Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)
> -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Panos Kampanakis > (pkampana) > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 7:05 AM > To: Brockhaus, Hendrik ; Benjamin Kaduk > ; Michael Richardson > Cc: Mohit Sahni ; steffen.fr...@siemens.com; > ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault) > > Hi Hendrik, > > Thank you. Understood about the end-to-end protection of CMP and POP. > > I would argue that establishing the end-to-end keys to offer the application > level protection functionality in a scalable way does not come easily. On the > other hand, even CMP allows for an RA trust model instead of end-to-end POP > like EST-coaps does. [JLS] EST-coaps does allow for an RA trust model for POP as well. The RA is the terminator for the coaps connection. Jim > > > I am uncertain if I understand your question correctly. Est-over-coaps > described EST transport and not CMP transport on top of CoAP. > > I meant why do we need two enrollment protocols to run over COAP? > est-over-coaps took a long time and a lot of work. The reason we pursued it is > because we were getting requests from vendors that wanted to enroll certs in > constrained environments in the energy sector and industrial automation and > EST was standardized in IEC 62351. Is the cmp-over-coap argument that you > could run it over plan UDP and use out-of-band established, end-to-end > protection the sole motivating reason? > > Rgs, > Panos > > > -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Brockhaus, Hendrik > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:42 AM > To: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) ; Benjamin Kaduk > ; Michael Richardson > Cc: Mohit Sahni ; steffen.fr...@siemens.com; > ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel > Migault) > > Hi Panos, > > thnaks for you feedback. > > > Von: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) > > > > Hi, > > > > > Looking into Mohits draft, cmp-over-coap is much simpler than > > est-over-coaps, as CMP does not need any binding to an underlying > > (D)TLS handshake. > > > > Not sure that is accurate. And EST does not bind to the tunnel > > protocol either unless proof of possession is used. For now the > > cmp-over-coap draft says > > > >When the end to end secrecy is desired for CoAP transport, CoAP over > >DTLS [RFC6347] as a transport medium SHOULD be used. > > > > COAP can run over DTLS or plain UDP and in rare cases TCP, TLS and > > maybe Websockets. I am not sure someone would run cmp-over-coap over > > TCP because then he could just run CMP natively without COAP in the > > middle. Any application layer protocol (CMP etc) can run over any > > transport but I am > not > > sure there are more transports than the usual ones for cmp-over-coap > anyway. > > It is not needed to run CMP over CoAP over TCP. UDP as transport protocol is > fine. Actually CMP over CoAP also does not need DTLS underneath. But it also > does not hinder to have a second line of defense. > As I understand EST, proof-of-possession is purely provided by the > self-signature in PKCS#10. But EST provides the proof-of-identity of the > requesting party by the (D)TLS client authentication bound to the PKCS#10 > (tls-unique copied in the P10 password filed). Is this correct? > Such binding is not required for CMP. CMP does not have any requirements in > this regard and provides prove-of-identity by signing the CMP messages. The > advantage is that this prove-of-identity can be end-to-end and not only on > the first hop to the (D)TLS server, like with EST. > > > > > > > I agree that if this gets picked up it should be by ACE. > > > > I would like to understand what gaps it is filling compared to > > est-over-coaps which took a lot of work and where it will be used and > > implemented in. > > I am uncertain if I understand your question correctly. Est-over-coaps > described EST transport and not CMP transport on top of CoAP. > One prototypic implementation can be found on > github.com/siemens/embeddedCMP. > > - Hendrik ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)
Hi Hendrik, Thank you. Understood about the end-to-end protection of CMP and POP. I would argue that establishing the end-to-end keys to offer the application level protection functionality in a scalable way does not come easily. On the other hand, even CMP allows for an RA trust model instead of end-to-end POP like EST-coaps does. > I am uncertain if I understand your question correctly. Est-over-coaps described EST transport and not CMP transport on top of CoAP. I meant why do we need two enrollment protocols to run over COAP? est-over-coaps took a long time and a lot of work. The reason we pursued it is because we were getting requests from vendors that wanted to enroll certs in constrained environments in the energy sector and industrial automation and EST was standardized in IEC 62351. Is the cmp-over-coap argument that you could run it over plan UDP and use out-of-band established, end-to-end protection the sole motivating reason? Rgs, Panos -Original Message- From: Ace On Behalf Of Brockhaus, Hendrik Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:42 AM To: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) ; Benjamin Kaduk ; Michael Richardson Cc: Mohit Sahni ; steffen.fr...