Return-Path: 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 143AE120A46 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:03:15 -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 Sv2-VzKBSYeI for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2179912082E for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31506380BE; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:02:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441DAF2A; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:03:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , Benjamin Kaduk , =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Fiso-8859-2=3FQ=3FMali=3DB9a=5FVu=3DE8ini=3DE6=3F=3D?= , "Tero Kivinen" , "6tisch\@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: References: 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 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [6tisch] rekeying the 6TiSCH network 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: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 20:03:15 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > I'm looking for a consensus on how to address the following review > comment on the 6TiSCH Architecture by Benjamin: >> It would be good to see some architectural discussion about key >> management >> for the link-layer keys. (Given that 802.15.4 leaves key management >> as out of >> scope, it is clearly our problem.) Thus far I don't even have a sense >> for when it is >> possible to rotate a network's keys. PT> I'll take that to a separate thread with Michael, Tero and Malisa. It PT> is certainly possible to rotate keys. We had a draft about rekeying PT> that went stale. We isolated cases where this is desirable in the PT> discussion on the minimal security draft. I'm unclear how deep we PT> need to go in this regards vs. what belongs to the minimal security PT> specification. 6tisch-minimal-security has a section 8.2 "Parameter Update Exchange" Maybe it should include "(and Rekey)" We further have section 8.4.3.1 and 8.4.3.2 to explain how to use that to rekey the entire network. I'm not sure what's in the Architecture document about this, but I'd rather that it just said less. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAl1cUgAACgkQgItw+93Q 3WUolAf/VSSqznsiXj5tvBjLr/hNcs/PCYzCjDcixrbZueA9pWDKZ9PRGqJ/Rtjj fCXtHbXN6MBC/Z8n47x5OUUSRAJZv5QwFs9D3AYkVeMdl4oCuEoXyG8k39CYbu7i Vek2ZDhO2Nx5mTM0H9FhY3cz7c/Q1aShcj8kxLvihEzdpQGhnxdjN+2JBkSvtV+2 gJZ7vHlV7hIKOGOj68bfWfD5PMWbELpgyDVJgAD9MC4PO/DpiLS7zL7QhvkpHOtt 2h22kgoqYSh59SUP6h2zaeqqa337OvDSkMf72W+lihixeHL4SbEBQXKRo/DKKhf4 04kbys3RPy7NYsVhJHKkxTQI6RFZlg== =vKtQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--