From nobody Fri May 6 07:00:32 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A7412D5F7 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2016 07:00:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s3GrMdq_zNzz for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2016 07:00:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2985D12D5D7 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 May 2016 06:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357C82002A; Fri, 6 May 2016 09:55:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15215637DF; Fri, 6 May 2016 09:50:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> X-Attribution: mcr X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: Tengfei Chang Subject: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 14:00:31 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain I sent out an email a week or so ago about rebooting the 6tisch security effort. I'd like to use JITSI for meetings at https://jitsi.tools.ietf.org/ [the DHCPv6-BIS team has been using it quite successfully for a few months] (webex is increasingly hostile to non-windows platforms) I've cleared out the list, and added the following people back in based upon replies: thomas.watteyne@inria.fr savio.sciancalepore@gmail.com Pascal Thubert max pritikin Giuseppe Piro Michael Richardson Michael Behringer Randy Turner I hope that we can have a meeting on May 13, 13:15UTC using: https://jitsi.tools.ietf.org/6tischsecurity I think that we might need a few more people, perhaps: Tengfei Chang ?? This is 45 minutes before the regular 6tisch meeting. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEVAwUBVyyhLoCLcPvd0N1lAQKYzggAvG38KtH6fMogbO0R8F/2BZAkP0/0xmWE kq5oETdwUmDoyZeRAkPVSqLvvsRRiFjovteShWWLMaRt6EtB+iymIINpDpp0vgdT OODX5+lBtiePFTO0gPAbIVwVhX1BmG+7VLg9jX7TVuIklHHkEm6iOfw3KRSPTsoM tQH3hR9JmYPupJBs+D/zb43+mOMYVbXMqw1Khf4DCwOY+zm8yU/W1BdVBvOnM7yQ skjKeCH4NqRQj4lUOV3oLzPE9Bf8oR8AqlcTOsmmTbFNppWYKAkbpFepwom9lNgr v8np07eo/6whNbfkfqlCGsnKNr65Y8pBxtzM3F41aT/k4HU4npheMw== =7b/r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Fri May 6 07:56:21 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A930312B046 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2016 07:56:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lm_OWJdYPVS0 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2016 07:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com (mail-yw0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E695512B054 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 May 2016 07:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id t10so212764965ywa.0 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 May 2016 07:56:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=x/FBy7dXdG5mLi/UONMAXyW28bTcMba/WOSZkPK//i4=; b=qncJi5Gk8xkxpfElWz89fHVZhQsmdRLiPWVhFyyYVy80SgHlZLpmgOuaSBni4KesRU NmUugzhCpK5dNfbjF1xPdcO1byyAXhVTxh7kUVr/qanZzBgwpBJmk6SeTLQxIudlUvQK DDqNQYRx/jEsFmdE59E89/z3eqqUCmOBG1yCpo/Vx2tAaxNvxbYwfBRW4ve9sLklvVQd G7EfeXtaz+ijV8oXipnk8mtKK0FxmLR9NHJzUUKlKKtOXpb68V/qyAeJmc4pAvlZd6sH IkjiPCQDEksbOvFPHJNX+h6/w7D/NpnOp5vS8UIlOU4KCJ1LPo+stoGdoyh7fGHxlCQa SblQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=x/FBy7dXdG5mLi/UONMAXyW28bTcMba/WOSZkPK//i4=; b=GDV8bw1vDpaLjBWXU+cs5SUKRNF1tyElZ4W5DwkTs9vVHofLwdp/DuqqvEDGeqpmt5 9JAf7gWDE5ztsRhWgqiqGxE5nTz2J3vhHQbuKf2CZbO5rP5jJJpwlCrjmIX/kRqNcrCk Dnp/fInAT35fqiFIzIjdizTdTZNGcVxC06B2h9+xqPhXjL3sNhxIng8WZUb9u9UDICLj PwR+uhs66IXDkMhOlku6GQ2NNwcR91DWVnsi2ebmMlOxPF2hg0IbCcl6Js6bJ499MNa4 Tm2opnre3ETxWZG1B34wuiV9Ic0WKj6qEUFjj/rgghs87TMVsDu7O0dchLEx9sldD7tF 5yBw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUvTRpoJRhVOcyG5+BEVqNqkqMAn9sL/zdhAzN0phqvGXIRH/1klgFlFXH+D3uL19e8xFtglD9jUobkyw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.37.18.84 with SMTP id 81mr12398058ybs.117.1462546578170; Fri, 06 May 2016 07:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.82.213 with HTTP; Fri, 6 May 2016 07:56:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:56:17 +0200 Message-ID: From: Tengfei Chang To: Michael Richardson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114235b6426cde05322da9ff Archived-At: Cc: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 14:56:21 -0000 --001a114235b6426cde05322da9ff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Michael, I am very glad to attend the meeting, though I think I am not an expert on security. Very much looking forward to help on the topic! Tengfei On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > I sent out an email a week or so ago about rebooting the 6tisch security > effort. I'd like to use JITSI for meetings at > https://jitsi.tools.ietf.org/ > [the DHCPv6-BIS team has been using it quite successfully for a few months] > (webex is increasingly hostile to non-windows platforms) > > I've cleared out the list, and added the following people back in based > upon > replies: > > thomas.watteyne@inria.fr > savio.sciancalepore@gmail.com > Pascal Thubert > max pritikin > Giuseppe Piro > Michael Richardson > Michael Behringer > Randy Turner > > I hope that we can have a meeting on May 13, 13:15UTC using: > https://jitsi.tools.ietf.org/6tischsecurity > > I think that we might need a few more people, perhaps: > Tengfei Chang > ?? > > This is 45 minutes before the regular 6tisch meeting. > > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > -- Chang Tengfei, Pre-Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria --001a114235b6426cde05322da9ff Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Michael,

I am very glad to attend th= e meeting, though I think I am not an expert on security.
Very mu= ch looking forward to help on the topic!

Tengfei

On Fri,= May 6, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

I sent out an email a week or so ago about rebooting the 6tisch security effort.=C2=A0 I'd like to use JITSI for meetings at https://jitsi.t= ools.ietf.org/
[the DHCPv6-BIS team has been using it quite successfully for a few months]=
(webex is increasingly hostile to non-windows platforms)

I've cleared out the list, and added the following people back in based= upon
replies:

thomas.watteyne@inria.fr savio.sciancalepore@gmail.= com
Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com= >
max pritikin <pritikin@cisco.com>
Giuseppe Piro <peppe@giuseppep= iro.com>
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@= sandelman.ca>
Michael Behringer <mbehring@cisco.= com>
Randy Turner <rturner@amalf= isystems.com>

I hope that we can have a meeting on May 13, 13:15UTC using:
=C2=A0 https://jitsi.tools.ietf.org/6tischsecurity
I think that we might need a few more people, perhaps:
=C2=A0 Tengfei Chang <tengfei= .chang@gmail.com>
??

This is 45 minutes before the regular 6tisch meeting.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@= sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
=C2=A0-=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-






--
Chang Tengfei,
Pre-Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria
--001a114235b6426cde05322da9ff-- From nobody Sat May 7 12:41:22 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366C512D0B9 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 May 2016 12:41:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OKGuRWeIBGVG for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 May 2016 12:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB59A12B05D for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 May 2016 12:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A04920183; Sat, 7 May 2016 15:46:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E15638BD; Sat, 7 May 2016 15:41:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Tengfei Chang In-Reply-To: References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 19:41:21 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Tengfei Chang wrote: > I am very glad to attend the meeting, though I think I am not an expert on > security. > Very much looking forward to help on the topic! I want to have implementers on the list, and you are doing OpenWSN things as I recall. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEVAwUBVy5E3ICLcPvd0N1lAQLkgQf/bKKQpdBxPOAk3Df4doR7j9vd9LQYUZl+ QT7ci9B/rBMPocCBYpkBFZjeAG7ksP59se2s4g1w6McUw7GQSyzx2Ttci8R6gdk8 DMh3Nkaq6Ra7/ud0xD+HPz4KFQR58ZfzwrY873Hh42HKNuCOW0jsDi9G8Thr9qyK nmsps6G6Hp1QeRWmyv2FyaIEua/t2449ngfxDhSJJJw3GwzF+HzMMCsGWhqJDeZ+ B+4BSfkHuvwNXVFn7Q0taRaQ36q8PphcLU6R1Xl4VvxIQ6Il3a/5vJTZSYnb6urN ajaUJFqieK6yeqHA403cx/jabFZY99QEiJKdzmQOAyDQwUAVDLL//Q== =Lkz5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Sun May 8 09:52:32 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE70612D167 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2016 09:52:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CRQ1463-uhkf for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2016 09:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9796D12D0AC for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 May 2016 09:52:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,596,1454972400"; d="scan'208,217";a="217301278" Received: from mail-lf0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 08 May 2016 18:52:27 +0200 Received: by mail-lf0-f54.google.com with SMTP id u64so178533139lff.3 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 May 2016 09:52:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWKIRNnspHDOlMKj91uuw8WnQZjdC1EwEixu/3RwJIU7jii/kATnU8n9mmQQaCIaHepJKHpNRJi34Si2Q== X-Received: by 10.25.8.204 with SMTP id 195mr11444967lfi.132.1462726347319; Sun, 08 May 2016 09:52:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.149.195 with HTTP; Sun, 8 May 2016 09:52:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca> From: Thomas Watteyne Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 18:52:07 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Michael Richardson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ebdc455f09405325784a4 Archived-At: Cc: Tengfei Chang , 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 May 2016 16:52:32 -0000 --001a113ebdc455f09405325784a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Michael, Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the security call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the action items we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call. Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for all? Thomas On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Tengfei Chang wrote: > > I am very glad to attend the meeting, though I think I am not an > expert on > > security. > > Very much looking forward to help on the topic! > > I want to have implementers on the list, and you are doing OpenWSN things > as > I recall. > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch-security mailing list > 6tisch-security@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security > > -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --001a113ebdc455f09405325784a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Michael,

Great! I would like to move fa= st on this, and suggest to have the security call at least 24 before the me= eting so that we can complete the action items we will have discussed by th= e time of the 6TiSCH call.

Would Thursday 7am Paci= fic (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for all?

Th= omas

O= n Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.= ca> wrote:

Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@= gmail.com> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > I am very glad to attend the meeting, though I think I a= m not an expert on
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > security.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Very much looking forward to help on the topic!

I want to have implementers on the list, and you are doing OpenWSN t= hings as
I recall.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@= sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
=C2=A0-=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-




_______________________________________________
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-security@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-se= curity




--
_____________________= __________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist= & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Found= er & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswat= teyne.com
_______________________________________
--001a113ebdc455f09405325784a4-- From nobody Sun May 8 19:47:28 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF4E12D1AA for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2016 19:47:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aJZztZI5XePd for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2016 19:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7BA912D1A2 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 May 2016 19:47:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6303; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1462762045; x=1463971645; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=7XSXc7ktCOk8e3/Kh868R9Rj0n+vZzOb3+rQCXS4QH4=; b=XSdKftRmfrODw3tfMmZOcSBUgN75qOpuGZalGjK/xTHJzUUYKwfq4ebe P/VHprW3c1VjQHZJzXrep8dAjxfOkPDEO0ulnNIOonhEBQMqf9kgppQ+y m/IF1lUVx9P1IK6eQ3PMrXl3ramsNEjfNdk33ew6RtxNXI4PhaAeGxPZz E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BoAgD7+S9X/5ldJa1SDIM4VX2tIoZuh?= =?us-ascii?q?HQBDYF2FwEKgjyCaEoCgSE4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RCAQEEAQEBGk4DCxACAQgYHQo?= =?us-ascii?q?HIQYLFBECBA4FiBUDEw65RA2EPQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARWGIIF2C?= =?us-ascii?q?IJOgTkBgQmBSQFwgm2CLgWXcTEBjCKBeY8Xh1iHYgEeAQFCghKBWW6JBgEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,599,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217";a="269603580" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 May 2016 02:47:11 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u492lBBH017245 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 May 2016 02:47:11 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sun, 8 May 2016 21:47:11 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Sun, 8 May 2016 21:47:11 -0500 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Thomas Watteyne Thread-Topic: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings Thread-Index: AQHRqJhx+6lMksmm6kKCGfEsQBt55J+vlomAgABScWE= Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 02:47:11 +0000 Message-ID: <6CF39DB8-C39F-4947-9E6E-47357E956EC9@cisco.com> References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6CF39DB8C39F49479E6E47357E956EC9ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson , Tengfei Chang , 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 02:47:27 -0000 --_000_6CF39DB8C39F49479E6E47357E956EC9ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Not for me, Thomas but I can do 8AM... Regards, Pascal Le 8 mai 2016 ? 18:52, Thomas Watteyne > a ?crit : Michael, Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the security = call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the action item= s we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call. Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for all? Thomas On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: Tengfei Chang > wro= te: > I am very glad to attend the meeting, though I think I am not an expe= rt on > security. > Very much looking forward to help on the topic! I want to have implementers on the list, and you are doing OpenWSN things a= s I recall. -- Michael Richardson >,= Sandelman Software Works -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D- _______________________________________________ 6tisch-security mailing list 6tisch-security@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ 6tisch-security mailing list 6tisch-security@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security --_000_6CF39DB8C39F49479E6E47357E956EC9ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Not for me, Thomas but I can do 8AM...


Regards,

Pascal

Le 8 mai 2016 à 18:52, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> a écrit :
Michael,

Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the secu= rity call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the action= items we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call.

Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for all?=

Thomas

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Michael Richards= on <mcr+= ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@= gmail.com> wrote:
    > I am very glad to attend the meeting, though I think I a= m not an expert on
    > security.
    > Very much looking forward to help on the topic!

I want to have implementers on the list, and you are doing OpenWSN t= hings as
I recall.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+I= ETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-




_______________________________________________
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-security@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-se= curity




--
________= _______________________________

Thomas W= atteyne, PhD
Research= Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Netwo= rking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder = & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair= , IETF 6TiSCH

________= _______________________________
_______________________________________________
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-security@ietf.org<= /a>
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security
--_000_6CF39DB8C39F49479E6E47357E956EC9ciscocom_-- From nobody Sun May 8 22:13:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E309C12B029 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2016 22:13:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id urJPq6qa7oj7 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2016 22:13:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E436412B026 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 May 2016 22:13:37 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,599,1454972400"; d="scan'208,217";a="217326923" Received: from mail-lf0-f49.google.com ([209.85.215.49]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 09 May 2016 07:13:35 +0200 Received: by mail-lf0-f49.google.com with SMTP id j8so187160377lfd.2 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 May 2016 22:13:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FX2DWIrZhJPVwKqAm9hHT/4uZOGrLGvvc6vR3RdGP2IWi9qR8GZRrw2a3WothYq5UXBS9kyJgBLDdlxWQ== X-Received: by 10.25.216.106 with SMTP id p103mr14507323lfg.16.1462770814713; Sun, 08 May 2016 22:13:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.149.195 with HTTP; Sun, 8 May 2016 22:13:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6CF39DB8-C39F-4947-9E6E-47357E956EC9@cisco.com> References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <6CF39DB8-C39F-4947-9E6E-47357E956EC9@cisco.com> From: Thomas Watteyne Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 07:13:14 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140d0cacc8420053261dee4 Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson , Tengfei Chang , 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 05:13:41 -0000 --001a1140d0cacc8420053261dee4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hmm. I can anytime except 8-9am Pacific. The easiest is probably to fill out http://doodle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5= . Please do; we'll make a decision in 24h. Thomas On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > Not for me, Thomas but I can do 8AM... > > > Regards, > > Pascal > > Le 8 mai 2016 =C3=A0 18:52, Thomas Watteyne a > =C3=A9crit : > > Michael, > > Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the securit= y > call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the action > items we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call. > > Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for all? > > Thomas > > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: > >> >> Tengfei Chang wrote: >> > I am very glad to attend the meeting, though I think I am not an >> expert on >> > security. >> > Very much looking forward to help on the topic! >> >> I want to have implementers on the list, and you are doing OpenWSN thing= s >> as >> I recall. >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >> -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D- >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tisch-security mailing list >> 6tisch-security@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security >> >> > > > -- > _______________________________________ > > Thomas Watteyne, PhD > Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria > Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech > Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN > Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH > > www.thomaswatteyne.com > _______________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch-security mailing list > 6tisch-security@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security > > --=20 _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --001a1140d0cacc8420053261dee4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hmm. I can anytime except 8-9am Pacific.

