Re: [6lo] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 05 March 2020 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 5D9CC3A1695; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 07:41:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 b1k7nLjgqzEz; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 07:41:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D42E3A1693; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 07:41:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 025FfPqd030547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:41:28 -0500
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 07:41:25 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "6lo-chairs@ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@ietf.org>, "carlesgo@entel.upc.edu" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, "draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200305154125.GR98042@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <158200315586.4970.7352556140284234422.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> =?utf-8?q?=3CMN2PR11MB35655CB7CFD19C275C07B254D8E50=40MN2PR11MB3565=2Enampr?= =?utf-8?q?d11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CMN2PR11MB35655CB7CFD19C275C07B254D8E50=40MN2PR11MB?= =?utf-8?q?3565=2Enamprd11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/TvE10khH7PkTF24CfTNC_--KLVc>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:41:39 -0000

On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 06:07:31PM +0000, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Dear Benjamin
> 
> Many thanks for your  review this time again!
> 
> I answered the track question separately (with you and Mirja), this is a conscious discussion that was debated with Suresh in Singapore, we decided for STD track and made the changes accordingly.
> 
> Let's address the DISCUSS first, more tomorrow on the COMMENTs
> 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > I think we need to be more explicit (whether inline or by reference) about
> > what "Secure joining and the Link-Layer security that it sets up"
> > (Section 7) entails in terms of ensuring that access to the LLN is only available
> > to authenticated and authorized entities.  It might be worth doing so as
> > explicit assumptions or an applicability statement early in the document
> > (e.g., the Introduction).
> 
> For one thing, in https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-05.txt text was moved that makes this unreadable.

Oh, yes, that would make a difference.

> Changed the first paragraph of the intro to:
> "
>    The original 6LoWPAN fragmentation is defined in [RFC4944] for use
>    over a single Layer 3 hop, though possibly multiple Layer 2 hops in a
>    mesh-under network, and was not modified by the [RFC6282] update.
>    6LoWPAN operations including fragmentation depend on a Link-Layer
>    security that prevents any rogue access to the network.
> "

Assuming this is meant to replace the "Secure joining and [...]" text, this
looks good.

> > 
> > Also, in Section 2.3 we refer to the datagram_tag plus layer-2 sender address
> > as being "a globally unique identifier for the datagram", but I think this can
> > only hold within some time-bounded window (e.g., the lifetime of the
> > packet), since the tag space is finite and reuse somewhat inevitable.
> 
> This is certainly correct was better make it explicit. What about:
> "
>    datagram_tag:  An identifier of a datagram that is locally unique to
>       the Layer 2 sender.  Associated with the MAC address of the
>       sender, this becomes a globally unique identifier for the datagram
>       within the duration of its transmission.
> 
> "
> 
> Please let me know if that addresses your DISCUSS so I can move on with the COMMENTS

Yes, that sounds good.

Thanks!

-Ben

> Many thanks again!
> 
> Pascal