Re: [6tisch] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-14: (with COMMENT)

Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr> Thu, 05 December 2019 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>
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 60F5A120142; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:37:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 EuBwCD8V_1aT; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:37:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D202120019; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:37:18 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,281,1571695200"; d="scan'208";a="417894800"
Received: from wifi-eduroam-85-089.paris.inria.fr ([128.93.85.89]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Dec 2019 15:37:07 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: =?utf-8?B?TWFsacWhYSBWdcSNaW5pxIc=?= <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <157555620387.16491.2371215288094382714.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 15:37:07 +0100
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, 6tisch-chairs@ietf.org, pthubert@cisco.com, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security@ietf.org, 6tisch@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D16376C9-1302-41CF-938D-3AC0B13030D1@inria.fr>
References: <157555620387.16491.2371215288094382714.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/DhB95bm9cEcVYTwleMNSeins8FE>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draf?= =?utf-8?q?t-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-14=3A_=28with_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 14:37:23 -0000

Dear Mirja,

Thank you for the prompt reaction! The Parameter Update Response message has been removed in the latest version as it was indeed redundant given that the Parameter Update Message is a CoAP CON. Thank you for that remark!

Regards,
Mališa

> On 5 Dec 2019, at 15:30, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-14: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for addressing my discuss points and also other editorial comments!
> 
> Also great that you clarified/introduced COJP_MAX_JOIN_ATTEMPTS; I think that
> also a really good change!
> 
> -----------------
> I only leave this old comment in here because it wasn't further discussed:
> 
> I'm putting this one question in the comments section because there is no
> concern that it does not work as specified but I wonder about the design of the
> Parameter Update Response Message. Given the Parameter Update Message is a
> confirmable CoAP message that is transmitted reliable and the content of the
> Parameter Update Response Message is empty, why do you need to send the
> Parameter Update Response Message at all?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch