Re: [Roll] Questions on the RPL applicability statement

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 25 January 2014 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0151A038C for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 08:37:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.019
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=no
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 Fm7qd5GpkQNg for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 08:37:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CD81A0253 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 08:37:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACCEF2002F; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:54:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id A489F64647; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:37:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894CB63AB2; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:37:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: roll@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <74c0ab9f632047febba938fe624a94e2@BY2PR04MB807.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <7f3cf88e9e064bb28831d8b273e3169c@CO1PR04MB553.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <13255.1389643159@sandelman.ca> <74c0ab9f632047febba938fe624a94e2@BY2PR04MB807.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:37:39 -0500
Message-ID: <1530.1390667859@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Subject: Re: [Roll] Questions on the RPL applicability statement
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <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: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:37:44 -0000

Popa, Daniel <Daniel.Popa@itron.com> wrote:
    > You're right. In our document the section numbers do not match the
    > section numbers from the template you proposed.

    > The questions we have are:

    > - What is the intent of the Section called "Other protocols"?

I'm not sure.  I don't have such a section.
There are two sections that say, "Other Parameters".

I've posted a -04 with some details of what I think belongs in the first of
those sections. The diffs are below.

    > - In your template there are 2 (distinct) sections called "Layer 2
    > applicability" and "Description of the Layer 2 features",
    > respectively. We wondering if these two sections are not somehow
    > redundant; what is the intent of having these 2 (distinct) sections?

section 2.3, layer-2, details what layer-2 technologies are going to be used.
This is at the high-level.  So in your document, you would write:

     This applicability statement applies to deployments using
     IEEE 802.15.4g, 802.15.4e, and for PowerLine Communication (PLC) IEEE P1901.2.

whereas in the home-building document it says:

   This document applies to [IEEE802.15.4] and [G.9959] which are
   adapted to IPv6 by the adaption layers [RFC4944] and
   [I-D.brandt-6man-lowpanz].

   (and it goes on to explain how 6lowpan is applied to form a layer-3, which
   actually, I think should go in the other section)

In the section of layer-2 features, I would expect to learn the significant
details about each of the layer-2s being used.... if you are using
the layer-2 security features, how they are configured (no security,
per-network keying, per-node pair keying,  bootstrapping of new nodes...)
and what assumptions one might reasonably be able to make about layer-3
security from layer-2 features.   This section will go a long long long way
towards making the security review easier:  if you claim that layer-2
guarantees no strangers on the network, then a whole bunch of threats go
away.

{I'm a bit upset at the security reviews that we have got... They have
occured, actually, way too soon, and in the wrong direction.  Still, all
questions are important to answer}

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works