for the profile draft are Sandeep, Ekr, Robert Craigie.
Sandeep Kumar presented slides on draft-keoh-dice-multicast-security-08 & d=
raft kumar-dice-groupcomm-security-00 ,documenting potential dtls and shim=
layer approaches as per the London IETF#89 DiICE WG meeting. Ekr describe=
d dtls layer violations as "phenomenally scary=94=85.
Chairs multicast discussion: Given the issues on the list and discussion w=
ith our AD, we are revisiting the secure multicast/group security and chart=
er milestone by documenting requirements in a problem draft. This draft wi=
ll not be standards track. The problem draft will document potential use ca=
ses, key management, group membership, source authentication. Other issue=
s: How to scope or limit or constrain this to coap, should we provide gui=
dance to the mac layer, how can we prevent this won=92t be used for unicast=
? Latency requirements? The problem draft is open until the next meeting=
in November.
Next steps: Call for volunteers on the list to author the Problem draft =
Keep the mailing list engaged in providing input on requirements, issues, a=
nd risks we need to address for group communication/multicast security.
-Dorothy
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: \
after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, \
sans-serif;"> <div>
<div>DICE IETF-90 WG summary for SAAG</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The Dice WG met on Tuesday, July 22nd at 13:00.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hannes Tschofenig presented slides on the DTLS Profile draft \
(draft-ietf-dice-profile-03)</div> <div>This revision addressed several issues \
on the data tracker thanks to input from Russ, Mike St Johns and Sean Turner</div> \
<div>The current model for the profile draft is that of a constrained device/client \
connecting to cloud based Infrastructure/server that is not constrained. \
Remaining issue regarding depth of Certificate Chain. Mike SJ said the depth \
of the chain should be dependent on the application, and suggested 4 is reasonable \
but the number should be constrained. Sean suggested the draft provides a \
recommendation and language here is (SHOULD).</div> <div>Reviewers for the profile \
draft are Sandeep, Ekr, Robert Craigie. </div> <div><br>
</div>
<div>Sandeep Kumar presented slides on draft-keoh-dice-multicast-security-08 & \
draft kumar-dice-groupcomm-security-00 ,documenting potential dtls and shim \
layer approaches as per the London IETF#89 DiICE WG meeting. Ekr described dtls \
layer violations as "phenomenally scary”…. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Chairs multicast discussion: Given the issues on the list and discussion \
with our AD, we are revisiting the secure multicast/group security and charter \
milestone by documenting requirements in a problem draft. This draft will not \
be standards track. The problem draft will document potential use cases, key \
management, group membership, source authentication. Other issues: How to \
scope or limit or constrain this to coap, should we provide guidance to the mac \
layer, how can we prevent this won’t be used for unicast? Latency \
requirements? The problem draft is open until the next meeting in \
November. </div> <div><br>
</div>
<div>Next steps: Call for volunteers on the list to author the Problem draft \
Keep the mailing list engaged in providing input on requirements, issues, and \
risks we need to address for group communication/multicast security. </div> \
<div><br> </div>
</div>
<div>-Dorothy</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>
_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
saag@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
--===============1657585445908388846==--
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic