Hi Benjamin,
our results are included in a paper, which is under review for its
publication.
Regarding the comparison between EDHOC and DTLS, we have employed the tinydtls
library [1] since it is widely used to deploy DTLS in different IoT scenarios.
Note that, at the moment in which the paper was written, such library did not
offer support for version 1.3. Anyway, DTLS 1.3 is essentially using the same
handshake as TLS 1.3 ("DTLS 1.3 re-uses the TLS 1.3 handshake messages and
flows” [2]). Moreover, authors of EDHOC state that the message overhead of TLS
1.3 is much higher than EDHOC ("Compared to the TLS 1.3 handshake with ECDH,
the number of bytes in EDHOC is less than 1/3 when PSK authentication is used
and less than 1/2 when RPK authentication is used, see Appendix E” [3-4]).
Accordingly, we can claim that it is expected that DTLS 1.3 performs worse than
EDHOC (at least, regarding message overhead) for the type of constrained
implementations we are looking at.
[1] https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/iot.tinydtls
<https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/iot.tinydtls>
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-29#section-5
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-29#section-5>
[3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe-10#section-1
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe-10#section-1>
[4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe-10#appendix-E.4
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe-10#appendix-E.4>
Kind regards,
--------------------
Salvador Pérez
PhD student in "Future Internet Networks: Infrastructure and Security”
Faculty of Computer Science - University of Murcia
Email: [email protected]
Skype: salva.pf
> On 31 Oct 2018, at 16:43, Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Salvador,
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:12:54AM +0100, Salvador Pérez wrote:
>> Hello authors of EDHOC,
>>
>> we have implemented a previous version of EDHOC
>> (draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe) and want to share some experiences.
>>
>> Our work so far has focused on implementation and evaluation of version -08
>> of EDHOC over CoAP using real IoT hardware. The obtained results show a
>> significant performance improvement compared to other key establishment
>> protocols, such as DTLS handshake (version 1.2), especially with respect to
>> length and number of exchanged messages.
>
> Are your results written up anywhere? It would be great to see more
> details of the comparison and the actual numbers.
> Unfortunately, I don't think that DTLS 1.2 is the best comparison -- DTLS
> 1.3 should be seen as the current "state of the art" for DTLS, and is
> expected to itself be leaner than DTLS 1.2, which might wash out some of
> the results you've seen here.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
>> We have reviewed version -10 and noted the reduction of message length.
>> Based on our experience, we propose that also removing the overhead due to
>> security parameter negotiation could be an important optimization, and
>> relevant in many use cases where these parameters are available through an
>> out-of-band process.
>>
>> Accordingly and taking into account that EDHOC provides a basic security
>> functionality for any context where security needs to be enabled, we are
>> currently considering the application of this protocol in different IoT
>> deployments, such as LoRaWAN networks, OSCORE-enabled scenarios or its
>> integration with capabilities. We therefore would like to see the progress
>> of EDHOC in standardization.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> --------------------
>> Salvador Pérez
>> PhD student in "Future Internet Networks: Infrastructure and Security”
>> Faculty of Computer Science - University of Murcia
>> Email: [email protected]
>> Skype: salva.pf
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ace mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
