Re: [Lwip] [Ace] EDHOC standardization

Hannes -Original Message- From: John Mattsson Sent: Freitag, 22. Februar 2019 10:08 To: Hannes Tschofenig ; a...@ietf.org; lwip@ietf.org; secdispa...@ietf.org Cc: Benjamin Kaduk ; salvador@um.es Subject: Re: [Ace] EDHOC standardization Hi Hannes, No wonder that ECDHE-PSK

Re: [Lwip] [Ace] EDHOC standardization

John, could you also add the detailed data for EDHOC as well? (And thanks for the details regarding the DTLS numbers.) Ciao Hannes -Original Message- From: Ace On Behalf Of John Mattsson Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:03 PM To: a...@ietf.org; lwip@ietf.org Cc: Benjamin Kaduk ;

Re: [Lwip] [Ace] EDHOC standardization

Hi John, From our experience neither PSK+ECDHE nor RPK usage is common in IoT deployments among the bigger IoT providers. Today, most companies use certificate-based authentication in almost all cases. In some cases plain PSK is used for those cases where devices are particularly constraint.

Re: [Lwip] The LWIG WG has placed draft-gomez-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Sorry for my late response (due to vacation). As mentioned in my review posted to the list (see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lwip/current/msg00792.html), I believe that this draft is a good starting point for a working group document. Ciao Hannes On 08/11/2017 10:34 AM, IETF

Re: [Lwip] Discussion about IoT Device Classes

Hi Carsten and Co-Authors, thanks for working on the document. What I am missing is a discussion (which does not need to end in the final version of the document) on what functionality you consider to be included in, for example, the class 1 device. I agree with Emmanuel regarding the

[Lwip] draft-aks-lwig-crypto-sensors-00 & Crypto Performance

I have a question regarding draft-aks-lwig-crypto-sensors-00. Table 2 shows ECDSA signature performance with TinyECC. The execution time in the first row says 1,858 msec. A different writing style for numbers and use the comma (either '.', or ',') is used throughout the world. Hence, I guess you

[Lwip] Revising RFC 7228 - Classes of Constrained Devices

Hi all, I wonder whether it is time to revise RFC 7228 (or to update it). I am particularly interested to adjust the description of the constrained device classes since we (after some years of work) now know so much more about the software requirements. What is missing IMHO from the classes is a

Re: [Lwip] IoT Performance Measurements

gt;> influenced by duty-cycle parametrization rather than on hardware >> and associated processing time that is negligible with PSK-based >> suites. >> >> Results are available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.05810.pdf >> >> Let me know if some of this coul

Re: [Lwip] Mistake in my ECC performance talk today

? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Robert Cragie robert.cra...@gridmerge.com mailto:robert.cra...@gridmerge.com wrote: Thanks Hannes - I have uploaded the revised slides. Robert On 25 March 2015 at 22:29, Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net

[Lwip] Mistake in my ECC performance talk today

Hi all, Sandeep made me aware of a mistake in the slide deck. Following the remark from Carsten during the talk Sandeep noticed that there is a mistake in the slide that showed the impact of the CPU performance on the actual result. I made a copy-and-paste mistake, have updated the slides

[Lwip] Fw: [Ace] Webex Conference Call about How to Select Hardware for IoT Systems? -- *** Friday, 12th September ***

BST. As soon as I get access to the Webex credentials for the ACE working group setup I will distribute it. Ciao Hannes Forwarded Message Subject: [Ace] Webex Conference Call about How to Select Hardware for IoT Systems? Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 14:24:51 +0200 From: Hannes

Re: [Lwip] The LWIG Challenge

Hi Cao, The cellular document was indeed a memo when the authors started to work on communication protocols, the document is very useful for readers and implementers when they approach the problems. What did you learn when you read this document? Finally I would like to propose some work

Re: [Lwip] The LWIG Challenge

Hi Cao, On 07/04/2014 01:30 PM, Cao, Zhen (CZ) wrote: At least for example, using of send-only model for sleeping nodes to save energy. Need of eliminating the role or acting as a COAP server or Waiting for COAP observation subscriptions. I think that this issue could be described independent

Re: [Lwip] [Dtls-iot] IPsec/Diet-ESP for IoT and Minimal ESP

Hi Daniel, thanks for the pointer to the ipsecme agenda. I agree with you that ipsecme would be the right place to get this work done since the proposal makes changes to IPsec ESP and they have the needed experience. LWIG, as part of the charter, is not allowed to make changes to existing

[Lwip] Review of draft-ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal-00

Hi all, I took a look at draft-ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal-00 since I volunteered at the last IETF meeting. The specification describes a subset of IKEv2 that utilizes shared secrets (although the appendix also talks about raw public key usage, which is not mentioned in the introduction). By

Re: [Lwip] Device Classification

I think we drifted away from the initial discussion. We wanted to know whether a) additional classes are needed, and b) whether the currently proposed classes by Carsten need to be modified. I heard folks saying a) yes - we need a class 0 for very small devices, and b) the current classes

Re: [Lwip] Device Classification

You are right about your observation regarding the differences between the Arduino variants. Regarding IPv6: I must have been blind when I tried to find it 6 months ago... I will give the library at http://sites.google.com/site/ghoelzl/ipv6ethershield a try. On Jan 29, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Joe