Re: [C310] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9032 <draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

["Prof. Diego Dujovne" <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,
               I have reviewed the proposed changes and Michael's responses
and I agree with them.
Regards,

                                  Diego Dujovne

Le mer. 12 mai 2021 à 17:53, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> a
écrit :

>
> [e-mail] wrote:
>     > 1) <!--[rfced] Based on Michael's reply on the c310 list, we have
>     > updated this title as follows. Please review.
>
>     > Original: IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element encapsulation of 6TiSCH
>     > Join and Enrollment Information
>
>     > Current: Encapsulation of 6TiSCH Join and Enrollment Information
>     > Elements
>
>     > Also, should the abbreviated title (which appears in the running
> header
>     > of the PDF file) be updated? Seems "ICMP" is not mentioned within the
>     > document.
>
>     > Current: IE for ICMPv6
>
> I guess this is historical, because the first versions of the document
> could
> carry arbitrary ICMPv6 payloads!
>
> So, the abbreviated title should probably be "Enroll Beacon"
>
>     > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear
> in
>     > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
>     -->
>
> BRSKI
> Enroll
> zero-touch
> DODAG balancing
> LLN balancing
>
>     > 3) <!-- [rfced] Would the following improve the readability of the
>     > sentence?  We found Section 4.5.2 to provide a better overview of EB
>     > roles (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8180#section-4.5.2)
> Should
>     > the section number here be changed?
>
>     > Current: As explained in Section 6 of [RFC8180], the EB has a number
> of
>     > purposes: synchronization of the Absolute Slot Number (ASN) and Join
>     > Metric, carrying the timeslot template identifier, carrying the
> channel
>     > hopping sequence identifier, and indicating the TSCH slotframe.
>
>     > Perhaps: As explained in Section 4.5.2 of [RFC8180], the EB has a
>     > number of purposes: it carries synchronization information such as
> the
>     > Absolute Slot Number (ASN) and Join Metric and identifiers for the
>     > timeslot template and the channel hopping sequence, and it indicates
>     > the TSCH slotframe.
>     -->
>
> Yes.
>
>     > 4) <!-- [rfced] In the following sentence, perhaps "Join Proxy"
> instead
>     > of "Join Assistant" is meant?
>
>     > Current: 3.  A new pledge may have to receive many EBs before it can
>     > pick an appropriate network and/or closest Join Assistant to attach
> to.
>     -->
>
> Yes, please change.  JA was a term used in earlier minimal-security drafts.
> (I still prefer it, but consensus was for Join Proxy)
>
>     > 5) <!--[rfced] How may this be rephrased to clarify and to avoid
> using
>     > the citation as an adjective?
>
>     > Current: The PANID is part of the [IEEE.802.15.4] Layer 2 header: it
> is
>     > ...
>
>     > Perhaps: The PANID is part of the Layer 2 header as defined in
>     > [IEEE.802.15.4]: it is ...
>     -->
>
> Okay.
>
>     > 6) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify this sentence. Does "conceived of in a
>     > similar fashion as" mean "considered similar to"?
>
>     > Current: The PANID provides a context similar to the Extended Service
>     > Set ID (ESSID) in 802.11 networking and can be conceived of in a
>     > similar fashion as the 802.3 Ethernet VLAN tag in that it provides
>     > context for all Layer 2 addresses.
>
>     > Perhaps: The PANID provides a context similar to the Extended Service
>     > Set ID (ESSID) in 802.11 networking and can be considered similar to
>     > the 802.3 Ethernet VLAN tag in that it provides context for all
> Layer 2
>     > addresses.
>     -->
>
> Yes, that's better.
>
>
>     > 7) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following is inconsistently
>     > capitalized. How would you like it to be capitalized?
>
>     > PAN priority field - 3 instances pan priority field - 3 instances
>     -->
>
> "PAN" needs to be in upper case.  It stood for Personal Area Network,
> from a time when 802.15.4 was going to be all about wearables, but at this
> point it's just "PAN".
>
>     > 8) <!-- [rfced] May we capitalize "reserved" here to match the
>     > formatting of the rest of the definition list?
>
>     > Current: res: reserved bits MUST be ignored upon receipt and SHOULD
> be
>     > set to 0 when sending.
>
>     > Perhaps: res: Reserved bits MUST be ignored upon receipt and SHOULD
> be
>     > set to 0 when sending.
>
> Yes, I like it capitalized like this.
>
>      > Or perhaps: res: Any reserved bits MUST be ignored upon receipt and
>      > SHOULD be set to 0 when sending.
>      -->
>
>     > 9) <!-- [rfced] In the sentence below, is perhaps "Join Proxy"
> instead
>     > of "enrollment proxy" meant?
>
>     > Current: A priority of 0x7f indicates that the announcer should never
>     > be considered as a viable enrollment proxy.
>     -->
>
> So, we renamed the document from Join to Enrollment, because "Join" means
> something different to ROLL WG types.
> In ROLL documents yet to arrive at the RPC, both terms are used in the same
> document.
>
> It would be better to leave this field as Enrollment Proxy.
> If I could have convinced 6tisch-minimal-security to change too, I would be
> happier.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>


-- 
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Profesor Asociado
Escuela de Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería - Universidad Diego Portales - Chile
www.ingenieria.udp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125