Re: [6tisch] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Mon, 24 February 2020 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 606083A1163; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:12:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 JQ_8J1QTEk5S; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:12:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taper.sei.cmu.edu (taper.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.16]) (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 93A873A115C; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:12:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from korb.sei.cmu.edu (korb.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.30]) by taper.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 01OJC1Vg002787; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:12:02 -0500
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu 01OJC1Vg002787
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1582571522; bh=WCdJ8aTieb8Sjqi3ndiULEOIRgqf9B6VzTuvBU7b7yQ=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=I2uTGyqHA/7hORnILFlidacRFOd3Ny6qaRMlwSx5+e3H5m3rzfEOVA9/yvzDzmGye RfZaMfYUsft9WJ1UJ2B2LzAfysALy1v40sJNNpSTw70hR72qPVufAYC5U7Qw0tlTDx 9fIgH6aVbi+60stGZ0QjUHccFmYC3hwfAHf61s4I=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by korb.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 01OJBuD0016111; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:11:56 -0500
Received: from MARCHAND.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.251]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:11:56 -0500
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "pthubert@cisco.com" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "6tisch-chairs@ietf.org" <6tisch-chairs@ietf.org>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [6tisch] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHV5PKjXJAej1UgqUS0hepMJ/6bfagf5ZyAgArcEQA=
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:11:56 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0216F4BE8E@marchand>
References: <158187587385.5858.4196333441268190800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <15950.1581956289@dooku>
In-Reply-To: <15950.1581956289@dooku>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/HbSkpUYM-p2yvP1qGQbt8NQsA_Q>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:12:07 -0000

Hi Michael!

Response inline ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 11:18 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
> Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; pthubert@cisco.com; 6tisch-chairs@ietf.org;
> 6tisch@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6tisch] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-
> enhanced-beacon-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> 
> specific edits are here:
>       https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/6tisch-join-enhanced-
> beacon/commits/d88a0a980fda85fcc82c4cac84954cb2c7b00c59
> 
> and posted as -13 just now.
> 
> Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>     > ** Section 2.  Rank Priority and Pan Priority.  Can you please clarify
>     > whether a higher or lower number indicated an increased priority:
> 
> Done with edits for Eric.
> 
>     > -- Rank priority says “Lower values are better” -- What does “better”
>     > mean?  Is a lower number more or less willing this 6LR is to serve as
>     > the RPL parent?
> 
>     > -- Pan priority doesn’t include guidance on whether a higher or lower
>     > number indicate increased priority.
> 
> Clarified text to say:
>           Lower values indicate more willing, and higher values indicate less
> willing.
> 
> in a number of places.  Please see changes at:
>    https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/6tisch-join-enhanced-
> beacon/commits/0a806e63e65f2ef0fe2c4a5086b653d9fb0c3ff6

Thanks.  These clarifications address my concerns.

>     > ** Section 2.  network id.  Can you please clarify the computation of
>     > the default value using SHA-256.
> 
> I have changed the text to say:
>   : In a 6tisch network, where RPL {{RFC6550}} is used as the mesh routing
> protocol, the
>   network ID can be constructed from a truncated SHA256 hash of the prefix
> (/64) of the
>   network.  This will be done by the RPL DODAG root and communicated by
> the RPL
>   Configuration Option payloads, so it is not calculated more than once.
>   That is just a suggestion for a default algorithm: it may be set in any
>   convenience way that results in a non-identifing value.

Understood.  However, to clarify, is there guidance on how this truncation should be applied (i.e., which bits are supposed to be used? )?

>     > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > COMMENT:
>     > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     > ** Section 2.  Rank Priority.  This is a local value to be determined
>     > in other work.  It might be calculated from RPL rank, and it may
>     > include some modifications based upon current number of children, or
>     > number of neighbor cache entries available.
> 
>     > -- what’s a local value?  What’s the other work?
> 
>     > -- the follow on sentence of “It might be … “ doesn’t seem decisive in
>     > the guidance.  Would it be cleaner to say, that the computation of this
>     > value is out of scope of this document.
> 
> I have removed the word "local", by expanding it:
> 
>   This value is calculated by each 6LR according to algorithms specific to the
>   routing metrics used by the RPL ({?RFC6550}).
>   The exact process is a subject of significant research work.
>   It will typically be calculated from the RPL rank, and it may include some
> modifications
>   based upon current number of children, or number of neighbor cache
> entries
>   available.
>   This value MUST be ignored by pledges, it is to help enrolled devices only to
>   compare different connection points.
> 
> 
>     > ** Editorial
> 
>     > -- Please review Yoav Nir’s SECDIR feedback
> 
> already did that, and Yoav has confirmed he is happy.
> 
>     > -- Abstract.  Per “Nodes in the TSCH network typically frequently
>     > transmit …”, likely only “typically” or “frequently” is needed.
> 
> Both have been removed.
> 
>     > -- Typo.  s/the the/the/g
> 
> thank you.

Thanks for all of these changes.

Regards,
Roman