The easiest is probably to fill out http://doodle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5. Please do; we&#= 39;ll make a decision in 24h.

Thomas

On Mon, May 9, 2016= at 4:47 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>= wrote:
Not for me, Thomas but I can do 8AM...


Regards,

Pascal

Le 8 mai 2016 =C3=A0 18:52, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> a =C3= =A9crit=C2=A0:

Michael,

Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the secu= rity call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the action= items we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call.

Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for all?=

Thomas

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Michael Richards= on <mcr+ietf@san= delman.ca> wrote:

Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > I am very glad to attend the meeting, though I think I a= m not an expert on
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > security.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Very much looking forward to help on the topic!

I want to have implementers on the list, and you are doing OpenWSN t= hings as
I recall.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
=C2=A0-=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-




_______________________________________________
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-securi= ty@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-se= curity




--
________= _______________________________

Thomas W= atteyne, PhD
Research= Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Netwo= rking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder = & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair= , IETF 6TiSCH

________= _______________________________
_______________________________________________
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-= security@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security



--
_______________________= ________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist= & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Found= er & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswat= teyne.com
_______________________________________
--001a1140d0cacc8420053261dee4-- From nobody Mon May 9 00:26:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0C512B05E for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2016 00:26:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dxi97phEveBe for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2016 00:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32D0512B012 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2016 00:26:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10271; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1462778795; x=1463988395; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=+nTL6yyq31fuOlsTSQGImDjr45QSVLBNv47YYLmpv00=; b=aoYSjjBe/1ZNkL8g2BAFv0WlDJ089jn1R0pgjzPjs3SmywEhax03lpYL WdSX2LNqCtjo3qwCvkd9QwSU8Lw9TEaeGt5h32M0owVp7zq2PFNlgpHVt bNDlwTe7LbTF1jMQNDyrX1FNi+0Eugh9BICCt5rhRtZ9xsyFjSh2RMvbi g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B4AgBQOjBX/4YNJK1SDIM4VX2tIYZuh?= =?us-ascii?q?HQBDYF2FwEKgjyCaEoCgSQ4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RCAQEEAQEBGk4DCxACAQgYJwc?= =?us-ascii?q?hBgsUEQIEDgWIFQMTDrlsDYQ9AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFYYggXaCV?= =?us-ascii?q?oE5AYEJgUkBcIJtgi4Fl3ExAYV8hiaBeYFpToQBiF+HWIdiAR4BAUKCEoFZbok?= =?us-ascii?q?GAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,600,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217";a="100457975" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 May 2016 07:26:34 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (xch-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.15]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u497QYI1001174 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 May 2016 07:26:34 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 9 May 2016 02:26:33 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 9 May 2016 02:26:33 -0500 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Thomas Watteyne Thread-Topic: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings Thread-Index: AQHRqJhx+6lMksmm6kKCGfEsQBt55J+vlomAgABScWGAAHygAP//0W78 Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 07:26:33 +0000 Message-ID: <89FB23FC-A85A-40C5-AFD8-D2301AC9AA15@cisco.com> References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <6CF39DB8-C39F-4947-9E6E-47357E956EC9@cisco.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_89FB23FCA85A40C5AFD8D2301AC9AA15ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Michael Richardson , Tengfei Chang , 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 07:26:37 -0000 --_000_89FB23FCA85A40C5AFD8D2301AC9AA15ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Then let's Keep it at 7Am if people like that time, Thomas. I'll organize the Webex but attend on the side. I'm not contributing much anyway so listening to the recording will do : ) Please confirm the time when you are sure, Regards, Pascal Le 9 mai 2016 ? 07:13, Thomas Watteyne > a ?crit : Hmm. I can anytime except 8-9am Pacific. The easiest is probably to fill out http://doodle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5= . Please do; we'll make a decision in 24h. Thomas On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > wrote: Not for me, Thomas but I can do 8AM... Regards, Pascal Le 8 mai 2016 ? 18:52, Thomas Watteyne > a ?crit : Michael, Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the security = call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the action item= s we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call. Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for all? Thomas On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: Tengfei Chang > wro= te: > I am very glad to attend the meeting, though I think I am not an expe= rt on > security. > Very much looking forward to help on the topic! I want to have implementers on the list, and you are doing OpenWSN things a= s I recall. -- Michael Richardson >,= Sandelman Software Works -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D- _______________________________________________ 6tisch-security mailing list 6tisch-security@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ 6tisch-security mailing list 6tisch-security@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --_000_89FB23FCA85A40C5AFD8D2301AC9AA15ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Then let's Keep it at 7Am if people like that time, Thomas.

I'll organize the Webex but attend on the si= de.

I'm not contributing much anyway so listenin= g to the recording will do : )

Please confirm the time when you are sure,

Regards,

Pascal

Le 9 mai 2016 à 07:13, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> a écrit :
Hmm. I can anytime except 8-9am Pacific.

The easiest is probably to fill out http://doodle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5. Please do; we'll make a decisi= on in 24h.

Thomas

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Pascal Thubert (= pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
Not for me, Thomas but I can do 8AM...


Regards,

Pascal

Le 8 mai 2016 à 18:52, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> a &ea= cute;crit :

Michael,

Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the secu= rity call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the action= items we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call.

Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for all?=

Thomas

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Michael Richards= on <mcr+= ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I am very glad to attend the meeting, though I think I a= m not an expert on
    > security.
    > Very much looking forward to help on the topic!

I want to have implementers on the list, and you are doing OpenWSN t= hings as
I recall.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-




_______________________________________________
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-securi= ty@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-se= curity




--
________= _______________________________

Thomas W= atteyne, PhD
Research= Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Netwo= rking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder = & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair= , IETF 6TiSCH

________= _______________________________
_______________________________________________
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-= security@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security



--
________= _______________________________

Thomas W= atteyne, PhD
Research= Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Netwo= rking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder = & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair= , IETF 6TiSCH

________= _______________________________
--_000_89FB23FCA85A40C5AFD8D2301AC9AA15ciscocom_-- From nobody Mon May 9 07:53:11 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE4812D509 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2016 07:53:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aQaWVVK1M3Ko for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2016 07:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3109C12B007 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2016 07:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545CF200A3 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2016 10:58:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F30C638BD for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2016 10:53:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 14:53:09 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Thomas Watteyne wrote: > Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the > security > call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the action > items > we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call. I had already proposed to have the meeting 45 minutes before the 6tisch call, but to do it weekly. > Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for all? It would not work for me on a sufficient number of Thursdays that it would be a problem. Thomas Watteyne wrote: > Would you agree that the agenda for the next sec meeting is to identify > the potential for using Object Security for secure joining a 6TiSCH > network, and that the homework to prepare is to read: > - [high] draft-selander-ace-object-security > - [med] draft-ietf-cose-msg > - [low] draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe > - [low] draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs > - [low] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz I'm fortunate that I've read most of these documents in detail. I agree that this is an important thing to consider. I want to point out that OSCOAP does not have a clear session key exchange protocol as yet (several ideas proposed), and once it does, it still needs to do enough certificate processing and ownership voucher analysis to enable the security. I had proposed DTLS/COAP (are we calling this coaps yet.. rhymes with soaps?) with blockwise support. From my point of view, sitting inside the unconstrained JCE, it matters little if it's OSCOAP (security inside COAP) vs DTLS/COAP (security outside of COAP). They seem to have the same essential properties in the end. **to the constrained node it matters that we reuse as much code as possible** -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEVAwUBVzCkTYCLcPvd0N1lAQIllwf8DU5HDwg4WVqd9zVqhqCv0IEUEMiFd1uB a3YJLOS7eYG+/I1WLXpT4g2ugCFprzq+f2q6qxn8nuNER/99qbjeEIAwOGNlXrTa tElCJE2IU7H3xAEspvwydS9heaJfOt018wpM0aAjrzdSTwKJ5MV9Q5c/wPPoGFTM BHtw038Kpc2ZixFPg74o5vfsCN/zLfJToSa5/REwmiBZhjT3WIdVPMbS9vnJvlr8 ATmcePikgN/3AcX+eugA5JpRHkOPQ/KuycMF8uxrKyP6VgJA4ovtv/7fDEEmnhaU uDFeQiWRq/MAplh0MEzKiNnVtff5QS4g11k9pcmuvrJxG7rd3r+t6w== =f5YR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Tue May 10 00:38:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B15412D1BE for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:38:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3yaF2rdYM07H for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D264412D1C8 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:37:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,604,1454972400"; d="scan'208,217";a="177186422" Received: from mail-lf0-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 10 May 2016 09:37:56 +0200 Received: by mail-lf0-f45.google.com with SMTP id j8so5036600lfd.2 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:37:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW5ZFsQTOETP8q1o+qYX8yCbdEIl99HbWggyTP6VOoMjUdNx6R0BWjY0G6eoLnEq0a3IyV2F5nBxCOQzQ== X-Received: by 10.25.216.106 with SMTP id p103mr16975394lfg.16.1462865875540; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:37:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.149.195 with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:37:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6807.1462805584@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <6807.1462805584@obiwan.sandelman.ca> From: Thomas Watteyne Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 09:37:35 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Michael Richardson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140d0cadda25d05327800d6 Archived-At: Cc: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 07:38:00 -0000 --001a1140d0cadda25d05327800d6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Reminder, fill in http://doodle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5 in the next hours. On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Thomas Watteyne wrote: > > Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the > > security > > call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the > action > > items > > we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call. > > I had already proposed to have the meeting 45 minutes before the 6tisch > call, > but to do it weekly. > > > > Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for > all? > > It would not work for me on a sufficient number of Thursdays that it would > be > a problem. > > Thomas Watteyne wrote: > > Would you agree that the agenda for the next sec meeting is to > identify > > the potential for using Object Security for secure joining a 6TiSCH > > network, and that the homework to prepare is to read: > > > - [high] draft-selander-ace-object-security > > - [med] draft-ietf-cose-msg > > - [low] draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe > > - [low] draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs > > - [low] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz > > I'm fortunate that I've read most of these documents in detail. > I agree that this is an important thing to consider. > > I want to point out that OSCOAP does not have a clear session key exchange > protocol as yet (several ideas proposed), and once it does, it still needs > to > do enough certificate processing and ownership voucher analysis to enable > the > security. > > I had proposed DTLS/COAP (are we calling this coaps yet.. rhymes with > soaps?) > with blockwise support. From my point of view, sitting inside the > unconstrained JCE, it matters little if it's OSCOAP (security inside COAP) > vs > DTLS/COAP (security outside of COAP). They seem to have the same essential > properties in the end. > > **to the constrained node it matters that we reuse as much code as > possible** > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch-security mailing list > 6tisch-security@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security > > -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --001a1140d0cadda25d05327800d6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reminder, fill in=C2=A0http://doodle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5 in the next ho= urs.

On Mon,= May 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watt= eyne@inria.fr> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to= have the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > security
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can compl= ete the action
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > items
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call.
I had already proposed to have the meeting 45 minutes before the 6ti= sch call,
but to do it weekly.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting)= work for all?

It would not work for me on a sufficient number of Thursdays that it= would be
a problem.

Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watt= eyne@inria.fr> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Would you agree that the agenda for the next sec meeting= is to identify
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > the potential for using Object Security for secure joini= ng a 6TiSCH
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > network, and that the homework to prepare is to read:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [high] draft-selander-ace-object-security
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [med] draft-ietf-cose-msg
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [low] draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [low] draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [low] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz

I'm fortunate that I've read most of these documents in deta= il.
I agree that this is an important thing to consider.

I want to point out that OSCOAP does not have a clear session key exchange<= br> protocol as yet (several ideas proposed), and once it does, it still needs = to
do enough certificate processing and ownership voucher analysis to enable t= he
security.

I had proposed DTLS/COAP (are we calling this coaps yet.. rhymes with soaps= ?)
with blockwise support.=C2=A0 From my point of view, sitting inside the
unconstrained JCE, it matters little if it's OSCOAP (security inside CO= AP) vs
DTLS/COAP (security outside of COAP).=C2=A0 They seem to have the same esse= ntial
properties in the end.

**to the constrained node it matters that we reuse as much code as possible= **

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@= sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
=C2=A0-=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-




_______________________________________________
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-security@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-se= curity




--
_____________________= __________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist= & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Found= er & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswat= teyne.com
_______________________________________
--001a1140d0cadda25d05327800d6-- From nobody Tue May 10 00:43:22 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3431D12B03E for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:43:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NwT_RZnlWjCi for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D8BF12B024 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:43:18 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,604,1454972400"; d="scan'208,217";a="177187357" Received: from mail-lf0-f53.google.com ([209.85.215.53]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 10 May 2016 09:43:16 +0200 Received: by mail-lf0-f53.google.com with SMTP id u64so5156938lff.3 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:43:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FX5qtT/AjDxp+CtYVNLtJFoFsaJhXXH55AwvHaKeFOnwifvDNhkRPNvkP+a/I1xEbzxkH6KweAnhUFhFw== X-Received: by 10.112.141.71 with SMTP id rm7mr17161164lbb.56.1462866196058; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:43:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.149.195 with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2016 00:42:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <6807.1462805584@obiwan.sandelman.ca> From: Thomas Watteyne Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 09:42:55 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Michael Richardson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33b1cf8594005327813b3 Archived-At: Cc: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 07:43:21 -0000 --001a11c33b1cf8594005327813b3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 PS: please note that one of the first discussion items is to fix a discussion slot for possible periodic calls. On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Watteyne wrote: > Reminder, fill in http://doodle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5 in the next > hours. > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: > >> >> Thomas Watteyne wrote: >> > Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the >> > security >> > call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the >> action >> > items >> > we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call. >> >> I had already proposed to have the meeting 45 minutes before the 6tisch >> call, >> but to do it weekly. >> >> >> > Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for >> all? >> >> It would not work for me on a sufficient number of Thursdays that it >> would be >> a problem. >> >> Thomas Watteyne wrote: >> > Would you agree that the agenda for the next sec meeting is to >> identify >> > the potential for using Object Security for secure joining a 6TiSCH >> > network, and that the homework to prepare is to read: >> >> > - [high] draft-selander-ace-object-security >> > - [med] draft-ietf-cose-msg >> > - [low] draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe >> > - [low] draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs >> > - [low] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz >> >> I'm fortunate that I've read most of these documents in detail. >> I agree that this is an important thing to consider. >> >> I want to point out that OSCOAP does not have a clear session key exchange >> protocol as yet (several ideas proposed), and once it does, it still >> needs to >> do enough certificate processing and ownership voucher analysis to enable >> the >> security. >> >> I had proposed DTLS/COAP (are we calling this coaps yet.. rhymes with >> soaps?) >> with blockwise support. From my point of view, sitting inside the >> unconstrained JCE, it matters little if it's OSCOAP (security inside >> COAP) vs >> DTLS/COAP (security outside of COAP). They seem to have the same >> essential >> properties in the end. >> >> **to the constrained node it matters that we reuse as much code as >> possible** >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tisch-security mailing list >> 6tisch-security@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security >> >> > > > -- > _______________________________________ > > Thomas Watteyne, PhD > Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria > Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech > Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN > Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH > > www.thomaswatteyne.com > _______________________________________ > -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --001a11c33b1cf8594005327813b3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
PS: please note that one of the first discussion items is = to fix a discussion slot for possible periodic calls.

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:37 AM, = Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> wrote:
=
Reminder, fill in=C2=A0http://do= odle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5 in the next hours.

On Mon, Ma= y 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>= ; wrote:

Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to= have the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > security
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can compl= ete the action
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > items
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call.
I had already proposed to have the meeting 45 minutes before the 6ti= sch call,
but to do it weekly.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting)= work for all?

