Re: [lp-wan] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-07: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

Sorry for the slow response, just getting to this now.

On 24/01/18 18:27, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-07: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> What's the relation of this document to draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-08?

Personally, I've not read that draft 'till now so I guess
there's no direct relationship:-) I'd say these drafts are
complementary basically. I don't think this one needs a
reference to that one.

> 
> Some minor, mostly editorial comments:
> 
> 1) While this document provides a good overview, I find section 2 more
> extensive than needed for the gap analysis; on the other hand section 2.2
> (NB-IoT) does not really talk about security functions/encryption while the
> other sections do that.

Yep, as I understand it, NB-IoT (almost entirely) inherits LTE's
security model. Describing enough of LTE security to be meaningful
would likely take too much text to be useful. How much LTE stuff
to include is a general issue with 2.2 that we've struggled with.
TBH, I don't see us improving that so much that the effort is
overall worthwhile. (I'll give 2.2 another read over and see if
I can find any easy clarifications as I handle remaining comments.)

> 
> 2) "Text here is largely from [I-D.farrell-lpwan-lora-overview]" and " Text
> here is largely from [I-D.ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot]" and so one I would suggest
> to remove these sentences with references to expired drafts (given the
> contributions are listed in sec 7 again).

Sure. Done.

> 
> 3) In sec 2.2.2 there is this fragment that can potentially be removed: "User
> plane protocol stack"

Done.

> 
> 4) Section 2.4.2: "The Transport service is based on User Datagram Protocol
> (UDP)
>    defined in RFC768 or Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) defined in
>    RFC793."
>   Does this mean one can only use UDP or TCP over IPv6 over 6LoWPAN over FAN
>   but no other transport protocols? I assume that's not the case and would
>   recommend to just remove this sentence (and the reference in the table).

I don't know if there's some reason one cannot use a different
transport, but perhaps the Wi-SUN/FAN folks can clarify?

> 
> 5) Seems slightly weird to me that TLS is mentioned in a section called "4.1. 
> Naive application of IPv6"

I think it fits ok with that paragraph.

> 
> 6) I guess another challenge regarding security might be to update/upgrade such
> devices over a low bandwidth network, but that might a topic on its own...
> 

Yep, and mentioned by others too. I'll be suggesting adding a
sentence pointing at RFC8240 (in a subsequent mail to WG list).

Cheers,
S.

> 
> 

-- 
PGP key change time for me.
New-ID 7B172BEA; old-ID 805F8DA2 expires Jan 24 2018.
NewWithOld sigs in keyservers.
Sorry if that mucks something up;-)