IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security: Error code and server state

Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr> Fri, 05 April 2019 16:55 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 8C62A1204A3 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 FHKAvwzF896n for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
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 E262A12007C for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,313,1549926000"; d="scan'208,217";a="377420341"
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.138]) ([79.143.111.171]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Apr 2019 18:54:59 +0200
From: Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <3E48D726-D39D-456A-9D4E-B15DAC0FE6CF@inria.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F56B0651-20FB-47C9-9F1D-6586165381BC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 18:54:55 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20190405143235.GA7326@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
Cc: 6tisch@ietf.org
To: Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>
References: <20190327172921.GA9348@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <B7DECDC9-5521-4A0B-9590-0620CF123CA7@inria.fr> <20190328002907.GC28841@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <1CE26FD6-ACDB-4E95-A195-19953750FDD9@inria.fr> <20190405143235.GA7326@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/F0fWYmCRBJohW9ZyHxrh7-_TCOk>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security: Error code and server state
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, 05 Apr 2019 16:55:22 -0000

The original intent was to allow the pledge to signal “I can act on this parameter but not on that value that you gave me”, cherry-picking specific keys from the key set or just copying the whole thing if nothing works. The previous text optimized for that by mandating the value or its CBOR-encoded subset to be included all the time. 

I rewrote the paragraph now in order to allow the pledge to send a null for the case where the JRC should not bother to retry configuring that specific parameter again.

The commit is at:

https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security/commits/60e2a8a2acbae5cca624932e88c1f650a95d9ca6?at=minimal-security-10 <https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security/commits/60e2a8a2acbae5cca624932e88c1f650a95d9ca6?at=minimal-security-10>

Let me know if it reads better.

Mališa

> On 5 Apr 2019, at 16:32, Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> wrote:
> 
> Only a small question remains: When a pledge sends [0 /* unsupported */,
> 42 /* some fancy extension */, X] as an Unsupported Configuration, why
> should it send the full value that was sent with the join response and
> not just a syntactic placeholder (null)?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email