It would not work for me on a sufficient number of Thursdays that it= would be
a problem.

Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Would you agree that the agenda for the next sec meeting= is to identify
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > the potential for using Object Security for secure joini= ng a 6TiSCH
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > network, and that the homework to prepare is to read:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [high] draft-selander-ace-object-security
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [med] draft-ietf-cose-msg
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [low] draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [low] draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [low] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz

I'm fortunate that I've read most of these documents in deta= il.
I agree that this is an important thing to consider.

I want to point out that OSCOAP does not have a clear session key exchange<= br> protocol as yet (several ideas proposed), and once it does, it still needs = to
do enough certificate processing and ownership voucher analysis to enable t= he
security.

I had proposed DTLS/COAP (are we calling this coaps yet.. rhymes with soaps= ?)
with blockwise support.=C2=A0 From my point of view, sitting inside the
unconstrained JCE, it matters little if it's OSCOAP (security inside CO= AP) vs
DTLS/COAP (security outside of COAP).=C2=A0 They seem to have the same esse= ntial
properties in the end.

**to the constrained node it matters that we reuse as much code as possible= **

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
=C2=A0-=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-




______________________________= _________________
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-securi= ty@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-se= curity



<= br>
--
_______________________= ________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist= & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Found= er & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswat= teyne.com
_______________________________________



--
_______________________= ________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist= & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Found= er & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswat= teyne.com
_______________________________________
--001a11c33b1cf8594005327813b3-- From nobody Tue May 10 02:24:59 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BFA612D0C0 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 02:24:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sVQfzizNcE4y for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 02:24:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7733512D58A for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 02:24:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,604,1454972400"; d="scan'208,217";a="177207739" Received: from mail-lf0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 10 May 2016 11:24:27 +0200 Received: by mail-lf0-f44.google.com with SMTP id m64so7859302lfd.1 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 02:24:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXZ/4teQs54ZqOT/tKJg1Y4myFTm/cTC0hMNfC9YN/Jg6Qq6PL1mNBUygrR2HlBfzxyMNdinVCX2RsjBA== X-Received: by 10.25.86.137 with SMTP id k131mr17034272lfb.97.1462872265204; Tue, 10 May 2016 02:24:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.149.195 with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2016 02:24:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <6807.1462805584@obiwan.sandelman.ca> From: Thomas Watteyne Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:24:05 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Michael Richardson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11473758b82c510532797de4 Archived-At: Cc: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 09:24:57 -0000 --001a11473758b82c510532797de4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 All, The most popular date for meeting is Thursday 1pm Paris time. Let's meet then. Thomas On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Watteyne wrote: > PS: please note that one of the first discussion items is to fix a > discussion slot for possible periodic calls. > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Watteyne > wrote: > >> Reminder, fill in http://doodle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5 in the next >> hours. >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Michael Richardson > > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thomas Watteyne wrote: >>> > Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the >>> > security >>> > call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the >>> action >>> > items >>> > we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call. >>> >>> I had already proposed to have the meeting 45 minutes before the 6tisch >>> call, >>> but to do it weekly. >>> >>> >>> > Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for >>> all? >>> >>> It would not work for me on a sufficient number of Thursdays that it >>> would be >>> a problem. >>> >>> Thomas Watteyne wrote: >>> > Would you agree that the agenda for the next sec meeting is to >>> identify >>> > the potential for using Object Security for secure joining a 6TiSCH >>> > network, and that the homework to prepare is to read: >>> >>> > - [high] draft-selander-ace-object-security >>> > - [med] draft-ietf-cose-msg >>> > - [low] draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe >>> > - [low] draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs >>> > - [low] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz >>> >>> I'm fortunate that I've read most of these documents in detail. >>> I agree that this is an important thing to consider. >>> >>> I want to point out that OSCOAP does not have a clear session key >>> exchange >>> protocol as yet (several ideas proposed), and once it does, it still >>> needs to >>> do enough certificate processing and ownership voucher analysis to >>> enable the >>> security. >>> >>> I had proposed DTLS/COAP (are we calling this coaps yet.. rhymes with >>> soaps?) >>> with blockwise support. From my point of view, sitting inside the >>> unconstrained JCE, it matters little if it's OSCOAP (security inside >>> COAP) vs >>> DTLS/COAP (security outside of COAP). They seem to have the same >>> essential >>> properties in the end. >>> >>> **to the constrained node it matters that we reuse as much code as >>> possible** >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 6tisch-security mailing list >>> 6tisch-security@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________ >> >> Thomas Watteyne, PhD >> Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria >> Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech >> Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN >> Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH >> >> www.thomaswatteyne.com >> _______________________________________ >> > > > > -- > _______________________________________ > > Thomas Watteyne, PhD > Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria > Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech > Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN > Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH > > www.thomaswatteyne.com > _______________________________________ > -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --001a11473758b82c510532797de4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All,
The most popular date for meeting is Thursday 1pm= Paris time. Let's meet then.
Thomas



= On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@i= nria.fr> wrote:
PS: please note that one of the first discussion items is to fix a di= scussion slot for possible periodic calls.

On T= ue, May 10, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inri= a.fr> wrote:
Reminder, fill in=C2=A0http://doodle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5 in the nex= t hours.

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sa= ndelman.ca> wrote:

Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to= have the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > security
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can compl= ete the action
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > items
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call.
I had already proposed to have the meeting 45 minutes before the 6ti= sch call,
but to do it weekly.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting)= work for all?

It would not work for me on a sufficient number of Thursdays that it= would be
a problem.

Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Would you agree that the agenda for the next sec meeting= is to identify
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > the potential for using Object Security for secure joini= ng a 6TiSCH
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > network, and that the homework to prepare is to read:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [high] draft-selander-ace-object-security
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [med] draft-ietf-cose-msg
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [low] draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [low] draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > - [low] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz

I'm fortunate that I've read most of these documents in deta= il.
I agree that this is an important thing to consider.

I want to point out that OSCOAP does not have a clear session key exchange<= br> protocol as yet (several ideas proposed), and once it does, it still needs = to
do enough certificate processing and ownership voucher analysis to enable t= he
security.

I had proposed DTLS/COAP (are we calling this coaps yet.. rhymes with soaps= ?)
with blockwise support.=C2=A0 From my point of view, sitting inside the
unconstrained JCE, it matters little if it's OSCOAP (security inside CO= AP) vs
DTLS/COAP (security outside of COAP).=C2=A0 They seem to have the same esse= ntial
properties in the end.

**to the constrained node it matters that we reuse as much code as possible= **

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
=C2=A0-=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-




_________________________________________= ______
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-securi= ty@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-se= curity




--=
__________________________________= _____

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist & Innova= tor, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-l= ead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

<= div style=3D"font-size:small">www.thomaswatteyne.com=
_______________________________________



--
_______________________________________

<= /font>
Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
= Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkele= y OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

__________= _____________________________



--
=
_____________= __________________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research S= cientist & Innovator, Inria
= Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

_______________________________________
--001a11473758b82c510532797de4-- From nobody Tue May 10 07:00:40 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D1212D0DF for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 07:00:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kqj0QBjB0Tdh for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 07:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 382C912B039 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 07:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF03200A3 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 10:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14269638BD for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 10:00:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <6807.1462805584@obiwan.sandelman.ca> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: [6tisch-security] planned meeting at 11:00 UTC, 2016-05-12. X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 14:00:39 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Thomas Watteyne wrote: > The most popular date for meeting is Thursday 1pm Paris time. Let's meet > then. That time is 7am Ottawa; I will need to leave at 7:45am. Can you mark the doodle as decided so that it is reflected in our calendars? I'd prefer to use https://jitsi.tools.ietf.org/6tischSecurity rather than webex, as webex has become more and more hostile to non-windows desktops. Here is an additional link to help those with the time period: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20160512T13&p1=195&p2=188 -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEVAwUBVzHpe4CLcPvd0N1lAQKj+gf/VgOYTPrV9GlvX11Pv3fEqrTvpXN783dE vauJTrVmkjWmcvBLOtSwLR6YwGNnuXLOef2Mpwxc1e+rxbO9mmSQ6m2y3VJOxo6v llElgf1TNd7+UbD+aGL0JnjQHJtGh2SFqexQ9oVqgOi+a/Fqj3wLoKGk0mjgbuOJ tyw2fd8rmbrQwc9T6yF98VdVz5OHpI3vOwAgapy9ldbScsdcwgXG/cZaOj3Z1sGf KW7gIBMDPSUANQRQBCX4ecOGrjUC0h0LxFjWbDokwpQcAERe8Ib84AM2vnZl0D9d JOoBU7SttI8DGsNt32EiikxY00ph+tDh2FcfuoUxPMvpY2oXFTN0hg== =YP4+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Tue May 10 08:11:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40EE12D1B7 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 08:11:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dIcrztsVroxK for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 08:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A15AB12D700 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 08:11:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15626; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1462893076; x=1464102676; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Psw3JaOHHuou+HvSeobadDJEXvukFAyz+B8ksAW16ks=; b=AnShohS/NY9HnqcakxTKH/l6LTE01jBiEwYtYKvh94qYIc8bffeTVuIR Wpfcpl7dW6fBLm+7b12JZcTeGFuy/zQ8lIQ3wdiPj8b1i9riE2hYoiKJ4 ZQYPkGPrEHhiwQG4raoqInU/ylRjHTnJDie3EFjSkxHwdb6izB4Kr0Xms A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A7AgC9+TFX/4YNJK1RAgqCbExVfQa0L?= =?us-ascii?q?oR3AQ2BdhcBCoI8gmhKAoExOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeEQQEBAQMBAQEBGlELBQsCAQg?= =?us-ascii?q?RAwECAScHJwsUCQgCBAENBYgjCA64GwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARWKb?= =?us-ascii?q?IE5AYJSAQpIHoUbBY4XihABhX2IIIFpToIqgVeDKoU3jz8BHgEBQoIFDQ6BS26?= =?us-ascii?q?IC38BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,604,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217";a="106367395" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 May 2016 15:11:15 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4AFBEq0021981 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 10 May 2016 15:11:15 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 10 May 2016 11:11:14 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 10 May 2016 11:11:14 -0400 From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" To: Thomas Watteyne , Michael Richardson Thread-Topic: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings Thread-Index: AQHRqJhw6CgPDiPlAkKyEJrlpk7jR5+vhcaAgAFxEQCAARipgIAAAX6AgAAcRID//+ujAA== Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:11:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <6807.1462805584@obiwan.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.155.84.51] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D35747F716C118ncamwingciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meetings X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:11:39 -0000 --_000_D35747F716C118ncamwingciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Apologies for the late response, as I am in Califorina, 1pm Paris would be = 4am my time which I don't think I can make. I did do a very late response to the doodle.... Nancy From: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Thomas Watteyne > Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:24 AM To: Michael Richardson = > Cc: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] people who have responded -- planned meeting= s All, The most popular date for meeting is Thursday 1pm Paris time. Let's meet th= en. Thomas On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Watteyne > wrote: PS: please note that one of the first discussion items is to fix a discussi= on slot for possible periodic calls. On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Watteyne > wrote: Reminder, fill in http://doodle.com/poll/zugwwi9nkfqg2sk5 in the next hours= . On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: Thomas Watteyne >= wrote: > Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to have the > security > call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can complete the actio= n > items > we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call. I had already proposed to have the meeting 45 minutes before the 6tisch cal= l, but to do it weekly. > Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting) work for all= ? It would not work for me on a sufficient number of Thursdays that it would = be a problem. Thomas Watteyne >= wrote: > Would you agree that the agenda for the next sec meeting is to identi= fy > the potential for using Object Security for secure joining a 6TiSCH > network, and that the homework to prepare is to read: > - [high] draft-selander-ace-object-security > - [med] draft-ietf-cose-msg > - [low] draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe > - [low] draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs > - [low] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz I'm fortunate that I've read most of these documents in detail. I agree that this is an important thing to consider. I want to point out that OSCOAP does not have a clear session key exchange protocol as yet (several ideas proposed), and once it does, it still needs = to do enough certificate processing and ownership voucher analysis to enable t= he security. I had proposed DTLS/COAP (are we calling this coaps yet.. rhymes with soaps= ?) with blockwise support. From my point of view, sitting inside the unconstrained JCE, it matters little if it's OSCOAP (security inside COAP) = vs DTLS/COAP (security outside of COAP). They seem to have the same essential properties in the end. **to the constrained node it matters that we reuse as much code as possible= ** -- Michael Richardson >,= Sandelman Software Works -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D- _______________________________________________ 6tisch-security mailing list 6tisch-security@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --_000_D35747F716C118ncamwingciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Apologies for the late response, as I am in Califorina, 1pm Paris woul= d be 4am my time which I don’t think I can make.
I did do a very late response to the doodle….

Nancy<= /div>

From: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security-bounces@ietf.o= rg> on behalf of Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr>
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:24= AM
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] peop= le who have responded -- planned meetings

All,
The most popular date for meeting is Thursday 1pm Paris time. Let's me= et then.
Thomas



On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Watteyne= <thomas.wa= tteyne@inria.fr> wrote:
PS: please note that one of the first discussion items is = to fix a discussion slot for possible periodic calls.

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Watteyne= <thomas.wa= tteyne@inria.fr> wrote:


Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> wrote:
    > Great! I would like to move fast on this, and suggest to= have the
    > security
    > call at least 24 before the meeting so that we can compl= ete the action
    > items
    > we will have discussed by the time of the 6TiSCH call.
I had already proposed to have the meeting 45 minutes before the 6ti= sch call,
but to do it weekly.


    > Would Thursday 7am Pacific (same time as 6TiSCH meeting)= work for all?

It would not work for me on a sufficient number of Thursdays that it= would be
a problem.

Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> wrote:
    > Would you agree that the agenda for the next sec meeting= is to identify
    > the potential for using Object Security for secure joini= ng a 6TiSCH
    > network, and that the homework to prepare is to read:
    > - [high] draft-selander-ace-object-security
    > - [med] draft-ietf-cose-msg
    > - [low] draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe
    > - [low] draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs
    > - [low] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz

I'm fortunate that I've read most of these documents in detail.
I agree that this is an important thing to consider.

I want to point out that OSCOAP does not have a clear session key exchange<= br> protocol as yet (several ideas proposed), and once it does, it still needs = to
do enough certificate processing and ownership voucher analysis to enable t= he
security.

I had proposed DTLS/COAP (are we calling this coaps yet.. rhymes with soaps= ?)
with blockwise support.  From my point of view, sitting inside the
unconstrained JCE, it matters little if it's OSCOAP (security inside COAP) = vs
DTLS/COAP (security outside of COAP).  They seem to have the same esse= ntial
properties in the end.

