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

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 20 May 2020 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3084F3A0938 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.44
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fREV6r1Lq-Sv for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35D683A0780 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0467C389F8; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:07:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost (localhost []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ChByrj04rBZo; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:07:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF91389F7; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:07:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7977B0; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:09:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: "Liubing \(Remy\)" <>, "6lo\" <>, Carles Gomez Montenegro <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <6565.1589672355@localhost> <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [6lo] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgRlc6IEktRCBBY3Rpb246IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYt?= =?utf-8?q?6lo-plc-03=2Etxt?=
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:09:42 -0000

Liubing (Remy) <> 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 <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-