Mališa Vučinić writes:
> I also worked out a new key signaling mechanism using a "key usage" parameter,
> where a single uint value from the registry specifies the IEEE 802.15.4
> security level to be used and the appropriate frame types the key can be used
> with. The mechanism is flexible in that it allows us to transport a key that
> is both K1 and K2, separate K1 and K2, different security levels for each, and
> we can also define new combinations of security levels/frame types in future.
> The solution only supports KeyIndex mode of IEEE 802.15.4. Supporting other
> modes required mimicking 15..4 security structures to configure the security
> module and would have required maps everywhere and extensive overhead. If you
> have any better idea how to add support for other keying modes of 802.15.4,
> let me know.

Note, that there is work ongoing in the IEEE to add algorithm agility
to the IEEE 802.15.4, i.e., make it possible to use other algorithms
than AES-CCM with 128-bit keys. To make it so that this structure
would also allow that it would be good idea to include algorithm
parameter to the Link-Layer Key structure with only one value of
AES-CCM-128 now. Also restructuring the text about the key_value to
say "key length of the algorithm" instead of fixed 16, i.e., say that
ignore this key if the length of the key_value does not match the
length of the key specified by the algorithm.

This TG15.4y SECN work is just starting and will most likely be
finished in few years time. The main reason for that work, is to add
AES-CCM-256 option for the IEEE 802.15.4. This will make it possible
for 802.15.4 to conform with requirements that some organizations
have, i.e., allow using 256 bit keys to provide some protection
against quantum computers.

Makeing this minimal-security draft to only allow AES-CCM-128 and not
even allow easy extensibility for other algorithms would be bad idea
now. 
-- 
[email protected]

_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Reply via email to