Skip to main content

Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols

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)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
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 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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:


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.


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.)