Re: [6tisch] (suggested disposition) Re: Last call for draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-05

[Rene Struik <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal:

BTW - my own (very small) comment was triggered by a last-minute change 
you personally made to the consensus text of the 6TiSCH security design 
team, without any consultation or notification. I do not know why you 
did this, but the resolution is also simple: simply retract that.

You were on the call where we finalized this text (excerpt below). I 
attach hereby the results of the homework assignment alluded to in the 
first sentence of #5 of the minutes of that call. As you can see, this 
includes a careful analysis of join process text. By the amount of red 
text and annotated remarks, you can see why we ended up with the text as 
is: there were too many problems and non-working concepts with 
alternatives (I am totally transparent here).

It would be good to respect consensus, certainly as co-Chair.

[excerpt of minutes of Thu January 22, 2015 6TiSCH Security call, see: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch-security/current/msg00413.html]

1. Attendance:
Michael Richardson, Subir Das, Tero Kivinen, Giuseppe Piro, Pascal 
Thubert, Rene Struik
[..]

5. Input 6tisch security to the architecture draft 
(draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-04)
RS reported on the outcome of the homework assignment of the 6tisch 
security call of the previous week (Jan 14, 2015). He had scrutinized 
the three text proposals that were on the table and had reviewed those 
with aim of establishing which elements reflected consensus of the 
6tisch security group and also suggested "consensus text" the text in 
the document titled "join process text - suggested text for architecture 
document, v2 (Rene Struik, January 21, 2015)" (available via the Google 
Drive link). He suggested to go over the (hopefully) consensus text, 
identity areas where this could be improved on the call, and then post a 
revision reflecting this as input to the architecture document prior to 
the 6tisch call of the next day (Friday January 23, 2015, 11am EST). 
Further comments, if any, could then be made as part of the review 
process of the architecture doc, rather than rehashing this more now, 
thus allowing Pascal Thubert to move forward with the architecture 
document and the 6tisch security group to focus on drilling down on more 
detail of the join protocol itself. MR suggested he was happy with this 
process.

RS briefly went over the document, identifying some feedback received 
from Subir Das and Yoshi Ohba by email. He also highlighted that he had 
incorporated the suggestion by MR on the previous call to 
cross-reference some actual protocols that could be considered. A brief 
discussion ensued.

PTh suggested that it would be good to add some language to the effect 
that the actual decision of the joining node to become part of the 
network may depend on authorization of the network itself. It was 
decided to leave out further minutiae, such as "authorization of the 
root of the RPL network", etc., so as to focus on the join process 
itself, without adding too much routing protocol baggage for now. RS 
suggested that this would also avoid issues that could arise in case 
distributed JCE's would be considered, which would not correspond to a 
single, fixed node. SD suggested to swap the order in which the join 
protocol phases and the device roles were presented in the text. He 
further on noted that some of the terminology re joining node, join 
assistant, and JCE was not entirely in with what was depicted in Fig. 1. 
Finally, he suggested a few small edits, such as clarifying that a 
"one-hop neighbor" would be one "radio hop" away and not one IP hop, etc.

RS agreed to try and incorporate this feedback and post a revised text 
document, aimed to be ready for inclusion with the architecture document.
[end of excerpt]

Rene

==

and from the comment, I’m not even seeing a real consensus there.

On 3/6/2015 9:28 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>
> Hello René:
>
> My perception is that the problem is not there at all. In fact, I’m 
> inclined to remove 13.1 completely.
>
> My problem with 13.1 is that it does not reflect the WG consensus but 
> a DT consensus, and from the comment, I’m not even seeing a real 
> consensus there.
>
> In particular, the only art that we have been able to analyze is PSK, 
> and there is still no documented proof available to the IETF that we 
> can do better on TSCH.
>
> My suggestion is midway:
>
> - push 13.1 to annex
>
> - add pointers to other security drafts (including yours and Yoshi’s, 
> do I miss any?)
>
> - and move the definitions at the beginning of 13.1 in the terminology 
> draft.
>
> I’ll be asking that question at the call today, and by default will 
> apply by cutoff time.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Pascal
>
> *From:*Rene Struik [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* vendredi 6 mars 2015 02:13
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* (suggested disposition) Re: [6tisch] Last call for 
> draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-05
>
> Hi Pascal:
>
> My suggested resolution to my comment was the simplest one: to simply 
> delete this 2nd para of Section 13. This would also make Section 13 
> (minus the 2nd para) reflect confirmed consensus in the 6TiSCH 
> security design team [see also minutes conf call of January 22, 2015: 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch-security/current/msg00413.html]).
>
> I think it is somewhat odd to single out one individual security draft 
> in the Appendix and not include others, since it raises questions as 
> to what the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of those drafts were. 
> To avoid going down this path, I personally would rather not give rise 
> to those types of questions and simply delete this.
>
> Best regards, Rene
>
> On 2/24/2015 6:03 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>
>     Hello René:
>
>     I removed that section, and added an appendix that lists the
>     6TiSCH personal submissions that may impact the next volumes.
>
>     The new text reads as follows
>
>     /Appendix A.  Personal submissions relevant to the next volumes /
>
>     //
>
>     /   This volume only covers a portion of the total work that is
>     needed to /
>
>     /   cover the full 6TiSCH architecture.  Missing portions include /
>
>     /   Deterministic Networking with Track Forwarding, Dynamic
>     Scheduling, /
>
>     /   and Security. /
>
>     //
>
>     /   [I-D.richardson-6tisch-security-architecture] elaborates on the /
>
>     /   potential use of 802.1AR certificates, and some options for
>     the join /
>
>     /   process are presented in more details. /
>
>     //
>
>     /   [I-D.dujovne-6tisch-on-the-fly] discusses the use of the 6top /
>
>     /   sublayer [I-D.wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer] to adapt dynamically
>     the /
>
>     /   number of cells between a RPL parent and a child to the needs
>     of the /
>
>     /   actual traffic. /
>
>     The diffs are here:
>
>     https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture/commits/0e07e721ce096cbd02f93c5cfbf9e58e576ac124?at=master#chg-draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-06.xml
>
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Pascal
>
>     *From:*Rene Struik [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     *Sent:* jeudi 19 février 2015 05:39
>     *To:* Géraldine TEXIER; Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)
>     *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Pascal Thubert
>     (pthubert)
>     *Subject:* Re: [6tisch] Last call for
>     draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-05
>
>     Dear colleagues:
>
>     I think the draft document draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-05 is in
>     relatively good shape.
>
>     One note: the second para of Clause 13 seems out of place and
>     should be removed.
>
>     Best regards, Rene
>
>     On 2/18/2015 11:49 AM, Géraldine TEXIER wrote:
>
>         Dear All,
>
>         I have reviewed the draft draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-05
>         and I support its publication
>
>         Best Regards
>
>         Geraldine
>
>         -- 
>
>         Geraldine TEXIER
>
>         Associate Professor
>         IRISA/ Reop Team
>         Institut Mines-Télécom ; TELECOM Bretagne  ;
>         RSM Department
>         2 rue de la Châtaigneraie - CS 17607
>         35576 Cesson Sevigné Cedex- France
>         Tel: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
>
>             *From: *"Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)" <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             *Date: *Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 5:06 AM
>             *To: *"[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>             <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             *Subject: *Re: [6tisch] Last call for
>             draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-05
>
>             Hello All,
>
>             We are down to the last week of this last call, and
>             haven't received any comments/vote yet.
>
>             Please review and send in your comments / vote, this last
>             call ends on 18th Feb.
>
>             Thanks,
>
>             Shwetha
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         6tisch mailing list
>
>         [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     email:[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>  | Skype: rstruik
>
>     cell: [phone] | US: [phone]
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> email:[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>  | Skype: rstruik
> cell: [phone] | US: [phone]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch


-- 
email: [e-mail] | Skype: rstruik
cell: [phone] | US: [phone]