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

Mališa Vučinić <> Thu, 14 November 2019 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8108F120025; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 06:34:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XdTXVdZAscp6; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 06:34:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A5521200F3; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 06:33:58 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,304,1569276000"; d="scan'208,217";a="411811305"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Nov 2019 15:33:56 +0100
From: =?utf-8?B?TWFsacWhYSBWdcSNaW5pxIc=?= <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E90175CB-1FF9-4846-B7B6-32FF93C8577A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:33:56 +0100
In-Reply-To: <14289.1572642938@localhost>
Cc: =?us-ascii?B?PT91dGYtOD9xP01pcmphX0s9QzM9QkNobGV3aW5kPz0=?= <>, 6tisch <>,, Pascal Thubert <>,, The IESG <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
References: <> <14289.1572642938@localhost>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-iet?= =?utf-8?q?f-6tisch-minimal-security-13=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
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" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:34:04 -0000

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.


> On 1 Nov 2019, at 22:15, Michael Richardson <> 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)