Re: [6lo] INT-DIR review of draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-05
Jens Toftgaard Petersen <jtp@rtx.dk> Mon, 03 October 2016 14:45 UTC
Return-Path: <jtp@rtx.dk>
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 C438812B2F5 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 07:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=rtx1.onmicrosoft.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 KU3_Z-QTJWTp for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 07:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-he1eur01on0043.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.0.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 176D712B317 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 07:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=RTX1.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-rtx-dk; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=F/lBZqC/Fhp8rJl5gznndOlH11wlIswvpD/5+NxPL8Y=; b=WUFmTQEji6F6iMCNO7ssD03KDTY+oTXHZ/OqwMxWF1GVV2aiipxGO5Ky5Xu0N2U/0qif/VLrmHTc6JvHrJHXoxJH8QhbhmtJG+5JbSh83Sp0Hj9joWJ3vFwQVS1Jgiwo/oCbHm9y+Ka+G3g87ZPoRlxU5ZWHs81Z61cT9czp7Uc=
Received: from AM5PR0401MB2595.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.169.245.22) by AM5PR0401MB2594.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.169.245.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.659.8; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:44:53 +0000
Received: from AM5PR0401MB2595.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.245.22]) by AM5PR0401MB2595.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.245.22]) with mapi id 15.01.0659.009; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:44:53 +0000
From: Jens Toftgaard Petersen <jtp@rtx.dk>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: INT-DIR review of draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-05
Thread-Index: AdIYn0f9Bf46FmbqQ3GCrgJJ/R304wE4HyRg
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 14:44:53 +0000
Message-ID: <AM5PR0401MB2595069B2AA3ED3907044617CBC20@AM5PR0401MB2595.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <26b8f5639f5743d4bbed33d32e36f07b@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <26b8f5639f5743d4bbed33d32e36f07b@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: da-DK, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jtp@rtx.dk;
x-originating-ip: [87.54.11.130]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: add4a00f-1121-45a0-6677-08d3eb9bd60c
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0401MB2594; 6:bevxKJUMkY+5LxIXSHd8rUBme5Dxlf4eTi7TKhMoP5970F/rxw0j29DkISFfV8bvzpOAqMhvKOGNSfOkI+/zZX8B+vgcf0u7zngffdFJQq4XMhb0T02F+nzaHq1StTpUf1dwF6Xx1OwiCQo/2pcxCzk/YqWtt7R3I0xE8LoqpfgAlsclpC8v6EjqsytCCV5SO1ggYaayCP406mFQBgWUiBpUm1L7Y+8TaehwJHmpc2x+ej+0Q2X5pLfnF4Pm+fwZ1zUqxR7ndKFSf7a1xerRLc7fBmOCKP1s5q7m9/5fSCm5ZZc40W7MIVr+WTtYvWg587S/RHzKUwDU/XIh0W9cNA==; 5:oYIUl8dGPUdz5YtE53J2Q/sEfKCTUlEtsWexqOAsRZWPPCX+6MrJbQgjuJsgSr1p0lBbwB+O6417Iqv1O+o7tzjkX13hR7sbunwzwUXVoSL9uop5tzxZx5JPoQ5FWVuvjfa3r+D1x4JrQzFShaMstA==; 24:MNNV3BquU4anv+pi1ZSMTG3hT0WJV0rIE6wNi9KzLi9a1rggoW3FCXJpa8BkDyUNtoe3+EsbKhMPkgTSJajJTS1cxj3AJfE+XwZdBsZUvcg=; 7:t+u6hzvOs++yecCMxkWf/HAsXiRj8WkJ+p44MwaWC46abuKjjUD9kaS3lyf+22ixlC5fSS7T89tFcg3ezRpbv4u16DoL9CPTaVYs1j5dze5zv6lUHj0Zxry6xS8gE5hVR+/bbwHPaw/h9gjwyBSbQtJrshudA16ozKQNPaal/QQVZrVSWtweVY860UOB32iCcOQePjrJiZsKkYRAvVbL3UJuNlaiAtGooW4TNl95kQeT+maTg2euXtNt9OzLWmBLp4kl9IiCSYjHe/pyM/ARMjRd/3yb4owR2wYEH8n/A+bgqh6GTxKnWhuFBlSoxHPC
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM5PR0401MB2594;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM5PR0401MB259459B919136AFF2DBED3E3CBC20@AM5PR0401MB2594.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(192374486261705)(21748063052155)(21532816269658)(17755550239193);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6043046)(6042046); SRVR:AM5PR0401MB2594; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0401MB2594;