@siemens.com; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault) Hi Panos, thnaks for you feedback. > Von: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) > > Hi, > > > Looking into Mohits draft, cmp-over-coap is much simpler than > est-over-coaps, as CMP does not need any binding to an underlying > (D)TLS handshake. > > Not sure that is accurate. And EST does not bind to the tunnel > protocol either unless proof of possession is used. For now the > cmp-over-coap draft says > >When the end to end secrecy is desired for CoAP transport, CoAP over >DTLS [RFC6347] as a transport medium SHOULD be used. > > COAP can run over DTLS or plain UDP and in rare cases TCP, TLS and > maybe Websockets. I am not sure someone would run cmp-over-coap over > TCP because then he could just run CMP natively without COAP in the > middle. Any application layer protocol (CMP etc) can run over any > transport but I am not > sure there are more transports than the usual ones for cmp-over-coap anyway. It is not needed to run CMP over CoAP over TCP. UDP as transport protocol is fine. Actually CMP over CoAP also does not need DTLS underneath. But it also does not hinder to have a second line of defense. As I understand EST, proof-of-possession is purely provided by the self-signature in PKCS#10. But EST provides the proof-of-identity of the requesting party by the (D)TLS client authentication bound to the PKCS#10 (tls-unique copied in the P10 password filed). Is this correct? Such binding is not required for CMP. CMP does not have any requirements in this regard and provides prove-of-identity by signing the CMP messages. The advantage is that this prove-of-identity can be end-to-end and not only on the first hop to the (D)TLS server, like with EST. > > > I agree that if this gets picked up it should be by ACE. > > I would like to understand what gaps it is filling compared to > est-over-coaps which took a lot of work and where it will be used and > implemented in. I am uncertain if I understand your question correctly. Est-over-coaps described EST transport and not CMP transport on top of CoAP. One prototypic implementation can be found on github.com/siemens/embeddedCMP. - Hendrik smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)
Hi Daniel Thanks for adding this to the agenda. 15 Minutes should be good. Regards Mohit On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 10:40 AM Daniel Migault wrote: > Hi Mohit, > > We apology for missing your request and thank you for reiterating the > request. We gave you a 15 min [1], if that is not enough, please let us > know. > > Yours, > Daniel > > [1] https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-ace > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:58 PM Mohit Sahni wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> I had requested, in an earlier email, some time to discuss what changes >> are required in the ACE WG charter to adopt my draft for "CMPv2/Lightweight >> CMP profile over CoAP transport" ( >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-00). >> Would it be possible for you to add it to the tentative agenda? >> >> To give some background, this draft is an extension of Light Weight CMP >> Profile ( >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-02) >> draft currently under development in the LAMPS WG. We discussed the "CMPv2 >> over CoAP" draft in the LAMPS WG and figured out that ACE WG is a more >> appropriate place for this draft. However, Jim suggested that we will need >> to modify the charter of the ACE WG to adopt this draft. >> >> Thanks >> Mohit >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:22 AM wrote: >> >>> Send Ace mailing list submissions to >>> ace@ietf.org >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> ace-requ...@ietf.org >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> ace-ow...@ietf.org >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of Ace digest..." >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>>1. interim meeting planification (Daniel Migault) >>>2. ACE interim meeting tentative (Option2) (Daniel Migault) >>>3. ACE tentative interim meeting (option 1) (Daniel Migault) >>>4. IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault) >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Forwarded message -- >>> From: Daniel Migault >>> To: Ace Wg >>> Cc: >>> Bcc: >>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:59:22 -0400 >>> Subject: [Ace] interim meeting planification >>> Hi, >>> >>> Please find a doodle [1] with two time slots for the interim meetings >>> that are planned 1 per month the first week of the month 10 AM - 11 AM EST. >>> The two proposed days are Monday and Thursday. Please select your >>> preferred day by July 26. >>> >>> I am sending the calendar serie to the ace list so everyone can better >>> see how it matches its calendar. >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Jim and Daniel >>> >>> [1] https://doodle.com/poll/x2dghwiqmqei6cc8 >>> -- >>> Daniel Migault >>> Ericsson >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Forwarded message -- >>> From: Daniel Migault >>> To: Ace Wg >>> Cc: >>> Bcc: >>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:59:52 + >>> Subject: [Ace] ACE interim meeting tentative (Option2) >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Forwarded message -- >>> From: Daniel Migault >>> To: Ace Wg >>> Cc: >>> Bcc: >>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:00:38 + >>> Subject: [Ace] ACE tentative interim meeting (option 1) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Forwarded message -- >>> From: Daniel Migault >>> To: Ace Wg >>> Cc: >>> Bcc: >>> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:22:08 -0400 >>> Subject: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations >>> Hi, >>> >>> Please find the tentative agenda [1] of ACE WG at the IETf 108 Wed July >>> 29, 2020 11:00 UTC. >>> >>> Please upload your presentations by July 27 here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/session/ace >>> >>> Yours, >>> Jim and Daniel >>> >>> [1] https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-ace >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Migault >>> Ericsson >>> ___ >>> Ace mailing list >>> Ace@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace >>> >> ___ >> Ace mailing list >> Ace@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace >> > > > -- > Daniel Migault > Ericsson > ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)
Hi Mohit, We apology for missing your request and thank you for reiterating the request. We gave you a 15 min [1], if that is not enough, please let us know. Yours, Daniel [1] https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-ace On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:58 PM Mohit Sahni wrote: > Hi Daniel, > I had requested, in an earlier email, some time to discuss what changes > are required in the ACE WG charter to adopt my draft for "CMPv2/Lightweight > CMP profile over CoAP transport" ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-00). > Would it be possible for you to add it to the tentative agenda? > > To give some background, this draft is an extension of Light Weight CMP > Profile ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-02) > draft currently under development in the LAMPS WG. We discussed the "CMPv2 > over CoAP" draft in the LAMPS WG and figured out that ACE WG is a more > appropriate place for this draft. However, Jim suggested that we will need > to modify the charter of the ACE WG to adopt this draft. > > Thanks > Mohit > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:22 AM wrote: > >> Send Ace mailing list submissions to >> ace@ietf.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> ace-requ...@ietf.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> ace-ow...@ietf.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Ace digest..." >> Today's Topics: >> >>1. interim meeting planification (Daniel Migault) >>2. ACE interim meeting tentative (Option2) (Daniel Migault) >>3. ACE tentative interim meeting (option 1) (Daniel Migault) >>4. IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault) >> >> >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Daniel Migault >> To: Ace Wg >> Cc: >> Bcc: >> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:59:22 -0400 >> Subject: [Ace] interim meeting planification >> Hi, >> >> Please find a doodle [1] with two time slots for the interim meetings >> that are planned 1 per month the first week of the month 10 AM - 11 AM EST. >> The two proposed days are Monday and Thursday. Please select your >> preferred day by July 26. >> >> I am sending the calendar serie to the ace list so everyone can better >> see how it matches its calendar. >> >> Yours, >> >> Jim and Daniel >> >> [1] https://doodle.com/poll/x2dghwiqmqei6cc8 >> -- >> Daniel Migault >> Ericsson >> >> >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Daniel Migault >> To: Ace Wg >> Cc: >> Bcc: >> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:59:52 + >> Subject: [Ace] ACE interim meeting tentative (Option2) >> >> >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Daniel Migault >> To: Ace Wg >> Cc: >> Bcc: >> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:00:38 + >> Subject: [Ace] ACE tentative interim meeting (option 1) >> >> >> >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Daniel Migault >> To: Ace Wg >> Cc: >> Bcc: >> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:22:08 -0400 >> Subject: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations >> Hi, >> >> Please find the tentative agenda [1] of ACE WG at the IETf 108 Wed July >> 29, 2020 11:00 UTC. >> >> Please upload your presentations by July 27 here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/session/ace >> >> Yours, >> Jim and Daniel >> >> [1] https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-ace >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Migault >> Ericsson >> ___ >> Ace mailing list >> Ace@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace >> > ___ > Ace mailing list > Ace@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)
