Hi, We have not updated the draft to change their names, but I agree they definitely better fit in the LWIG. We would like to present them both in LWIG in London.
Note Tero has been provided a 20 minute slot for an overview on "IPsec in constrained environments". So people interested in IoT and security should check the agenda at ipsecme too. [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/agenda/agenda-89-ipsecme On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Sye Loong Keoh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > As pointed out by Hannes, DICE WG is not chartered to look at IPSec for IoT. > However, I think your draft might be useful for LWIG WG though. > > Cheers > Sye Loong > > -----Original Message----- > From: dtls-iot [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Migault > Sent: Friday, 31 January, 2014 10:48 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [Dtls-iot] IPsec/Diet-ESP for IoT and Minimal ESP > > Hi, > > Please find the two drafts we have just posted. They are about IPsec/ESP > minimal implementation and Diet-ESP designed for IoT. > > Comment are welcome! > > Best Regards, > Daniel > > > Name: draft-mglt-dice-diet-esp > Revision: 00 > Title: Diet-ESP: a flexible and compressed format for IPsec/ESP > Document date: 2014-01-31 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 21 > URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mglt-dice-diet-esp-00.txt > Status:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-dice-diet-esp/ > Htmlized:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-dice-diet-esp-00 > > > Abstract: > IPsec/ESP has been designed to secure IP packets exchanged between > two nodes. IPsec implements security at the IP layer which makes > security transparent to the applications, as opposed to TLS or DTLS > that requires application to implement TLS/DTLS. As a result, IPsec > enable to define the security rules in a similar way one establishes > firewall rules. > > One of the IPsec's drawbacks is that implementing security on a per > packet basis adds overhead to each IP packet. Considering IoT > devices, the data transmitted over an IP packet is expected to be > rather small, and the cost of sending extra bytes is so high that > IPsec/ESP can hardly be used for IoT as it is currently defined in > RFC 4303. > > This document defines Diet-ESP, a protocol that compress and reduce > the ESP overhead of IPsec/ESP so that it can fit security and energy > efficient IoT requirements. Diet-ESP use already existing mechanism > like IKEv2 to negotiate the compression format. Furthermore a lot of > information, already existing for an IPsec Security Association, are > reused to offer light negotiation in addition to maximum compression. > > > Name: draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp > Revision: 00 > Title: Minimal ESP > Document date: 2014-01-31 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 6 > URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp-00.txt > Status:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp/ > Htmlized:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp-00 > > > Abstract: > This document describes a minimal version of the IP Encapsulation > Security Payload (ESP) described in RFC 4303 which is part of the > IPsec suite. > > ESP is used to provide confidentiality, data origin authentication, > connectionless integrity, an anti-replay service (a form of partial > sequence integrity), and limited traffic flow confidentiality. > > This document does not update or modify RFC 4303, but provides a > compact description of the minimal version of the protocol. If this > document and RFC 4303 conflicts then RFC 4303 is the authoritative > description. > > > -- > Daniel Migault > Orange Labs -- Security > +33 6 70 72 69 58 > _______________________________________________ > dtls-iot mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtls-iot -- Daniel Migault Orange Labs -- Security +33 6 70 72 69 58 _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
