Hello Rafa, Thanks for your pointer. I am not sure though that we are fully aligned on the meaning of ‘code reuse’. What I mean there is that we ideally want to reuse the code that already makes part of the firmware image, i.e. is part of the network stack, in order to minimize portions of the code that end up in firmware but get used only once.
Also, I am not sure how you got the impression that “EAP overhead” implies an insurmountable obstacle when it clearly depends on the method. Could you elaborate on the 14-byte figure, I am not sure I follow you there? Regards, Mališa > On 01 Nov 2015, at 19:17, Rafa Marin Lopez <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Malisa: > > As additional comment: > > In http://sourceforge.net/projects/panatiki/ > <http://sourceforge.net/projects/panatiki/> you can find an PANA client we > implemented for Contiki OS that we have tested in different platforms. We > have also an implementation for mbed platform. I’ll soon provide a link for > EAP over CoAP implementation for Contiki OS and mbed too. > > Additionally it has been mentioned the "EAP overhead”, as something that may > sound like an insurmountable obstacle. However, for example, EAP-AKA implies > three messages, two related with EAP-AKA and the final EAP Success which is > four byte length. EAP Req/id and Resp/id is not mandatory in EAP. The > overhead in this example is 14 bytes with respect to the KMP without EAP, > which, a priori, does not seem to me a terrible thing. > > Best Regards.
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
