Re: [6tisch] Extending CoJP (minimal-security) for non-6TiSCH 802.15.4 networks

Mališa Vučinić <> Mon, 20 September 2021 11:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5588E3A0E73 for <>; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 04:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 s4MgQ8d2zNZJ for <>; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 04:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79A733A0E74 for <>; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 04:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
IronPort-HdrOrdr: =?us-ascii?q?A9a23=3ArhIF1q6OvtYGhX2IdAPXwM/XdLJyesId70hD?= =?us-ascii?q?6qm+c3Bom62j5qKTdZsgviMc5Ax6ZJhko7690cq7MBDhHPxOjrX5VI3KNDUO+l?= =?us-ascii?q?HIEGgI1+vfKkjbakvDH5lmpMBdmsZFZeEYdWIK6foStzPIduod/A=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,326,1620684000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="393461738"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Sep 2021 13:37:15 +0200
From: =?utf-8?B?TWFsacWhYSBWdcSNaW5pxIc=?= <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_19284A59-DA61-440A-9690-780D783CB8FE"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:37:15 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc:, Michael Richardson <>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Christian_Ams=C3=BCss?= <>
References: <> <102718.1632080924@dooku> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Extending CoJP (minimal-security) for non-6TiSCH 802.15.4 networks
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: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:37:25 -0000

> On 20 Sep 2021, at 12:54, Christian Amsüss <> wrote:

> I originally thought I'd just take a K1 and K2 and the existing key
> usage table, but these are actually 6TiSCH specific. It'd be quite a
> waste to repeat the 14 modes to say the same about any other MAC
> (especially as using the K1/K2 separation probably makes sense there
> too); maybe the other parameters can skew the semantics. ("If this
> parameter is present, keys are used for 802.15.4 as in the given 6TiSCH-
> key usage, but with the adaptations described in this document").

I guess you refer to the usage of term “EB” i.e. Enhanced Beacon in the “Description” column in Table 6, values 0-8? This could have easily been replaced with just “Beacon” to keep applicability to the BE mode and/or noted with a sentence. I am not familiar with DSME mode, but from a quick glance over the 802.15.4-2015 std, I see that DSME uses the term “EB”, as well.

NBE mode obviously doesn’t need any of the usage values where beacons are mentioned, but values 9-14 should do it just fine. I might be missing something?

Other than that, there is the term “6TiSCH” used in all the names, but that doesn’t seem to be a technical issue.

So yes, I guess noting such details in your dcoument makes sense.