great, so I suggest we publish the update before next interim meeting.
Yours,
Daniel
From: Olaf Bergmann
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 12:58 PM
To: Francesca Palombini
Cc: ace@ietf.org ; Benjamin Kaduk ; Daniel Migault
Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace
On 2021-01-29, Francesca Palombini
wrote:
> So my preference would update the text in the DTLS profile:
>
> NEW:
>The use of CoAP
>and DTLS for this communication is RECOMMENDED in this profile, other
>protocols fulfilling the security
>requirements defined in section 5 of
I agree with Francesca that we should only RECOMMEND CoAP+DTLS for "both
legs" of communication with the AS -- the intent of the framework is that
we can decouple the protocol used in the different interactions if needed.
-Ben
P.S. The sentence prior to the quoted ones refers to Sections 5.6 and
Hi Olaf,
When I read the draft I don't see how the change is reflected in your summary,
actually your summary shows no difference between OSCORE and DTLS profile,
while actually there is one. This is the difference we are discussing in the
DTLS profile, about secure communication between
Hi Daniel,
On 2021-01-28, Daniel Migault
wrote:
> Apparently, the change on the DTLS profile has not been noticed by
> everyone in the WG, so I am bringing the discussion here.
>
> The change has been made as a response to a comment from the security
> directorate. Please provide your feed
Apparently, the change on the DTLS profile has not been noticed by everyone in
the WG, so I am bringing the discussion here.
The change has been made as a response to a comment from the security
directorate. Please provide your feed backs by Feb 4 (but preferably before)-
and potentially
