IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Fri, 28 February 2020 14:09 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 475813A18B4; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 06:09:07 -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 N-OzshpE5Hs2; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 06:09:05 -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 E5E133A18AF; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 06:09:04 -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 01SE92qC027091; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:09:02 -0500
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu 01SE92qC027091
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1582898942; bh=8k0ziDTUweeqz4Nbi1bqo15mmPA7gt0rLfMe/XNiN3g=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=TPaO3jECWeXhgF/iaF1yMCWtI1rH5/yLjjkn3UQt7vxpIwiKCr70aKZTibZA16yJi GDL6ekoFO+hWi4Zt9TMlswjDxycwXxYj4EFdMapoBjVwlHHswW8ub0L+uOmkjx74Qy 2S9MkauJPMfvpk0+qgk/0M7SoVq9tLXJBHyo/gAc=
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 01SE91nM021492; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:09:01 -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; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:09:01 -0500
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
CC: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "pthubert@cisco.com" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "6tisch-chairs@ietf.org" <6tisch-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@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/6bfagf5ZyAgArcEQCAAJs6gIAFWSuQ
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:09:00 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0216F59C2D@marchand>
References: <158187587385.5858.4196333441268190800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <15950.1581956289@dooku> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0216F4BE8E@marchand> <464.1582586639@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <464.1582586639@localhost>
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/HyP9Lo0BsNTLewXJegszCiGnK70>
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: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:09:15 -0000

Hi Richard!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 6:24 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
> Cc: 6tisch@ietf.org; pthubert@cisco.com; 6tisch-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG
> <iesg@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)
> 
> 
> Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> wrote:
>     >> > ** 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?
>     > )?
> 
> The calculation is
> a) a suggestion on how the control plane should initialize itself by default.
> b) done once in the 6LBR, so any truncation is acceptable.
> 
> I.e. it doesn't matter how it's done.
> 
> Communicating the NetworkID down the RPL DODAG is ROLL WG work,
> which has not proceeded in pace with this work.

Understood.  Thanks for the changes in -13/-14. Do you think it will be obvious to the reader/audience that any truncation is acceptable (which was more my point, not clearly articulated)?  

Thanks.  I'll clear my position.

Roman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email