Re: [6tisch] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 07:31:25PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > Thanks for these updates!  I see you had one question at the end...
> 
>     >> >    visible.  Encrypting the schedule does not prevent an attacker from
>     >> > jamming, but rather increases the energy cost of doing that jamming.
>     >>
>     >> > Perhaps also the side effects/collateral damage of the jamming.
>     >>
>     >> I'm not sure what you are saying/suggesting here.
> 
>     > If the attacker doesn't know the schedule, they use more power ("energy
>     > cost") to jam all the time, in some sort of always-on broadband jamming
>     > technique.  This broadband jamming could end up blocking traffic the
>     > attacker doesn't care about, in addition to the target of the jamming;
>     > that in turn might make the fact that the attacker is jamming at all easier
>     > to detect.  I'm suggesting that the attacker's decision process about
>     > whether/how to jam is much more complicated if they don't have the schedule
>     > available, and there are additional factors that would come into play that
>     > might discourage the attacker from jamming even though (as is already
>     > noted) it does not "prevent" the attacker from jamming.
> 
> So, just to be clear, the schedule is happening thanks to RFC8180, section 4.5.
> What this document adds is the ability to determine which EB are from the
> same network, even if they have different PANID.
> 
> There is a very good discussion about the jamming costs in:
>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tiloca-6tisch-robust-scheduling/
> 
> Unfortunately, it isn't clear if this work can go ahead in the IETF as it
> apparently makes changes that the IEEE is responsible for.  At the same time,
> it must coordinate with (re-)keying , which the IEEE is not responsible for.
> 
> I don't know what else I could say in enhanced beacon about this.
> The topic of selective jamming is a bit distant from this document.

Okay, I see your point.

Thanks for the extra reference!

-Ben