IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-10

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 27 August 2020 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D88A3A12F0 for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4e2hAONOTssO for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) (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 C0E733A12ED for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id l2so9486509eji.3 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kKReuFUWmSGBsCICfZBuZdJ+xSaRPvFj0Fol5ISI3I8=; b=RWgvseQqZ75o5w0XEUKjfkr2U6EWDcRPJ6P7N5bTQtBaZCf/VHrU4NhnvJ2SkDjtpI XASuwnQiGw5cRfvl4cZddVO2SwWHvjryU0In9D1PDLXS+77hlzdA3E27LvappC1LyVfu kpQiRp/yz4dgnhDjct2ysLsqgzj6GrYpfx9EFwUq30Xdkzvq5m+b+c4N+KKNVBL/KCiC Fq7B7Vt/vzvL/vG6qUcDC+XuDrKrQMeSpSydeNZ2/SAdh1rEwATDgVnBNfyct3/pDiSJ 7JrEmjIsciIRbOZbfzVki3n8sxdjGbhqornvSpbZr1ECDCAvgwGzobU1qrY3fBBnK1aS fNHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kKReuFUWmSGBsCICfZBuZdJ+xSaRPvFj0Fol5ISI3I8=; b=md7ZODETU9/jpCdzv/JtOiYOfuZCCH7MRlF3gQLQbU5JjFo5OaLq6HCedd16kkYsCv ObCmCITwURa/DeeOL+iboqW5NHMr3cH+DBs64nrD3xv4UlGy0qOdpEaHTGx2dpcJ1SE3 kB5+MuzrF2PBsP1dKNH861NQmsskvPpdBT9VzXTBVdUGgI6k0BLuSSXeSI6X4OVtORv5 heUDTHuj6DHdp04gQrFgZUX91Lbh9YVULUpHMhUpZ0vP+KnpYLA8klggykH0nZjdLpnt W96n7yaR5df7liK4O/gIPzMkA7I6Mn8MWQyJDjGseiPXqj9uxmg363E0aceEc/5szolT 0jdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533VlVyRScoOEkMTPpt1gAvJDG/Du+mVepEQXBYJOg2wMKCritUQ qPotbGp4y77FIM++YxeGD1f99j2fSmSZ0jtsJLA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCSV75tYh4LMqlg0vNziQgBTKt3e4hqTT562Bpn92pev1Rj7IsU1s2kRWXPbgWPzVKXyjHP7dxMP4BtBz/dVQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a242:: with SMTP id bi2mr4744186ejb.122.1598561144092; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:45:43 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ECDE63C1-1CC9-4A73-96C2-03AB453014B7@cisco.com>
References: <CAMMESsyZ2_THfcWS73nbBKyCAktmmejQZAHwauGTj4vu-x8P8Q@mail.gmail.com> <ECDE63C1-1CC9-4A73-96C2-03AB453014B7@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:45:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESsw3_V7RNXNq7epwZMCijDk=t9OvEoY0VUdfUDf-kzW=7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000253e4605ade20552"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/TqCsKb4-9jfUSGcYW2S51kDEBIk>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-10
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:45:47 -0000

Hi!

If we want to close the gap, it should probably be in a document that
Updates rfc6550.   Or maybe the WG wants to wait until RPLv2 and do it
there…

:-)

Take care!

Alvaro.

On August 27, 2020 at 4:38:24 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (
pthubert@cisco.com) wrote:

Hello Alvaro

The point is if the security measures in RPL are not turned on, it’s either
L2 security or none at all.

Shouldn’t we mandate L2 security in that case?

The quote from NP DAO is imprecise in that the security section in RPL only
discusses the secured modes.  RFC 6550 says nothing in case of unsecured
because we expected secured. It fails to recommend L2 security. The NPDAO
text this inherits that gap.

The real world decided otherwise  and uses L2 security ubiquitously.
Shouldn’t we reflect that ? Saying that we expect RPL security is a denial
of the world around us.

So I’m good with your proposal but I feel the gap should be closed
somewhere.  Agreed this is but a side spec, but then where should that be?

Take care,

Pascal

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email