Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-6lowpan-usecases-09.txt

"Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <eunah.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 28 February 2011 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <eunah.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041A23A6CC9; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:25:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r7vbuWI1eG2o; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B043A6A4C; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:25:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so3463004qyk.10 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:26:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/GSKcTAZdUn7iDPvapsdQxgTpYqkh+DmNWirOePZwC0=; b=Qjo2/C0xdXa66og2v8R+1PsSiFras7RB6oCIeTIZr5EK5eWcHZvDV83RPLyYk40nDb Zp84dItVlZEJHfsvnRi9QWF2cCd0xm1RVGZYur3R79S08uJNpike0MSfNIxyRgr6H+HK pjVDb3k/kjGfi8ML2Ujz7IScwAPo6MH/ZaGDM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=shAOF5ncXdiD5wyRWw+AoR8gVruJL/Bp/sOCg4DK6GXvkt1ExjjAK+2tSPE39A6EfE fEFtcLVyNkmaTBP4KafR542NqfFaBN9AM3aA6TevA0mi4DvYh8DsDqUXs1UPsGn+IQM9 6P7yvNvM6KED0GYq6ZmugNE2tfTAxGCzegq1s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.96.206 with SMTP id i14mr4649090qcn.247.1298935613727; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:26:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.233.85 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:26:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikErRCyk5CryOvRXO-zz6OYd55KUDESf81gZQjv@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikErRCyk5CryOvRXO-zz6OYd55KUDESf81gZQjv@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:26:53 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikQPtTaO7K_nhp_Ri067f_+JfuW9xyATtSPOG3h@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <eunah.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:34:33 -0800
Cc: draft-ietf-6lowpan-usecases.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-6lowpan-usecases-09.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:25:54 -0000

Dear Donald,

Thanks for the valuable comment.
I agree with you. It must be good to have such references.
I'm now on my biz trip which quite occupies me.
I will include your suggestion in the revision within the next week.

Thanks,
Eunah

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> these comments just like any other last call comments
>
> As you might guess from the draft name, this is an informational
> document describing a number of use cases for low-power wireless
> personal area networks. The security considerations section,
> reasonably enough, briefly indicates why different use cases may have
> considerably different security requirements and what some types of
> such security requirements could be.
>
> The thing that I think is lacking is some hint as to where to look to
> find possible mechanisms to meet those requirements. For this type of
> document, no detailed analysis of mechanisms is needed. But I would
> feel better if a sentence could be added such as follow (with some
> alternative wording in square brackets): "These varied security
> requirement [can commonly][are expected to] be met by the use of
> mechanisms such as IPsec and IKE, TLS, or 802.15.4 link security.". If
> there is an appropriate security mechanism survey document that would
> be fine. I did look at RFC 4919 as something that could be referenced
> and it seems too preliminary and tentative. RFC 4944 is only a little
> better. Perhaps there should be a reference to
> draft-qiu-6lowpan-secure-router at least as an example of work in
> progress in this area.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street
>  Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
>