Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-roll-security-framework returned to working group.

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

The last comments on this return
========================
IESG Discuss> 20-01-2011> I think this is a really good document, and
support its publication. I am specifically concerned about punting the
details on public key
distribution, then finding they are not covered here either. Did I get
the wrong document?  Where are those issues going to be addressed?

I agree that it provide good information as long we don't relate it to
another document or another purpose, and happy that you support
publication. I agree that it has not covered that security technique
purpose, but I think this draft can be base for future
specification/standard that will cover the issue refered to. I
recommend thoes issues are going to be addressed in a RPL-Security
standard I-D. Please not that there is no harm in passing this draft,
but it will encourage progress/efforts. If there was a harm in passing
the draft please reply.

IESG Discuss>05-05-2011> I believe that the core of AD's discuss is
that there is no specification for how the authenticated mode of
roll-rpl is to
be done, and specifically using public key based mechanisms
for key distribution.

If there was a harm in passing the draft please inform. This draft is
an *informational* not a standard track that may be why it does not
specify RPL authentication. This draft is a good introduction to a
future standard I-D.

IESG Discuss> 05-05-2011> I'd be happy to clear were there to be a
good specification of how to do e.g. a signature based authenticated
mode, or
a public key based way to distribute keys for an
authenticated mode, or even a kerberos-like way to
distribute secret keys for an authenticated mode. While this
will all be optional to implement, its absence is really
not consistent with bcp107.

I recommend a work either to be doing above request in an I-D
(standard) within Security Area (not in Routing Area) or in an I-D
(standard) that relates totally to RPL as RPL-Sec (standard) in this
WG.

Best Regards
AB