Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

peter van der Stok <> Wed, 15 April 2015 07:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9AE1B3238; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hdrW_qxGekDb; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EFE81B3236; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id G7Qp1q0074NtgTm017Qp2e; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:24:49 +0200
Received: from [2001:983:a264:1:3494:f3d8:36fd:66e8] by with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:24:48 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:24:48 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Message-ID: <>
X-Sender: (e/jDYlEZC89xx1Xb1TYKdK6F7wXaIAbv)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,, The IESG <>,,,
Subject: Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To:, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 07:24:55 -0000

HI Michael and Stephen,

> In reading section 7 again just now, I see how things went wrong... 
> Some text
> seems to have snuck into section 7(.0) that tries to sit on the fence, 
> so I
> propose to remove paragraphs 3 and 4 of that section and say instead:
>     "This document mandates that a layer-2 mechanism be used during 
> initial
>      and incremental deployment. Please see the following sections."
> Section 7.1, is quite clear that PANA is being specified to carry EAP
> messages for a 1x bootstrap into layer-2 security.    That this is the
> default position of this document.  I have tried to persuade the 
> authors to
> be clearer and less speculative. While I'm thrilled that they like the
> methods 6tisch is considering, I'd prefer to remove the paragraph "New
> approaches...".

In principle the removal of paragraphs can be quite satisfactory because 
in the restraint one recognizes the master (my translation from German).
But, it makes me wonder for whom we write this applicability draft.

It is quite clear that protocols exist and are used for the 
initialization of the layer-2 security.
On the other hand, many new protocols are suggested and not from an 
academic point of view but because there is a need.
Removing the speculation means removing the recognition of this state of 

My suggestion is that with the removal of the speculation, a caveat is 
introduced that current text does not cover all known building and home 
deployment cases.
Especially in connection to multicast I should like to indicate that 
work on multicast security is needed because far from solved.

An alternative conclusion is that current state of affairs suggests an 
Information document.

> I would like prefer that this document was even more precisely about 
> what
> kind of 15.4 security is being used, either directly profiling the 
> relevant
> parts of the 802.15.4 specification, or by indirect reference to 
> something
> that does.
The draft mentions ZigBee and Wi-SUN HAN. Any additional suggestions?


> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list