[Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: 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-roll-applicability-home-building/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for the discussion about security. I didn't check
if the comments below were handled in -12, happy to
chat about that if you want.

First two comments are about text that's new in -11:

- 4.1.8: "MUST be present" is ambiguous - do you mean
it must be used? I think you do.

- 4.1.8: "MUST be distributed or established in a
secure fashion" isn't really a protocol requirement.
Do you really just mean "see 4.1.8.1" ?


OLD COMMENTS FOR -10 below, I didn't check if you'd made
any related changes.

- I don't get how there's an IPR disclosure for this, but
whatever.

- The non-security parts of this were quite a good read.

- 4.1.8: 1st sentence makes no sense. It says RPL does X or
not-X in order to Y. There is no choice but for RPL to do X or
not-X.

- 4.1.8 seems to me to imply that link layer security is
always needed since there can always be some node that will
send an unsecured RPL messsage. If you agree, then I think
that should be made more clear. If you disagree, I'd like to
understand how.

- 4.1.8, I am surprised not to see a recommendation that
separate group keys SHOULD be used for different applications
in the same bulding network. But that may be too fine grained
a recommendation for this document perhaps.

- 5.1.2.1, I think it'd be clearer to say Imin should be
between 10 and 50 ms. The "10 - 50 ms" notation can be
confusing. (Same elsewhere.)

- section 7, 3rd para, "can rely on" is sales language, please
strike that or s/rely on/depend upon/ 

- section 7, 3rd para, last sentence: this is sales language
and should be deleted. Or perhaps s/is/SHOULD be/ would turn
it back into a piece of specification language.

- 7.1 - this is odd text to see in a proposed standard, but I
think it's accurately describing the level of interop to
expect in RPL security, so is probably the right thing to say.
I'd argue that it'd be even better to bluntly admit/say that
there is currently no interoperable automated key management
for RPL. (Same for 7.3) Or, and better, to fix that lack. (See
my discuss point.)

- 7.2, 1st sentence: this is meaningless as I read it - what
are you trying to say?

- 7.2, when a node is stolen, the chances are that any keys
contained in the node are at significant risk of being leaked.

- 7.3, I do not believe that [I-D.keoh-dice-multicast-security] 
is necessarily going to proceed via the DICE WG. Depending 
on it would be fairly high-risk in any case.

- 7.4, last sentence: more sales talk

- 7.5, what is this specifying? I don't get it. Does 7416 set
out what to implement to get interop? (I didn't think so, but
nor does this seem to.)