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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 06 June 2020 23:15 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 961523A00D4 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 16:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
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 jep-f0qwkQVw for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 16:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7C063A00D2 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 16:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F285B38A5B; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 19:13:19 -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 516xsmxnAOw2; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 19:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011C638A22; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 19:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE5BB0; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 19:15:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Liubing \(Remy\)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com>
cc: "6lo\@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E012BF5E9@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E012BD516@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <29443.1590073171@localhost> <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E012BEAA2@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4328.1590160822@localhost> <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E012BF5E9@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: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 19:15:43 -0400
Message-ID: <9656.1591485343@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/blLGun1Qnc09F1WjXpOsQeecl9c>
Subject: Re: [6lo] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiDnrZTlpI06ICBGVzogSS1EIEFjdGlvbjogZHJh?= =?utf-8?q?ft-ietf-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: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 23:15:52 -0000

Liubing (Remy) <remy.liubing@huawei.com> wrote:
    > Thank you for your suggestion. I prefer not to include
    > [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra], since it is not as directly
    > related to PLC as [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-zerotouch-join]. How
    > about make a very brief explanation just like you made for
    > [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]?

    > I post the second paragraph of the security considerations
    > below. Please tell me your opinion. Thank you.

I like it, thank you.

    > Malicious PLC devices could paralyze the whole network via DOS attacks,
    > e.g., keep joining and leaving the network frequently, or multicast
    > routing messages containing fake metrics. A device may also join a
    > wrong or even malicious network, exposing its data to illegal
    > users. Mutual authentication of network and new device can be conducted
    > during the onboarding process of the new device. Methods include
    > protocols such as [RFC7925] (exchanging pre-installed certificates over
    > DTLS), [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] (which uses pre-shared keys),
    > and [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-zerotouch-join] (which uses IDevID and
    > MASA service). It is also possible to use EAP methods such as
    > [I-D.ietf-emu-eap-noob] via transports like PANA [RFC5191]. No specific
    > mechanism is specified by this document as an appropriate mechanism
    > will depend upon deployment circumstances. The network encryption key
    > appropriate for the layer-2 can also be acquired during the onboarding
    > process.

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