Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-09
Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> Wed, 05 August 2020 16:18 UTC
Return-Path: <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
X-Original-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424DE3A0C92; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Zr99KokHO7c; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from violet.upc.es (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92C823A0CC4; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by violet.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id 075GIeVN032337; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:18:40 +0200
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26AA1D53C1; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:18:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 37.10.129.197 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:18:40 +0200
Message-ID: <e1d60778e598439511539592c9e78596.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565FFD7AECC524F6A1D6F8ED84B0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <159661239313.30550.10499047705190236121@ietfa.amsl.com> <MN2PR11MB3565FFD7AECC524F6A1D6F8ED84B0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 18:18:40 +0200
From: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "iot-directorate@ietf.org" <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138.all@ietf.org>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at violet
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: ACL matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]); Wed, 05 Aug 2020 18:18:41 +0200 (CEST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/mMUX8sb3rb18hkrjt0qjblOelp8>
Subject: Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-09
X-BeenThere: iot-directorate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the IoT Directorate Members <iot-directorate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iot-directorate/>
List-Post: <mailto:iot-directorate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 16:18:49 -0000
Hello Pascal, Thanks for addressing my comments! Answering to your subsequent email, I believe that the document is now ready for revision -10. All the best, Carles > Many thanks for your review Carles! > > > > Please see below: > > > >> Some nits/questions/comments follow: > >> > >> - Section 2.1, 1st paragraph: s/The Terminology/The terminology > >> > >> - Section 2.1, 2nd paragraph, first line: s/"RPL Instanceâ/and âRPL >> Instanceâ > >> > >> - Section 2.1, 3rd paragraph: s/RPL Aware Leaf/RPL-Aware Leaf > > > > Done > > > >> > >> - Section 2.2: note that the use of hyphens in the expanded forms of RAL >> and > >> RUL are different from those in draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo. (I think >> the correct > >> form is the one in the turnon-rfc8138 document, but I guess this will >> be > >> confirmed at subsequent stagesâ¦) > > > > See also https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18 > > We need to converge and I agree that the hyphened version is correct. > > Let us start here ð > > > > > >> - Section 3: âA MOP value of 7 and aboveâ. If the MOP is a 3-bit >> field, the > >> highest MOP value is 7 (assuming that the lowest value is 0). Why state >> here > >> "and above"? Are there plans to extend the MOP field size? > > > > Yes, there is. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01. > This is why. Yet what you are saying makes sense, as written it cannot go > beyond 7. I can change to "(and above when extended)" > > > > > >> - Section 3, after âA MOP value of 7 and aboveâ. s/MUST use > >> compression/indicates that compression MUST be used > > > > The following text > > " > > Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) > > in the DIO Base Object. For MOP values 0 to 6, the use of compression > is > > as specified in this document. A MOP value of 7 MUST use compression > by > > default and ignore the setting of the âTâ flag. > > > > " > > was suggested by Alvaro during his A-D review. But I believe that your > proposal does not alter the meaning so I'm picking it. > > > > Resulting sentence: > > " > > Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in > > the DIO Base Object. This specification applies to MOP values 0 to > > 6. For a MOP value of 7 (and above when extended), the compression > > MUST be used by default regardless of the setting of the "T" flag." > > > > > >> - Section 4, 1st paragraph: âif and only if the "T" flag is set.â >> Should we > >> perhaps append âor if the MOP value is 7.â ? > > > > With the change above, I believe that we are good. > > > > > >> - Section 4, 1st paragraph: s/implementations/implementation > > > > Done > > > >> - Section 4, 3rd paragraph: What is the "RPL border router"? I couldn't >> find a > >> definition in the Terminology section or in other documents... May the >> "RPL > >> border router" and the Root run in the same physical device? May the >> "RPL > >> border router" and the Root run in different physical devices? > > > > Here we mean by border router the 6LR that serves the external route at > the leaf edge. > > > > Proposed Clarification: > > " > > An external target [USEofRPLinfo] is not expected to support > > [RFC8138]. In most cases, packets from and to an external target are > > tunneled back and forth between the border router (referred to as > > 6LR) that serves the external target and the Root, regardless of the > > MOP used in the RPL DODAG. The inner packet is typically not > > compressed with [RFC8138], so for outgoing packets, the border router > > just needs to decapsulate the (compressed) outer header and forward > > the (uncompressed) inner packet towards the external target. > > " > > > > > >> - Section 4, 3rd paragraph: the last sentence is written only from the >> âfromâ > >> perspective, whereas the previous one is keeps the double "from/to" > >> perspective. > > > > True > > > >> > >> - Section 4, last paragraph, 1st sentence. Please remove the blank space >> at the > >> end of the sentence. > > > > Done > > > >> > >> - Section 5, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. Perhaps prepend the >> following: > >> âWithout this specification, â > > > > Generalizing to any signaling: > > " > > Enabling the [RFC8138] compression > > without a turn-on signaling requires a "flag day"; all nodes must be > > upgraded, and then the network can be rebooted with the [RFC8138] > > compression turned on. > > " > > > > > > " > >> > >> - Section 7, last sentence. Might this still be exploited as an attack >> (e.g. to > >> battery-operated devices) based on depleting energy at a faster rate? >> If > >> appropriate, please briefly discuss whether this might be significant or >> not. > > > > Added > > " > > An attacker in the middle of the network may reset the "T" flag to > cause > > extra energy spending in its subDAG. Conversely it may set the "T" > flag, so > > that nodes located downstream would compress when that it is not > desired, > > potentially resulting in the loss of packets. In a tree structure, > the > > attacker would be in position to drop the packets from and to the > attacked > > nodes. So the attacks above would be more complex and more visible > than > > simply dropping selected packets. The downstream node may have other > > parents and see both settings, which could raise attention. > > " > > > > Does that work? > > > > I pushed the diffs here: > > > > https://github.com/roll-wg/roll-turnon-rfc8138/commit/9f5b90e44c45f2a5003e50cf927c2047ee6fbdbf > > > > Again, many thanks Carles! > > > > Pascal > -- > Iot-directorate mailing list > Iot-directorate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate >
- [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of draf… Carles Gomez via Datatracker
- Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of … Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of … Carles Gomez Montenegro
- Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of … Eric Vyncke (evyncke)