Re: [6tisch] [6tisch-security] proposed security text for architecture draft

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 14 November 2014 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0DA1A00B2; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:44:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 zS25_FyCYxMW; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:44:24 -0800 (PST)
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 63A6D1A00A8; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:44:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7791E20098; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:46:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 73241637F4; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:44:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61829637EA; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:44:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp
In-Reply-To: <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B272A9108@TGXML210.toshiba.local>
References: <20507.1415811045@sandelman.ca> <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B272A8EFA@TGXML210.toshiba.local> <5854.1415835364@sandelman.ca> <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B272A9108@TGXML210.toshiba.local>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
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-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:44:23 -0500
Message-ID: <12175.1415929463@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/EjWfmNdFRdDxYXcT9XGu7uRcTsw
Cc: 6tisch@ietf.org, 6tisch-security@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [6tisch-security] proposed security text for architecture draft
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 14 Nov 2014 01:44:26 -0000

<yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp> wrote:
    > It is unfortunate that some contributors felt that EAP-based approach
    > does not work for them, but there is another use case where EAP-based
    > approach is definitely needed (smart meters).  Having said that it
    > would make sense to have two options (DTLS-based and EAP-based
    > approaches) for joining operation.

1) Can you explain why smart meters have to use EAP methods?
2) can someone explain why smart meters are in scope for this WG?

I thought it was mostly industrial applications.

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