On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 06:07:31PM +0000, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Dear Benjamin > > Many thanks for your review this time again! > > I answered the track question separately (with you and Mirja), this is a > conscious discussion that was debated with Suresh in Singapore, we decided > for STD track and made the changes accordingly. > > Let's address the DISCUSS first, more tomorrow on the COMMENTs > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I think we need to be more explicit (whether inline or by reference) about > > what "Secure joining and the Link-Layer security that it sets up" > > (Section 7) entails in terms of ensuring that access to the LLN is only > > available > > to authenticated and authorized entities. It might be worth doing so as > > explicit assumptions or an applicability statement early in the document > > (e.g., the Introduction). > > For one thing, in > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-05.txt > text was moved that makes this unreadable.
Oh, yes, that would make a difference. > Changed the first paragraph of the intro to: > " > The original 6LoWPAN fragmentation is defined in [RFC4944] for use > over a single Layer 3 hop, though possibly multiple Layer 2 hops in a > mesh-under network, and was not modified by the [RFC6282] update. > 6LoWPAN operations including fragmentation depend on a Link-Layer > security that prevents any rogue access to the network. > " Assuming this is meant to replace the "Secure joining and [...]" text, this looks good. > > > > Also, in Section 2.3 we refer to the datagram_tag plus layer-2 sender > > address > > as being "a globally unique identifier for the datagram", but I think this > > can > > only hold within some time-bounded window (e.g., the lifetime of the > > packet), since the tag space is finite and reuse somewhat inevitable. > > This is certainly correct was better make it explicit. What about: > " > datagram_tag: An identifier of a datagram that is locally unique to > the Layer 2 sender. Associated with the MAC address of the > sender, this becomes a globally unique identifier for the datagram > within the duration of its transmission. > > " > > Please let me know if that addresses your DISCUSS so I can move on with the > COMMENTS Yes, that sounds good. Thanks! -Ben > Many thanks again! > > Pascal _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