**to the constrained node it matters that we reuse as much code as possible= **

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-




_______________________________________________
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-securi= ty@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-se= curity




--
_________= ______________________________

Thomas Wa= tteyne, PhD
Research = Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networ= king Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder &= amp; co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair,= IETF 6TiSCH

_________= ______________________________



--
_________= ______________________________

Thomas Wa= tteyne, PhD
Research = Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networ= king Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder &= amp; co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair,= IETF 6TiSCH

_________= ______________________________



--
_________= ______________________________

Thomas Wa= tteyne, PhD
Research = Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networ= king Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder &= amp; co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair,= IETF 6TiSCH

_________= ______________________________
 --_000_D35747F716C118ncamwingciscocom_-- From nobody Tue May 10 14:00:45 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EECB012D0B4 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:00:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 86N2aHim0J6F for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 328C712B020 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,606,1454972400"; d="scan'208,217";a="177288839" Received: from mail-lf0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 10 May 2016 23:00:39 +0200 Received: by mail-lf0-f46.google.com with SMTP id m64so28733372lfd.1 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:00:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUGzqoCHd3k9M3sKfSJvhNz585b41FQ5kA0V8B9HLSKoV39hSm0wjZp+RY8eaa5q+0hQQLmMi4EyamGKQ== X-Received: by 10.25.8.204 with SMTP id 195mr15433182lfi.132.1462914038747; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:00:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.149.195 with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:00:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <30224.1462888831@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <21545.1462542640@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3938.1462650078@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <6807.1462805584@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <30224.1462888831@obiwan.sandelman.ca> From: Thomas Watteyne Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:00:18 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Michael Richardson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ebdc49ddd5c053283374f Archived-At: Cc: 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] planned meeting at 11:00 UTC, 2016-05-12. X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 21:00:44 -0000 --001a113ebdc49ddd5c053283374f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 inline On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Thomas Watteyne wrote: > > The most popular date for meeting is Thursday 1pm Paris time. Let's > meet > > then. > > That time is 7am Ottawa; I will need to leave at 7:45am. > OK > Can you mark the doodle as decided so that it is reflected in our > calendars? > done > I'd prefer to use https://jitsi.tools.ietf.org/6tischSecurity rather than > webex, as webex has become more and more hostile to non-windows desktops. > sounds good > Here is an additional link to help those with the time period: > > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20160512T13&p1=195&p2=188 > > As for the homework before the call, is this reading list accurate? - [high] draft-selander-ace-object-security - [med] draft-ietf-cose-msg - [low] draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe - [low] draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs - [low] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz > > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch-security mailing list > 6tisch-security@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security > > -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --001a113ebdc49ddd5c053283374f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
inline

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+iet= f@sandelman.ca> wrote:

Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > The most popular date for meeting is Thursday 1pm Paris = time. Let's meet
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > then.

That time is 7am Ottawa; I will need to leave at 7:45am.

OK
=C2=A0
Can you mark th= e doodle as decided so that it is reflected in our calendars?

done
=C2=A0
I'd = prefer to use https://jitsi.tools.ietf.org/6tischSecuri= ty rather than
webex, as webex has become more and more hostile to non-windows desktops.

sounds good
=C2=A0
Here is an additional link to help those with the time period: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso= =3D20160512T13&p1=3D195&p2=3D188


As for the homework before the call, i= s this reading list accurate?

- [high]=C2=A0draft-se= lander-ace-object-security
- [med]= =C2=A0draft-ietf-cose-msg
- [low]=C2=A0draft-sel= ander-ace-cose-ecdhe
- [low]=C2=A0draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs
- = [low]=C2=A0draft-ietf-ace-o= auth-authz

=C2=A0


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
=C2=A0-=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D-




_______________________________________________
6tisch-security mailing list
6tisch-securi= ty@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-se= curity




--
_______________________________________<= /div>
Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Founder & co-lead, UC Berke= ley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

=
________= _______________________________
--001a113ebdc49ddd5c053283374f-- From nobody Thu May 12 15:02:57 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE6B12D507 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2016 15:02:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EgzXhgZlO3k2 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2016 15:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 295C412D0C1 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2016 15:02:53 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,611,1454972400"; d="scan'208,217";a="177648685" Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 13 May 2016 00:02:51 +0200 Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id jj5so17345509lbc.0 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2016 15:02:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV40FlAjoIrB3N80x1o5iYR2afIy2lgkiJ2jp9FVOC1Z8cqEwKXdSj++0sK5CkFS0S6IDkJt4201BVYCw== X-Received: by 10.112.133.1 with SMTP id oy1mr4602726lbb.79.1463090570995; Thu, 12 May 2016 15:02:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.149.195 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2016 15:02:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Watteyne Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 00:02:31 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a88c2c2341f0532ac5104 Archived-At: Subject: [6tisch-security] minutes 12 May 2016 security webex (help needed) X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 22:02:55 -0000 --047d7b3a88c2c2341f0532ac5104 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 All, The Etherpad attached to Jitsi seems to clear when everyone disconnects. I've put some skeleton of minutes at https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/wiki/160512_webex_sec, from memory. Tell me what to add. Thomas -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --047d7b3a88c2c2341f0532ac5104 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All,

The Etherpad attached to Jitsi see= ms to clear when everyone disconnects. I've put some skeleton of minute= s at=C2=A0https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/wiki/160512_webex_sec, fro= m memory.

Tell me what to add.

Thomas

--
<= div dir=3D"ltr">
_______________________________________
<= br>
Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria<= /font>
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC Ber= keley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswatteyne.com
______= _________________________________
--047d7b3a88c2c2341f0532ac5104-- From nobody Thu May 12 15:46:09 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2DB812D50A for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2016 15:46:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TBt4OP0HbZEa for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2016 15:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 778A712D12A for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2016 15:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACCA200A5; Thu, 12 May 2016 18:51:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF5E638BD; Thu, 12 May 2016 18:46:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Thomas Watteyne In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 18:46:05 -0400 Message-ID: <18116.1463093165@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Archived-At: Cc: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] minutes 12 May 2016 security webex (help needed) X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 22:46:08 -0000 Thomas Watteyne wrote: > The Etherpad attached to Jitsi seems to clear when everyone disconne= cts. I've > put some skeleton of minutes at > https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/wiki/160512_webex_sec, from me= mory. I thought I pushed download before hand, but I can't find the file... I'll add to your document in a few minutes... -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networ= ks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architec= t [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails = [ From nobody Fri May 13 05:37:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E5F12D0FA for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:37:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A_JtRHlqzup4 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36D1D12B065 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:37:46 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,614,1454972400"; d="scan'208,217";a="218175972" Received: from mail-lf0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 13 May 2016 14:37:44 +0200 Received: by mail-lf0-f47.google.com with SMTP id m64so87430010lfd.1 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:37:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXeWWzs3aQIY3mtkySHKKV95r2LaQ5PamFgANpk58tjaXdnjcWdwa/uyHRJn4ObojMH0RgWt89rZKWw5w== X-Received: by 10.25.134.138 with SMTP id i132mr6584767lfd.70.1463143064008; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:37:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.149.195 with HTTP; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:37:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Watteyne Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:37:24 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fb7fc95fdca0532b88ac8 Archived-At: Subject: [6tisch-security] 6TiSCH security: start and end states X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 12:37:50 -0000 --001a113fb7fc95fdca0532b88ac8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 All, At the 6TiSCH-sec call yesterday, I was asked to describe what I thought the start and end states of a "6TiSCH minimal security" solution would contain. Here it is. TL;DR: - start: pairwise PSKs - end: K2 start state: - each mote is pre-configured with a key, the same key is written in the JCE together with its MAC address end state: - the JCE has authenticated the mote; the mote has authenticated the JCE - the JCE has installed (through secure session with the JN) key K2. This key is then used for link-layer AUTH+ENV CCM* - the PSK enables a session between the node and the JCE. The JCE uses that session to send commands to the mote to (1) rotate K2, (2) change PSK Thomas -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --001a113fb7fc95fdca0532b88ac8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All,

At the 6TiSCH-sec call yesterday, = I was asked to describe what I thought the start and end states of a "= 6TiSCH minimal security" solution would contain. Here it is.

TL;DR:
- start: pairwise PSKs
- end: K2

start state:
- each mo= te is pre-configured with a key, the same key is written in the JCE togethe= r with its MAC address

end state:
= - the JCE has authenticated the mote; the mote has authenticated the JCE
- the JCE has installed (through secure = session with the JN) key K2. This key is then used for link-layer AUTH+ENV = CCM*
- the PSK enables a session betwe= en the node and the JCE. The JCE uses that session to send commands to the = mote to (1) rotate K2, (2) change PSK

Thomas=

--
_______________________________________

=
Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkel= ey OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

<= div style=3D"font-size:small">_________= ______________________________
--001a113fb7fc95fdca0532b88ac8-- From nobody Fri May 13 05:41:47 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1808B12D0FA for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:41:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P7p9leOUPptg for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E04B12B01D for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:41:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,614,1454972400"; d="scan'208,217";a="218176590" Received: from mail-lf0-f42.google.com ([209.85.215.42]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 13 May 2016 14:41:42 +0200 Received: by mail-lf0-f42.google.com with SMTP id y84so87965779lfc.0 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:41:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXzCozNRSip7h4u7NovEYNKZYNMmyWUxORjkZmHvNP2vmv5MzKTI+fYZUKW3Nxiy8Qdqs5CoL1lrcrCZQ== X-Received: by 10.25.134.138 with SMTP id i132mr6591514lfd.70.1463143302343; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:41:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.149.195 with HTTP; Fri, 13 May 2016 05:41:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Watteyne Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:41:22 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fb7fccab3af0532b898e5 Archived-At: Subject: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 12:41:46 -0000 --001a113fb7fccab3af0532b898e5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 All, At the 6tisch-sec call yesterday, we discussed three approaches: PSK, RPK and certs. Can someone indicate: - the cost in number of packets of each approach - an idea on the memory footprint of the associate solution - what protocol we can use off-the-shelf, what protocol we need to create Thomas --001a113fb7fccab3af0532b898e5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All,

At the 6tisch-sec call yesterday, = we discussed three approaches:=C2=A0PSK, RPK and certs.

Can someone indicate:
- the cost in number of packets of ea= ch approach
- an idea on the memory footprint of the associate so= lution
- what protocol we can use off-the-shelf, what protocol we= need to create

Thomas
--001a113fb7fccab3af0532b898e5-- From nobody Mon May 16 01:56:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81D612B034 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:56:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.279 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HtWCK-aOpr75 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B677A12B030 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2016 01:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id u4G8uYjx020665 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 May 2016 11:56:34 +0300 (EEST) Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id u4G8uXxT026070; Mon, 16 May 2016 11:56:33 +0300 (EEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <22329.35649.605752.922092@fireball.acr.fi> Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:56:33 +0300 From: Tero Kivinen To: Thomas Watteyne In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (x86_64--netbsd) X-Edit-Time: 22 min X-Total-Time: 22 min Archived-At: Cc: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: [6tisch-security] 6TiSCH security: start and end states X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 08:56:42 -0000 Thomas Watteyne writes: > All, > > At the 6TiSCH-sec call yesterday, I was asked to describe what I thought the > start and end states of a "6TiSCH minimal security" solution would contain. > Here it is. > > TL;DR: > - start: pairwise PSKs > - end: K2 The issue with PSK is that it must be kept secret, meaning it cannot be printed on the mote, it cannot be shared over the network, when it is stored in the system that system must be properly secured, meaning JCE for example requires some kind trusted store which protects all the keys. If anybody manages to find security issue in JCE, this might leak out all the PSK keys used in the network, thus making it very expensive to clean up the network after the security break. Also this kind of setup makes it very easy for the manufacturers, adminstrators or users to misconfigure the system, i.e., configure it so that it uses just one PSK for the whole network (there are already several existing examples of that kind of setups in the IoT market). I described this in the call: Using PSK is like giving them a rope with nice loop in one end that loop fits nicely for their neck, so users can very easily use that loop and hang themselves, even when the instructions of the rope say do not do that. When using raw public keys we are giving them a stick with small hook, and whatever they do they cannot use that to hang themselves. Both offer about same features for normal case, but when misused they have very different properties. > start state: > - each mote is pre-configured with a key, the same key is written in the JCE > together with its MAC address If using raw public keys, each mote has a private and public key pair stored in the device. The hash of the public key and the MAC address can printed on the side of the device (or distributed over internet). That information needs to be protected from modifications, but there is no need for confidentiality for them. Each mote is pre-configured with the hash of the JCE (or it can imprint itself to the first JCE it sees after first boot, making the system completely zero-configuration for the mote). If someone hacks in to the one mote he can fake to be that device (just like with PSKs). On the other hand if someone hacks in to the JCE he will not get credentials for all the motes. During the cleanup phase after such hack, each mote is given a new hash of the public key of the JCE, and for all devices which move to new JCE we know there cannot be attacker between, as the private key of the mote was never leaked. This cleanup can be done over the air as we can still authenticate the mote, and know there cannot be attackers in between. For PSKs we need to go and securely reinstall new PSK for each mote, and we cannot do that over the air as we do not have anything we can use to authenticate the mote. Most of the complains about using raw public keys comes from the cost of doing public key operations, but if we are planning on doing Diffie-Hellman anyways, then we are already doing public key operations, thus there is no reason for using raw public keys for authentication. Also the public key is only needed in the bootstrap, and after that we can use K2 to protecte things on the network. > end state: > - the JCE has authenticated the mote; the mote has authenticated the JCE > - the JCE has installed (through secure session with the JN) key K2. This key > is then used for link-layer AUTH+ENV CCM* > - the PSK enables a session between the node and the JCE. The JCE uses that > session to send commands to the mote to (1) rotate K2, (2) change PSK For raw public keys, the 2nd case there would be to give the mote a new hash of the JCE public key when the device needs to move to the new JCE after hacking incident. -- kivinen@iki.fi From nobody Mon May 16 02:51:22 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2CA12D0A7 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2016 02:51:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Zzcex8BHKyX for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2016 02:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F49112B077 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2016 02:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id u4G9pIgq020586 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 May 2016 12:51:18 +0300 (EEST) Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id u4G9pH8s013359; Mon, 16 May 2016 12:51:17 +0300 (EEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <22329.38933.591141.244689@fireball.acr.fi> Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 12:51:17 +0300 From: Tero Kivinen To: Thomas Watteyne In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (x86_64--netbsd) X-Edit-Time: 16 min X-Total-Time: 54 min Archived-At: Cc: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:51:21 -0000 Thomas Watteyne writes: > At the 6tisch-sec call yesterday, we discussed three approaches:=A0PS= K, RPK and > certs. I am using IKEv2 as an example here, mostly because that is what I know best. > Can someone indicate: > - the cost in number of packets of each approach In IKEv2 all except EAP uses 2 pairs of messages, i.e., 4 in total. The first exchange does the Diffie-Hellman and its size depends mostly on the Diffie-Hellman group used. Second exchange does the authentication and its size depends on the authentication. For the PSK AUTH payload is size of the HASH, i.e., 32 bytes for the SHA2-256. For certs and raw public key it is signature, thus about same as public key, and for 256-bit EC it is about same size than PSK hash, i.e., no real difference there. For both raw public key and certificates there is need to transmit the public key during the exchange too unless the other end already knows it. For raw public keys, the 256-bit EC key is about 100 bytes. Certificates are usually in the order of 500-1000 bytes, which makes them too large for normal use in the IoT. You can of course transmit only the pointer to the certificate in IKEv2, and then the JCE can fetch the certificate from network.=20 > - an idea on the memory footprint of the associate solution If you already have Diffie-Hellman public key operations, then I do not think adding public and private key operations uses too much memory footprint.=20 > - what protocol we can use off-the-shelf, what protocol we need to > create I would recommend using existing key management protocols. Taking existing crypto protocol and making key management protocol out of that, is not that hard, but unless you really know what you are doing and even then, there is possibility that the way you use things are not safe. Especially if someone then later uses your protocol in a way which was not originally asssumed. For example TLS history has several examples of such issues. Secure shell, and IKE had their own issues too. It is better to take existing protocol and reduce features from it to make it smaller and suitable to IoT than to create completely new protocol and hope it is safe. For example I have already implemented minimal IKEv2 and that was less than 1000 lines of code (either python or perl, not counting crypto libraries).=20 --=20 kivinen@iki.fi From nobody Mon May 16 22:50:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218B912D505 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2016 22:50:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.325 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NruQqVjV7EKg for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2016 22:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C72C12D519 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2016 22:50:26 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,323,1459807200"; d="scan'208,217";a="218482477" Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 17 May 2016 07:50:24 +0200 Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id g17so11076647wme.1 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2016 22:50:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV0yCLSQZi21PLjTvySbqSaJdEoyMOoF1mRaJoPCQGkpMMLdDDismDsG+1JNhANhyUPX+ICZXUXTfiQpg== X-Received: by 10.28.232.212 with SMTP id f81mr23055879wmi.27.1463464224373; Mon, 16 May 2016 22:50:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.62.136 with HTTP; Mon, 16 May 2016 22:50:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <22329.38933.591141.244689@fireball.acr.fi> References: <22329.38933.591141.244689@fireball.acr.fi> From: Thomas Watteyne Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 08:50:04 +0300 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Tero Kivinen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1146ad863c4547053303519c Archived-At: Cc: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 05:50:29 -0000 --001a1146ad863c4547053303519c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Tero, Thanks for the details. Great to read the overhead of RPK is not that high. I agree with you on reusing existing protocols. Do you have a link to the 1000-line Python implementation of IKEv2? Thomas On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote: > Thomas Watteyne writes: > > At the 6tisch-sec call yesterday, we discussed three approaches: PSK, > RPK and > > certs. > > I am using IKEv2 as an example here, mostly because that is what I > know best. > > > Can someone indicate: > > - the cost in number of packets of each approach > > In IKEv2 all except EAP uses 2 pairs of messages, i.e., 4 in total. > The first exchange does the Diffie-Hellman and its size depends mostly > on the Diffie-Hellman group used. Second exchange does the > authentication and its size depends on the authentication. For the PSK > AUTH payload is size of the HASH, i.e., 32 bytes for the SHA2-256. For > certs and raw public key it is signature, thus about same as public > key, and for 256-bit EC it is about same size than PSK hash, i.e., no > real difference there. > > For both raw public key and certificates there is need to transmit the > public key during the exchange too unless the other end already knows > it. For raw public keys, the 256-bit EC key is about 100 bytes. > Certificates are usually in the order of 500-1000 bytes, which makes > them too large for normal use in the IoT. You can of course > transmit only the pointer to the certificate in IKEv2, and then the > JCE can fetch the certificate from network. > > > - an idea on the memory footprint of the associate solution > > If you already have Diffie-Hellman public key operations, then I do > not think adding public and private key operations uses too much > memory footprint. > > > - what protocol we can use off-the-shelf, what protocol we need to > > create > > I would recommend using existing key management protocols. Taking > existing crypto protocol and making key management protocol out of > that, is not that hard, but unless you really know what you are doing > and even then, there is possibility that the way you use things are > not safe. Especially if someone then later uses your protocol in a way > which was not originally asssumed. For example TLS history has several > examples of such issues. Secure shell, and IKE had their own issues > too. > > It is better to take existing protocol and reduce features from it to > make it smaller and suitable to IoT than to create completely new > protocol and hope it is safe. For example I have already implemented > minimal IKEv2 and that was less than 1000 lines of code (either python > or perl, not counting crypto libraries). > -- > kivinen@iki.fi > -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --001a1146ad863c4547053303519c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tero,
Thanks for the details. Great to read the overhe= ad of RPK is not that high. I agree with you on reusing existing protocols.= Do you have a link to the 1000-line Python implementation of IKEv2?
<= div>Thomas

