IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] [6lo] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-08

Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> Tue, 08 December 2020 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5003A0E1F; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 00:32:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 AOX-qnY53mjm; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 00:32:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from violet.upc.es (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]) (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 D05983A0DE9; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 00:32:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.40.4]) by violet.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id 0B88WMs6008369; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 09:32:22 +0100
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083E81D53C1; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 09:32:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 79.152.1.171 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 09:32:22 +0100
Message-ID: <faa50295c07427c63e71e89466ed2872.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <160573826402.16462.7124606612381130154@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <160573826402.16462.7124606612381130154@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:32:22 +0100
From: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: Catherine Meadows <catherine.meadows@nrl.navy.mil>
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh.all@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at violet
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]); Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:32:23 +0100 (CET)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Y4Eq7Fc3lzs4_TQezVCdpfN7HUA>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [6lo] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 08:32:28 -0000

Hi Catherine,

Sorry for the late reply.

Thank you very much for your review, which has been very valuable to us.

We understand that no action is needed from our side in the context of
your review.

Should you have any further comments, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Cheers,

Carles (on behalf of the authors)


> Reviewer: Catherine Meadows
> Review result: Ready
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
> directors.
>  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any
> other
> last call comments. This document specifies mechanisms that are needed to
> enable IPv6 mesh topologies over Bluetooth Low Energy Links established
> using
> the Bluetooth Internet Protocol Support Profile.  It does not specify the
> routing protocol to be used in an IPv6, and it does not specify security
> mechanisms.
>
> In the Security Considerations Section the document directs the reader to
> the
> relevant documents. For most security issues, it points the reader to RFC
> 7668,
> “IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy.”  For security issues produced by
> the
> routing protocol, the reader is directed to RFC 7416, “ A Security
> Threat
> Analysis for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
> (RPLs)”, and
> it is noted that the issues addressed in that RFC are useful for other low
> energy routing protocols as well.  Finally it is noted that the
> Registration
> Ownership Verifier (ROVR) field can be derived from the Bluetooth address,
> and
> that this field is also subject to impersonation and spoofing.  For this
> the
> document refers the reader the Internet Draft on "Address Protected
> Neighbor
> Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks.”
>
> I think that this document does an excellent job of identifying the
> relevant
> security issues to related to its topic, and of directing the reader to
> the
> relevant documents.
>
> I consider this document Ready.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email