Re: [6tisch] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 05 December 2019 16:13 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 E5E1E120059 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:13:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 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] 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 kQH5acgre8WB for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:13:27 -0800 (PST)
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 967A912006D for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6211C3818F; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:09:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC86366; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:13:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FB=3FTWFsacWhYSBWdcSNaW5pxIc=3D=3F=3D?= <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>
cc: Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, 6tisch@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F1D7C911-428F-4694-A285-AEEECC9C172A@inria.fr>
References: <157244462862.32472.6918190621522301464.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <14289.1572642938@localhost> <3C7830D8-59C5-4F78-8986-91391EF464D6@kuehlewind.net> <27585.1575557225@localhost> <F1D7C911-428F-4694-A285-AEEECC9C172A@inria.fr>
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:13:26 -0500
Message-ID: <16402.1575562406@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/3_a97RbclBNtL4kUhbXMl27j_xk>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-iet?= =?utf-8?q?f-6tisch-minimal-security-13=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 16:13:31 -0000

Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr> wrote:
    > This text should end up in the next version of the MSF draft, as it is
    > the scheduling function that triggers 6P to add/delete cells. We added
    > some text on it already for the security considerations, what remains
    > to be done is to align the MSF algorithm with the requirement of not
    > adapting to tagged traffic.

I think that Mirja wanted a pointer to this.
I thought that it was in the architecture as well, but I couldn't find it.
I hope that an informative reference is enough so that we aren't delayed.

    >> On 5 Dec 2019, at 15:47, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
    >>>>> I would think it
    >>>>> either sets it to AF43 or it does nothing about it because DSCP is not
    >>>>> really used in that network.
    >>>>
    >>>> In 6tisch networks, different DSCP points can be used to get different
    >>>> behaviours, see .... UHM. Let me get back to you on this, because the
    >>>> reference has evaporated.
    >>
    >>> A reference would be good (in the draft) :-)
    >>
    >> Hi, we had a long discussion about setting DSCP points on upward and downward
    >> traffic.   We had said that these code point would *not* cause 6P to add bandwidth.
    >> Where did we say that?   I feel like that the reference has gone away.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
    >> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
    >>
    >>
    >>


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