Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18278120071 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 09:08:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bbhmail.nl 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 HlUlL9A3JPxi for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 09:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0050.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5DE8120045 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 09:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01004180301A0; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:08:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bbhmail.nl; h= mime-version:content-type:date:from:to:cc:subject:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:message-id; s=key; bh=nSB/O6YSN4l5N0o9OS bg0LtI1S2sbrbNBA0lziWpx+M=; b=Hm3X29hFxj1LIsvx175mJ42DrvXksvB7ca 1MhmNonnmuGwZwp1vkmBKK0/3siQPRRpHYvo1NZZantlViyIjkcWCrX2eEyCeLh8 lojlhFtkoyrmFsWWUh6bnXWq6O3qaG8MTXQqVpJG8k65MZtd7GASaim5WTaIhR0i A7LTSv63g= X-Session-Marker: 73746F6B636F6E73406262686D61696C2E6E6C X-Spam-Summary: 2, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, stokcons@bbhmail.nl, :::::::, RULES_HIT:41:72:152:355:379:582:599:800:962:967:973:983:988:989:1152:1189:1208:1221:1260:1313:1314:1345:1359:1431:1436:1437:1516:1517:1518:1535:1543:1575:1588:1589:1592:1594:1711:1730:1777:1792:2198:2199:2527:2528:2553:2557:2559:2562:2693:2892:2897:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3586:3743:3769:3865:3866:3867:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:4117:4250:4321:5007:6117:6119:6261:6657:6678:7875:7903:8603:9036:9040:9177:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:12109:12114:12555:12663:12740:12895:13138:13139:13149:13153:13228:13230:13231:13439:14093:14096:14181:14721:21080:21324:21433:21451:21627:30046:30054:30064:30070:30075:30090, 0, RBL:216.40.42.5:@bbhmail.nl:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.8.55.100 66.201.201.201, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:fn, MSBL:0, DNSBL:neutral, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:26, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: pipe35_4a26e4136ca2f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6436 Received: from mail.bbhmail.nl (imap-ext [216.40.42.5]) (Authenticated sender: webmail@stokcons@bbhmail.nl) by omf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:08:29 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_3b8ab727eabdf061430b06c9b1ab799d" Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 18:08:29 +0200 From: Peter van der Stok To: Alvaro Retana Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" , Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , consultancy@vanderstok.org Organization: vanderstok consultancy Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: References: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DFBB52A@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <11e99cd92e3b945439fce18557efc18f@bbhmail.nl> <9ED90E26-9AC9-4FB9-86FF-3FD838CB0E60@cisco.com> <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DFBB5B8@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <75A21EDD-A070-4A07-B7E8-F7F2025C6BBC@cisco.com> Message-ID: <78934ae404871f2b9a79a6079af34ea8@bbhmail.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@bbhmail.nl User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.7 X-Originating-IP: [5.206.216.229] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] suggested addition to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 16:08:34 -0000 --=_3b8ab727eabdf061430b06c9b1ab799d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Pausing useofrplinfo also seems necessary. Peter Alvaro Retana schreef op 2019-08-30 20:13: > On August 30, 2019 at 10:20:05 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (pthubert@cisco.com) wrote: > > Pascal: > >> The proposal does not change the behavior of the NPDAO but adds information about why the NPDAO is sent. Are you concerned by attacks like a cover channel? We could have one sentence on that but I'm unclear how to protect against it. > > I haven't thought about it too long...but, yes, that could be one thing. Not having a mitigation is ok, as long as a potential vulnerability is explained. > >> In the future status values that modify the behavior of NPDAO may be introduced. But for now we'd be looking at a very minimalistic change where the reserved field carries a RPL status that does not affect the behavior of the nodes. >> The hope would be that it does not affect the reviews that were already done. > > I hope so too...but would have to see the scope of any change first. > > For now, I will ask the RFC Editor to pause processing. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. --=_3b8ab727eabdf061430b06c9b1ab799d Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Pausing useofrplinfo also seems necessary.

Peter

Alvaro Retana schreef op 2019-08-30 20:13:

On Augu= st 30, 2019 at 10:20:05 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (pthubert@cisco.com) wrote:<= /div>
 <= /span>
Pascal:=
 <= /span>
The = proposal does not change the behavior of the NPDAO but adds information abo= ut why the NPDAO is sent. Are you concerned by attacks like a cover channel= ? We could have one sentence on that but I'm unclear how to protect against= it.

I haven't thought about it too l= ong...but, yes, that could be one thing.  Not having a mitigation is o= k, as  long as a potential vulnerability is explained.

In the future status values that modify the = behavior of NPDAO may be introduced. But for now we'd be looking at a very = minimalistic change where the reserved field carries a RPL status that does= not affect the behavior of the nodes.
The hope would be that it does not affect th= e reviews that were already done.

I hope so too...but would have t= o see the scope of any change first.

For now, I will ask the RFC Edit= or to pause processing.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

 
 
--=_3b8ab727eabdf061430b06c9b1ab799d--