Hi, while implement MLE draft for Linux I think I detected some behaviour which is missing in reassembly part of RFC4944.
MLE has some requirement to 802.15.4 security suite to enable or disable it for different type of MLE messages. In my case I extended ancillary data of POSIX sockets for special 802.15.4 attributes (which will maybe another RFC, but I never wrote one before). Anyway, I asked myself how the security flag and reassembly of RFC4944 works together. Quote part of RFC4944: ... The recipient of link fragments SHALL use (1) the sender's 802.15.4 source address (or the Originator Address if a Mesh Addressing field is present), (2) the destination's 802.15.4 address (or the Final Destination address if a Mesh Addressing field is present), (3) datagram_size, and (4) datagram_tag to identify all the link fragments that belong to a given datagram. ... and I think somewhere need to be added that ALL fragments ?MUST? be have the same security flag. It's some logical assumption by me that it ?MUST? check on this. However the Linux implementation of RFC4944 don't do that currently (I putted it on my list to fix that) - But maybe this part should be updated to adding the part that all fragments ?MUST? have the same security flag on 802.15.4 frame level. Don't know it really need to have a MUST here, that's why I wrote ?MUST? :-) - Alex _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
