Re: [6tisch] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 31 October 2019 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 CD76B120059; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 19:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 v0SyzKouuvWk; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 19:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 C0E0E1200DF; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 19:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x9V2r0Wm013789 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:53:05 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 19:53:00 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, 6tisch-chairs@ietf.org, pthubert@cisco.com, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security@ietf.org, 6tisch@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20191031025300.GD88302@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <157247345518.32540.4810770824294109598.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <157247345518.32540.4810770824294109598.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/LEYNZZrJmIW4c2U7oaM-pyU7h4E>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: (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: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 02:53:12 -0000

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 03:10:55PM -0700, Adam Roach via Datatracker wrote:
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: Discuss
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks to everyone who invested their time in this document. I have one
> blocking comment that I believe should be easy to resolve, and one fairly major
> comment that should be trivial to fix.
> 
> §8.1.1:
> 
> >  o  The Uri-Path option is set to "j".
> 
> COAP URIs are generally subject to BCP 190 restrictions, which would require
> the path to either be provisioned, discovered, or under the ".well-known"
> tree. The use of a reserved domain name here may change the rationale; but for
> the sake of not establishing a precedent for path squatting in CoAP, this
> document needs to clearly explain the rationale of why BCP 190 should not
> apply in this case. Alternately, the implied URI can be changed to something
> like "coap://6tisch.arpa/.well-known/j"

Note also the parameter update exchange describe in Section 8.2, where the
joined node is supposed to act as a CoAp server and expose the "/j"
resource.  The justification of the reserved domain name does not seem to
apply to that case, which seems to suggest that .well-known will be needed.

-Ben