Hi Tobias
Your proposed text sounds good to me and I will update the document to
reflect the changes suggested.
@Chairs: A procedural question; should I go ahead and submit another
update as the deadline for last call is now over?
--Mohit
On 08/08/2017 12:11 PM, Tobias Guggemos wrote:
Hey,
I don't think this needs another last call, if we don't want to broaden the
scope of the document.
I just feel that the proposed change would help to understand the actual scope
of the document for a first-time-reader.
Your proposed text helps, but you can certainly keep the "experiences" part,
I'd just state that the document presents experiences with signing:
The memo describes a possible deployment model where resource-constrained
devices sign message objects, discusses the availability of cryptographic
libraries for small device and presents some preliminary experiences with those
libraries for signing operation on small devices.
Regards
Tobias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mohit Sethi [mailto:mohit.m.se...@ericsson.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 7. August 2017 18:20
An: Tobias Guggemos <gugge...@nm.ifi.lmu.de>; Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org>
Cc: lwip@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [Lwip] WGLC for draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-03
Hi Tobias
The abstract does say that "The memo describes a possible deployment model suitable", the keyword
being "a". I agree that the title is a bit broad but that is because in section 13 and 14, we
discuss some broader trade offs of doing security at the different layers of the protocol stack. Perhaps the
abstract could use text "The memo describes a possible deployment model where resource-constrained
devices sign message objects, discusses the availability of cryptographic libraries for small devices".
If you think this change is needed, I could update the draft and hopefully we don't have to do another last
call for this minor fix.
--Mohit
On 08/07/2017 04:36 PM, Tobias Guggemos wrote:
Hey Mohit,
I see your point and that it is out of scope for the document. However, I feel
the title and the abstract is then a bit misleading and should say that this
document discusses security architectures and cryptographic functions for
authentication/signing only?
Just a thought to avoid missunderstandings.
Regards
Tobias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Lwip [mailto:lwip-boun...@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Mohit Sethi
Gesendet: Sonntag, 6. August 2017 21:10
An: Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org>
Cc: lwip@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [Lwip] WGLC for draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-03
Hi Carsten
This document looks at a very specific deployment scenario where
resource-constrained devices sign message objects. Therefore, it only documents
the performance of ECDSA sign operation.
I do think the numbers of Elliptic curve diffie-hellman key agreement are
useful for the community and the group should work on documenting them. I did
discuss this with Tobias (off-the-mailing list) and perhaps those numbers can
go in a separate document on minimal G-IKEv2. I currently have a working
implementation of x25519 Diffie-hellman key agreement on a R Pi but I don't
consider it constrained enough. Once I have more numbers, I will definitely
contribute. But for now I strongly believe that they don't fit into the current
document.
--Mohit
On 08/06/2017 02:39 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Hi Mohit,
One point that came up in the discussion in Prague was Diffie-Hellman
performance.
For a deployment that relies on symmetric keys for mutual authentication, it
may be useful to do an (ECC) D-H key agreement to achieve forward security.
I believe some numbers for that are available?
It would be useful to include them in order to motivate the use of forward
secure key agreement.
Grüße, Carsten
On Aug 6, 2017, at 12:18, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.se...@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi all
The authors of the document believe that it is ready to move forward. During
the previous last call we had already received support from several working
group members.
Based on the feedback during the previous last call, we removed the performance
measurements of RSA key sizes smaller than 2048 bits. We also added performance
measurements of ECDSA sign operation on ARM 32-bit platforms. Additionally, we
improved the text on the need for a random number generator, more guidance on
choosing the right platform, and why larger flash memory size is needed for
firmware updates. We also removed some extraneous text from the background
section. Any further comments are welcome.
--Mohit
On 07/31/2017 04:23 AM, Zhen Cao wrote:
Hello Everyone,
This email starts the WGLC for draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-03
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-03
This is a second WGLC with the new draft resolving the comments
received from last round.
We still appreciate very much if could you help review the document
and send your comments to the mailing list. Thank you in advance.
The WGLC will end in ONE week till August 7th, 2017.
Thank the authors for their hard work again.
Best regards,
Zhen
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Zhen Cao <zhencao.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello everyone,
This email starts the WGLC for draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-02
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-02)
Could you help review the document and send your comments to the
mailing list. Thank you in advance.
The WGLC will end in two weeks from now.
BR,
Zhen
_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
Lwip@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
Lwip@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
Lwip@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
Lwip@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
