Re: [6tisch] WG adoption of the “IEEE802.15.4 Informational Element encapsulation of 6tisch Join and Enrollment Information” document

Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki.tanaka@inria.fr> Mon, 18 June 2018 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <yasuyuki.tanaka@inria.fr>
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 E0006130DE3 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=unavailable 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 yBz4Jmw-toCg for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19839130E08 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,239,1526335200"; d="scan'208";a="332309112"
Received: from unknown (HELO [128.93.70.171]) ([128.93.70.171]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Jun 2018 17:32:15 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
From: Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki.tanaka@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <c81ab9421d71439b962eeafb5fa1ad2a@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 17:32:15 +0200
Cc: Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki.tanaka@inria.fr>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2D3489D9-6B56-4BB4-8A16-56C610B03415@inria.fr>
References: <c81ab9421d71439b962eeafb5fa1ad2a@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
To: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/hUnVgvdwbMQhK9tHb2XalPB_NvQ>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] WG adoption of the “IEEE802.15.4 Informational Element encapsulation of 6tisch Join and Enrollment Information” document
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:32:42 -0000

Hi,

This proposal looks useful. I like the idea of Network ID!

I'm sharing my comments on the draft:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richardson-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-01

[1] (trivial comment)

draft>   There are a limited number of timeslots designated as a broadcast
draft>   slot by each router.  These slots are rare, and with 10ms slots, with
draft>   a slot-frame length of 100, there may be only 1 slot/s for the
draft>   beacon.

It may be more natural to use a slot-frame length of *101* since RFC
8180 is referred in the beginning of the same section...

[2] RS/RA confusion...?

draft> 1.3.  Layer-3 synchronization IPv6 Router solicitations and
draft>       advertisements
draft> ...
draft>   unsolicited RAs; if a pledge node does not hear an RA, and decides to
draft>   send a RS (consuming a broadcast aloha slot with unencrypted
draft>   traffic), many unicast RS may be sent in response.

The last sentence should be "many unicast RA may be sent in response"?

draft>  2.  it may require many seconds of on-time before a new pledge hears
draft>       a Router Soliciation that it can use.

This also should be "Router Advertisement" instead of "Router
Solicitation"?

draft>   3.  a new pledge may listen to many Enhanced Beacons before it can
draft>       pick an appropriate network and/or closest Join Assistant to
draft>       attach to.  If it must listen for a RS as well as find the
draft>       Enhanced Beacon, then the process may take a very long time.

Same here. s/RS/RA/

[3] (trivial comment)

draft> 2.  Protocol Definition
draft> ...
draft>                         1                   2                   3
draft>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
draft>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
draft>    |   TBD-XXX     |R|P| res |  proxy prio |    rank priority      |
draft>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
draft> ...
draft>    |               |
draft>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
draft> 
draft>    proxy priority  the proxy prority value contains a number from 0 to
draft>       0x7f.  Lower numbers are considered to be a higher preference.  A
draft>       priority of 0x7f indicates that the announcer should never be
draft>       considered as a viable enrollment proxy.  Lower value indicates
draft>       willing to act as a Join Proxy as described in
draft>       [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security].  Only unenrolled pledges look
draft>       at this value.
draft> 
draft>    pan priority  the pan priority is a value set by the DODAG root to
draft>       indicate the relative priority of this LLN compared to those with
draft>       different PANIDs.  This value may be used as part of the
draft>       enrollment priority, but typically is used by devices which have
draft>       already enrolled, and need to determine which PAN to pick.
draft>       Unenrolled pledges MAY consider this value when selecting a PAN to
draft>       join.  Enrolled devices MAY consider this value when looking for
draft>       an eligible parent device.

It would be easier for readers if the order of the field definitions
is the same as the order the fields appear in the figure.

[4] Proxy Address bit

draft>   P  if the Proxy Address bit is set, then the lower 64-bits of the
draft>      Join Proxy's Link Layer address follows the network ID.

It seems the lower 64-bits of the Join Proxy's Link Layer address *is
followed by* the Network ID in the figure.

draft>       Join Proxy's Link Layer address follows the network ID.  If the
draft>       Proxy Address bit is not set, then the Link Layer address of the
draft>       Join Proxy is identical to the Layer-2 8-byte address used to
draft>       originate this enhanced beacon.

By definition, an Enhanced Beacon cannot have a 2-octet link-layer
address in its source address field? Or, if P bit is set, a
transmitter should set its 8-octet link-layer address to the source
address field of an enhanced beacon?

[5] Join-Proxy Address

draft>    join-proxy lower-64  if the P bit is set, then 64 bits (8 bytes) of
draft>       address are present.  The Link Layer address of the Join Proxy is
draft>       fe80 (as for any Link Layer address), and the bits given in this
draft>       field.

The last sentence is unclear to me... Does it mean that a link-local
IPv6 address of the Join Proxy can be generated by the bits given in
the field with the link-local prefix, fe80::/64?

[6] Network ID

dfaft>    network ID  this is an variable length field, up to 16-bytes in size
dfaft>       that uniquely identifies this network, potentially among many
dfaft>       networks that are operating in the same frequencies in overlapping
dfaft>       physical space.

Can we omit the network ID field?

Best,
Yatch