Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols

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)
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)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at


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.


John Mattsson (
Francesca Palombini (

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)