Kris Pister writes: > >> I think that the confusion here is in thinking that EBs are involved > >> in normal network operation. They are not. > > > I have understood that draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal plans to use them > > also in normal operation. > > The text in minimal-06 reads > "EBs should not in general be used for synchronization." > > In -07 we should certainly change that to caps. I'm guessing that > Tero would argue that it should be MUST NOT instead of SHOULD NOT. I > would agree.
Actually no. I think EBs are actually very good and cheap way to keep up in sync in network. The only thing required from them in that case is that they have real key protecting them (i.e. no well-known keys). The current minimal already says you can use pre-configured keys, or key management protocols to create keys, so for those use cases the EBs can use real keys, and in that case you can use them for syncronization. Only problem with using EBs in time syncronization comes when someone uses unsecured EBs or EBs "protected" using well-known keys. > I note that draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-06 generally describes this > process well, but does include one sentence which should be removed: > "Nodes can keep synchronization exclusively by exchanging EBs." This > either needs to be explicitly not allowed, or Charlie has to go back > to square one. In some networks using EBs is completely valid option. -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
