[Roll] [roll] #144: Missing discussion of link encryption and group keys

"roll issue tracker" <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org> Wed, 08 January 2014 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAC21AE4DD for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 07:58:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AYz0c3WWF9ag for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 07:58:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3851AE4D1 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 07:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([]:49289 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1W0vWB-0003wU-M0; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 16:58:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "roll issue tracker" <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@tools.ietf.org, yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com
X-Trac-Project: roll
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 15:58:07 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/144
Message-ID: <071.aa142153295054714a8b618b84a00f2b@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 144
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@tools.ietf.org, yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: abr@sdesigns.dk, consultancy@vanderstok.org, emmanuel.baccelli@inria.fr, robert.cragie@gridmerge.com
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: [Roll] [roll] #144: Missing discussion of link encryption and group keys
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: roll@ietf.org
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 15:58:22 -0000

#144: Missing discussion of link encryption and group keys

 Add a discussion as to when it is more advantageous to use link encryption
 or group keys. In the case that a network consists of both highly
 security-relevant and well-protected devices (such as alarm systems), and
 non-security relevant and not so well-protected devices (such as TV
 remotes), group keying means that either the remote must be as well-
 protected as the alarm system, or the entire network must be rekeyed if
 the remote is lost.  I don’t whether or not it would be necessary to give
 any MUST or SHOULD recommendations, but it would be helpful to give the
 reader an understanding of the issues involved when making decisions about
 link encryption versus group keys. This is not addressed in any of the
 documents cited at the beginning of the security considerations.

 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-
  yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com      |  applicability-home-
     Type:  defect                   |  building@tools.ietf.org
 Priority:  major                    |     Status:  new
Component:  applicability-home-      |  Milestone:
  building                           |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:  Security Review

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/144>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>