I have a question regarding draft-aks-lwig-crypto-sensors-00. Table 2 shows ECDSA signature performance with TinyECC. The execution time in the first row says 1,858 msec. A different writing style for numbers and use the comma (either '.', or ',') is used throughout the world. Hence, I guess you mean almost 2 seconds here rather than almost 2 msecs. Right?
When I read the performance figures then my impression is that the used hardware isn't really fit to do any practical crypto for IoT devices. What is the message you want to convey to the reader? I fear that such a write-up could easily be misunderstood. You may want to provide a bit more info about why you have chosen this hardware platform particularly since it is not able to fit most of the stuff we have developed in other working groups due to the low RAM and flash. The currently recommended key size for IoT devices is (based on various other IETF documents) 112 bit symmetric keys ~ 233 bit ECC keys ~ 2048 DH/RSA keys. Hence, publishing performance results for very low, impractical key sizes is misleading since we do not recommend them to be used at all. Hence, I would delete any data below 192r1 (for ECC) and maybe even 192r1 as well. You include, for example, the RSA algorithm with a key size of 64 bits. Ciao Hannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list Lwip@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
