Re: [6tisch] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: (with DISCUSS)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 01 November 2019 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67231120828; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 l2xLny3GRu2m; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF9E312000F; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9F93818F; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:16:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5BCD612; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, 6tisch-chairs@ietf.org, pthubert@cisco.com, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security@ietf.org, 6tisch@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <157244593893.32540.12940667862215399690.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <157244593893.32540.12940667862215399690.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 17:18:48 -0400
Message-ID: <15018.1572643128@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/13TwIdcpGgBRrLhsoddh5oVMGuc>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 21:19:35 -0000

Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > DISCUSS:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    > I have some issues with the references here, which should be resolvable
    > simply by making some normative.

    > RFC 8505 provides terminology as well as neighbor discovery (in
    > Sections 4.2 and 6), so it seems to me that it should be a normative
    > reference.

    > As draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture is used for both necessary
    > terminology and concepts, I can’t see how it isn’t normative.  I did
    > find that I had to check it during my review.

    > In Section 5: In an operational 6TiSCH network, all frames MUST use
    > link-layer frame security [RFC8180].

    > This would seem to be a MUST referring to 8180, making that a normative
    > reference as well.  But possibly this might not really be a MUST
    > imposed here, and is instead citing a requirement from elsewhere.  In
    > that case, I would simply remove the word “MUST”, so it is stating a
    > fact, rather than a new requirement.  You might similarly consider the
    > subsequent sentence.  In any case, I do wonder whether 7554 and 8180
    > should be normative.

I moved all three references to normative.

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