On 2017-09-04 16:17, "core on behalf of Ludwig Seitz"
Post by Ludwig SeitzPost by Hannes TschofenigSection 1.1 references the "Controlling Actuators with CoAP" and Section
1.2 references several documents, including "Request-Tag option".
Since I have not followed the prior work I am just trying to figure out
what document(s) I have to read in order to understand what problem is
being solved here. I prefer to understand the problem first before
seeing the solution(s).
The referenced documents go into great deal describing the solution. Are
you saying that I have to read the two solution documents
- "Controlling Actuators with CoAP", and
- "Request-Tag option"
to get an idea what the problem is?
Ciao
Hannes
Since the draft proposes two extensions to CoAP, you need indeed to read
two texts on the backgrounds.
Controlling actuators with CoAP is not a solution document really, it
describes security problems when using CoAP to control actuators and
suggests a solution, but in nowhere enough detail to call it a "solution
document". This motivates the option presented in section 2.
draft-amsuess-core-request-tag describes a security problem with
blockwise, and presents a solution, if I'm not mistaken the solution was
transplanted to the document we are discussing, while the motivation wasn't.
Yes. There are two problem statements, described in section 1.1 and
section 1.2, respectively. It would be great if someone who read these
sections could let us know if there is anything unclear.
The reason why this draft are working on two problem statements is
feedback from IETF#98 that we should compile a draft on "security updates
to CoAP”, and also that both are dealing server-oriented issues.
The proposal for how to structure the content was presented at IETF#99 in
slides 98 and 99 of the “consolidated slides”:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-core-consolidat
ed-slides
- specifically that both problem statements should go into an update of
core-coap-actuators.
Göran