On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 03:38:26PM +0000, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hello Eric : ) > > Many thanks for your review! I cc'ed SEC-DIR because we could really use > their recommendation to solve some of your questions, more below. > > Please see below: > > > == DISCUSS == > > > > -- Section 4.4 -- > > The length of the reserved field is not specified. Or am I missing something > > obvious ? > > I concatenated the reserved fields in the picture and declared it as 40 bits. > Also added the number of bits in the reserved fields of other structures. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > == COMMENTS == > > > > -- Section 4.2 -- > > While status is set to 0 when sending a NS, what is the expected behavior > > of a > > receiver ? > > Changed to > " > In NS messages it MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the receiver. > " > > > -- Section 4.3 and 4.4 -- > > Why is the Pad Length field a 8-bit field while the actual padding will > > always be > > less than 8 bytes. Suggest to make it a 3 or 4 bits field and extend the > > reserved > > field. > > Actually I thought that if we want to extend the option in the future, it is > better to indicate the length of the public key as follows: > > | Type | Length | Reserved| Public Key Length | > > Where: > > Public Key Length: 13-bit unsigned integer. The length of the Public Key > field in bytes. > Public Key: A variable-length field, size indicated in the Public Key Length > field. > JWK-Encoded Public Key [RFC7517] > >Padding: A variable-length field completing the Public Key field to align > >to the next 8-bytes boundary. > > > Works? > > > > > > > -- Section 6.1 -- > > About "Nonce option MUST contain a random Nonce value that was never used > > with this device", how can it be done? Keeping a local history? Giving some > > operational hints would bee welcome. Especially, when there are multiple > > 6LR in > > the LLN: how can they synchronize the nonce? > > The nonce is used once, so there's no synchronization. A new pair is formed > and exchanged at each validation. > > The nonce game used here appear to be common practice. Yes, there's usually a > need of local history, and the fact that we get a nonce from both side, apart > from guaranteeing that the result is effectively unique to both parties, also > makes the chances for history to repeat very low. > > CC'ing SEC-DIR: Please help: if there is a reference for that practice, what > it takes to maintain a nonce, and why we have a nonce from both sides? Trying > to reinvent that text does not look like a good idea for this draft.
It's pretty standard, so I'm not sure that there's a perfect reference for it. A key phrase is that it provides "contributory behavior", so that a party (either one) that knows it has a good RNG knows that the protocol will be secure. > > > > > > -- References -- > > Is there a reason why the crypto algorithms RFC 7748 and 8032 are not > > normative? > > Interestingly they are informational. So that would be a downref. > > CC'ing SEC-DIR: Please help: should we make these refs normative? Generally yes; they're listed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ so no need to re-run the IETF LC. -Ben > > > > > == NITS == > > > > -- Section 2.2 -- > > To be honest, I am not a big fan of simply announcing concepts and > > referring to > > many other RFCs. Suggest to mention which terms and concepts are defined in > > each document. Else, the current section 2.2 mostly forces the readers to > > read > > all the references. > > Yes and they are really there as additional reading, not normative. > I changed the text to > " The reader may get additional context for this specification from the > following references" > I also moved classical ND and SEND references to informational references. > > Works? > > > -- Section 6 -- > > s/may use a same Crypto-ID/may use the same Crypto-ID/ ? > > Done > > Many thanks again Eric! > > Let's see what SEC-DIR thinks > > And a very happy new year (in France we have till Jan 31st to send wishes 😉) > > Pascal > > > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