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Tero Kivinen <<= a href=3D"mailto:kivinen@iki.fi" target=3D"_blank">kivinen@iki.fi> wrote:
Thomas Watt= eyne writes:
> At the 6tisch-sec call yesterday, we discussed three approaches:=C2=A0= PSK, RPK and
> certs.

I am using IKEv2 as an example here, mostly because that is what I know best.

> Can someone indicate:
> - the cost in number of packets of each approach

In IKEv2 all except EAP uses 2 pairs of messages, i.e., 4 in total.<= br> The first exchange does the Diffie-Hellman and its size depends mostly
on the Diffie-Hellman group used. Second exchange does the
authentication and its size depends on the authentication. For the PSK
AUTH payload is size of the HASH, i.e., 32 bytes for the SHA2-256. For
certs and raw public key it is signature, thus about same as public
key, and for 256-bit EC it is about same size than PSK hash, i.e., no
real difference there.

For both raw public key and certificates there is need to transmit the
public key during the exchange too unless the other end already knows
it. For raw public keys, the 256-bit EC key is about 100 bytes.
Certificates are usually in the order of 500-1000 bytes, which makes
them too large for normal use in the IoT. You can of course
transmit only the pointer to the certificate in IKEv2, and then the
JCE can fetch the certificate from network.

> - an idea on the memory footprint of the associate solution

If you already have Diffie-Hellman public key operations, then I do<= br> not think adding public and private key operations uses too much
memory footprint.

> - what protocol we can use off-the-shelf, what protocol we need to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0create

I would recommend using existing key management protocols. Taking existing crypto protocol and making key management protocol out of
that, is not that hard, but unless you really know what you are doing
and even then, there is possibility that the way you use things are
not safe. Especially if someone then later uses your protocol in a way
which was not originally asssumed. For example TLS history has several
examples of such issues. Secure shell, and IKE had their own issues
too.

It is better to take existing protocol and reduce features from it to
make it smaller and suitable to IoT than to create completely new
protocol and hope it is safe. For example I have already implemented
minimal IKEv2 and that was less than 1000 lines of code (either python
or perl, not counting crypto libraries).
--
kivinen@iki.fi



--
___________= ____________________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
=
Research= Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech=
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

_______________________________________<= /div>
--001a1146ad863c4547053303519c-- From nobody Tue May 17 05:00:38 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D8D12D160 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:00:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ih4QCImh-fm8 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 277D812D14A for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id u4HC0Sbi010106 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 May 2016 15:00:28 +0300 (EEST) Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id u4HC0RBq002485; Tue, 17 May 2016 15:00:27 +0300 (EEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <22331.2011.426646.202965@fireball.acr.fi> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:00:27 +0300 From: Tero Kivinen To: Thomas Watteyne In-Reply-To: References: <22329.38933.591141.244689@fireball.acr.fi> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (x86_64--netbsd) X-Edit-Time: 4 min X-Total-Time: 4 min Archived-At: Cc: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:00:37 -0000 Thomas Watteyne writes: > Thanks for the details. Great to read the overhead of RPK is not that high. I > agree with you on reusing existing protocols. Do you have a link to the > 1000-line Python implementation of IKEv2? https://pypi.python.org/pypi/ike I never published my perl version (would have required me to get some permissions etc from the company), but as both of these are mostly just proof of concept type of implementations it does not really matter. But both the perl and python version did work against full IKEv2 version (they of course cannot interoperate as both of them are minimal versions, thus they do not support working as responder). -- kivinen@iki.fi From nobody Tue May 17 05:14:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67B012D86F for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:14:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.345 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BHO3JyBqHaYX for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78C2E12D8AB for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:14:23 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,324,1459807200"; d="scan'208,217";a="178047970" Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 17 May 2016 14:14:21 +0200 Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id a17so27463101wme.0 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:14:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVbsUUbZbISd3RVV5PrX4RtQhOGoKdaLASAuaRAyhfuae9EdAmD2cLvcuxbUYWGQvYCSYTd67bIKQeGnQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.87.72 with SMTP id v8mr1339450wjz.68.1463487261401; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.62.136 with HTTP; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:14:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <22331.2011.426646.202965@fireball.acr.fi> References: <22329.38933.591141.244689@fireball.acr.fi> <22331.2011.426646.202965@fireball.acr.fi> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:14:21 +0300 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: From: Thomas Watteyne To: Tero Kivinen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf1981c598d36053308ae11 Archived-At: Cc: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:14:29 -0000 --047d7bf1981c598d36053308ae11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Awesome, thanks for the pointer On Tuesday, May 17, 2016, Tero Kivinen wrote: > Thomas Watteyne writes: > > Thanks for the details. Great to read the overhead of RPK is not that > high. I > > agree with you on reusing existing protocols. Do you have a link to the > > 1000-line Python implementation of IKEv2? > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/ike > > I never published my perl version (would have required me to get some > permissions etc from the company), but as both of these are mostly > just proof of concept type of implementations it does not really > matter. But both the perl and python version did work against full > IKEv2 version (they of course cannot interoperate as both of them are > minimal versions, thus they do not support working as responder). > -- > kivinen@iki.fi > -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com _______________________________________ --047d7bf1981c598d36053308ae11 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Awesome, thanks for the pointer

On Tuesday, May 17, 201= 6, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>= ; wrote:
Thomas Watteyne writes:
> Thanks for the details. Great to read the overhead of RPK is not that = high. I
> agree with you on reusing existing protocols. Do you have a link to th= e
> 1000-line Python implementation of IKEv2?

https://pypi= .python.org/pypi/ike

I never published my perl version (would have required me to get some
permissions etc from the company), but as both of these are mostly
just proof of concept type of implementations it does not really
matter. But both the perl and python version did work against full
IKEv2 version (they of course cannot interoperate as both of them are
minimal versions, thus they do not support working as responder).
--
kivinen@iki.fi


--
________________= _______________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scie= ntist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
= Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH=
_______________________________________
=

--047d7bf1981c598d36053308ae11-- From nobody Tue May 17 07:27:28 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7910512D658 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 07:27:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fDygndlAZAvt for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E993912D640 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 07:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936AB200A3 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:33:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1AC638BE for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:27:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: "6tisch-security\@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 14:27:27 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Thomas Watteyne wrote: > At the 6tisch-sec call yesterday, we discussed three approaches: PSK, > RPK and certs. Thomas Watteyne wrote: > Can someone indicate: > - the cost in number of packets of each approach I think that this little point in detailing this until one explains the threats and the attacks that are defended against. Full plate armor is much better than chain mail against swords, but fail against bullets. I'm told that chain mail is significant worse than no armor (against bullets) because the chain mail creates shrapnel. Secondly, PSK, RPK and certs are not protocols, but ways to authenticate the DH exchange. They may or may not provide authentication of the host itself. > - what protocol we can use off-the-shelf, what protocol we need to > create We have DTLS and IKEv2. I can imaging using IKEv2 over OSCOAP. It requires two exchanges (four packets). I1 - sample I have is 504 bytes, which includes 12 choices in algorithms (crypto-agility), and a 256 byte modp2048. A ECDH would be much smaller (32 bytes rather than 256). So let's call it 256 bytes. This includes ethernet and IPv4 and UDP overhead. R1 - 404 byte reply. 1 choice, 256 byte g^y, ethernet. I2 - 584 bytes, encrypted response, no certificate. - 1532 bytes, includes 1059 byte RSA certificate (DER encoding) R2 - 1480 bytes, includes certificate of equal size. As I understand OSCOAP, we can send COSE objects, and *THEY* can be signed with an assymetric key, "directly". (well, not directly, there is a still a hash layer inside the signature) If one does that, then potentially one does not need to do a key exchange *at all*. There is a replay concern though which we would need to address. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEVAwUBVzsqQYCLcPvd0N1lAQJdtAf+PHDMxgpXUuR1aWBh+S27Es2Deh3WIWA3 fQk7LTXutR+tMjRvnT//zry2D+zpNrht0+mXoYrcuopVp61uWkhKAHy0Yspnquqy kxPe3gs8za8493m3lQu7ThhVcSKTvHO+0CFrAqnxZJIFkWzA1N8xPrdUDT/vADmA z5TFbXhyY4pufPgURMcAZD/mpVPhijH58bhfFcMmjrxnPRFgbmZs4PCmDJNSrvFW Xz9vzDFpjTrEZXrsUIAu/NOfTlRSSDFZ/YxftIW3z0XO2GFKlw/pRabJtJ+hnaxV 6IMyfqKSTosotmvp3MyG7wBBmcvWgmlsRUukho8Q79ivltOzjLikmg== =tB68 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Tue May 17 07:56:21 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E0712D0D1 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 07:56:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aEJyAEcvT67a for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 07:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F93B12D6CF for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 07:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8033C200A3; Tue, 17 May 2016 11:02:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A95638BE; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:56:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Tero Kivinen In-Reply-To: <22331.2011.426646.202965@fireball.acr.fi> References: <22329.38933.591141.244689@fireball.acr.fi> <22331.2011.426646.202965@fireball.acr.fi> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org>, Thomas Watteyne Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 14:56:17 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Tero Kivinen wrote: > matter. But both the perl and python version did work against full > IKEv2 version (they of course cannot interoperate as both of them are > minimal versions, thus they do not support working as responder). Do you think that a minimal responder (only) would be bigger or smaller? I think smaller. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEVAwUBVzsxDICLcPvd0N1lAQI2wgf/S3x980Ru7pEy7QRlVdyVQYArSvdvdODL 8T2CQtfo1XvfmbTMa8Bfuxq85Nfrvf1/CwKElTi1d3mnK+myM074CemAs9JG8uXF VqTpBrBB/nZfKuFcO4Z99A9oMp8lcARFIa86VOe22aW9/up2kK+lvuaFK2jOirlw ZcV7/G0H//cCBX/Nf292ncY6jlvcr9ahtlKKG191zQmqZfzTeSb4CG5TxfP5mz4W lALD7ru0N86RYjDXv3YLYUjtqXE2egwdwhLwQ9LgvDKLDVv9pMtt1E9TTkPqpney WJs4JnWWm/7rnEHsOOgyInIkFog6NoTN2svWnabDvmk+EM80bIguTw== =4Seu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Tue May 17 10:38:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D199012D74D for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:38:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0L1Be6J6H6L0 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF7D012D5BE for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:38:34 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79386d00000467b-11-573b5719a89b Received: from ESESSHC021.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.81]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FD.63.18043.9175B375; Tue, 17 May 2016 19:38:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB303.ericsson.se ([169.254.3.153]) by ESESSHC021.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 17 May 2016 19:38:32 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?R8O2cmFuIFNlbGFuZGVy?= To: Michael Richardson , Thomas Watteyne , Tero Kivinen , "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? Thread-Index: AQHRrRTRBih1OFaq5kKsO/731mo+wp+9FMIAgABW7YA= Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:38:32 +0000 Message-ID: References: <27404.1463495242@obiwan.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <27404.1463495242@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.3.160329 x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.150] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrEIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7oK5kuHW4wYHtEhbNKxexWxw9/5zN oudQP5D1+j2TA4vHkiU/mTwOf13I4jHpxSEWj5Y5e5gDWKK4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mp5vvsVa 0GNV0Xp7M2MD4xmLLkZODgkBE4nT804yQ9hiEhfurWfrYuTiEBI4wijR/XcPE4SzhFHi69/9 bCBVbAIuEg8aHoElRAS2MErsO7UMrF1YwEbi7aTbQDYHUMJWYvdnQ5CwiICVxLWlK1hBbBYB VYmP3R9ZQEp4BSwkOp/wgISFBColblx+yAJicwoYS7ycdoEdxGYEOuj7qTVMIDazgLjErSfz mSAOFZBYsuc81NGiEi8f/wMbLyqgJ7HvxXlGiLiSxIrtlxhBVjELaEqs36UPMcZa4k1XLyuE rSgxpfsh2CpeAUGJkzOfsExgFJ+FZNsshO5ZSLpnIemehaR7ASPrKkbR4tTi4tx0IyO91KLM 5OLi/Dy9vNSSTYzAmDy45bfVDsaDzx0PMQpwMCrx8D5wsgoXYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMIb5Gkd LsSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZzX/6ViuJBAemJJanZqakFqEUyWiYNTqoFx+QSnp1P2 Vcn7GTgKThf3mP/7pilb0EKpRcf+qbMucDjeo3Ol0+5I8sqX1ue9m6VNLYs6DK92Wr5aVSJs YyX0zkd2wX/hVj5xiYbTDz31lJd/unjzn/x9yX622srW9Xpvw8sWBi//XnrBh09e4Vb9qbic Dq8K1XLhmYtmtj0p/uVyYcL5jyVKLMUZiYZazEXFiQAa21HbxQIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:38:39 -0000 DQpIaQ0KDQpJJ20gc3RpbGwgc3RydWdnbGluZyB3aXRoIHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgdGhlIG9iamVj dGl2ZXMgYW5kIHRoZQ0KYXNzdW1wdGlvbnMuIEhlcmUgaXMgYW4gYXR0ZW1wdCwgcGxlYXNlIGJl YXIgd2l0aCBtZS4NCg0KDQoxLiBJZiBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgZHJhZnQtcmljaGFyZHNvbi02dGlz Y2gtLXNlY3VyaXR5LTZ0b3AtMDUgcmlnaHQsIHRoZQ0Kb2JqZWN0aXZlIG9mIHRoZSBqb2luIHBy b2NlZHVyZSBpcyBmb3IgdGhlIEpOIHRvIG9idGFpbiBlaXRoZXIgKGEpIGENCm5ldHdvcmstd2lk ZSBzaGFyZWQgc3ltbWV0cmljIGtleSAoSSBhc3N1bWUgdGhpcyBpcyBLMikgb3IgKGIpIGFuIDgw Mi4xMUFSDQpMRGV2SUQgY2VydGlmaWNhdGUuDQoNCkNvcnJlY3Qgc28gZmFyPw0KDQoyLiBJc24n dCBhbm90aGVyIG9iamVjdGl2ZSB0byBlc3RhYmxpc2ggc2Vzc2lvbiBrZXlzIGJldHdlZW4gdGhl IEpOIGFuZA0KdGhlIEpDRSB0aGF0IHdpbGwgYmUgdXNlZCBlLmcuIGJ5IEpDRSBmb3IgY29uZmln dXJhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgSk4/IEkNCmFzc3VtZSB0aGF0IGlzIHJlbGV2YW50IGJvdGggZm9yIChh KSBhbmQgKGIpIGFib3ZlLg0KDQozLiBXaGVuIGl0IGNvbWVzIHRvIHdoYXQgaW5pdGlhbCBjcmVk ZW50aWFscyAoUFNLLCBSUEssIG9yIGNlcnRzKSB0byB1c2UNCnRvIGF1dGhlbnRpY2F0ZSB0aGUg am9pbiBwcm9jZWR1cmUsIEkgZG9u4oCZdCBkaXNhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIFRlcm/igJlzIGxpc3Qgb2YN Cmlzc3VlcyB3aXRoIFBTSywgYnV0IEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGVyZSBhcmUgbWFueSBhc3BlY3RzIHRv IGNvbnNpZGVyIGhlcmUgYW5kDQptYXliZSBvbmUgc2l6ZSBkb2VzbuKAmXQgZml0IGFsbD8gVGhl IHJpc2tzIHdpdGggUFNLIGFyZSBrbm93biBhbmQgdGhlIHVzZQ0Kb2YgcGFpci13aXNlIHN5bW1l dHJpYyBrZXlzIGFuZCBjb21taXNzaW9uaW5nIGluIGEgY29udHJvbGxlZCBkZXBsb3ltZW50DQpl bnZpcm9ubWVudCBzdGlsbCBtYWtlcyBzZW5zZSBpbiBtYW55IGluZHVzdHJpYWwgc2V0dGluZ3Mu DQoNClRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9uIFBTSyB2cyBSUEsgdnMgY2VydHMgcmVtaW5kcyBtZSBvZiB0 aGUgYSBzaW1pbGFyDQpkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGluIHRoZSBBQ0UgV0cgbWVldGluZyBpbiBCdWVub3Mg QWlyZXMgd2hlcmUgdGhlIFdHIHdhcyBuaWNlbHkNCnNwbGl0IGludG8gdGhyZWUgY2FtcHMuIFRo ZSBjb25jbHVzaW9uIGZyb20gdGhhdCBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIHdhcyB0aGF0IHdlDQpwcm9iYWJseSBu ZWVkIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgYWxsIHRocmVlIGJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIHZhcmlldHkgb2YgZGVwbG95 bWVudA0Kc2V0dGluZ3MuIEkgZG9u4oCZdCBrbm93IGlmIHRoYXQgaXMgcmVsZXZhbnQgaGVyZSwg YnV0IEkgbWFrZSB0aGF0DQphc3N1bXB0aW9uIGluIHRoaXMgbWFpbC4NCg0KDQo0LiBPbmUgcG90 ZW50aWFsIGFwcHJvYWNoIHRvIGFjaGlldmUgMSBhbmQgMiBhYm92ZSwgZ2l2ZW4gMywgaXMgdG8g ZG8gaXQNCmluIHBoYXNlczoNCg0KUGhhc2UgSTogUnVuIGEga2V5IGVzdGFibGlzaG1lbnQgcHJv dG9jb2wgYmV0d2VlbiBKTiBhbmQgSkNFIGF1dGhlbnRpY2F0ZWQNCndpdGggdGhlIGluaXRpYWwg Y3JlZGVudGlhbHMgKFBTSywgUlBLLCBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSkgdG8gZXN0YWJsaXNoIGEgc2hhcmVk DQptYXN0ZXIgc2VjcmV0IGJldHdlZW4gSk4gYW5kIEpDRS4gRnJvbSB0aGUgbWFzdGVyIHNlY3Jl dCwgSk4gYW5kIEpDRSBjYW4NCmluZGl2aWR1YWxseSBkZXJpdmUgYSBjb21tb24gc2Vzc2lvbiBr ZXkgU0sgdXNlZCB0byBwcm90ZWN0IGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24NCmJldHdlZW4gSk4gYW5kIEpDRS4g KERvbmUgMiBhYm92ZS4pDQoNCg0KUGhhc2UgSUkgKGEpOiBUaGUgSkNFIGNvbmZpZ3VyZXMgSzIg b24gSk4gYW5kIHJlY2VpdmVzIGEgcmVzcG9uc2UgdG8NCnZlcmlmeSB0aGF0IHRoZSBjb25maWd1 cmF0aW9uIHN1Y2NlZWRlZCwgdGhlIG1lc3NhZ2UgZXhjaGFuZ2UgaXMgcHJvdGVjdGVkDQpieSBT Sy4gQWx0ZXJuYXRpdmVseSwgdGhlIEpOIHJlcXVlc3RzIEsyIChHRVQpIGZyb20gSkNFIGFuZCBy ZWNlaXZlcyBpdCBpbg0KdGhlIHJlc3BvbnNlLCB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZSBleGNoYW5nZSBwcm90ZWN0 ZWQgYnkgU0suIChEb25lIDEgKGEpIGFib3ZlLikNCg0KUGhhc2UgSUkgKGIpOiBKTiBtYWtlcyBh biBlbnJvbG1lbnQgcmVxdWVzdCBpbnRlZ3JpdHkgcHJvdGVjdGVkIHdpdGggU0ssDQphbmQgcmVj ZWl2ZXMgYXMgcmVzcG9uc2UgdGhlIDgwMi4xMUFSIExEZXZJRCBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZS4gKERvbmUg MSAoYikNCmFib3ZlLikNCg0KDQo1LiBCb3RoIHBoYXNlcyBjYW4gYmUgcnVuIGJldHdlZW4gSk4g YW5kIEpDRSBvbiB0b3Agb2YgQ29BUCwgYW5kIGluDQpwcmluY2lwbGUgZG9lc27igJl0IHJlcXVp cmUgSVAsIHVubGVzcyB0aGVyZSBpcyBzb21lIG90aGVyIHJlYXNvbiB3aHkgSVAgaXMNCm5lZWRl ZC4gDQoNClBoYXNlIEk6IFRoZSBrZXkgZXN0YWJsaXNobWVudCBwcm90b2NvbCBjYW4gYmUgZW1i ZWRkZWQgaW4gQ09TRSBhbmQgc2VudA0Kb3ZlciBDb0FQLiBEaWZmaWUtSGVsbG1hbiBpbiBDT1NF IGlzIHRoZSBjb250ZW50IG9mIEVESE9DICgyIG1lc3NhZ2VzKSwNCmJ1dCB5b3UgY2FuIGVtYmVk IHNvbWUgb3RoZXIgcHJvdG9jb2wgbGlrZSBJS0V2MiBpbiBDT1NFIGluc3RlYWQuDQoNClBoYXNl IElJIChhKTogVGhpcyBpcyBvbmUgcm91bmQgdHJpcCB3aXRoIE9TQ09BUCAod2hpY2ggYXJlIENP U0Ugb2JqZWN0cw0Kc2VudCB3aXRoIENvQVApLCBlaXRoZXIgYSBQT1NUIG9yIGEgR0VUIGFuZCBp dHMgcmVzcG9uc2UgKDIgbWVzc2FnZXMpLg0KDQpQaGFzZSBJSSAoYik6IEFuIGVucm9sbWVudCBy ZXF1ZXN0IGlzIHF1aXRlIG5hdHVyYWxseSBhIENPU0Ugb2JqZWN0IHdoaWNoDQpjYW4gYmUgc2Vu dCBpbiBhIENvQVAgUE9TVCwgYW5kIHRoZSByZXNwb25zZSBwYXlsb2FkIHdvdWxkIHRoZW4gYmUg dGhlDQo4MDIuMTFBUiBMRGV2SUQgY2VydGlmaWNhdGUgKDIgbWVzc2FnZXMpDQoNCg0KDQpBZ2Fp biwgc2luY2UgSSBkb27igJl0IGtub3cgYWxsIGRldGFpbHMgaGVyZSBJ4oCZdmUgcHJvYmFibHkg bWlzdW5kZXJzdG9vZA0Kc29tZXRoaW5nLg0KDQpHw7ZyYW4NCg0KDQoNCk9uIDIwMTYtMDUtMTcg MTY6MjcsICI2dGlzY2gtc2VjdXJpdHkgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIE1pY2hhZWwgUmljaGFyZHNvbiIN Cjw2dGlzY2gtc2VjdXJpdHktYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgbWNyK2lldGZA c2FuZGVsbWFuLmNhPg0Kd3JvdGU6DQoNCj4NCj5UaG9tYXMgV2F0dGV5bmUgPHRob21hcy53YXR0 ZXluZUBpbnJpYS5mcj4gd3JvdGU6DQo+ICAgID4gQXQgdGhlIDZ0aXNjaC1zZWMgY2FsbCB5ZXN0 ZXJkYXksIHdlIGRpc2N1c3NlZCB0aHJlZSBhcHByb2FjaGVzOg0KPlBTSywNCj4gICAgPiBSUEsg YW5kIGNlcnRzLg0KPg0KPlRob21hcyBXYXR0ZXluZSA8dGhvbWFzLndhdHRleW5lQGlucmlhLmZy PiB3cm90ZToNCj4gICAgPiBDYW4gc29tZW9uZSBpbmRpY2F0ZToNCj4gICAgPiAtIHRoZSBjb3N0 IGluIG51bWJlciBvZiBwYWNrZXRzIG9mIGVhY2ggYXBwcm9hY2gNCj4NCj5JIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQg dGhpcyBsaXR0bGUgcG9pbnQgaW4gZGV0YWlsaW5nIHRoaXMgdW50aWwgb25lIGV4cGxhaW5zIHRo ZQ0KPnRocmVhdHMgYW5kIHRoZSBhdHRhY2tzIHRoYXQgYXJlIGRlZmVuZGVkIGFnYWluc3QuDQo+ ICAgICAgICBGdWxsIHBsYXRlIGFybW9yIGlzIG11Y2gNCj4gICAgICAgIGJldHRlciB0aGFuIGNo YWluIG1haWwgYWdhaW5zdCBzd29yZHMsIGJ1dCBmYWlsIGFnYWluc3QgYnVsbGV0cy4NCj4gICAg ICAgIEknbSB0b2xkIHRoYXQgY2hhaW4gbWFpbCBpcyBzaWduaWZpY2FudCB3b3JzZSB0aGFuIG5v IGFybW9yDQo+KGFnYWluc3QNCj4gICAgICAgIGJ1bGxldHMpIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhlIGNoYWluIG1h aWwgY3JlYXRlcyBzaHJhcG5lbC4NCj4NCj5TZWNvbmRseSwgUFNLLCBSUEsgYW5kIGNlcnRzIGFy ZSBub3QgcHJvdG9jb2xzLCBidXQgd2F5cyB0byBhdXRoZW50aWNhdGUNCj50aGUNCj5ESCBleGNo YW5nZS4gIFRoZXkgbWF5IG9yIG1heSBub3QgcHJvdmlkZSBhdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUg aG9zdA0KPml0c2VsZi4NCj4NCj4gICAgPiAtIHdoYXQgcHJvdG9jb2wgd2UgY2FuIHVzZSBvZmYt dGhlLXNoZWxmLCB3aGF0IHByb3RvY29sIHdlIG5lZWQgdG8NCj4gICAgPiBjcmVhdGUNCj4NCj5X ZSBoYXZlIERUTFMgYW5kIElLRXYyLiAgSSBjYW4gaW1hZ2luZyB1c2luZyBJS0V2MiBvdmVyIE9T Q09BUC4NCj5JdCByZXF1aXJlcyB0d28gZXhjaGFuZ2VzIChmb3VyIHBhY2tldHMpLg0KPiAgIEkx IC0gc2FtcGxlIEkgaGF2ZSBpcyA1MDQgYnl0ZXMsIHdoaWNoIGluY2x1ZGVzIDEyIGNob2ljZXMg aW4NCj4gICAgICAgIGFsZ29yaXRobXMgKGNyeXB0by1hZ2lsaXR5KSwgYW5kIGEgMjU2IGJ5dGUg bW9kcDIwNDguICBBIEVDREgNCj53b3VsZA0KPiAgICAgICAgYmUgbXVjaCBzbWFsbGVyICgzMiBi eXRlcyByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiAyNTYpLiAgU28gbGV0J3MgY2FsbCBpdCAyNTYNCj5ieXRlcy4NCj4g ICAgICAgIFRoaXMgaW5jbHVkZXMgZXRoZXJuZXQgYW5kIElQdjQgYW5kIFVEUCBvdmVyaGVhZC4N Cj4gICBSMSAtIDQwNCBieXRlIHJlcGx5LiAgMSBjaG9pY2UsIDI1NiBieXRlIGdeeSwgZXRoZXJu ZXQuDQo+ICAgSTIgLSA1ODQgYnl0ZXMsIGVuY3J5cHRlZCByZXNwb25zZSwgbm8gY2VydGlmaWNh dGUuDQo+ICAgICAgLSAxNTMyIGJ5dGVzLCBpbmNsdWRlcyAxMDU5IGJ5dGUgUlNBIGNlcnRpZmlj YXRlIChERVIgZW5jb2RpbmcpDQo+ICAgUjIgLSAxNDgwIGJ5dGVzLCBpbmNsdWRlcyBjZXJ0aWZp Y2F0ZSBvZiBlcXVhbCBzaXplLg0KPg0KPg0KPkFzIEkgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCBPU0NPQVAsIHdlIGNh biBzZW5kIENPU0Ugb2JqZWN0cywgYW5kICpUSEVZKiBjYW4gYmUgc2lnbmVkDQo+d2l0aCBhbiBh c3N5bWV0cmljIGtleSwgImRpcmVjdGx5Ii4gKHdlbGwsIG5vdCBkaXJlY3RseSwgdGhlcmUgaXMg YSBzdGlsbA0KPmENCj5oYXNoIGxheWVyIGluc2lkZSB0aGUgc2lnbmF0dXJlKQ0KPg0KPklmIG9u ZSBkb2VzIHRoYXQsIHRoZW4gcG90ZW50aWFsbHkgb25lIGRvZXMgbm90IG5lZWQgdG8gZG8gYSBr ZXkgZXhjaGFuZ2UNCj4qYXQNCj5hbGwqLiAgICBUaGVyZSBpcyBhIHJlcGxheSBjb25jZXJuIHRo b3VnaCB3aGljaCB3ZSB3b3VsZCBuZWVkIHRvIGFkZHJlc3MuDQo+DQo+LS0NCj5dICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgTmV2ZXIgdGVsbCBtZSB0aGUgb2RkcyEgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwgaXB2NiBtZXNo DQo+bmV0d29ya3MgWw0KPg0KPi0tDQo+TWljaGFlbCBSaWNoYXJkc29uIDxtY3IrSUVURkBzYW5k ZWxtYW4uY2E+LCBTYW5kZWxtYW4gU29mdHdhcmUgV29ya3MNCj4gLT0gSVB2NiBJb1QgY29uc3Vs dGluZyA9LQ0KPg0KPg0KDQo= From nobody Wed May 18 18:39:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2638912D59E for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2016 18:39:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0LtaTGKOlyLc for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2016 18:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F353E12D164 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2016 18:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3E5200A3; Wed, 18 May 2016 21:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D414638BE; Wed, 18 May 2016 21:39:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FB=3FR8O2cmFuIFNlbGFuZGVy=3F=3D?= In-Reply-To: References: <27404.1463495242@obiwan.sandelman.ca> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org>, Tero Kivinen , Thomas Watteyne Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 01:39:57 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable G=C3=B6ran Selander wrote: > I'm still struggling with understanding the objectives and the > assumptions. Here is an attempt, please bear with me. > 1. If I understand draft-richardson-6tisch--security-6top-05 right, t= he > objective of the join procedure is for the JN to obtain either (a) a > network-wide shared symmetric key (I assume this is K2) or (b) an 802= .11AR > LDevID certificate. > Correct so far? > 2. Isn't another objective to establish session keys between the JN a= nd > the JCE that will be used e.g. by JCE for configuration of the JN? I > assume that is relevant both for (a) and (b) above. The idea is to establish this first 6top connection. The JCE can then configure (via 6top) the LDevID into the node, and push the domain's certificate into the new node. The first connection is authenticated with the IDevID and ???+ownership voucher. (I have specific ideas about the ??? which may involve more PKI than some would like) Then it should do a new authentication round with the new credentials, and quite possibly store (D)TLS session resumption token generated by the new node. Or, it could provision some pair-wise PSK between JCE and new node to be us= ed later on. > maybe one size doesn=E2=80=99t fit all? The risks with PSK are known = and the Yes, but we have some specific requirements in 6tisch as to it's industrial applicability that significantly narrows the scope. Please take a look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5673 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability-02 the second document did not go forward because it became clear that RPL alo= ne could not satisfy the requirements; the 6tisch WG was created in large part to satisfy things. > Phase I: Run a key establishment protocol between JN and JCE > authenticated with the initial credentials (PSK, RPK, certificate) to > establish a shared > master secret between JN and JCE. From the master secret, JN and JCE = can > individually derive a common session key SK used to protect communica= tion > between JN and JCE. (Done 2 above.) > Phase II (a): The JCE configures K2 on JN and receives a response to > verify that the configuration succeeded, the message exchange is > protected Well, I think you've described our plan exactly. The Phase I protocol is DTLS/CoAP/6top unless we think of a better way, such as doing OSCOAP above CoAP. =2D- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEVAwUBVz0ZZYCLcPvd0N1lAQLoGwf/RX3cyBc9OJb+gGKW2g5FKxIaB9lGmmS/ 1TaegSCNt6QCbkjL3VBeA/73M/Cvh+EQ8RiLfk2X/EdP0v4dn6GcGGOERx7ifPpd grIZJ6oIkOH/l1iJ18f66C42hScaQqCbRifSgcGvZ2Kf6v/VavfbVLAFJlSkBP0R FPPWo4cmPWD7c2ZzAoQ4VX8AROXF079f6+7U2WH/imba8m87MvMWCosuCp5yAYqs cNbC5wrb/NG4gC+ps7apjybKLNZNKWB9GkkFkISIrLObaO2IauJo7Ts32ibZ/MI7 Yjs5t7zJebQTY5HG/o/ajIP13+PyFYHo+bnmvaLypYTJorn+Dpxn+g== =CNJX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Thu May 19 04:33:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFFB12D9C7 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2016 04:32:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y2TCp_V6j-WM for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2016 04:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02B2512D9C1 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2016 04:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id u4JBWqj8011109 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 May 2016 14:32:52 +0300 (EEST) Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id u4JBWq1Y026223; Thu, 19 May 2016 14:32:52 +0300 (EEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <22333.42084.8853.152953@fireball.acr.fi> Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:32:52 +0300 From: Tero Kivinen To: Michael Richardson In-Reply-To: <1956.1463496975@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <22329.38933.591141.244689@fireball.acr.fi> <22331.2011.426646.202965@fireball.acr.fi> <1956.1463496975@obiwan.sandelman.ca> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (x86_64--netbsd) X-Edit-Time: 10 min X-Total-Time: 10 min Archived-At: Cc: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org>, Thomas Watteyne Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:32:59 -0000 Michael Richardson writes: > > Tero Kivinen wrote: > > matter. But both the perl and python version did work against full > > IKEv2 version (they of course cannot interoperate as both of them are > > minimal versions, thus they do not support working as responder). > > Do you think that a minimal responder (only) would be bigger or smaller? > I think smaller. Bigger. Mostly because for minimal initiator does not need to cope with multiple simultaneous exchanges. Of course everything depends what kind of limitiations you do. Most likely you would need to support multiple "clients" connecting to you, i.e. you need to support multiple IKEv2 connections at the same time, and you need to support packets coming in interleaved. Also IKEv2 initiator can limit things a lot, for example it can only send one set of crypto algorithms, and specific traffic selectors. Responder needs to have full parsers to be able to parse the full crypto algorithm proposal, and picking one from there, and it needs to be able to narrow down the traffic selectors etc. Also responder end usually will need policy lookup code, i.e., based on who is connecting it needs to know whether connection is allowed or not, and which configuration (PSK etc) to use. If we make limitiations which are NOT in the IKEv2 base spec then we can most likely make the responder about the same size as initiator, but then it would not really be IKEv2 anymore (i.e., if we say that there can only be one crypto algoritm proposal, we are not really conforming IKEv2, as conforming IKEv2 implementation could send us more complicated proposal, and we could not cope with it). Anyways I have not tried writing minimal responder, but my guess is it would be about 20-50% bigger than very minimal initiator. The more features minimal initiator supports the smaller the size difference between initiator and responder is... -- kivinen@iki.fi From nobody Thu May 19 06:54:27 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD7E12D144 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2016 06:54:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VU6sKOSz3bpd for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2016 06:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22FBD12D096 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2016 06:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE48200A3; Thu, 19 May 2016 10:00:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C6263755; Thu, 19 May 2016 09:54:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Tero Kivinen In-Reply-To: <22333.42084.8853.152953@fireball.acr.fi> References: <22329.38933.591141.244689@fireball.acr.fi> <22331.2011.426646.202965@fireball.acr.fi> <1956.1463496975@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <22333.42084.8853.152953@fireball.acr.fi> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Cc: Thomas Watteyne , "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 13:54:26 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Tero Kivinen wrote: > Michael Richardson writes: >> >> Tero Kivinen wrote: >> > matter. But both the perl and python version did work against full >> > IKEv2 version (they of course cannot interoperate as both of them are >> > minimal versions, thus they do not support working as responder). >> >> Do you think that a minimal responder (only) would be bigger or smaller? >> I think smaller. > Bigger. Mostly because for minimal initiator does not need to cope > with multiple simultaneous exchanges. > Of course everything depends what kind of limitiations you do. Most > likely you would need to support multiple "clients" connecting to you, For the join process, we only need to support one client (the JCE). Once the join SA is setup, only then the PCE might connect to do scheduling, and that would be single-threaded too. But, for 6top hop-to-hop, if we use per-pair 802.15.9 security on the IEs, it would require multiple responses. > Also responder end > usually will need policy lookup code, i.e., based on who is connecting > it needs to know whether connection is allowed or not, and which > configuration (PSK etc) to use. That's a good point. > If we make limitiations which are NOT in the IKEv2 base spec then we > can most likely make the responder about the same size as initiator, > but then it would not really be IKEv2 anymore (i.e., if we say that > there can only be one crypto algoritm proposal, we are not really > conforming IKEv2, as conforming IKEv2 implementation could send us > more complicated proposal, and we could not cope with it). If we put IKEv2 on top of CoAP, one affect might be to limit things to one request at a time, and eliminate a whole bunch of TS options... -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEVAwUBVz3FjICLcPvd0N1lAQKL8Af/ZN3KVzA9Vhw3CMTulebgOeW69AK7aBZF wassJnbrZoQ5i4JSgkiYIeusFKnaY43QKtDdK/VxM7BfW9OPIZzeHLTFWFrGoyhz crTGfl0Wjyc5T/oEhgP4/gUlGDC9F+JGhCBF1fxIK3+mINNwJyKFA1MPHrifau/c 0+hFTjVemw00SNTtA0cUVoz9l8IFQ4t6Eh6YrWf26kNBBRo0gY4PjU+t4mCtn+UC lbHa7wJ9TpzWivLt+V2IADTM8S8fzHvSIn5jMOd9R3i5wOi+B5Bo5pi4UXtcanjb oq1LLki4goVBIeQK4CJL2SNlwGqzm+OsiZOZZAWJOb66LhD3tnYjGQ== =cPM9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Fri May 20 05:05:26 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C1012D8E2 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2016 05:05:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YMFimMz1EA2I for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2016 05:05:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05F5E12D8E4 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2016 05:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id u4KC5Fqn029972 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 May 2016 15:05:15 +0300 (EEST) Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id u4KC5DsT029372; Fri, 20 May 2016 15:05:13 +0300 (EEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <22334.64889.795757.279968@fireball.acr.fi> Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 15:05:13 +0300 From: Tero Kivinen To: Michael Richardson In-Reply-To: <8981.1463666063@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <22329.38933.591141.244689@fireball.acr.fi> <22331.2011.426646.202965@fireball.acr.fi> <1956.1463496975@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <22333.42084.8853.152953@fireball.acr.fi> <8981.1463666063@obiwan.sandelman.ca> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (x86_64--netbsd) X-Edit-Time: 14 min X-Total-Time: 23 min Archived-At: Cc: Thomas Watteyne , "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:05:25 -0000 Michael Richardson writes: > > Tero Kivinen wrote: > > Michael Richardson writes: > >> > >> Tero Kivinen wrote: > >> > matter. But both the perl and python version did work against full > >> > IKEv2 version (they of course cannot interoperate as both of them are > >> > minimal versions, thus they do not support working as responder). > >> > >> Do you think that a minimal responder (only) would be bigger or smaller? > >> I think smaller. > > > Bigger. Mostly because for minimal initiator does not need to cope > > with multiple simultaneous exchanges. > > > Of course everything depends what kind of limitiations you do. Most > > likely you would need to support multiple "clients" connecting to you, > > For the join process, we only need to support one client (the JCE). In join process, I would assume that the joining node is the initiator, and the JCE is the responder, and there might be multiple joining nodes joining to the same JCE at the same time. Thus the JCE needs to be able to cope with multiple different initiators at the same time. I.e., I would assume that in joining protocol the joining node is the one who initiates the joining process and connectes to the JCE. Of course if there is some other exchange from the joining node to the JCE first which will then trigger the JCE to start connection to the JN, then the roles are different, and then JN will have just one incoming connection at one time. > Once the join SA is setup, only then the PCE might connect to do scheduling, > and that would be single-threaded too. I would assume that the scheduling might be run over the K2. > But, for 6top hop-to-hop, if we use per-pair 802.15.9 security on the IEs, it > would require multiple responses. 802.15.9 is already bit different, as there is already some things which make things easier. > > Also responder end > > usually will need policy lookup code, i.e., based on who is connecting > > it needs to know whether connection is allowed or not, and which > > configuration (PSK etc) to use. > > That's a good point. > > > If we make limitiations which are NOT in the IKEv2 base spec then we > > can most likely make the responder about the same size as initiator, > > but then it would not really be IKEv2 anymore (i.e., if we say that > > there can only be one crypto algoritm proposal, we are not really > > conforming IKEv2, as conforming IKEv2 implementation could send us > > more complicated proposal, and we could not cope with it). > > If we put IKEv2 on top of CoAP, one affect might be to limit things to one > request at a time, and eliminate a whole bunch of TS options... In 802.15.9 the IKEv2 do not create Child SA at all, as there is no need for that, i.e. it uses RFC6023 which will leave out Child SA negotiation, including the TS payloads completely. The 802.15.9 uses the first 16 octets of the KEYMAT generated by IKEv2 for the AES-CCM key directly for the per-pair key. One thing that 802.15.9 with IKEv2 does not yet do is to define protocol to distribute the 802.15.4 shared keys. I.e., it just says that for shared key transport we need to add new feature to IKEv2, but do not add it there, as this is something that is better done in the IETF than in IEEE. It should be very short RFC just specifying how to encode the shared key information and the keying material when it is transmitted over the IKEv2 SA. Most likely we want to keywrap the key somehow, but that should still be quite easy, as we are just transmitting shared key over the already protected and authenticated channel. -- kivinen@iki.fi From nobody Fri May 20 07:13:15 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F5312D9A8 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2016 07:13:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZonC0-DnN1p for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2016 07:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51D9612D9A6 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2016 07:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B47C200A3 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2016 10:19:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88304638BF for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2016 10:13:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Attribution: mcr X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 10:13:09 -0400 Message-ID: <13657.1463753589@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Archived-At: Subject: [6tisch-security] yesterday (19th) meeting X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 14:13:13 -0000 Did you have it without me? 7am EST time, and I spaced it as I was up late at a conference, and feel asleep on the couch. