ACE use cases
draft-seitz-ace-usecases-02
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ludwig Seitz , Stefanie Gerdes , Göran Selander , Mehdi Mani , Sandeep Kumar | ||
| Last updated | 2014-10-27 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-ace-usecases | ||
| 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-ace-usecases | |
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
Constrained devices are nodes with limited processing power, storage space and transmission capacities. These devices in many cases do not provide user interfaces and are often intended to interact without human intervention. This document comprises a collection of representative use cases for the application of authentication and authorization in constrained environments. These use cases aim at identifying authorization problems that arise during the lifecylce of a constrained device and are intended to provide a guideline for developing a comprehensive authentication and access control solution for this class of scenarios. Where specific details are relevant, it is assumed that the devices use the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) as communication protocol, however most conclusions apply generally.
Authors
Ludwig Seitz
Stefanie Gerdes
Göran Selander
Mehdi Mani
Sandeep Kumar
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)