[6lo] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-17: (with COMMENT)
Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 04 February 2020 22:41 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE82F12013B; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 14:41:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd@ietf.org, Shwetha Bhandari <shwethab@cisco.com>, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.116.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <158085606697.15785.1980731784696257986.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 14:41:06 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/tRvDga_mGHQ-AdtWp6E3xnLz5bo>
Subject: [6lo] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-17: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 22:41:07 -0000
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-17: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The first sentence in the Abstract reads: "This document updates the 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol defined in RFC 6775 and RFC 8505." It gives the impression that both RFCs are formally Updated, but document itself (and the header) make it clear that only rfc8505 is in fact Updated. IOW, the Abstract is a little confusing. Suggestion> The 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol is defined in RFC 6775 and RFC 8505. This document updates RFC 8505 by defining a new extension called Address Protected Neighbor Discovery (AP-ND) which protects... (2) §5.3 of rfc8505 has the following text related to collisions: Note regarding ROVR collisions: Different techniques for forming the ROVR will operate in different namespaces. [RFC6775] specifies the use of EUI-64 addresses. [AP-ND] specifies the generation of cryptographic tokens. While collisions are not expected in the EUI-64 namespace only, they may happen if [AP-ND] is implemented by at least one of the nodes. An implementation that understands the namespace MUST consider that ROVRs from different namespaces are different even if they have the same value. An Even if this document updates rfc8505 to specify "the RECOMMENDED method for building a ROVR field", there may be nodes in the LLN that don't support it. I would like to not only see text about explicitly recognizing the possibility of collisions in mixed networks, but also deployment considerations related to the incremental implementation of the extension. (3) Nits: s/allow the an attacker/allow an attacker s/forwarding an IPv6 packets/forwarding IPv6 packets
- [6lo] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana via Datatracker