Re: [Last-Call] [lp-wan] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox-17

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Indeed: merci Jean-Michel

Based on Sergio's quick reaction, I have placed this I-D on the agenda of the next IESG telechat.

Regards

-éric

On 20/12/2022, 23:47, "lp-wan on behalf of Sergio Aguilar Romero" <lp-wan-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:lp-wan-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of sergio.aguilar.romero@xxxxxxx <mailto:sergio.aguilar.romero@xxxxxxx>> wrote:


Hello,


Thanks for your review.


We have published a new version (-18) of the draft.


Please find our responses to your comments below.


Please let us know anything.


Cheers,


Authors of the SCHC over Sigfox draft


> On Dec 19, 2022, at 10:41 AM, Jean-Michel Combes via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx <mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Jean-Michel Combes
> Review result: On the Right Track
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
> draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-sigfox. These comments were written primarily for
> the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s)
> should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other
> IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that
> have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/&gt;>.
> 
> Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as
> DISCUSS.
> 
> I have the following DISCUSS level issue:
> - Security considerations
> (1) RFC8724 says, in Section 12, "As explained in Section 5, SCHC is expected
> to be implemented on top of LPWAN technologies, which are expected to implement
> security measures." (2) The text in this document describes the implemented
> security measures (i.e., radio protocol security, firewall) Based on this,
> except if I miss something and/or some text is added about security mechanisms
> provided within Sigfox LPWAN, IMHO, the following text should be added at the
> end of the section: "The previously described security mechanisms don't
> guarantee an E2E security between the Device SCHC C/D + F/R and the Network
> SCHC C/D + F/R: potential security threats described in [RFC8724] are
> applicable to the profile specified in this document."
> 
> Maybe, to check with the Security Area review/ADs.
> 


We have added the text at the end of section 12.




> The following are other issues I found with this document that SHOULD be
> corrected before publication: - 3.5. SCHC Rules "For this reason, it is
> recommended to keep the number of rules that are defined for a specific device
> to the minimum possible." I am puzzled with this sentence ... I don't know how
> to understand it: is it just an advice? is it a strong recommendation (e.g.,
> RECOMMENDED)? If so, why not to set-up a maximum size? Maybe I missed something
> ...
> 


We have modified the “recommended” to “RECOMMENDED” and added when not following is acceptable.




> The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
> with the document: - many locations s/Rule ID/RuleID - 3.1. Network
> Architecture "The Network SCHC C/D + F/R shares the same set of rules as the
> Dev SCHC C/D + F/R." s/the Dev/the Device - 4.1. Uplink No-ACK Examples "Last
> packet fragment is marked with the FCN = All-1 (1111)." "1111" in binary =>
> "15" in decimal So, why "31" in the figures 31 and 32?
> 


Thanks, we have fixed the minor issues and fixed a couple more. 




> Hope that helps.
> 
> Merry Christmas!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> JMC.
> 
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
lp-wan mailing list
lp-wan@xxxxxxxx <mailto:lp-wan@xxxxxxxx>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan>



-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux