IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] Intelligent JP / validating the MASA

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 20 August 2019 20:14 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 47F6E1201EA for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:14:27 -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 CpbbzGPFgaV9 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:14:25 -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 AC813120086 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA929380BE; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:13:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFE5F2A; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:14:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
to: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Fiso-8859-2=3FQ=3FMali =3DB9a=5FVu=3DE8ini=3DE6=3F=3D?= <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <11687.1566331121@localhost>
References: <MN2PR11MB356593FEE789835AC61E7589D8AB0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <11687.1566331121@localhost>
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: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:14:24 -0400
Message-ID: <14977.1566332064@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/RW_TiwjKIwu1qyw16Mtd_jDjvV4>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Intelligent JP / validating the MASA
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: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 20:14:27 -0000

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> wrote:

    > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    >> I'm looking for a consensus on how to address the following review
    >> comment on the 6TiSCH Architecture by Benjamin:

    > a) I don't think that any details about the Join Proxy belongs in the
    > architecture document.
    > Any text in the architecture document that says too much should be
    > deferring to minimal security.

    > b) It's not an HTTP PROXY with a CONNECT, and GET HTTP://.. support.
    > It's not really an COAP PROXY (RFC7252 section 5.7).
    > We describe it in section 4.3.2 as an application layer proxy.
    > It can only send traffic to the JRC, and no other place.

    > The description of it in section 7 of minimal-security as
    > a RFC7252 forward-proxy does imply that it provides any kind
    > of HTTP-proxy-like functionality.

The description of it in section 7 of minimal-security as
a RFC7252 forward-proxy does **not** imply that it provides any kind
of HTTP-proxy-like functionality.  Even HTTP forward-proxies are not
proxies that can be abused, they are typically load balancers.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email