Hi Panos, thnaks for you feedback. > Von: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) > > Hi, > > > Looking into Mohits draft, cmp-over-coap is much simpler than > est-over-coaps, as CMP does not need any binding to an underlying (D)TLS > handshake. > > Not sure that is accurate. And EST does not bind to the tunnel protocol > either unless proof of possession is used. For now the cmp-over-coap draft > says > >When the end to end secrecy is desired for CoAP transport, CoAP over >DTLS [RFC6347] as a transport medium SHOULD be used. > > COAP can run over DTLS or plain UDP and in rare cases TCP, TLS and maybe > Websockets. I am not sure someone would run cmp-over-coap over TCP > because > then he could just run CMP natively without COAP in the middle. Any > application layer protocol (CMP etc) can run over any transport but I am not > sure there are more transports than the usual ones for cmp-over-coap anyway. It is not needed to run CMP over CoAP over TCP. UDP as transport protocol is fine. Actually CMP over CoAP also does not need DTLS underneath. But it also does not hinder to have a second line of defense. As I understand EST, proof-of-possession is purely provided by the self-signature in PKCS#10. But EST provides the proof-of-identity of the requesting party by the (D)TLS client authentication bound to the PKCS#10 (tls-unique copied in the P10 password filed). Is this correct? Such binding is not required for CMP. CMP does not have any requirements in this regard and provides prove-of-identity by signing the CMP messages. The advantage is that this prove-of-identity can be end-to-end and not only on the first hop to the (D)TLS server, like with EST. > > > I agree that if this gets picked up it should be by ACE. > > I would like to understand what gaps it is filling compared to > est-over-coaps which took a lot of work and where it will be used and > implemented in. I am uncertain if I understand your question correctly. Est-over-coaps described EST transport and not CMP transport on top of CoAP. One prototypic implementation can be found on github.com/siemens/embeddedCMP. - Hendrik smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)
Hi, > Looking into Mohits draft, cmp-over-coap is much simpler than est-over-coaps, as CMP does not need any binding to an underlying (D)TLS handshake. Not sure that is accurate. And EST does not bind to the tunnel protocol either unless proof of possession is used. For now the cmp-over-coap draft says When the end to end secrecy is desired for CoAP transport, CoAP over DTLS [RFC6347] as a transport medium SHOULD be used. COAP can run over DTLS or plain UDP and in rare cases TCP, TLS and maybe Websockets. I am not sure someone would run cmp-over-coap over TCP because then he could just run CMP natively without COAP in the middle. Any application layer protocol (CMP etc) can run over any transport but I am not sure there are more transports than the usual ones for cmp-over-coap anyway. I agree that if this gets picked up it should be by ACE. I would like to understand what gaps it is filling compared to est-over-coaps which took a lot of work and where it will be used and implemented in. Panos -Original Message- From: Ace On Behalf Of Brockhaus, Hendrik Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:51 AM To: Benjamin Kaduk ; Michael Richardson Cc: Mohit Sahni ; steffen.fr...@siemens.com; ace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault) > Von: Ace Im Auftrag von Benjamin Kaduk > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 04:31:05PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > Mohit Sahni wrote: > > > To give some background, this draft is an extension of Light Weight CMP > > > Profile ( > > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf .. > org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile- > 02data=02%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Cc3b352cdfd > 174b0a7e2008d82dc1484f%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C > 0%7C637309655452109222sdata=QWHu3IEwf4TIIpaW0cvKuMiGXixV1AX > dws6g0vBQJPY%3Dreserved=0) > > > draft currently under development in the LAMPS WG. We > > discussed the > "CMPv2 > > > over CoAP" draft in the LAMPS WG and figured out that ACE WG > > is a > more > > > appropriate place for this draft. However, Jim suggested that > > we will > need > > > to modify the charter of the ACE WG to adopt this draft. > > > > We did est-over-coaps [still in the queue], why shouldn't we do > > cmp-over- > coap(s)? > > It may just be that "est-over-coaps is so obviously us" that I didn't > check the charter carefully at that time. But, at this point, we're > probably overdue for a recharter anyway, as the core framework is making its way to the IESG. > Steffen and I discussed this with Jim last year in Prague, if I remember correctly, and he recommended to submit cmp-over-coap to ACE and not to LAMPS. As est-over-coaps was in scope of ACE, I also think it is quite obvious to discuss cmp-over-coap in ACE. Looking into Mohits draft, cmp-over-coap is much simpler than est-over-coaps, as CMP does not need any binding to an underlying (D)TLS handshake. If you think this needs rechartering, we should go for it. - Hendrik ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)
> Von: Ace Im Auftrag von Benjamin Kaduk > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 04:31:05PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > Mohit Sahni wrote: > > > To give some background, this draft is an extension of Light Weight > > CMP > > > Profile ( > > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf. > org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile- > 02data=02%7C01%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7Cc3b352cdfd > 174b0a7e2008d82dc1484f%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C > 0%7C637309655452109222sdata=QWHu3IEwf4TIIpaW0cvKuMiGXixV1AX > dws6g0vBQJPY%3Dreserved=0) > > > draft currently under development in the LAMPS WG. We discussed the > "CMPv2 > > > over CoAP" draft in the LAMPS WG and figured out that ACE WG is a > more > > > appropriate place for this draft. However, Jim suggested that we will > need > > > to modify the charter of the ACE WG to adopt this draft. > > > > We did