Skip to main content

Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols
draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-05

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (lwig WG)
Authors John Preuß Mattsson , Francesca Palombini , Mališa Vučinić
Last updated 2021-05-06 (Latest revision 2020-11-02)
Replaces draft-mattsson-lwig-security-protocol-comparison
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Associated WG milestone
Dec 2022
Submit the CoAP security comparison document to the IESG for publication as an Information RFC
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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 can be found at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-05.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 Preuß Mattsson
Francesca Palombini
Mališa Vučinić

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