IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] xxx-bootstrap

Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr> Wed, 30 November 2016 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <malisa.vucinic@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 DB141129509 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 01:26:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] 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 1593pxZpM7Id for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 01:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (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 B852D129D6F for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 01:23:02 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,573,1473112800"; d="scan'208";a="202280504"
Received: from unknown (HELO [128.93.84.195]) ([128.93.84.195]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 30 Nov 2016 10:22:57 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <efb18853e63642bc4a996dc419cd1efb@xs4all.nl>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:22:58 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AF430AD1-FBB1-494A-ABD4-F0D18599153F@inria.fr>
References: <efb18853e63642bc4a996dc419cd1efb@xs4all.nl>
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/szKhIacUIYmgBaMF_sw5EP-ML94>
Cc: 6tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] xxx-bootstrap
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 30 Nov 2016 09:26:54 -0000

Hello Peter,

My understanding of the IETF 97 meeting outcome is that Phase 1 solution will be anima-compatible i.e., it will provide zero-touch bootstrapping with manufacturer-installed certificate as the start state and locally relevant credential as the end state. At the moment, I believe that Michael’s proposal for Phase 1 is quite 6tisch agnostic and it can be used in other scenarios. 

However, the end state of Phase 2 are 6tisch-specific key(s) (cf. minimal draft) and temporary network identifiers that we tackle in the minimal-security draft. This builds upon existing work in 6tisch and will be needed no matter what common bootstrapping approach is used.

Mališa

> On 30 Nov 2016, at 09:06, peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> Hi 6tisch bootstrap followers,
> 
> Curently, we live in a confusing world wih many bootstrap proposals.
> They all seem to have in common; a joining node, an assistant, a central authority, and Michael Richardson.
> While each bootstrap proposal seems to have a different naming history.
> 
> Joking apart, I like to plead for a commmon bootstrap approach in 6tisch, and anima to share parts of the bootstrap protocols.
> I suspect that the discovery and the push- or pull start will be technology and context dependent.
> My concern is with the number of protocols that the central authority has to support.
> When there are too many bootstrap approaches, we may end up with as many protocol converters as there are bootstrap protocols.
> 
> The anima bootstrap team has recognized the importance of low resource devices by supporting the use of coap.
> The drafts "EST over coaps" demonstrate that the support of two protocols (coap and http based) in the cental authority is realistic.
> 
> My plea is that we find a common protocol that replaces EST for the coap nodes.
> 
> I understand that after the bad experience with CoMI, the 6tisch people do not want to be dalayed again by waiting for a common approach.
> Nevertheless, I think it is worthwhile to explore this avenue.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Peter van der Stok
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email