> On 17 Oct 2017, at 9.52, Francesca Palombini > <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > >> Sec 5: >>> The (G) message is the subscription of the >>> Subscriber, which is unprotected. >> >> Can't G be protected with regular DTLS? >> > > Yes it could, but currently the model does not require a security association > between Subscriber and Broker, since I did not consider critical for the > broker to only accept subscription from subscribers that are authorized (an > unauthorized subscriber would not be able to read the encrypted content of > the notifications anyway). The protection of subscription could be easily > added, making it similar to publications, which are protected with regular > DTLS (or alternatives); the overhead would be that each subscriber should > access the AS and get all the information to start a secure exchange with the > broker. I will add some considerations about that in the draft.
Sounds good. While not critical, I think that's a very useful feature and good to make clear how it can be achieved where needed. Cheers, Ari _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