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ From nobody Fri May 20 07:17:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA9412D9A9 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2016 07:17:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ok-mveSE23La for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2016 07:17:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C27412D9A8 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2016 07:17:48 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79486d0000069d0-74-573f1c8a3b5a Received: from ESESSHC022.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.84]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 91.06.27088.A8C1F375; Fri, 20 May 2016 16:17:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB205.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.175]) by ESESSHC022.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 20 May 2016 16:17:12 +0200 From: Francesca Palombini To: Michael Richardson , "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: [6tisch-security] yesterday (19th) meeting Thread-Index: AQHRsqHBWceE2V4o8UqY7wvQ5pGIvp/B3tNg Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 14:17:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <13657.1463753589@obiwan.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <13657.1463753589@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.18] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7iG6XjH24wY1lOhbNKxexW8xruMzk wOSxZMlPJo+WOXuYA5iiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDKuH53DXHCDveLuy4usDYx/WbsYOTkkBEwk drbuYoewxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcIRRYu2/ucwQzhJGicudp1hAqtgEbCQuPHwP1i0ikCSxfME0 JhBbWMBcorP/CBNE3ELi6L39bBC2kcSGs0/B4iwCqhKHjy0Ci/MK+Eo0Tm0EmyMEVLNj00yw OKeAscTVc7uYQWxGoIu+n1oD1sssIC5x68l8JohLBSSW7DnPDGGLSrx8/A/qG0WJj6/2MULU 60gs2P2JDcLWlli28DUzxF5BiZMzn7BMYBSdhWTsLCQts5C0zELSsoCRZRWjaHFqcVJuupGR XmpRZnJxcX6eXl5qySZGYKQc3PLbYAfjy+eOhxgFOBiVeHgX5NuFC7EmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLh PSdtHy7Em5JYWZValB9fVJqTWnyIUZqDRUmc1/+lYriQQHpiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qBUXnn Io2e+rNZ2QHFpwqLSoMPGIitOPlCYqHT86YMgydr+T/pJszbfa/bgtFP4Pz/dcc7etmPtK+q 857C/bMkw2TPpuVzfrt3PbrX3/HUozk4dpO1z/M75ybMT08v1W904974vmFF0s+wRM6vvmc/ l6343X/H/Uk6o9nypp8LbFpkFnWcnWzXrsRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAE4Wi9SQAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] yesterday (19th) meeting X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 14:17:50 -0000 Hi Michael, Was a meeting planned for yesterday? I did not see any information here, so (if there even was a meeting) I didn= 't attend. Are 6tisch-security meetings weekly? Francesca -----Original Message----- From: 6tisch-security [mailto:6tisch-security-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf O= f Michael Richardson Sent: den 20 maj 2016 16:13 To: 6tisch-security@ietf.org Subject: [6tisch-security] yesterday (19th) meeting Did you have it without me? 7am EST time, and I spaced it as I was up late at a conference, and feel as= leep on the couch. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh network= s [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect= [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails = [ _______________________________________________ 6tisch-security mailing list 6tisch-security@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security From nobody Fri May 20 07:25:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A960612D9B9 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2016 07:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CjrV7LlQb3Gr for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2016 07:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96B1712D9A6 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2016 07:25:03 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79936d0000030e4-48-573f1e3dba9e Received: from ESESSHC014.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 90.60.12516.D3E1F375; Fri, 20 May 2016 16:25:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB303.ericsson.se ([169.254.3.153]) by ESESSHC014.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.60]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 20 May 2016 16:24:41 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?R8O2cmFuIFNlbGFuZGVy?= To: Michael Richardson Thread-Topic: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? Thread-Index: AQHRrRTRBih1OFaq5kKsO/731mo+wp+9FMIAgABW7YCAAfdOgIACiYiA Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 14:24:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: <27404.1463495242@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <10294.1463621993@obiwan.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <10294.1463621993@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.3.160329 x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.16] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrHIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja6tnH24wdfZxhbNKxexWxw9/5zN oudQP5D1+j2TA4vHkiU/mTwOf13I4jHpxSEWj5Y5e5gDWKK4bFJSczLLUov07RK4MuY8OMNW cEa7om9aA0sD4x6tLkZODgkBE4n9n+ewQthiEhfurWfrYuTiEBI4yijRfHUPlLOEUeLQiXks IFVsAi4SDxoeMYHYIgJ6EsuPPGMEsZkF2hglnr4uB7GFBWwk3k66zdzFyAFUYyux+7MhRLmb xPQlj8CWsQioSnz+/xLM5hWwkFh7p4EdYtdFRokrd9aB9XIKGEssXw52KCPQcd9PrWGCWCUu cevJfCaIowUkluw5zwxhi0q8fPwPbKYo0Gn7XpxnhIgrSuw82w42kllAU2L9Ln2IMdYSuzr+ sEPYihJTuh+yQ5wjKHFy5hOWCYwSs5Bsm4XQPQtJ9ywk3bOQdC9gZF3FKFqcWlycm25krJda lJlcXJyfp5eXWrKJERirB7f81t3BuPq14yFGAQ5GJR7eBfl24UKsiWXFlbmHGCU4mJVEeL9I 24cL8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES5/V/qRguJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYJT5lajz W2Vl5AmGnxdSVs6L6+7R7VimqCSntONP1zWVyUY2s4ImFz8+eXra6Ux13usX0p98T7O/JX8v xPXspbYfEot09bYGu65w+XhsqqnHJFlbjwP+wWImpnsM3HVD+r9/y3lt8KpvnabshsVSTq/e a7/IVuFJTrlSe3e7hOWVL0VWdRf3PlRiKc5INNRiLipOBADhz7zK0QIAAA== Archived-At: Cc: "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org>, Tero Kivinen , Thomas Watteyne Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] PSK vs. RPK vs. certs: costs? X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 14:25:06 -0000 SGkgTWljaGFlbCwNCg0KVGhhbmtzLiBTb21lIGZ1cnRoZXIgcXVlc3Rpb25zIGp1c3QgdG8gc2Vl IEkgZ290IGl0IHJpZ2h0Lg0KDQpPbiAyMDE2LTA1LTE5IDAzOjM5LCAiTWljaGFlbCBSaWNoYXJk c29uIiA8bWNyK2lldGZAc2FuZGVsbWFuLmNhPiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPkfDtnJhbiBTZWxhbmRlciA8 Z29yYW4uc2VsYW5kZXJAZXJpY3Nzb24uY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCj4gICAgPiBJJ20gc3RpbGwgc3Ry dWdnbGluZyB3aXRoIHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgdGhlIG9iamVjdGl2ZXMgYW5kIHRoZQ0KPiAgICA+ IGFzc3VtcHRpb25zLiBIZXJlIGlzIGFuIGF0dGVtcHQsIHBsZWFzZSBiZWFyIHdpdGggbWUuDQo+ DQo+DQo+ICAgID4gMS4gSWYgSSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIGRyYWZ0LXJpY2hhcmRzb24tNnRpc2NoLS1z ZWN1cml0eS02dG9wLTA1IHJpZ2h0LA0KPnRoZQ0KPiAgICA+IG9iamVjdGl2ZSBvZiB0aGUgam9p biBwcm9jZWR1cmUgaXMgZm9yIHRoZSBKTiB0byBvYnRhaW4gZWl0aGVyIChhKSBhDQo+ICAgID4g bmV0d29yay13aWRlIHNoYXJlZCBzeW1tZXRyaWMga2V5IChJIGFzc3VtZSB0aGlzIGlzIEsyKSBv ciAoYikgYW4NCj44MDIuMTFBUg0KPiAgICA+IExEZXZJRCBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZS4NCj4NCj4gICAg PiBDb3JyZWN0IHNvIGZhcj8NCj4NCj4gICAgPiAyLiBJc24ndCBhbm90aGVyIG9iamVjdGl2ZSB0 byBlc3RhYmxpc2ggc2Vzc2lvbiBrZXlzIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIEpODQo+YW5kDQo+ICAgID4gdGhl IEpDRSB0aGF0IHdpbGwgYmUgdXNlZCBlLmcuIGJ5IEpDRSBmb3IgY29uZmlndXJhdGlvbiBvZiB0 aGUgSk4/IEkNCj4gICAgPiBhc3N1bWUgdGhhdCBpcyByZWxldmFudCBib3RoIGZvciAoYSkgYW5k IChiKSBhYm92ZS4NCj4NCj5UaGUgaWRlYSBpcyB0byBlc3RhYmxpc2ggdGhpcyBmaXJzdCA2dG9w IGNvbm5lY3Rpb24uDQoNCkkgYXNzdW1lIHRoYXQgaXMgUGhhc2UgSSwgYXMgYmVsb3cuDQoNCj5U aGUgSkNFIGNhbiB0aGVuIGNvbmZpZ3VyZSAodmlhIDZ0b3ApIHRoZSBMRGV2SUQgaW50byB0aGUg bm9kZSwgYW5kIHB1c2gNCj50aGUgZG9tYWluJ3MgY2VydGlmaWNhdGUgaW50byB0aGUgbmV3IG5v ZGUuDQoNCkkgYXNzdW1lIHRoYXQgaGFwcGVucyBhZnRlciBQaGFzZSBJLCBzbyB0aGF0IHRoZSBz ZWN1cml0eSBmb3IgdGhvc2UNCmNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24gb3BlcmF0aW9ucyBpcyByb290ZWQgaW4g UGhhc2UgSS4NCiANCkFib3V0IOKAnHB1c2ggb2YgZG9tYWluIGNlcnRpZmljYXRl4oCdIC0gSSB0 aG91Z2h0IHRoaXMgd2FzIGxpa2UgYW4gZW5yb2xtZW50DQpwcm90b2NvbDogSk4gbWFrZXMgYW4g ZW5yb2xtZW50IHJlcXVlc3QgKHByb3RlY3RlZCB3aXRoIGtleXMgZnJvbSBQaGFzZSBJKQ0KYW5k IHJlY2VpdmVzIHRoZSBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBpbiB0aGUgcmVzcG9uc2UuIE9yIGlzIHRoZSBqb2lu IHJlcXVlc3QgYW5kDQplbnJvbG1lbnQgcmVxdWVzdCBjb21iaW5lZD8NCg0KSXMgdGhlIHNhbWUg YXN5bW1ldHJpYyBrZXkgcGFpciB1c2VkIGZvciB0aGUgSURldklEIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIGFuZCB0 aGUNCkxEZXZJRCBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZT8NCg0KPlRoZSBmaXJzdCBjb25uZWN0aW9uIGlzDQo+YXV0 aGVudGljYXRlZCB3aXRoIHRoZSBJRGV2SUQgYW5kID8/Pytvd25lcnNoaXAgdm91Y2hlci4gKEkg aGF2ZSBzcGVjaWZpYw0KPmlkZWFzIGFib3V0IHRoZSA/Pz8gd2hpY2ggbWF5IGludm9sdmUgbW9y ZSBQS0kgdGhhbiBzb21lIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UpDQoNCkkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBiZXR0ZXIgdW5k ZXJzdGFuZCB0aGlzIHBhcnQsIHdoYXQgYXJlIHRoZSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHM/DQoNCj4NCj5UaGVu IGl0IHNob3VsZCBkbyBhIG5ldyBhdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiByb3VuZCB3aXRoIHRoZSBuZXcgY3Jl ZGVudGlhbHMsIGFuZA0KPnF1aXRlIHBvc3NpYmx5IHN0b3JlIChEKVRMUyBzZXNzaW9uIHJlc3Vt cHRpb24gdG9rZW4gZ2VuZXJhdGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBuZXcNCj5ub2RlLg0KDQpJIGNhbiB1bmRlcnN0 YW5kIHRoZSBtb3RpdmF0aW9uIHRvIHNlcGFyYXRlIHRoZSBJRGV2SUQgY3JlZGVudGlhbCBmcm9t IHRoZQ0KTERldklEIGNyZWRlbnRpYWwgaW4gcHJpbmNpcGxlLiBCdXQgaWYgdGhlIGtleSBwYWly IGlzIHRoZSBzYW1lLCBvciBpZiB0aGUNCnNlY29uZCBrZXkgcGFpciBpcyBwcm92aXNpb25lZCBk dXJpbmcgbWFudWZhY3R1cmUsIEkgZG9u4oCZdCBzZWUgYSBiaWcNCmRpZmZlcmVuY2UgdXNpbmcg dGhlIGNyZWRlbnRpYWxzIGRlcml2ZWQgZHVyaW5nIFBoYXNlIEkuDQoNCj4NCj5PciwgaXQgY291 bGQgcHJvdmlzaW9uIHNvbWUgcGFpci13aXNlIFBTSyBiZXR3ZWVuIEpDRSBhbmQgbmV3IG5vZGUg dG8gYmUNCj51c2VkDQo+bGF0ZXIgb24uDQoNCkFnYWluLCBQaGFzZSBJIHJlc3VsdHMgaW4gc3lt bWV0cmljIGtleSBtYXRlcmlhbCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgYSBzZXNzaW9uIGtleSwNCndoeSBub3QgdXNl IHRoYXQgdW50aWwgaXQgbmVlZHMgdG8gYmUgcm90YXRlZCAoaW4gd2hpY2ggY2FzZSB0aGUgTERl dklEDQpjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSB3b3VsZCBiZSB0aGUgcmlnaHQgY3JlZGVudGlhbCB0byB1c2UpPw0K DQo+DQo+ICAgID4gbWF5YmUgb25lIHNpemUgZG9lc27igJl0IGZpdCBhbGw/IFRoZSByaXNrcyB3 aXRoIFBTSyBhcmUga25vd24gYW5kIHRoZQ0KPg0KPlllcywgYnV0IHdlIGhhdmUgc29tZSBzcGVj aWZpYyByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgaW4gNnRpc2NoIGFzIHRvIGl0J3MNCj5pbmR1c3RyaWFsDQo+YXBw bGljYWJpbGl0eSB0aGF0IHNpZ25pZmljYW50bHkgbmFycm93cyB0aGUgc2NvcGUuICAgUGxlYXNl IHRha2UgYSBsb29rDQo+YXQNCj5odHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvcmZjNTY3MyBh bmQNCj5odHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1yb2xsLXJwbC1pbmR1 c3RyaWFsLWFwcGxpY2FiaWxpdHktMA0KPjINCg0KSSBnbGFuY2VkIHRocm91Z2ggdGhlIGRvY3Vt ZW50cy4gV291bGQgeW91IHNheSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgZXhjbHVkZXMgYW55IG9mDQpQU0ssIFJQSywg YW5kIGNlcnRzLCBvciB0aGF0IGFsbCB0aHJlZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgcG9zc2libGUgdG8gc3VwcG9y dD8NCg0KDQo+DQo+dGhlIHNlY29uZCBkb2N1bWVudCBkaWQgbm90IGdvIGZvcndhcmQgYmVjYXVz ZSBpdCBiZWNhbWUgY2xlYXIgdGhhdCBSUEwNCj5hbG9uZQ0KPmNvdWxkIG5vdCBzYXRpc2Z5IHRo ZSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHM7IHRoZSA2dGlzY2ggV0cgd2FzIGNyZWF0ZWQgaW4gbGFyZ2UNCj5wYXJ0 DQo+dG8gc2F0aXNmeSB0aGluZ3MuDQo+DQo+ICAgID4gUGhhc2UgSTogUnVuIGEga2V5IGVzdGFi bGlzaG1lbnQgcHJvdG9jb2wgYmV0d2VlbiBKTiBhbmQgSkNFDQo+ICAgID4gYXV0aGVudGljYXRl ZCB3aXRoIHRoZSBpbml0aWFsIGNyZWRlbnRpYWxzIChQU0ssIFJQSywgY2VydGlmaWNhdGUpDQo+ dG8NCj4gICAgPiBlc3RhYmxpc2ggYSBzaGFyZWQNCj4gICAgPiBtYXN0ZXIgc2VjcmV0IGJldHdl ZW4gSk4gYW5kIEpDRS4gRnJvbSB0aGUgbWFzdGVyIHNlY3JldCwgSk4gYW5kDQo+SkNFIGNhbg0K PiAgICA+IGluZGl2aWR1YWxseSBkZXJpdmUgYSBjb21tb24gc2Vzc2lvbiBrZXkgU0sgdXNlZCB0 byBwcm90ZWN0DQo+Y29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbg0KPiAgICA+IGJldHdlZW4gSk4gYW5kIEpDRS4gKERv bmUgMiBhYm92ZS4pDQo+DQo+ICAgID4gUGhhc2UgSUkgKGEpOiBUaGUgSkNFIGNvbmZpZ3VyZXMg SzIgb24gSk4gYW5kIHJlY2VpdmVzIGEgcmVzcG9uc2UgdG8NCj4gICAgPiB2ZXJpZnkgdGhhdCB0 aGUgY29uZmlndXJhdGlvbiBzdWNjZWVkZWQsIHRoZSBtZXNzYWdlIGV4Y2hhbmdlIGlzDQo+ICAg ID4gcHJvdGVjdGVkDQo+DQo+V2VsbCwgSSB0aGluayB5b3UndmUgZGVzY3JpYmVkIG91ciBwbGFu IGV4YWN0bHkuDQo+VGhlIFBoYXNlIEkgcHJvdG9jb2wgaXMgRFRMUy9Db0FQLzZ0b3AgdW5sZXNz IHdlIHRoaW5rIG9mIGEgYmV0dGVyIHdheSwNCj5zdWNoDQo+YXMgZG9pbmcgT1NDT0FQIGFib3Zl IENvQVAuDQoNCk9LLCBnb29kLiBXaGljaCBvZiB0aGUgcGhhc2VzIGRvIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIHJ1 biBiZWZvcmUgSVA/DQoNCkfDtnJhbg0KDQoNCg== From nobody Wed May 25 12:46:23 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E762D12D9DD for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:46:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oi8WyUva6GnQ for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0641512D9E6 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36602203B2 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC094638BF for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:45:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org> X-Attribution: mcr X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: [6tisch-security] weekly meeting reminder X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:46:22 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain The 7am EDT, 1100UTC thursday meeting was intended to be weekly. It's 45 minutes. (I know it sucks for west coast people) I appologize for not scheduling it last week; I blame being at a conference. We meet at: https://jitsi.tools.ietf.org/6tischsecurity There is no PSTN call-in number, but JITSI uses all open standards and runs without plugins. You can test your setup at any time in advance. Best results are with a headset with a boom mic and a mute button. Agenda is: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch-security/current/msg00544.html *->the start and end states of a "6TiSCH minimal security" solution<-* -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEVAwUBV0YA8oCLcPvd0N1lAQJ4eQf/arSI4k54P8TYwsMdlxOKy+T809xOL86F aOHS6jKMKz/AKXXtgMQphP7C4hz+CuL9iGfn05Tu38okdUlor3usr/4/EPlN5VAm fHr16msiHYVONYlmbja2pqB3xB2uOPahvf/jGZV2kLyZMJripoPtP8Vkw56NM2DL 4kJdMqqUx++9jBtYKjrGsSee3fLV00urfoKEElH8SyVdoBkZfKlpPUU9N6uRY/6v 4qNgNmqPUQne6CpcKSftM0g4k6ENCz4gK6d8n8pJa789GOx3BcIL6/FgxKkyzwru 0lrp/E2Tn4M1IMu5DMqo4Ktom7J38rs80a9/YK0VGjMwjWniz5Yj+Q== =jv3J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--