Re: [6tisch] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 19 January 2020 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 1BBCB120033; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:16:25 -0800 (PST)
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 WhuAIlvN5y-5; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:16:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA14E12001A; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:16:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F9C3897A; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 12:15:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4FE1057; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 12:16:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org, 6tisch@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon.all@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <738E789C-14A8-41D5-956E-66E6CE2624DB@gmail.com>
References: <157919779948.26195.4879220696306890525@ietfa.amsl.com> <1093.1579301399@localhost> <738E789C-14A8-41D5-956E-66E6CE2624DB@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 12:16:21 -0500
Message-ID: <28567.1579454181@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/NCeqeyu-jMCH03iOzEAzFr4AWtI>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06
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: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 17:16:25 -0000

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Not really. You’ve added an explanation of why it’s hard to encrypt.
    > That is not needed IMO. What is needed is a statement that sending in
    > the clear (not the default in IETF protocols these days) is OK because
    > the data is not sensitive.

No, I'm saying that it's architecturally impossible to encrypt.
It's not a choice.
Anything you plan to put into the beacon has to take this into account.

I take your point about explaining why the contents are not sensitive though.

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