Re: [6tisch] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 22 January 2020 22:20 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 9D7C11200C7 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:20:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 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] 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 CGCrxN2PlnXa for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:20:58 -0800 (PST)
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 F0D2D1200BA for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:20:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A713897E; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:20:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA09C69; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:20:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: 6tisch@ietf.org
CC: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <738E789C-14A8-41D5-956E-66E6CE2624DB@gmail.com>
References: <157919779948.26195.4879220696306890525@ietfa.amsl.com> <1093.1579301399@localhost> <738E789C-14A8-41D5-956E-66E6CE2624DB@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
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: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:20:57 -0500
Message-ID: <12655.1579731657@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/og19HnhLIlSITlcfVWCeyk94kq8>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06
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: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 22:21:00 -0000

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-08&url2=draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-09

I have interspersed the security issues with each of the fields within the
description of the fields in section 2.  This avoids enumerating the fields a
second time, and is probably more in the face for implementers.
This also makes it easier to review and avoids repeating what each field is.

On the other hand, it may a poor way to present this.

I am asking for the WG's opinion on whether to do it this way, or move it all
to the Security Considerations section.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [