Subject: [Dtls-iot] draft-ietf-dice-profile-09.txt

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:56:00 +0100

Hi all,

we have just submitted version -09 of the profile document.

Here are the changes with this version:

* Added two figures to the constrained server section
(as requested by Akbar in his review).

* Corrected figure showing DTLS Mutual Certificate-based
Authentication. The TLS cached info payloads were incorrect.

* Added table with description regarding the certificate content.
Note: Currently we state that all elements in the table are MTI.

* Added clarification regarding Client Certificate URLs
when used with constrained servers.

* Added clarification regarding Trusted CA Indication
when used with constrained servers.

* Added notes for chip manufacturers regarding hardware-based
random number generators. Included references to two NIST
specifications (NIST SP 800-22b and 800-90a).

* Added a reference to the OMA LWM2M spec in the security
consideration section with regards to a suitable software
update mechanism.

* Included reference to the ACE working group.

We asked the chairs to issue another working group last call due to the
changes the document has experienced since the last working group last
call.

Ciao
Hannes & Thomas

---

From: Dorothy Gellert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:57:36 -0800

Hi Hannes-

Thanks for the new revision.
Let's let this version soak for a bit with the WG before we issue a
LC.  We had a good number of issue last time during the 3 week  WGLC
and want to make sure we have time to shake out all the issues.

Dorothy

> On Jan 19, 2015, at 11:56, Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> _______________________________________________
> dtls-iot mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtls-iot

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:32:32 +0100

Hi Dorothy,

I believe at this point in time we are looking for reviewers who can
figure out whether there are things missing and to find bugs.

Whether these reviews happen as part of the ordinary working group
process or as part of a WGLC does not really matter that much. I
personally prefer WGLCs since they put a clear deadline to reviews.

In any case, I could imagine that the following persons could provide
valuable review feedback:

 * Akbar (on the constrained server message exchange, particularly
Section 4.2)
 * Olaf & Matthias (on the details of DTLS since they have
implementation experience with DTLS)
 * Matthias, Carsten, Ludwig, and Michael (as proponents for adding the
constrained servers scenario, which lead changes throughout the document)
 * Sandeep (since he had various detailed comments on the document)
 * Rene, John Mattsson, and Russ (since they provided feedback on the
use of the AES-CCM / AES-GCM cipher discussion)

The tracker does not yet indicate who the document shepherd is going to
be. Obviously, the shepherd will also have to review the document now.
Here is the template for the write-up:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup-qa-style.html

Ciao
Hannes