Re: [Fwd: Fwd: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-6lowpan-problem (6LoWPAN: Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement and Goals) to Informational RFC]

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

 



Hi,

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
You question about switches does point to an overloaded term.  In that
particular paragraph the "switches" we are talking about are electrical
switches, as in light switches, not network switches.  We'll fix the
wording.

I guessed as much, which is what triggered me to wonder about the use of the term 'personal' as I don't think an electrical switch is typically carried in your PAN :-)

The reason we use the term personal area network is that it is the
industry term used for 802.15.4 networks.  I agree that these devices
are not "personal", but it is a nomenclature that we are stuck with by
the IEEE.

If you don't want to drop 'Personal' from the used terminology, I would suggest considering adding a sentence or two in Introduction of all relevant documents to make it clearer that the IETF has designed a generic solution which also applies outside of PANs. The IETF specifications as far as I can see are not restricted to 'P' in 'PAN'. (If you consider assumptions and possible security tradeoffs this may have good and bad consequences.)

We did not address the security of underlying mesh network because we
have not yet defined that layer yet.  We are working with MANET to
define that and the security for the mesh would be addressed in that
document.  It was not germane to the format/adaptation header.

To you question about network management - again this document is about
the format and header encoding only.  Network management and security
will need to be addressed by a future 6lowpan management or 6lowpan ops
document.

I'm not sure whether I agree. We're talking about a problem statement draft. I'd agree that network management is probably outside the scope of draft-ietf-6lowpan-format. It seemed that the network management goals could not be fulfilled without compromising other goals (easy or zero configuration), raising a doubt about the feasibility of the goals.

Even if NM doesn't need to be addressed in 6lowpan-format, I think (operational) security should be. The key questions (IMHO) here are, 'Are the security mechanisms specified by IEEE and IETF good enough that using them is feasible in real life? Will they get used?' So far, the document doesn't give me an assurance that the answer to either is 'yes', and hence it leaves me little to use when trying to figure out whether the security model of 6lowpan design is adequate, and consequently, whether the IP specification is complete or not.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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