Re: [6tsch] Work item on security

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
>
>