est-over-coaps [still in the queue], why shouldn't we do cmp-over- > coap(s)? > > It may just be that "est-over-coaps is so obviously us" that I didn't check > the > charter carefully at that time. But, at this point, we're probably overdue > for a > recharter anyway, as the core framework is making its way to the IESG. > Steffen and I discussed this with Jim last year in Prague, if I remember correctly, and he recommended to submit cmp-over-coap to ACE and not to LAMPS. As est-over-coaps was in scope of ACE, I also think it is quite obvious to discuss cmp-over-coap in ACE. Looking into Mohits draft, cmp-over-coap is much simpler than est-over-coaps, as CMP does not need any binding to an underlying (D)TLS handshake. If you think this needs rechartering, we should go for it. - Hendrik ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 04:31:05PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Mohit Sahni wrote: > > To give some background, this draft is an extension of Light Weight CMP > > Profile ( > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-02) > > draft currently under development in the LAMPS WG. We discussed the > "CMPv2 > > over CoAP" draft in the LAMPS WG and figured out that ACE WG is a more > > appropriate place for this draft. However, Jim suggested that we will > need > > to modify the charter of the ACE WG to adopt this draft. > > We did est-over-coaps [still in the queue], why shouldn't we do > cmp-over-coap(s)? It may just be that "est-over-coaps is so obviously us" that I didn't check the charter carefully at that time. But, at this point, we're probably overdue for a recharter anyway, as the core framework is making its way to the IESG. -Ben ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)
Mohit Sahni wrote: > To give some background, this draft is an extension of Light Weight CMP > Profile ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-02) > draft currently under development in the LAMPS WG. We discussed the "CMPv2 > over CoAP" draft in the LAMPS WG and figured out that ACE WG is a more > appropriate place for this draft. However, Jim suggested that we will need > to modify the charter of the ACE WG to adopt this draft. We did est-over-coaps [still in the queue], why shouldn't we do cmp-over-coap(s)? -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault)
Hi Daniel, I had requested, in an earlier email, some time to discuss what changes are required in the ACE WG charter to adopt my draft for "CMPv2/Lightweight CMP profile over CoAP transport" ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-00). Would it be possible for you to add it to the tentative agenda? To give some background, this draft is an extension of Light Weight CMP Profile ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-02) draft currently under development in the LAMPS WG. We discussed the "CMPv2 over CoAP" draft in the LAMPS WG and figured out that ACE WG is a more appropriate place for this draft. However, Jim suggested that we will need to modify the charter of the ACE WG to adopt this draft. Thanks Mohit On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:22 AM wrote: > Send Ace mailing list submissions to > ace@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ace-requ...@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ace-ow...@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Ace digest..." > Today's Topics: > >1. interim meeting planification (Daniel Migault) >2. ACE interim meeting tentative (Option2) (Daniel Migault) >3. ACE tentative interim meeting (option 1) (Daniel Migault) >4. IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations (Daniel Migault) > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Daniel Migault > To: Ace Wg > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:59:22 -0400 > Subject: [Ace] interim meeting planification > Hi, > > Please find a doodle [1] with two time slots for the interim meetings that > are planned 1 per month the first week of the month 10 AM - 11 AM EST. The > two proposed days are Monday and Thursday. Please select your preferred day > by July 26. > > I am sending the calendar serie to the ace list so everyone can better see > how it matches its calendar. > > Yours, > > Jim and Daniel > > [1] https://doodle.com/poll/x2dghwiqmqei6cc8 > -- > Daniel Migault > Ericsson > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Daniel Migault > To: Ace Wg > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:59:52 + > Subject: [Ace] ACE interim meeting tentative (Option2) > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Daniel Migault > To: Ace Wg > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:00:38 + > Subject: [Ace] ACE tentative interim meeting (option 1) > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Daniel Migault > To: Ace Wg > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:22:08 -0400 > Subject: [Ace] IETF 108 tentative agenda and presentations > Hi, > > Please find the tentative agenda [1] of ACE WG at the IETf 108 Wed July > 29, 2020 11:00 UTC. > > Please upload your presentations by July 27 here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/session/ace > > Yours, > Jim and Daniel > > [1] https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-ace > > > -- > Daniel Migault > Ericsson > ___ > Ace mailing list > Ace@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace > ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
