Re: [6lo] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14: (with COMMENT)

[Yong-Geun Hong <[e-mail]>]

Dear Paul Wouters.

Thanks for your valuable comments and sorry for the late response.

To resolve your comments, I updated the draft.

Please, find inline responses.

And, I submitted the revision draft based on your comments.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-15.html

It is appreciated to check again and let me know any missing points.

Best regards.

Yong-Geun.

2022년 12월 15일 (목) 오전 10:45, Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>님이
작성:

> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Like Roman, I am a bit concerned about the security aspects. As this is a
> use
> cases document, I've limited my issues to comments. But it would have to be
> satisfied in any further specification RFCs.
>
>    Security and Encryption: Though 6LoWPAN basic specifications do not
>    address security at the network layer, the assumption is that L2
>    security must be present.
>
> While I do understand that some L2 security is possible, eg via pairing,
> there
> is still a gap for some technologies - eg NFC where I wouldn't know which
> payment terminal I really connect to.
>
[Hong] Update the paragraph and add a relevant sentence


>
>    End-to-end communication is expected to be secured by means of common
>    mechanisms, such as IPsec, TLS/DTLS or object security [RFC8613].
>
> EDHOC (draft-ietf-lake-edhoc) could also be a good match
>
> Note that while the common mechanism is a good start, it only presents the
> use
> of a technology. Those technologies have requirements that might not be
> usable
> in the context of 6lo (eg when there is no internet connection to verify
> X.509
> certificates (OCSP or CRLs) or DNS identifiers).
>
[Hong] Add EDHOC as a one of examples