On 03/31/2016 11:20 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Hi Ben, > > just think about the mentioned JPAKE extension: what type of deployment > can you expect? It is something that Thread decided to use. Will Thread, > as a mesh networking technology, be successful and widely be deployed? > We don't know yet but if it becomes a technology of choice for use with > IEEE 802.15.4 then it will be fairly widely used in the IoT sector. I am > sure the authors of the Thread specifications (and the members of the > Thread consortium) expect their stuff to be widely used (in IoT -- not > on the Web).
Well, for JPAKE in particular, my thoughts focus on my perception that PAKE of any form is not really central to what TLS does. Given that, I personally would not advocate for a 'Y' for it, even knowing that it might see wide use in IoT. > Is this something that is good enough for this group? Web guys will > hardly care about it. A large part of the TLS group is focused on the > Web use only (at least that's my impression). > > From the descriptions provided by Sean I don't know whether this is > something that would be a "Y" blessing or not. This is what I call > "sounds nice but ...". > Well, I would expect the authors to put the 'Y' in their IANA considerations text and see if anyone complained during the last calls. I further expect that some of the web-centric folks on this list would complain and probably get the 'Y' removed, but I am not seeing why this is problematic. -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
