IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 16 May 2020 23:40 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 06CCA3A0C0F for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2020 16:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 TsxxUIznFLHZ for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2020 16:40:30 -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 0A0B23A09BC for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 May 2020 16:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A233538A2B; Sat, 16 May 2020 19:38:04 -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 M_QTh-cQWi5u; Sat, 16 May 2020 19:37:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F52E38A27; Sat, 16 May 2020 19:37:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D48A3; Sat, 16 May 2020 19:39:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
cc: "Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com>, Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <2e56eb0840af0b28df181ca9730be333.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
References: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E0128A6A2@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <2e56eb0840af0b28df181ca9730be333.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
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, 16 May 2020 19:39:15 -0400
Message-ID: <6565.1589672355@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/ym7QLXvv2SBq7PM3MXJFBGprVyE>
Subject: Re: [6lo] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6lo-plc-03.txt
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, 16 May 2020 23:40:32 -0000

Hi, I have reviewed the changes from 02 to 03.
I had suggested that the term PLC Device be used consistently, and I see
that.
At the end of the first paragraph of 3.2, "PANC" is used which surprised me,
but I see it in the glossary.  I'm not sure if you want to add "JRC"
to the list of aliases for PANC.

Thank you for mentioning 6tisch-minimal-security.
There is also a BRSKI-like 6tisch mechanism that uses IDevID.

Is it the case that the PLC devices can have no L2 security as an option?
I believe that you may wish to outlaw that situation.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email