Hi Daniel, thanks for the pointer to the ipsecme agenda.
I agree with you that ipsecme would be the right place to get this work done since the proposal makes changes to IPsec ESP and they have the needed experience. LWIG, as part of the charter, is not allowed to make changes to existing protocols, as this snippet from the charter illustrates: " The group shall also not develop any new protocols or protocol behavior modifications beyond what is already allowed by existing RFCs, because it is important to ensure that different types of devices can work together. " Ciao Hannes On 02/13/2014 02:45 PM, Daniel Migault wrote: > 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 > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
