search

core-wg / attacks-on-coap

Other
2 stars 1 forks source link

Comments received during WG adoption call - freshness and recentness #1

Closed emanjon closed 1 year ago

emanjon commented 2 years ago

Henk Birkholz https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/ULPpd1BBiouRlS9qJKHmVbcbslo/

I think you are confusing freshness and recentness, fundamentally.

Freshness is not connected to recentness, but they are similar - and that is the tricky part. Something can be fresh after a huge amount of time according to a time-scale (not recent). Something can be stale after a tiny amount of time according to a time-scale (recent). Freshness is a quality of an assertion that expresses that the assertion still reflects the state of its subject, at the time of checking it. Freshness can be very tricky to check. Is that what you want? Probably not. My assumption is what you would want is a response with appropriate recentness (at least that is how I read your text).

emanjon commented 2 years ago

.

emanjon commented 2 years ago

I don't think neither freshness or recentness are well defined terms when it comes to security and protocols. The term and the definition might not be perfect but should likely just align with RFC 9175. The CORE WG decided to use the term freshness in RFC 9175, this is a just a companion document to RFC 9175.

I will check that the text aligns with RFC 9175 and also add a reference to RFC 9175 regarding the definition.