T2TRG Summary meeting November 14, 2017 IETF 100, Singapore Chairs: Carsten Bormann, Ari Keränen Notes: Dirk Kutscher , Solomon Kembo TUESDAY, November 14, 2017. 1550-1750 Afternoon Session II, Padang Chairs: Intro, RG Status Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-t2trg-intro-and-rg-status/ Ari: Correct link of the agenda is on the mailing list Carsten: T2TRG is a research group not an IETF working group. We focus on issues with opportunities for IETF standardization. Next Meetings: WISHI Hackathon follow-up (27 November) as we couldn't finish our work during the Hackathon. NDSS Workshop February 18 (decentralised IoT Security) submit papers by December 1. We are planning to join hackathons of other organisations like OCF. We have one research document ready for publication "State-of-the-Art and Challenges for IoT Security". RESTful Design of IoT document adopted as RG item. 15:50 Chairs: Meeting reports for Berlin and OCF Carsten: Quick report on meeting in Berlin. RIOT Summit & ACM ICN 2017 conference Meeting had a lot of topics but I will highlight three topics: 1. (Ad-hoc) What is IoT? definition of "thing": Internet node that has a foot in the physical world the role of "constrainedness": often a property of things scalability requiring frugality in cost, power usage etc. (scaling down) 2. Coexistence https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-feeney-t2trg-inter-network-01 We had short seminar on coexistence in Chicago. We are trying to understand interesting coexistence properties such as Spectrum and IP networks Also had ten other topics we cannot cover today. Ari: We had packed agenda with 16 topics at the OCF meeting before the IETF 100 meeting. IETF and OCF will work together through monthly calls. OCF to review Resource Directory draft. longer list of action items for collaboration with OCF WISHI Hackathon: 2 hour hackathon on Sunday - semantic interop interworking - next call: Monday, Nov 27, will be a practical experiment Q Ali: have you contacted ITU-T? Ari: don't think we had them at our previous meetings Ali: At Buenos Aires, they had a lot of IoT security info Ari: please let us know who to involve Q Jabber: posted a link to the chat room 16:10 R. Moskowitz: Small Crypto for Small IoT Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-t2trg-small-crypto-for-small-iot/ Robert: We had a lot of vendors that left because their devices were too small. I will talk of a standard that should bring the vendors back into the room. - Keccak is a whole new approach from traditional cryptography since CAESAR crypto. - "sponge function" approach - learn more from https://keccak.team - selected for SHA-3 - is well optimized for 32-bit, 64-bit and multi-core CPUs and large messages - Obligatory picture: what is a sponge? https://keccak.team/files/CSF-0.1.pdf - Keccak is a complete symmetric crypto solution (crypto hash, keyed hash, PRF, data encryption) - Single primitive to implement replacements for AES, HMAC, SHA-2 - highly parameterized and comes in all sizes 25, 50, 100, 400, 800, 1600 bits - really good for small messages - defines 24 rounds which are easy to increase, which add future proofing for unknown attacks. - truly suitable for constrained IoT - KMAC outperforms HMAC, with smaller code size - Ketje SR outperforms AES-CCM - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moskowitz-small-crypto-00 - yet to move some diagrams that are in pdf form into the drafts format. - Next steps: - add Keccak b=400 to protocol specs - develop PoC IoT devices - we can have a digital certificate for constrained IoT devices using Keccak - Am looking for people to work with me on this project - Bob: suggesting to demonstrate industry need to NIST Questions Gabriel M.: This is not well known. Existing mode: crypto stuff in CFRG as consulting body. This should be useful beyond IoT. Encouraging to talk to CFRG to find out how they see Keccak and obtain some guidance. Bob: going to take this to CFRG. But this is a good forum to get discussion started. Ali: centralization or decentralization? Bob: medical example -- it's a whole different discussion. Focus here is communication security. Ali: Today's approach: security first. Distributing information to multiple sites and recipients. Not limited to one realm. Bob: protecting data at rest would still benefit from having fast, efficient ciphers. Some things are really orthogonal. Alex P: LPWAN co-chair perspective: seems to be interesting work for LWPAN community Bob: 802.15 study group on ng security Mohit: outperforming HMAC: from what I have seen, the code size is not the limiting factor, but the memory usage is (and execution time) Bob: more efficient in general (less power, using simpler operations) from what I have seen from Keccak documents 16:35 Xavier de Foy: IoT Edge Computing Survey and Gap Analysis Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-t2trg-iot-edge-computing-survey-and-gap-analysis/ Xavier presenting - light-weight and open edge computing -- has different requirements from existing (telco-driven) edge computing - 5G-CORAL research that combines telcom edge computing and fog - Intelligent IoT Gateway Model Products and Projects(Bosch, Siemens, Microsoft, Amazon, EdgeX Foundry) - Typical Protocols(HTTPS, MQTT, AMQP, COAP, OPC UA, DDS) - OpenFog architecture linked to IEEE P1934 WG - emerging trends: data-oriented networking and in-network computation, for example Information-Centric Networking (ICN) and Named Function Networking (NFN) - Gap analysis: - IoT EC requires distributed computing model - requiring a more open model - IoT EC should support lower end devices which may introduce additional technical challenges - Next Steps Discussion: Dirk: Booked the Butterworth room from 15:30 to 17:00 tomorrow (Wednesday) for a side meeting. [Notes for that meeting are now at: ] Erik: NAT Traversal could be an issue (engineering question) Erik: DINRG is looking at decentralized network infrastructure which seems to be related Ari: chair-chat off, I am also very much interested in the NAT traversal work; we already have the Thin ICE activity and could have a look if that solves the problems and/or we need something else Liang GENG: Problem Statement of Edge Computing beyond Access Network for Industrial IoT Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-t2trg-problem-statement-of-edge-computing-beyond-access-network-for-industrial-iot/ Mike McBride presenting - we narrow focus of Edge computing with special emphasis on the factory setting - we had side meeting at last IETF meeting and we have created a problem statement draft - identified first set of requirements - Beyond Edge Computing: distribute as much as you can - Further discussion: Thursday 20:00 -- 21:30 Hullet Questions Ali: you are talking about Industrial area: are you talking about how they are going to migrate from Bacnet to IP? Mike: Best answer would be to work together in collaboration with vendors Dirk: Huge conversion currently going on home-grown proprietary solutions; there are going to be security and interop problems. Erik: specific what virtualization technologies? Mike: Depends but specific application requirements Eve Schooler: Gap analysis is great. Many of them are focused on frameworks and architectures. IETF is good at looking specific protocols and interfaces for these architectures. Looking at ecosystem of compomenents, where are the places where we can design protocols, e.g., federation, routing, in-network caching. Edge/Fog computing shifts discussion away from only constrained devices. It might be worthwhile for T2TRG to consider non-constrained devices as well. Dave Thaler: protocol gateways are often used for translating between field buses and IP etc. * Matthias: at WoT have quite a lot of the features talked here. WoT tries to take IETF protocols and use them e.g. in industrial environment and trying to harmonize the environment. Good to have look at that. IG that does exploration and WG that does standards work. 17:10 Michael McCool (remote): WISHI semantic interop of AVS and IoT Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-t2trg-wishi-semantic-interop-of-avs-and-iot/ - evolution of IoT towards "ambient" computing - different levels of interoperability: semantic, structural, syntactic - IoT Ontology: iotschema.org (Things as capability bundles) - W3C Web of Things Architecture: thing description (TD), Scripting API, Binding API: does not require special gateways - PoC development, testing several different approaches 17:40 [Chairs: Meeting Planning, Wrapup -- already done at intro] Session ended at 17:50