Re: [6lowpan] draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz as a new 6man WG document

Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com> Fri, 15 March 2013 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <zach@sensinode.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75BD21F86C2; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lDuydm786EMX; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from auth-smtp.nebula.fi (auth-smtp.nebula.fi [217.30.180.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F99E21F86BA; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-1722.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-1722.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.23.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth-smtp.nebula.fi (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r2FGQeTL026543 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:26:43 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B28B2A3-2AAE-4226-A442-6892FA2D9C5F@tzi.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:26:40 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5F9DBB25-27AD-448C-88EA-EC65D0EEC540@sensinode.com>
References: <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD1D1733EA@cph-ex1> <4B28B2A3-2AAE-4226-A442-6892FA2D9C5F@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz as a new 6man WG document
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:26:50 -0000

I have also reviewed this draft, and am definitely supportive of it moving forward as a WG document. I agree with Carsten's comments, especially with regard to 6LoWPAN-ND. I understand that an update is already in progress to address those comments.

In addition, I found Figure 4 in Section 5.3 to be confusing at first. It should be clarified that this is a G.9959 link-layer address. 

Since this is a less widely known link-layer, a couple examples would not hurt as to the structure of the MAC framing with the address mapping defined in Section 5.3 for both unicast and multicast addresses.

Regards,
Zach

On Mar 9, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> Here's my review of draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz-00.  This is a worthy
> addition to the collection of IP-over foo documents, and I think it
> properly positions itself in the 6lowpan family of
> IP-over-constrained-node-network specifications.  With one exception:
> 
> I'm not sure how this document positions itself with respect to ND.
> It says it tries to parallel RFC 4944.  4944 has been updated by RFC
> 6775.  Is this document thus also referencing 6775?  There is also an
> obscure reference to a section of 4861.  Is the intention maybe that
> 4861 be used unchanged?  If yes, how does this mesh with section 3.2?
> 
> My other technical problem is with section 3.4.  I don't think an
> IP-over-foo document is the right place to change the IP service
> model.  Besides, this kind of indication may be available about the
> first-hop link, but what about mid-path?  On the socket interface, it
> is hard to do a MUST here if you then don't say how it should look
> like.
> 
> More on the editorial level:
> 
> I'm not happy with the "mission-critical" wording, and also not with
> the SHOULD.  How about:
> 
>   The network key is intended to address security requiments in
>   the home at the normal security requirements level.
>   For applications with high or very high requirements on
>   confidentiality and/or integrity, such as door locks and meters,
>   additional application layer security measures for end-to-end
>   authentication and encryption will need to be applied.
>   The availability of the network relies on the security properties
>   of the network key in any case.
> 
> What does "mapped into restricted space" mean?
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

-- 
Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
http://www.sensinode.com @SensinodeIoT
Mobile: +358 40 7796297
Twitter: @zach_shelby
LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby
6LoWPAN Book: http://6lowpan.net