Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols
draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-07
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(lwig WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | John Preuß Mattsson , Francesca Palombini , Mališa Vučinić | ||
| Last updated | 2023-01-24 | ||
| Replaces | draft-mattsson-lwig-security-protocol-comparison | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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.)