Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols
draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-03
| Document | Type | Expired Internet-Draft (lwig WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last updated | 2019-09-12 (latest revision 2019-03-11) | ||
| Replaces | draft-mattsson-lwig-security-protocol-comparison | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats |
Expired & archived
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-03.txt
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. The analyzed security protocols are DTLS 1.2, DTLS 1.3, TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3, 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 Mattsson
(john.mattsson@ericsson.com)
Francesca Palombini
(francesca.palombini@ericsson.com)
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)