Salvador Pérez wrote:
> we have implemented a previous version of EDHOC
> (draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe) and want to share some experiences.
That's very cool.
Some questions for you!
> Our work so far has focused on implementation and evaluation of version
> -08 of EDHOC over C
Hi Rene
Just to mention that I worked with Salvador and that the work he mention
it is part of a more general analysis we are doing with different
compression approaches for IoT deployment considering different networks
in EU projects like ANASTACIA and IoTCrawler and als for our spin-off
www
Hi Salvador:
It would be interesting to explore what the impact is of lossless
compression (with side information, in terms of maintained state by
either protocol party) on sizes of message flows.
This could shed some light on the question as to how much, e.g., TLS1.3
message flows (or any oth
Hi Benjamin,
our results are included in a paper, which is under review for its
publication.
Regarding the comparison between EDHOC and DTLS, we have employed the tinydtls
library [1] since it is widely used to deploy DTLS in different IoT scenarios.
Note that, at the moment in which t
This sounds like a good solution, Ludwig. Thanks for the productive
conversation.
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Ludwig Seitz
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:08 AM
To: Mike Jones ; ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz
On
Hi Salvador,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:12:54AM +0100, Salvador Pérez wrote:
> Hello authors of EDHOC,
>
> we have implemented a previous version of EDHOC
> (draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe) and want to share some experiences.
>
> Our work so far has focused on implementation and evaluati
> -Original Message-
> From: Ludwig Seitz
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:20 AM
> To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-oauth-
> au...@ietf.org
> Cc: ace@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz
>
> On 22/10/2018 21:09, Jim Schaad wrote:
>
> >
> > * Registries - I am
> -Original Message-
> From: Ace On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 5:13 AM
> To: ace@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz
>
> On 25/10/2018 02:58, Mike Jones wrote:
> > IT CAN'T BE A COINCIDENCE: There's clearly a relationship between
>
Mike,
Writing a document to do this is easy. I am not clear that there is anybody
that is going to implement this. Are industries such as banking going to
abandon JWT for CWT?
Jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Ace On Behalf Of Mike Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 11:52 AM
> T
Hello authors of EDHOC,
we have implemented a previous version of EDHOC
(draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe) and want to share some experiences.
Our work so far has focused on implementation and evaluation of version -08 of
EDHOC over CoAP using real IoT hardware. The obtained results show
On 30/10/2018 19:52, Mike Jones wrote:
Thanks for your responses, Ludwig.
I could live with "access_token" having a single-byte
representation, since as you point out, it is needed for every ACE
OAuth interaction. An "error" value is only needed when something
goes wrong, so that doesn
11 matches
Mail list logo
