peter van der Stok <[email protected]> wrote: >> So, in the ANIMA BRSKI context, we have the Join Proxy to connect the >> insecure (unencrypted) network with the JRC as we can not assume the >> registar (JRC) is within radio distance of all pledges. >> >> For EDHOC and DTLS-over-COAP, we can use the option as described in >> draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security section 5.1 to keep the proxy >> stateless. >> >> For DTLS, I thought we had a few IDs on how to relay DTLS in a >> stateless manner. I can't seem to find any (Yes, I did look through >> expired drafts too).
> You mean expired est-coaps drafts? Indeed, the draft never considered
> these, assuming they were off topic and were adequately treated
> elsewhere.
I don't think that it was est-coaps.
I think it was maybe 2 years ago, there were some proposals to proxy DTLS in
a stateless way.
I was sure at the time that a solution on top of CoAP would be better, so I
didn't pay a lot of attention.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
