Hi Gabriel,
thanks for your review comments.
I am OK with the proposed text changes.
A minor remark regarding the stacks used in IoT devices: In the stacks I
have seen the developer has the possibility to include or exclude
certain features using preprocessor directives. Even if you have the
ability to re-use a TLS/DTLS stack on devices that have nothing to do
with IoT and have no code size restriction you will typically have to
remove features for an IoT device to keep the code size at a reasonable
level.
I am, of course, aware of devices that have very few limitations in
terms of processing speed, RAM, and flash size. The boundaries between
IoT devices and non-IoT devices is certainly fuzzy.
Ciao
Hannes
On 09/04/2015 01:21 AM, g_e_montenegro(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com wrote:
Overall, looks good, thanks for this work. I do have some comments.
Not sure if these are "substantive comments" as requested, but after
some discussion with some collegues we'd like to point out issues with
some of the normative language.
In particular, we suggest modifying the language here:
Hence, RFC 7366 and RFC 6066 are not applicable to this
specification and MUST NOT be implemented.
Whereas CCM and AEAD ciphers in general render RFC7366 moot, a MUST NOT
on implementation is too strong (i.e., from the intro, “This document
does not alter TLS/DTLS specifications”) and potentially damaging: the
same stack could be used for scenarios outside of IoT, where RFC7366
could still provide some benefit. As for RFC6066, a blanket statement
saying it “MUST NOT implement” is not only wrong, it is also
contradictory with other statements within this draft which recommend
other parts of RFC6066. Instead, the language should limit itself to the
specific extension of RFC6066.
Also, with other extensions the doc does not prohibit *implementation*,
but recommends against it or against its use (by using "NOT
RECOMMENDED"). So I’d change the above text to something like:
In https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dice-profile-14#section-15:
OLD:
Hence, RFC 7366 and RFC 6066 are not applicable to this
specification and MUST NOT be implemented.
NEW:
Hence, RFC 7366 and the Truncated MAC extension of RFC 6066 are
not applicable to this
specification and are NOT RECOMMENDED.
Similarly, in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dice-profile-14#section-10 my
suggestion would be:
OLD:
This TLS/DTLS profile MUST NOT implement TLS/DTLS layer compression.
NEW:
TLS/DTLS layer compression is NOT RECOMMENDED by this TLS/DTLS
profile.
thanks,
Gabriel
On Friday, August 21, 2015 6:53 AM, The IESG
<iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the DTLS In Constrained
Environments
WG (dice) to consider the following document:
- 'TLS/DTLS Profiles for the Internet of Things'
<draft-ietf-dice-profile-14.txt> as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> mailing lists
by 2015-09-04.
Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
instead. In either
case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
A common design pattern in Internet of Things (IoT) deployments is
the use of a constrained device that collects data via sensor or
controls actuators for use in home automation, industrial control
systems, smart cities and other IoT deployments.
This document defines a Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram
TLS (DTLS) 1.2 profile that offers communications security for this
data exchange thereby preventing eavesdropping, tampering, and
message forgery. The lack of communication security is a common
vulnerability in Internet of Things products that can easily be
solved by using these well-researched and widely deployed Internet
security protocols.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dice-profile/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dice-profile/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
dtls-iot mailing list
dtls-iot(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtls-iot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature