Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols
draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-06
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | John Preuß Mattsson , Francesca Palombini , Mališa Vučinić | ||
| Last updated | 2024-09-21 (Latest revision 2024-03-20) | ||
| Replaces | draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Held by WG | |
| Document shepherd | Henk Birkholz | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | henk.birkholz@ietf.contact |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document analyzes and compares the sizes of key exchange flights and the per-packet message size overheads when using different security protocols to secure CoAP. Small message sizes are very important for reducing energy consumption, latency, and time to completion in constrained radio network such as Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs). The analyzed security protocols are DTLS 1.2, DTLS 1.3, TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3, cTLS, EDHOC, OSCORE, and Group OSCORE. The DTLS and TLS record layers are analyzed with and without 6LoWPAN- GHC compression. DTLS is analyzed with and without Connection ID.
Authors
John Preuß Mattsson
Francesca Palombini
Mališa Vučinić
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)