On 1/13/2017 4:44 AM, Kepeng Li wrote:
Hallo all,
According to the doodle poll, let’s have a call on 14th Feb, GMT 15:00
~ 15:59.
We have the same amount of participants about Option 1, 2, and 4.
Considering that Mike has strong position about this draft, so I
accommodate his choice to allow him to participate.
Sorry what? I'm assuming by "Mike" you mean me. I missed the original
doodle call and haven't actually made a choice. I can't actually make
the 14th as I'm on a plane.
I can make either of the Thursday 9 February times though.
In any event, if the slides are ready ahead of time I'll just provide
some commentary on the mailing list. I note that the authors haven't
engaged with the comments provided by Jim Schaad and it would be useful
if they do so.
WRT to the document, its difficult to make any judgements or suggest any
improvements without understanding the goals of the document. As a bare
minimum, up front the document should a) define "low latency" including
each element that contributes to the calculation (this has been a moving
target - it was something like 250ms for DICE and appears to have moved
downward in ACE) and b) define the security services that are to be
provided when using the keys served up by this protocol. (e.g. it
currently appears that the document is proposing a key management scheme
for group confidentiality, group integrity and group authentication).
Lastly, the document needs to include any other constraints. In the
instant case, low latency may be accomplished by hardware for public key
operations - but there is a constraint never actually cited in the
document - low/no cost for the build of the product (it's referred to
obliquely as processing cost for the constrained device and is more
properly attributed to the BOM).
If there is any other application besides lighting that has a use for
this protocol - now is the time to bring it forward.
Finally, a statement of security requirements for the exemplar
application (lighting) should be provided so that the protocol can be
evaluated against those requirements to see if we've actually managed to
come up with something that meets the needs.
Mike
Authors, please prepare some slides for the discussion.
I will send the WebEx information later.
Thanks,
Kind Regards
Kepeng
发件人: Ace <ace-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:ace-boun...@ietf.org>> on
behalf of Li Kepeng <kepeng....@alibaba-inc.com
<mailto:kepeng....@alibaba-inc.com>>
日期: Saturday, 7 January 2017 at 8:43 PM
至: ace <ace@ietf.org <mailto:ace@ietf.org>>
抄送: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com
<mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com>>, Hannes Tschofenig
<hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>>
主题: [Ace] Doodle for ACE virtual interim meeting
Hi all,
To speed up our progress on group communication security draft, we
plan to have a virtual interim meeting in the middle of Feb.
I proposed four options for the meeting time:
1. 9th Feb, Thursday, GMT 14:00 ~ 15:00.
2. 9th Feb, Thursday, GMT 15:00 ~ 15:59.
3. 14th Feb, Tuesday, GMT 14:00 ~ 15:00.
4. 14th Feb, Tuesday, GMT 15:00 ~ 15:59.
Please indicate your available time from the doodle poll:
http://doodle.com/poll/v6nbeggazekaq2ut
We will mainly discuss this draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-somaraju-ace-multicast/
Thanks,
Kind Regards
Kepeng
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org <mailto:Ace@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
