Skip to main content

Minutes interim-2020-lake-01: Thu 16:00
minutes-interim-2020-lake-01-202001161600-00

Meeting Minutes Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange (lake) WG
Date and time 2020-01-16 16:00
Title Minutes interim-2020-lake-01: Thu 16:00
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2020-01-16

minutes-interim-2020-lake-01-202001161600-00
IETF LAKE - Virtual Interim Thursday, January 16, 2020

Chairs: Mališa Vučinić, Stephen Farrell
Meeting link:
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=ma39f9f8ea114844f79e2c962c6efdd52
Meeting number: 645 835 024 Password: C4j4PgDJ Charter:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/lake/about Mailing list:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/Lake Etherpad:
https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/interim-2020-lake-01 Recording:
https://ietf.webex.com/webappng/sites/ietf/recording/54ab302eeb1841a798f009dea27edc07

Note taker: Ivaylo Petrov

Present:
- Stephen Farrell
- Malisa Vucinic
- Francesca Palombini
- Ivaylo Petrov
- Sean Turner
- Michael Richardson (MCR)
- Göran Selander
- Marco Tiloca
- Rikard Hoglund
- John Mattsson
- Eric Rescorla (EKR)
- Klaus Hartke
- Simon Bouget
- Ira McDonald
- Karthik Bhargavan
- hvig
- Peter Blomqvist
- Kathleen Moriarty

Agenda:
- Administrivia and agenda bash (chairs, 5 mins)
- Requirements draft issues (Göran Selander, NN mins)
- Planning for IETF 107 and maybe beyond (chairs, 10 mins)
- AOB

Minutes:
- Administrivia and agenda bash (chairs, 5 mins)
   - No bashing of the agenda.
- Requirements draft issues (Göran Selander, NN mins)
    - Intro slides
         - Goran presenting issues (#1-10).  
         https://github.com/lake-wg/reqs/issues

    - Issue #1 Omit signature based protocol?
        - We can close the issue.
        - (MCR is still not sure, but is willing to take this 1:1)

    - Issue #2 Terminology of data chunks
        - EKR: Not only a terminology issue.
        - MCR: Retransmissions can have security implications, which might not
        be aparent on the message exchange level. - EKR: There can be impacts
        based on where the fragmentation and defragmentation occurs.  Not sure
        I understand where the contraints are on whether the fragmentation
        occurs higher up or lower down. - Goran: We are assuming at least CoAP
        transport and not assuming much more. - MCR: tuning for different
        technology might be different, but security should not be affected -
        EKR: We should not make the tuning very bad for any particular
        technology. - MCR: We are trying to optimize radio units, not protocol
        messages. - MCR: AKE should be aware of fragmentation of lower levels,
        not do fragmentation. - ACTION: EKR: Takes action to re-read and
        propose a resolution for this issue or recommend we just close it
        (chairs to assign issue#2 to ekr so he can close if appropriate) -
        Flight vs messages - leave it for now and decide afterwards, most
        people are fine with both. We should just make sure it is clear that
        multiple "packets" can be transmitted simultaniously. - ACTION: Chairs
        - translate conclusions from here to github issues etc.

    - Issue #3 Resumption
        - ACTION: EKR to write some text - chair to assign him the issue.

    - Issue #4 Key separation
        - Maybe find a better term for "Application Data" (additional data or
        something else that implies it is part of the AKE) - ACTION: Goran to
        take the lead

    - Issue #5 PQC formulation
        - Leave the text as is and update only the extensions text.
        - ACTION: Close the issue.

    - Issue #6 Listing of specific attacks
        - Seems fine for people.
        - ACTION: Close

    - Issue #7 Extensibility vs. complexity
        - EKR: we should be able to not pay the cost of the things that we
        don't use (pay for what you use). - ACTION: MCR can take a look at it
        (to be assign by the chairs)

    - Issue #8 Strength of the handshake integrity check
    - Issue #9 AKE vs OSCORE properties
        - #8 and #9 were discussed together as they are very related.
        - EKR: Should be able to negotiate NULL cipher and make sure you get
        it.  I.e., the AKE needs to have integrity. - MCR: Heard that we do not
        want to truncate AKE authentication tag. - ACTION: Karthik to take the
        lead on this (chairs to assign the issue)

    - Issue #10 Negotiation of AKE mode
        - Proposal accepted: The AKE shall support negotiation of type of
        authentication credentials.  Need some text. - ACTION: Göran will take
        #10.

- Planning for IETF 107 and maybe beyond (chairs, 10 mins)
    - Way forward: WGLC and then park the draft once everyone is happy. What is
    next? - EKR: I will have to think about it. - Goran: Discuss candidates. -
    No other suggestions so far. - Goran: Customers and partners are willing to
    start using, hence the willingness to start the discussion.

- Stephen: No need for the next timeslot.
- MCR: Hackathon?

- AOB