Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

On Thu, 24 May 2018 at 20:44, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Mališa Vučinić wrote: > > @Michael, @Christian > > > I am re-reading RFC7252, Section 5.7.2: > > okay, but I'm not claiming that the Join Proxy is a CoAP Proxy by the rules > given in

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Mališa Vučinić wrote: > @Michael, @Christian > I am re-reading RFC7252, Section 5.7.2: okay, but I'm not claiming that the Join Proxy is a CoAP Proxy by the rules given in 7252. It started as just a circuit proxy (i.e. algorithm gateway), but we wanted it to be

Re: [6tisch] Rekeying for minimal-security (was: Updates to minimal-security-06)

Mališa Vučinić wrote: > I've just adopted this "TLS" approach: key_usage and algorithm are merged, > and a new column "Algorithm" was added in the registry to explicitly state > the link-layer techno / algorithm in use. I believe this is quite enough >

Re: [6tisch] Updates to minimal-security-06

All, I resolved the issues we had open on minimal-security and reworked editorially the document quite heavily. Since the protocol we define is quite generic, I renamed it to "Constrained Join Protocol (CoJP)", suggested pronunciation as "cojeep". Let me know if you dislike the new name, or if

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

@Michael, @Christian I am re-reading RFC7252, Section 5.7.2: Unless a proxy is configured to forward the proxy request to another proxy, > it MUST translate the request as follows: the scheme of the request URI > defines the outgoing protocol and its details (e.g., CoAP is used over UDP > for

Re: [6tisch] Rekeying for minimal-security (was: Updates to minimal-security-06)

@Tero, Getting back to this, see inline. On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 12:36 AM Tero Kivinen wrote: > Mališa Vučinić writes: > > Thanks Tero for this feedback! Could you check if this commit takes care > of > > it: > > > > >