Re: [6tisch] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: (with COMMENT)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Martin Duke (Incoming TSV AD) provided the below comments and proposals
    > that could improve the document, please consider them:

my address book does not have Martin's email, so I'll assume he can read the
iesg list.

    > First, Section 1 is an excellent description of the motivation for the
    > document.

    > Sec 1.2. "synchronization of ^the^ Absolute Slot Number..."  "carrying
    > ^the^ timeslot template identifier..."  at the end of section, the
    > acronym for Router Advertisements is incorrectly given as (RS).

Oops, thank you for these.

    > Sec 1.3. Proposed rewording for the second paragraph: "However, while a
    > unicast RS transmitted in response [RFC6775] reduces the amount..."
    > s/RAs or RS./RAs or RSes. In reason #3, please provide some sense of
    > order of magnitude instead of "a very long time"

Rewording. I feel that may have made it worse, please see:

    > Section 2. Please expand the following acronyms on first use: 6L$, RPL,
    > PAN, JRC.

done.

    > "rank priority" definition: s/willing/willingness

done.

    > Proposed rewording of 4th paragraph in "rank priority": "Pledges MUST
    > ignore this value. It helps enrolled devices to compare connection
    > points."

done.

    > "pan priority" definition, last paragraph: insert comma after "observed
    > PANID in the Beacon"

ok.

    > "Join Proxy Interface ID" definition: This field communicates the
    > Interface ID bits that should be used for this node's layer-3 address,
    > if it should not be derived from the layer-2 address.  Communication
    > with the Join Proxy occurs in the clear. This field avoids the need for
    > an additional service discovery process .."

edited.

    > "network ID": s/convenience/convenient, s/identifing/identifying

    > last paragraph: "...the it will be an opaque, seemingly random value,
    > and will reveal nothing by itself."

got it.

    > Finally, throughout Section 2 the draft mentions potential information
    > leakage to attackers. Two comments on this: - I believe "proxy
    > priority" creates a similar exposure, but doesn't mention it. - It
    > might be good to summarize these issues in the Security Considerations
    > as well.

I asked the WG if they wanted the issues in the main body or the Security
Considerations, and there was a preference to put the description in with the
body next to each item, as that would be more likely to be read.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-