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

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 01 November 2019 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9A0120801; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lDvy9vwN7kdO; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 130A212024E; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE643818F; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:43:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC0B612; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:46:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>
cc: Adam Roach <>,,,,, The IESG <>
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<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 17:46:15 -0400
Message-ID: <21241.1572644775@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 21:46:20 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk <> wrote:
    >> §8.1.1:
    >> > o The Uri-Path option is set to "j".
    >> COAP URIs are generally subject to BCP 190 restrictions, which would
    >> require the path to either be provisioned, discovered, or under the
    >> ".well-known" tree. The use of a reserved domain name here may change
    >> the rationale; but for the sake of not establishing a precedent for
    >> path squatting in CoAP, this document needs to clearly explain the
    >> rationale of why BCP 190 should not apply in this case. Alternately,
    >> the implied URI can be changed to something like
    >> "coap://"

    > Note also the parameter update exchange describe in Section 8.2, where
    > the joined node is supposed to act as a CoAp server and expose the "/j"
    > resource.  The justification of the reserved domain name does not seem
    > to apply to that case, which seems to suggest that .well-known will be
    > needed.

I've added that the 6LR should locate this at the "" hostname.
This isolates the "/j" from any other uses of CoAP on the node.

If that's not acceptable, then we could live with .well-known, as the 6LR
has already joined, and it can negotiate for bandwidth, etc.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-