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

[Mališa Vučinić <[e-mail]>]

Just a quick note on this as I am going through the mails in preparation for the WG meeting:

The intended text was to state that the provisioning of the network identifier is RECOMMENDED for the pledge, while it is a MUST for the *6LBR* pledge. The distinction between 6LBR pledge and pledge is made in the terminology section. Here is the change I made in the document to make this clear:

-Provisioning the network identifier is RECOMMENDED.
+Provisioning the network identifier to a pledge is RECOMMENDED.

The excerpt now reads:

"Provisioning the network identifier to a pledge is RECOMMENDED. However, due to operational constraints, the network identifier may not be known at the time when the provisioning is done. In case this parameter is not provisioned to the pledge, the pledge attempts to join one advertised network at a time, which significantly prolongs the join process. This parameter MUST be provisioned to the 6LBR pledge."

As per 8.4.1, the parameter is mandatory to be included in the CoJP request. Pledge obtains its value from the enhanced beacon frames for the network it is currently attempting to join, while the 6LBR pledge must have been provisioned with it. Let me know if this clarifies.

Mališa

> On 1 Nov 2019, at 22:15, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 1) Sec 3: Maybe I'm missing something but this seems contradictory:
>> "Provisioning the network identifier is RECOMMENDED."  And then at the
>> end of that paragraph: "This parameter MUST be provisioned to the 6LBR
>> pledge."+
> 
> You are right. The last sentence does not belong.
> During the join process, the network identifer, returned in the CoJP response
> is a MUST (8.4.1)