Skip to main content

Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols

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)
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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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:


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.


John Preuß Mattsson
Francesca Palombini

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