Subject: [Hipsec] Status of draft-ietf-hip-dex

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:27:35 +0200

Hi,

I want to give the group a status update on the HIP DEX draft. Terry,
our AD, had to remove it from the agenda of the telechat where it was
going to be discussed (in May) because of security-related concerns
about the draft (from the Security ADs). We have been periodically
pinging Rene and Bob (authors of the draft) since then (9 months!), but
we have not been able to get any response from them... note that we had
added Rene as a coauthor of this draft because Bob's lack of cycles.

Terry would like to get this done by the end of February. Any proposals
on how to proceed?

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: René Hummen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:25:30 +0100

Hi Gonzalo, Bob, all,

sorry for being unresponsive. 

I have been working extensively on the draft in the past since becoming
co-editor of draft-moskowitz-hip-dex-01 back in March 2014, but I have not
been following HIP-related emails lately in accordance with Bob. I also want
to take this opportunity to note that I will not have any significant amount
of time for contributions in the future.

That said, I still would like to briefly explain the high-level rationale
behind our choice of cryptographic primitives for HIP DEX, which are Eric's
key points as I see it:
In 2014 and beyond, many (Industrial) IoT devices often did not offer
communication security or relied on fixed symmetric keys, potentially
resulting in overuse of these keys. This was - and to my understanding still
is - a direct result of the relatively high cost (ROM, RAM, CPU cycles,
network usage) of public key cryptography on many microcontroller-based
embedded devices.

Taking HIP BEX as a starting point, the idea therefore was to reduce the
overhead of the cryptographic primitives by omitting public-key signatures
and hash functions as the main overhead drivers regarding the above cost
factors. That also meant losing some cryptographic properties such as PFS
and SIGMA-compliance, many of which are taken for granted for traditional
Internet security.

This is the trade-off that we were willing to accept for HIP DEX in order to
improve on deployed state of the art and our approach is to be very open
about these trade-offs. This is why we added text to that direction right to
the start of the document
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-dex-06#section-1).

I suggest for the WG to decide whether this rationale and these trade-offs
are still valid and acceptable in 2019 and to proceed accordingly.

@Bob: Please comment if your view differs.

Regards,
René

-----Original Message-----
From: Hipsec <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
Sent: Dienstag, 15. Januar 2019 15:28
To: HIP <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Hipsec] Status of draft-ietf-hip-dex

Hi,

I want to give the group a status update on the HIP DEX draft. Terry, our
AD, had to remove it from the agenda of the telechat where it was going to
be discussed (in May) because of security-related concerns about the draft
(from the Security ADs). We have been periodically pinging Rene and Bob
(authors of the draft) since then (9 months!), but we have not been able to
get any response from them... note that we had added Rene as a coauthor of
this draft because Bob's lack of cycles.

Terry would like to get this done by the end of February. Any proposals on
how to proceed?

Cheers,

Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:15:23 +0200

Hi Rene,

if you do not hear anything against your explanation before, please
engage with Terry and Eric so that we can move forward. Thanks!

Cheers,

Gonzalo