RE: [6lowpan] Agenda for next meeting

Wassim, 

Glad to see your activities in this space...:-)

I am digging SeND relevant text from the security-analysis draft:
http://daniel.vsix.net/ietf/6lowpan/draft-daniel-6lowpan-security-analysis-0
2.txt

   if NDP (Neighbor Discovery Protocol) is applied to 6lowpan, SeND
   (Secure Neighbor Discovery) should be considered to provide security
   in conjunction with neighbor discovery protocol.  So far, CGA
   (Cryptographically Generated Addresses) [RFC3972] and SeND options
   [RFC3971] are newly designed by IETF and it works well over existing
   IP networks.  However, CGA seems very complex to be applied to
   6lowpan networks.  Furthermore, SeND options requires huge additional
   options (i.e., CGA option, RSA Signature option, Timestamp and Nonce
   option and etc.)  which increase the packet size accordingly.  Thus
   it is doubtful if Secure Neighbor Discovery protocol could be
   directly applicable to 6lowpan networks without any  optimization. 

We need further in-depth discussion here. Are you thinking
SeND can be applied for 6lowpan networks ? How much fatting
down SeND itself ? It seems interesting issue but also really
difficult aspect at the same time from the security point of view. 

Anyhow, I will go through your draft and get back to you with
more details soon. Also your comments are highly welcome.

Daniel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:whaddad@tcs.hut.fi] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:20 AM
> To: 6lowpan
> Cc: Carsten Bormann
> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Agenda for next meeting
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to point out the ongoing work on securing neighbor 
> discovery (draft-haddad-mipshop-optisend-02). We're planning 
> to submit an updated version to the 6lowpan WG once the new 
> charter is approved.
> 
> Comments appreciated.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Wassim H.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
> 
> > Hi Geoff,
> >
> > On 3/4/07, Geoff Mulligan <geoff@mulligan.com> wrote:
> > > We need to settle on an agenda for the upcoming meeting.  I think 
> > > that everything is progressing with our two drafts - Thanks to 
> > > Gabriel for making the last minute editorial fixes.
> > >
> >
> > Great!
> >
> > > Since we already have a draft (expired) for ND we should 
> seriously 
> > > consider finishing this work.  >
> >
> > Agree.
> > I am submitting the updated version of ND draft before the 
> cut-off date.
> >
> >
> > Also submitting the updated version of lowpan-mobility requirement 
> > draft for a reference point of discussion.
> >
> > > I think that the main topic for the meeting is the 
> rechartering, but 
> > > I think that it is extremely important that we talk with 
> the Manet 
> > > group and understand if their work can apply to 6lowpans.
> > >
> > > This understanding though may be based on the network 
> architecture 
> > > that we are trying to build.  This is why I think that we should 
> > > start with defining the 6lowpan arch.
> >
> > 6lowpan architecture document is needed. Currently ND draft 
> has some 
> > assumption about the topology and architecture of 6lowpan. We can 
> > start from there.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Samita
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6lowpan mailing list
> > 6lowpan@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan