[Roll] Last Comments about draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-09

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 16 March 2021 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618963A102C; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iBp2SwAuRbe1; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1024A3A1034; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id bm21so74594308ejb.4; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3XXN5D9vHTThKv+LK64Ocn2KfCNDDyu9DZ86lcD2nK4=; b=snzjGSLrRPC0VgBVgoliw5ojX5/JuGjGWORYE28yXTAe//KPFlqvf7HxyWkVQhZRxm u5fI6oVU315rdyNAkXEBwNiCMAnCmb5BtB5VU7XrcwLid/KU2LhS5aJS0dzDCKKMAO5J DMwYtEw/BN/kUulGnyMdBN98gLm9+pfHp9aJGCJT07hRjsDB3qA/Avn5km5aSY816j1b 7f4pdeQpWv+fXHYycy3B0pPPE6YSwuCC6jbOQKqPNsTAkttUU/4Js2H9fNsVxmZIz3Et M0/Tv5v001pew0GhnN6vcYG3KVLUtgcuFy5PmQiIOWK0SH2MI1yevbsFbsukFaAVAXq8 3HDA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3XXN5D9vHTThKv+LK64Ocn2KfCNDDyu9DZ86lcD2nK4=; b=jZZk/YTLscABSWFGuXQ41rnBMhaKPp6OTEEKZELHHtVUiGFrnlaEIicOdRYh/j3WwT KVwsFyswoKe5rdn3iQzxti/1vNTRm41uj6wkmQ0tREvFBGyAiALGBNyAc0Hto08YgKyL ej8XcXwlQVUGNjKvyrb4EIJe/jgcJAUCGLtF5AojJbRJVHFpShxg+qI4ZYlgEqsr4/JX lQad5M+U6Wou9uxj3s9+m46hX7HMDjK3yJrptk7r2cp8kgIW8pCU7h7xMD9yTr/EJLIQ vHH7QFnOrVVJtBk7hfvVoNmQiNjFxuV+Rt8ursdkiOVpHgh9ypjy+Ygnkqx/+hER9dJX zSgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530nue2INyNQzr93SebBymmbSpMVqmb+W34gdzyyCAYpcuKrcoGN Sji2PL6HRkUiZYHpZbzSI++XeY/ILxDqDYu8aG5EVZOD
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTBPRhf/l5KHpLuqJc8wYdygmmMDEsSMmikWex6svlFIn58DaY1uk9BHIRTjTA1ynGgdIgdNV6d4uF5mmpa4Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:d554:: with SMTP id cr20mr32118145ejc.61.1615930455559; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:34:14 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:34:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESswCqVExzWthP-bGcAdR7oEJNY5R2_CAh=sL3Ujk-pLPAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Cc: draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl@ietf.org, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, roll-chairs@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/yEsdNfFSVR8gxGYs48sntH8aaVA>
Subject: [Roll] Last Comments about draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-09
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:34:18 -0000


Hi!  How are you?

I've been looking at -09, and it looks like there are some changes
that you mentioned in previous replies that are not included in this
new version.  Also, I have a couple of comments left.

You can address these along with other last call comments.  I'm
starting the IETF Last Call.



(1) Both §4.1/§4.2 say that if there's more than one RREQ/RREP, then
the message "SHOULD be dropped".  You had mentioned [1] that you would
change these to "MUST".

(2) I am not too happy with the last couple of sentences here (§10
Security Considerations)...

930	   If a rogue router knows the key for the Security Configuration in
931	   use, it can join the secure AODV-RPL route discovery and cause
932	   various types of damage.  Such a rogue router could advertise false
933	   information in its DIOs in order to include itself in the discovered
934	   route(s).  It could generate bogus RREQ-DIO, and RREP-DIO messages
935	   carrying bad routes or maliciously modify genuine RREP-DIO messages
936	   it receives.  A rogue router acting as the OrigNode could launch
937	   denial-of-service attacks against the LLN deployment by initiating
938	   fake AODV-RPL route discoveries.  In this type of scenario, RPL's
939	   preinstalled mode of operation, where the key to use for a P2P-RPL
940	   route discovery is preinstalled, SHOULD be used.  If a future IETF
941	   document specifies the authenticated mode of operation as described
942	   in [RFC6550], then future AODV-RPL implementations SHOULD use the
943	   authenticated mode of operation.

...because the text is recommending what to do if a future document
specifies an unknown (today) behavior.  I would feel better if we just
eliminated the last sentence.

(3) RFC6998 wasn't moved to be an Informative reference.

(4) rfc7416 should also be moved to the Informative section.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/d0BQNFuZ7X-5wYpcT8nuORoeoeg/