x-forefront-prvs: 008421A8FF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(7916002)(50854003)(189002)(199003)(45984002)(5002640100001)(101416001)(2950100002)(2906002)(11100500001)(9686002)(97736004)(87936001)(76176999)(3280700002)(10400500002)(19617315012)(19300405004)(19273905006)(92566002)(5001770100001)(68736007)(76576001)(3846002)(6116002)(790700001)(19580405001)(54356999)(189998001)(50986999)(5890100001)(19580395003)(230783001)(107886002)(2501003)(3660700001)(586003)(102836003)(106356001)(33656002)(77096005)(5660300001)(7736002)(15975445007)(7906003)(2900100001)(8676002)(122556002)(105586002)(81166006)(81156014)(66066001)(74316002)(7846002)(2201001)(74482002)(7696004)(86362001)(19625215002)(16236675004)(8936002)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0401MB2594; H:AM5PR0401MB2595.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: rtx.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM5PR0401MB2595069B2AA3ED3907044617CBC20AM5PR0401MB2595_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: rtx.dk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Oct 2016 14:44:53.2476 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9a968248-e61d-46fd-b8d1-5c62247712e5
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0401MB2594
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/ghW2ERWhL-s2HiIxQv-SMTybaI8>
Subject: Re: [6lo] INT-DIR review of draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-05
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 14:45:04 -0000
Hi Pascal, Thank you very much for your review - very much appreciated. I have just submitted a revised version that addresses all your comments. See additional comments below in colour inline. Best regards, Jens From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Sent: 27. september 2016 11:14 To: 6lo@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule@tools.ietf.org Subject: [6lo] INT-DIR review of draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-05 Dear all : I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-05. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html. Document: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule Transmission of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low Energy Reviewer: Pascal Thubert Review Date: Sept 27, 2016 IETF Last Call Date: TBD Summary: Issues concerning the subnet model that needs to be explicited. Major issues: - Reference to draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations and privacy of addresses should be addressed (related to lifespan of IEEE EUI48 addresses, random but permanent is still not too good) Reference has been added - Subnet model (Section 3.3) should be described in more details, indicating NBMA Multi-Link SubNet (MLSN). Suggestion to review/emulate RFC 7668 (section 3.2.1 and last paragraph of 3.2.2) Subnet model description has been revised and MLSN concept introduced - Reference to draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router could be made to address the L3 perspective of node mobility Text and reference added - Some IMPERATIVE is extraneous. (RFC2119: "Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm") Has been reviewed - further comments are appreciated Minor issues: - inline on the right of the original text, with a "<<" prefix --- 6Lo Working Group P. Mariager Internet-Draft J. Petersen, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track RTX A/S Expires: November 17, 2016 Z. Shelby ARM M. Van de Logt Gigaset Communications GmbH D. Barthel Orange Labs May 16, 2016 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low Energy < snip> 1. Introduction DECT Ultra Low Energy (DECT ULE or just ULE) is an air interface <<< spell DECT on first use technology building on the key fundamentals of traditional DECT / CAT-iq but with specific changes to significantly reduce the power consumption at the expense of data throughput. DECT (Digital <<< DECT spelling Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) is a standard series [EN300.175-part1-7] specified by ETSI and CAT-iq (Cordless Advanced Technology - internet and quality) is a set of product certication and interoperability profiles [CAT-iq] defined by DECT Forum. DECT Done < snip> In its generic network topology, DECT is defined as a cellular network technology. However, the most common configuration is a star network with a single FP defining the network with a number of PP attached. The MAC layer supports both traditional DECT as this is << "both" is unclear, can you rephrase? used for services like discovery, pairing, security features etc. All these features have been reused from DECT. Wording is revised < snip> [DECT ULE PP]-----\ /-----[DECT ULE PP] \ / [DECT ULE PP]-------+[DECT ULE FP]+-------[DECT ULE PP] / \ [DECT ULE PP]-----/ \-----[DECT ULE PP] Figure 2: DECT ULE star topology << suggestion to place a forward reference to section 3.3 on how IP uses that (MLSN) A significant difference between IEEE 802.15.4 and DECT ULE is that the former supports both star and mesh topology (and requires a routing protocol), whereas DECT ULE in it's primary configuration does not support the formation of multihop networks at the link layer. In consequence, the mesh header defined in [RFC4944] for mesh Reference added < snip> When bound to a FP, a PP is assigned a 20 bit TPUI which is unique << in reference to draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations it would be good to indicate whether this is short lived or long lived, so as to figure if an IPv6 address can be derived or not. within the FP. This TPUI is used for addressing (layer 2) in messages between FP and PP. Reference added and additional description < snip> Optionally each DECT PP and DECT FP can be assigned a unique (IEEE) MAC-48 address additionally to the DECT identities to be used by the << same as above, it would be good to indicate whether this is short lived or long lived, so as to figure if an IPv6 address can be derived or not. 6LoWPAN. During the address registration of non-link-local addresses as specified by this document, the FP and PP can use such MAC-48 to construct the IID. Text revised and added < snip> support complete IP packets, the DLC layer of DECT ULE SHALL per this << there is a MUST later in the document, no need to uppercase here; whether this setting is needed is debatable specification be configured with a MTU size that fits the requirements from IPv6 data packets, hence [RFC4944] fragmentation/ reassembly is not required. << unclear. .. since DLC supports fragmentation there is no need for 6LoWPAN fragmentation is there? The adaptation described here only provides value if the DLC fragmentation is armful. Is that the case ? Tried to make text for clear It is expected that the LOWPAN_IPHC packet will fulfil all the requirements for header compression without spending unnecessary overhead for mesh addressing. It is important to realize that the usage of larger packets will be at the expense of battery life, as a large packet inside the DECT ULE stack will be fragmented into several or many MAC layer packets, each consuming power to transmit / receive. << proof? fragments increase reliability and reduce the size of retried pieces. is there a paper showing pros vs cons or is this the author intuition ? Change wording to make more clear. MAC PDU size is not changed. Fragmentation is implemented in DECT ULE DLC instead of using RFC4944 2.5. Additional Considerations The DECT ULE standard allows PP to be registered (bind) to multiple FP and roaming between these FP. This draft does not consider the << Why ?? this is where the backbone router becomes handy. If the subnet model is clarified to NBMA / MLSN then it is possible to assign the same prefix to multiple 6LBRs and connect them through a 6lo backbone router scenarios of PP roaming between multiple FP. The use of repeater functionality is also not considered in this draft. After some analysis we added this as an option < snip> 3.1. Protocol Stack In order to enable transmission of IPv6 packets over DECT ULE, a Permanent Virtual Circuit (PVC) has to be opened between FP and PP. This MUST be done by setting up a service call from PP to FP. The PP << is this MUST coming from this spec or from DECT? if the latter then just say "this is done by..." SHALL specify the <<IWU-ATTRIBUTES>> in a service-change (other) message before sending a service-change (resume) message as defined in [TS102.939-1]. The <<IWU-ATTRIBTES>> SHALL define the ULE Application Protocol Identifier to 0x06 and the MTU size to 1280 octets or larger. The FP MUST send a service-change-accept (resume) containing a valid paging descriptor. The PP MUST be pageable. Changed, and wording changed < snip> 3.2. Link Model The general model is that IPv6 is layer 3 and DECT ULE MAC+DLC is layer 2. The DECT ULE implements already fragmentation and reassembly functionality, hence [RFC4944] fragmentation and << this is repeating and sight contradictory. suggestions to keep the text starting at