Re: [lp-wan] Small point about calling it a "MIC"

[Juan Carlos Zuniga <[e-mail]>]

+1

From: lp-wan <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Laurent Toutain
Sent: March 28, 2019 2:59 PM
To: ana minaburo <[e-mail]>
Cc: Charlie Perkins <[e-mail]>; lp-wan <[e-mail]>; Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; BARTHEL Dominique IMT/OLPS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Small point about calling it a "MIC"

+1

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 2:54 PM ana minaburo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
+1 for RCS

Ana

On Thu 28 Mar 2019 at 11:27, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I was leaning towards something similar to what Carles just suggested.
More specifically, in order to emphasise the fact the our "MIC" *only*
protects the Fragmentation/Reassembly process, I was thinking RCS
(Reassembly Check Sequence).
I believe it does not convey the wrong impression that an unfragmented
SCHC Packet is somehow covered by it.
I trust it looks close enough to FCS for IEEE to feel comfortable with it,
and it's easier to pronounce than SPCS.

Opinions?

Dominique

Le 28/03/19 10:56, « lp-wan on behalf of Carles Gomez Montenegro »
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :

>Hi,
>
>Strictly speaking, our current "MIC" allows to validate the correctness of
>a reassembled "SCHC Packet" (which is a term defined by the SCHC draft).
>
>Perhaps we could talk in terms of a "SCHC Packet Check Sequence".
>
>The acronym could be "SCS" or "SPCS", or even "PCS".
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carles
>
>
>> What are we protecting?
>>
>> [_] Message [_] Frame [_] Packet [X] Datagram
>>
>> What is it being used for? To…
>>
>> [X] Check [_] Integrity check [as in security]
>>
>> What is it?
>>
>> [_] Sum [X] Sequence [x] Word [X] Bits [X] Value
>>
>> What should we pick?
>>
>> Grüße, Carsten
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 15:21, Charlie Perkins
>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello folks,
>>>
>>> Yesterday I tried to describe some conversation about MIC versus FCS
>>> which happened during the recent IEEE 802.15 meeting.  The conclusion
>>> there, was that "MIC" isn't a good name for what SCHC specifies,
>>>because
>>> a MIC is considered to be something that offers a stronger guarantee of
>>> integrity than can be provided by the checksums recommended in the SCHC
>>> document.
>>>
>>> I don't think FCS (i.e., "Frame Check Sequence") is exactly right
>>> either, because what is being checked is a reassembled packet, not a
>>> frame.  That is, if you think a frame is a layer-2 bitstring versus a
>>> packet being a layer-3 bitstring (I'm running out of words).
>>>
>>> One possibility is to simply call it a checksum (abbreviated CHK?).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Charlie P.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lp-wan mailing list
>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lp-wan mailing list
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>lp-wan mailing list
>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
lp-wan mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
_______________________________________________
lp-wan mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan