Dear UTA, ACE, and LAKE (chair hat off) WGs,
I am the Shepherd of the document draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-13 [1]
(TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things).
Currently in UTA WG Last call ending 14 April 2025 (not much time...).
I urge principally the UTA people, but also ACE or LAK
HI ace wg,
I have read draft-tiloca-ace-authcred-dtls-profile-03
and I support adoption.
The document updates the DTLS profile for ACE (RFC 9202) , in
particular allows for additional types of C and RS authentication
credential's representation (other than COSE Key), it adds CWT CSS,
X.509 and C
I suport draft-seitz-ace-oscoap-profile for WG adoption
saludos,
Renzo
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Marco Tiloca wrote:
> I support the adoption of the OSCOAP profile of ACE.
>
> Best,
> /Marco
>
>
> On 2017-10-23 15:17, Kepeng Li wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> According to our virtual int
Hi All,
Thank you very much Kepeng and Hannes for your time and effort!
Renzo
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Kepeng Li
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the participants in ACE
> WG to support our work.
>
> I enjoyed very much with our ACE work, and I
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
hannes.tschofe...@arm.com> wrote:
> Ø I don't see my votes recorder, (neither Ludwig's);
>
>
>
> We copied what was in the chat Window
>
>
>
Ok then probably was a comparibilitty issue? I was on Linux HTML version
of Webex, and Ludwig too -b
Hi Kepeng, all
thank you for the resumé.
I don't see my votes recorder, (neither Ludwig's);
I strongly support OSCOAP; then pub/sub and Multicast OSCOAP.
In any case, I agree with the conclusions 1 , 2.
I don't know if the consensus was that MQTT is mid priority (and pub/sub
relegated to low)
Hello Hannes, Kepeng, ACE
I used the PoP key concept, to map on top of it other Authenticated
Key Establishment (AKE) exchanges (aside from the default one on OAuth
that uses timestamps). This generic use I presented on IETF 95 [1].
More relevant to the current question on ACE, I put this idea mo
+1 for adopting .
yes, we will use (are using) DTLS in ACE(like) environments, having
this profile will be very helpful
good weekend
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Samuel Erdtman wrote:
> +1 on adopting as a working group item.
>
> To me it makes sense to have a DTLS profile for the ACE fr
Hi Ludwig and ACE ML,
Thank you very much Ludwig for your effort,
I have not yet read the new version of the draft, but I already had
some thoughts about the "Client Token" (CT) concept, so I give a
partial response to your questions (also in the hope to trigger the
discussion on the ML):
a) I th
call a "full-blown" time protocol
our proposal, certainly time precision/accuracy is not one of the
goals.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Randy Presuhn
wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On 10/31/2016 11:45 PM, Ludwig Seitz wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-11-01 01:41, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>>&
urity properties and attacks of the base
protocol.
Regards,
Renzo
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:05 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-navas-ace-secure-time-synchronization-00.txt
To: Ludwig Seitz , Renzo Navas
, Goeran Selander
A new v
Please you can help taking minutes here:
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-96-ace?useMonospaceFont=true
___
Ace mailing list
Ace@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Hi ace wg,
Hi Ludwig, Göran, et al.
Thank you first for this magnificent document (and appropriate
acknowledge to the previous work on ace framework -acre, dcaf, etc-).
I found the document very clear and well written (the figures and
examples are a big plus); and me coming from a oauth complete
Hi All,
The document I've prepared, about tls ciphersuites and time awareness:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/06/16/ace/slides/slides-interim-2016-ace-2-4.pdf
Incorrectly omits the use of raw public keys, as has been noted on the
interim meeting.
Specified on RFC7250 ( https://to
14 matches
Mail list logo
