Re: [6lo] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Benjamin

> > CC'ing SEC-DIR: Please help: if there is a reference for that practice, what it
> > takes to maintain a nonce, and why we have a nonce from both sides? Trying
> > to reinvent that text does not look like a good idea for this draft.
> 
> It's pretty standard, so I'm not sure that there's a perfect reference for it.  A
> key phrase is that it provides "contributory behavior", so that a party (either
> one) that knows it has a good RNG knows that the protocol will be secure.

Great: I modified section 6.1 to include this indication as follows:

"

   The 6LN replies to the challenge with an NS(EARO) that includes a new
   Nonce option (shown as NonceLN in Figure 5), the CIPO (Section 4.3),
   and the NDPSO containing the signature.  Both Nonces are included in
   the signed material.  This provides a "contributory behavior", so
   that either party that knows it generates a good quality Nonce knows
   that the protocol will be secure.  The information associated to a
   Crypto-ID stored by the 6LR on the first NS exchange where it
   appears.  The 6LR MUST store the CIPO parameters associated with the
   Crypto-ID so it can be used for more than one address.
"

Many thanks!

Pascal