Re: [Roll] [roll] #144 (applicability-home-building): Missing discussion of link encryption and group keys

"roll issue tracker" <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org> Mon, 28 April 2014 19:55 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3189F1A6FFC for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 kD4pUP-Vtw7a for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4333D1A6FBA for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40805 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 1WereC-0002Sc-Ut; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:55:28 +0200
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, mariainesrobles@gmail.com
X-Trac-Project: roll
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:55:28 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/144#comment:3
Message-ID: <086.d048499cdfe0adbe22556352a6e567ae@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <071.aa142153295054714a8b618b84a00f2b@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 144
In-Reply-To: <071.aa142153295054714a8b618b84a00f2b@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@tools.ietf.org, mariainesrobles@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
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/xCD9tVZjQxh9SSrXw-NMsY0MfTU
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #144 (applicability-home-building): 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: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:55:43 -0000

#144: Missing discussion of link encryption and group keys


Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com):

 Robert Cragie comment - date: 04/23/2014

 <RCC>

 I agree and would propose the following change to the last two paragraphs
 of section 2 (note a couple of grammar/typo changes too):

 "In building control, the infrastructure of the building management
 network can be shared with the security/access, the IP telephony, and the
 fire/alarm networks.  This approach has a positive impact on the operation
 and cost of the network; however, care should be taken to ensure that the
 availability of the building management network does not become
 compromised beyond the ability for critical functions to perform
 adequately.

 In homes, the network for audio/video streaming and gaming has different
 requirements, where the most important one is the high need in bandwidth
 for entertainment not needed for control.  It is expected that the
 entertainment network in the home will mostly be separate from the control
 network, which also lessens the impact on availability of the control
 network."

 </RCC>


 “Nits: ….Section 6.1 “

 <RCC>Agreed</RCC>

 Catherine Meadows comment  - 04/24/2014

 <CM> I am fine with all of Robert’s comments.</CM>

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 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       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  Security Review          |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/144#comment:3>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>