Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols
draft-mattsson-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-01
Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | John Preuß Mattsson , Francesca Palombini | ||
Last updated | 2018-03-19 | ||
Replaces | draft-mattsson-core-security-overhead | ||
Replaced by | draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison | |
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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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 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, and OSCORE. DTLS and TLS are analyzed with and without 6LoWPAN-GHC compression. DTLS is analyzed with and without Connection ID.
Authors
John Preuß Mattsson
Francesca Palombini
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)