[Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 13 July 2015 21:54 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 05C841A1EED; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 5b3N4Z5sDegM; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3F81A1BDB; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.4.p3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150713215425.24718.94967.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:54:25 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/xD17-9ojKTekk4kFFgc1c33xJfM>
Cc: roll-chairs@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@ietf.org, yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building.shepherd@ietf.org
Subject: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 13 Jul 2015 21:54:32 -0000
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-11: Discuss 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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the discussion so far and for the changes to the document. I think (modulo comments) we're mostly done with the blocking discuss stuff but I do two more question at that level. 1) This could be my ignorance of zigbee, but how can we use layer 2 security for only some network nodes? (In other words, I don't see how 4.1.8.2 works.) 2) Just checking - this depends on the zigbeeip authentication mechanism, with which I'm also not familiar, sorry. Does using that mean that this entire applicability statement only covers use of RPL where zigbee radios are in use? Or can that authentication scheme be used independently of the radio technology used? (I mean used in practice there, not in theory.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.)
- [Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-ro… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-iet… Robert Cragie
- Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-iet… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-iet… Robert Cragie
- Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-iet… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-iet… peter van der Stok