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

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 21 February 2020 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C56120227; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:39:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.55
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jW6YEQ2MoeSq; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:39:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e00::3d:b000]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2FBD12081A; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 875AD1F481; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:39:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 120B81A3B6D; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 19:00:33 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
cc: "The IESG" <>,,,,
In-reply-to: <>
References: <>
Comments: In-reply-to Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <> message dated "Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:29:21 -0800."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 19:00:33 +0100
Message-ID: <1182.1582221633@dooku>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: (with COMMENT)
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: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:39:33 -0000

Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <> 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.


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


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


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


    > "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 .."


    > "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 <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-