RFC4944, dropping the beginning of the sentence reassembly function MUST NOT be used. The DECT ULE DLC link (PVC) MUST be configured with a minimum MTU size of at least 1280 octets in << Not sure this is needed order to meet the size requirements of IPv6. Wording changed < snip> compression context if any, and from address registration information (see Section 3.2.2). Due to DECT ULE star topology, each branch of the star is considered to be an individual link and thus the PPs cannot directly hear one << indicate that this is NBMA, multilink subnet. See related text in 6LoWPAN BTLE RFC 7668 another and cannot talk to one another with link-local addresses. However, the FP acts as a 6LBR for communication between the PPs. After the FP and PPs have connected at the DECT ULE level, the link can be considered up and IPv6 address configuration and transmission can begin. The FP ensures address collisions do not occur. Wording changed and multilink subnet introduced 3.2.1. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration At network interface initialization, both 6LN and 6LBR SHALL generate and assign to the DECT ULE network interface IPv6 link-local addresses [RFC4862] based on the DECT device addresses (see Section 2.3) that were used for establishing the underlying DECT ULE connection. The DECT device addresses IPEI and RFPI MUST be used to derive the << SHOULD vs. MUST: with a MUST, this means that the 6LoWPAN code does never expect a link local that is not fully elided (3.2.4.1.)? IPv6 link-local 64 bit Interface Identifiers (IID) for 6LN and 6LBR, respectively. MUST is ok < snip> see [RFC7136]. For example from RFPI=11.22.33.44.55 the derived IID is 80:11:22:ff:fe:33:44:55 and from IPEI=01.23.45.67.89 the derived IID is 00:01:23:ff:fe:45:67:89. << This seems to be setting permanent addresses (admittedly Link local), and the privacy properties of such addresses should be addressed, eg addresses do not (lust not) leak in app layer in any fashion As defined in [RFC4291], the IPv6 link-local address is formed by appending the IID, to the prefix FE80::/64, as shown in Figure 4. Text added < snip> (CGAs) [RFC3972], privacy extensions [RFC4941], Hash-Based Addresses (HBAs) [RFC5535], DHCPv6 [RFC3315], or static, semantically opaque << This seems to be setting permanent addresses; discussion on renewing addresses would be good, ref to draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations would help, and the security section could just point here as opposed to use IMPERATIVE addresses [RFC7217] SHOULD be used by default. In situations where Reference added < snip> 2. A DECT ULE 6LN MUST NOT register its link-local address. A DECT << the registration has 2 roles, DAD (which can be avoided for globally unique addresses) and SLLA mapping. This seems to indicate that SLLA is deduced from the LL so there's special code to avoid using an ND cache? ULE 6LN MUST register its non-link-local addresses with the 6LBR by Wording changed. There is are unique 1-to-1 mapping link-local addresses and LL addresses. < snip> accordingly. The NS with the ARO option MUST be sent irrespective of the method used to generate the IID. The 6LN MUST register only one << why can't a device form more than one address? IPv6 address per available IPv6 prefix. After some analysis we have removed this restriction < snip> the DAM field of the compressed IPv6 header as CID=1, DAC=1 and DAM=01 or DAM=11. Note that when a context is defined for the IPv6 << considering the rest of the optimizations, why don't you have a /128 context for the 6LBR? destination address, the 6LBR can infer the elided destination prefix by using the context. Wording has been changed - I am not sure if have completely understood your question/suggestion. < snip> 3.3. Subnets and Internet Connectivity Scenarios << Missing scenario below, same /64, with backbone router 6LN 6LN \ / \ / 6LN --- 6LBR ------ 6LBR --- 6LN / \ / \ 6LN 6LN <DECT ULE> <Backbone> <DECT ULE> This optional scenario has been added < snip>
- [6lo] INT-DIR review of draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-05 Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6lo] INT-DIR review of draft-ietf-6lo-dect-u… Jens Toftgaard Petersen
- Re: [6lo] INT-DIR review of draft-ietf-6lo-dect-u… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)