Hi John, just to mention, the CCM8 is also considered to be not recommended in the future (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/WnRInwF-j0uZmLggFh37ySljnwE/). Wouldn't it make more sense to use then CCM instead (16 bytes tag length)?
I would appreciate, if the comparison DTLS vs. TLS mentions also the difference of UDP vs. TCP (8 vs. 24 bytes). And just a short sentence about some more bytes for additional messages used in TCP internally? best regards Achim Am 30.12.22 um 10:58 schrieb John Mattsson:
Hi, We feel that draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparisonis getting quite ready now that the included protocols are published or at least stable. We would love to have more examples of cTLS. Are there any more examples available? We currently included the example in the draft. Review by people in the TLS WG would be great as the draft covers TLS 1.2, DTLS 1.2, TLS 1.3, DTLS 1.3, and cTLS. Cheers, John *From: *John Mattsson <[email protected]> *Date: *Sunday, 25 December 2022 at 20:19 *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]> *Subject: *Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt Hi, We submitted a new version of draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison. This document has been dormant for a while as several of the referenced protocols were not stable, which lead to a lot of work in earlier versions. All of the protocols now seem to be stable and publishedor close to being published. This version fixes all the comments we have received. We think it is close to being ready for WGLC. This is obviously needed information for a lot of people. The draft already has 17 citations. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&cluster=11841781769013384442 <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&cluster=11841781769013384442> The need for compact formats and protocols has also gained attention outside of IoT. In the IAB workshop on Environmental Impact of Internet Applications and Systems, compact formats and protocols were discussed as a way to reduce the energy consumption of the Internet as a whole. https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/e-impact/ <https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/e-impact/> Changes in -06: - Added more context to abstract and introduction - Added high level comparison of the number of bytes in TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 handshakes - Added Compact TLS 1.3 (cTLS) - Added some more clarification on (D)TLS choices - Added text that CoAP needs to be added to the EDHOC figures to be directly comparable to DTLS. - Added more DTLS and EDHOC alternatives to the summary table. - Added ECDSA keys without point compression as that does not seem to be supported. - Corrected DTLS calculation where 10 was used instead of 12 (thanks to Stephan Koch for reporting this) - Updated DTLS 1.3 records to align with the RFC. - Updated EDHOC numbers to align with latest drafts. - Added numbers for Group OSCORE pairwise mode. - Added that DTLS and OSCORE numbers might not be directly comparable as requirements on CoAP Token reuse are different. - Changed names to Unicode - Added SVG figures and tables with the help of aasvg Cheers, John Preuß Mattsson *From: *[email protected] <[email protected]> *Date: *Sunday, 25 December 2022 at 19:52 *To: *Mališa Vučinić <[email protected]>, John Mattsson <[email protected]>, Francesca Palombini <[email protected]>, John Mattsson <[email protected]>, Malisa Vucinic <[email protected]> *Subject: *New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt has been successfully submitted by John Preuß Mattsson and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison Revision: 06 Title: Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols Document date: 2022-12-25 Group: lwig Pages: 45 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06.txt> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison/> Html: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06.html <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06.html> Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison> Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-06> Abstract: This document analyzes and compares the sizes of key exchange flights and the per-packet message size overheads when using different security protocols to secure CoAP. Small message sizes are very important for reducing energy consumption, latency, and time to completion in constrained radio network such as Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs). The analyzed security protocols are DTLS 1.2, DTLS 1.3, TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3, cTLS, EDHOC, OSCORE, and Group OSCORE. The DTLS and TLS record layers are analyzed with and without 6LoWPAN- GHC compression. DTLS is analyzed with and without Connection ID. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
