Re: [6lo] AP-ND 22

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Sun, 26 April 2020 07:10 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331413A0F07; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lJeaGs6Et7cq; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com (mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79ECF3A0F05; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oo1-xc2b.google.com with SMTP id g14so3133501ooa.4; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tX8fjXVUivdL1jGkUmAls8bBWxOe3U72ILB2nFhQv2Q=; b=h8gp6tcFnIuhQBb2+Kn5/7H25nBvxe/Bz426GKtHK6NjzWKeGFP65aAL1tH//ndfma wKnNJViNcC3jKnBUIRYRX8bfl1GqwZEM4wXaSJGC3RQLdIAlcyhWbOmIeGietc+iXyGi tjaZP2UVCFyIgWKjRVgZmL0L9XqJMNIFd9tVpPe92OlK8A5Kr7aVY0pgX68STz+17xW4 IaKK3a0NPCkhdXrE+ez6lbYEQnc5RTZhM15tBuwuaUavJpU7eaFrEmBcG98h80yTu4og 77KJUhS4eLu/xdbC+hIbqueD5XhI5HvW3W+VsFybJ8i+bTccuMPvolN5bqY2S11bvvFV 6kjA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tX8fjXVUivdL1jGkUmAls8bBWxOe3U72ILB2nFhQv2Q=; b=ZhbP2h4GOAuxpmIMFIGzr0Yl5SMsOxoSTZOgTiOBVVcuUHb0nn64yCs5oCqaGvP7h3 OBcwdhxKeWnJz4q2Kazi0WLxN9wgKf5evOBcGwx8tVU6knR2JN35Ta8ukNYVICLpsZjC clArFyi6tthFAaYcqlef0TbkFkZlIcOAjMwE6J5DVWm2VKNfuuBhBfqPMfV9337+nE8m 99+BBj+9V7/km3HXmqdgLe7RFd09armETIE2QOMXeFoQ5JFF01YJs0SqyAocbYNE3lBc OWLPoxCTmJSnQZWU+0y8k0Kpjx3qBb7n0vc8GaEMSQ7xSCUwwraYyFtQZQoKFdbZUU7V Gc7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuahTa5Kvbb1Bk93IXLCqfN4oO71pJwsHKDPcv3vM1l/6uXSWjN0 j2JRjlQ7HmcRf8m2woHBfBNnwUXWM3XIDJAimZc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLN4Ckg+U9p+IzFJzyONj9XWaalwySdI42YN5yyNFf6Hpk21z/dkYHcI3pXiWX+uaKKsbYbFX4brkllMp08C78=
X-Received: by 2002:a4a:4348:: with SMTP id l8mr14311650ooj.49.1587885046593; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB3565BD638A8BCEE57216998BD8D00@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565BD638A8BCEE57216998BD8D00@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 09:10:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8_0Bms-pGiGnAX6Cz496qhSOaCGNMggpg7fsQM5wn892w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Rene Struik <rstruik.ext@gmail.com>, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "6lo-chairs@ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@ietf.org>, Erik Kline <ek@loon.com>, "Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)" <shwethab@cisco.com>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000257bfb05a42c4c16"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/9ZR3q-FLFGY0i3V2z4JA8RYDhaY>
Subject: Re: [6lo] AP-ND 22
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 07:10:49 -0000

  The draft should indicated on top first page that it updates RFC6775,
7400, and 8505, it only shows updating RFC8505.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 3:54 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hello Benjamin (and 6lo)
>
>
>
> We are soliciting your help on AP ND for hopefully the last time, about
> the last step, that was supposed to be the IANA section that was missing
> for JOSE and Crypto Type 2.
>
>
>
> Rene worked quite a bit with Jim and the conclusion that I made from that
> is that the formats that we already discussed in appendix B (SEC1) were
> better suited than JOSE (or COSE) and avoided both the registry issue and
> gaps in the existing specifications.
>
>
>
> We had a conversation yesterday with our AD (Erik) and Shepherd (Shwetha)
> and we agreed to give a try at using those formats for -22. The conclusion
> that it looked OK but we need a validation that the new key and signature
> formats do not alter the security of the spec.
>

IMHO it can be more clear to define in options a security policy name
defined by the 6LR, so the security cases of this draft can be attached to
per policy.



On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:26 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> On the side, It appears that the key representations are typically of
> length 8n +1. Considering that IPv6 ND aligns its options at 8n bytes, it
> would make sense to start a byte ahead like this, don’t you think?
>

Yes makes sense when the reserved1 is not fully used or zeros, but if used
then having another reserved is ok also,

Best regards,
AB