Re: [6lo] 答复: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6lo-plc-03.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 20 May 2020 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 3084F3A0938 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.44
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 fREV6r1Lq-Sv for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.249.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35D683A0780 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0467C389F8; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:07:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ChByrj04rBZo; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:07:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF91389F7; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:07:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7977B0; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:09:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Liubing \(Remy\)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com>, "6lo\@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E012BD078@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E0128A6A2@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <2e56eb0840af0b28df181ca9730be333.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <6565.1589672355@localhost> <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E012BD078@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 11:09:32 -0400
Message-ID: <23650.1589987372@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/S4MqL8VIV_lCTRJ1MTAL9Wc9wyQ>
Subject: Re: [6lo] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgRlc6IEktRCBBY3Rpb246IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYt?= =?utf-8?q?6lo-plc-03=2Etxt?=
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: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:09:42 -0000

Liubing (Remy) <remy.liubing@huawei.com> wrote:
    > Thank you for mentioning 6tisch-minimal-security.  There is also a
    > BRSKI-like 6tisch mechanism that uses IDevID.

    >   [Remy] I think you must
    > be talking about [draft-ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-zerotouch-join]. The
    > minimal security is considered to be one-touch since the PSK has to be
    > configured a priori. And this document provides a zero-touch method, in
    > which the IDevID (provided by the manufacturer) in 802.1AR is used as
    > the credential for authentication. The authentication is done with the
    > help of the MASA. Am I understanding it correctly? I think the method
    > simplifies the provisioning procedure. However, the PLC standards have
    > not supported 802.1AR yet, thus this zero-touch method couldn't be used
    > in the implementation at this moment.

Whether or not the *PLC* documents specify 802.1AR is not really relevant.
They also don't specify any useful secure join mechanism at all.

The device either has a manufacturer provided keypair, or it has to be
provisioned with a key by the operator.

    > Is it the case that the PLC devices can have no L2 security as an
    > option?  I believe that you may wish to outlaw that situation.

    > [Remy] All the PLC standards we mentioned in this document have L2
    > security mechanisms, such as encryption, data integrity, and
    > anti-replay. Since this document is focused on the adaptation layer and
    > above, the L2 security is considered to be applied by default.

Then uou can use dtsecurity-zerotouch-join or 6tisch-minimal-security.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-