Re: [6tsch] Work item on security
Subir Das <subirdas21@gmail.com> Wed, 24 July 2013 18:10 UTC
Return-Path: <subirdas21@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 551CE11E8213 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id byC8ihImayVt for
<6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x231.google.com (mail-oa0-x231.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id
06A9411E8125 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n12so1782852oag.36 for
<6tsch@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type; bh=3M65i5Vck548WKXFpvai1g8blVpIMsQEBuXp0OwZFEY=;
b=qbFlP+LWHuk9I9+2aCr9GV4PVQwBITBDbATlHi9CD3mO+AfH99nsCY8xKoRwgHxn3K
Y+X9wAR+51etnK+I1aCxVXKrTkCrb7819zr6CK0UX5IcOXmEKbPnBZB5CDPUgSsxd9sk
SndtwOe7nJWX0GUwNsKQXMY2vGsmBoXFilVCI3pqm5T9cMDmTRxU25zrsDd1Xqqyao0S
pStw/eex93a8WmX78YYNyfdyX8nNsJNpoyuRl0T8BPODEAsWnN90v44t3wgP+ts9W89b
81SiSCN+iidraRbgM2mrLleS9ifQ0S3BKiGget7hMTvrxA56rZmowntIKCY+zl4YUEFf C/sA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com;
s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type; bh=3M65i5Vck548WKXFpvai1g8blVpIMsQEBuXp0OwZFEY=;
b=AzBB/zLF3IppOz7rsYPkS1OdNg+81nsNXuJhUg9F1QnFSnARwiRwaoBXo8fFRLx+GR
067TdywTmxC/+6IKIaFjgpJz7N2y92mOP18QKJxwwmgv380IcXw7o9F3zUQQUst2wj6o
Apd51A+upgdW4G7PYy3UpCl6mkjznf+STJ1qHoanhs9O3k/Vb1yPCasFto8ww3+5P+m9
x065exbvE4HfdUPug0KpUpjI/etDsRT0VBwDrVQ/V0tysj3BBruC0ko9WoO2i71loo22
cNQq3YEClRkS2Ws6j9vS/ALVuADPxsFpB/k5rpYIsQZPVmSPTqglUR4ciP5ADO4G4hU+ 41dQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.32.10 with SMTP id e10mr586523igi.10.1374689410168;
Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.29.72 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADJ9OA9htZ4EtdGuxs8ABpy5+Jo_64wYXk9Gbdj82zNaE9rihg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8413A5DD0@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
<CAFb8J8o0Do=S++-Py26y-o0kcx77fmY5UmH7VzSQ6tPqSznmJg@mail.gmail.com>
<E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8413A65FD@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
<CADJ9OA9htZ4EtdGuxs8ABpy5+Jo_64wYXk9Gbdj82zNaE9rihg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:10:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFb8J8r+SrZk48AFs4=rY9TSnNPiXBpx69QnfmmDq9HFEf-DSA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Subir Das <subirdas21@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b11198ff841ff04e245d19c
Cc: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] Work item on security
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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" <6tsch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tsch>,
<mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch>
List-Post: <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>,
<mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:10:12 -0000
I would suggest to add security requirements and architecture as an work item and also have discussion with the security ADs. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Watteyne < watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > Pascal, Rene, Subir, > > I fully share Rene's point that it is premature to talk about full > solution, and that we should stick with an architecture and requirements. > This was the philosophy behind the paragraph in the charter. > > I get Pascal's point that this paragraph somehow is "floating" after the 6 > clearly defined work items. Things would look somewhat cleaner if a > security *architecture and requirements* would become a work item. Thoughts? > > Thomas > > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < > pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Subir and René:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The current draft charter lists only 6 work items, and then has an >> unnumbered paragraph as follows:**** >> >> “**** >> >> A document on the security architecture and requirements for 6TSCH will be >> **** >> >> developed, and depending on the security requirements identified in the** >> ** >> >> document, the group may work on a security solution and ask for security >> area**** >> >> review.**** >> >> “**** >> >> ** ** >> >> My suggestion is not to add standard track work now but to:**** >> >> 1) add the item above as item 7 with a sentence that is more homogeneous >> with 1 .. 6 and eventually**** >> >> 2) add words like commissioning, provisioning, key life cycle management >> or network / node bootstrap to indicate that these items are in scope.*** >> * >> >> ** ** >> >> What do you think?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Pascal**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Subir Das >> *Sent:* mercredi 24 juillet 2013 15:20 >> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >> *Cc:* Raghuram Sudhaakar (rsudhaak); 6tsch@ietf.org; Yoshihiro Ohba ( >> yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp) >> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] Work item on security**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I would agree with Rene. Let's keep the text as it is and hear from folks >> during BoF session if there are other suggestions. We do need to develop a >> security architecture and requirements document and the charter text is >> clear. **** >> >> **** >> >> -Subir **** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < >> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:**** >> >> Dear all :**** >> >> **** >> >> So far we have been pretty unclear on whether the security work would be >> in charter, and what the scope of that work would be.**** >> >> Raghu unearthed the issue as he was working on the work item slides for >> the BoF. **** >> >> **** >> >> I see the need for a security framework that describes commissioning, >> provisioning, key exchange and link security for large 6TSCH networks.*** >> * >> >> And that is exactly what Yoshi and the others have started with >> draft-ohba-6tsch-security. **** >> >> **** >> >> Questions to the group:**** >> >> Could/should we make this a full work item? **** >> >> And if so, what scope exactly?**** >> >> **** >> >> Cheers,**** >> >> **** >> >> Pascal**** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tsch mailing list >> 6tsch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch**** >> >> ** ** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tsch mailing list >> 6tsch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 6tsch mailing list > 6tsch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch > >
- [6tsch] Work item on security Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] Work item on security Rene Struik
- Re: [6tsch] Work item on security Subir Das
- Re: [6tsch] Work item on security Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] Work item on security Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] Work item on security Michael Richardson
- Re: [6tsch] Work item on security Subir Das