Pascal Thubert (pthubert) writes: > We thought there was, including René. I think the problem came up > with the proposal by Kris and that's what we have been discussing. > This discussion has forked but the title remains; we want to ship > minimal and the only road block is security.
I think the minimal is missing other things too. For example it is missing the mapping from the K1 and K2 to the actual KeyIdMode, KeySource, KeyIndex used on the wire. > We want to say is that minimal does not use L3 security (e.g. the > optional one in RPL), and that it needs proper L2 security for both > L2 itself (e.g. for the join process) and for L3 PDUs within the > LLN. But well-known keys do NOT provide proper L2 security. > Can you please verify where/if/how the current text is wrong and > propose a fix? I have done that in my other emails, see for example: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch/current/msg03362.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch/current/msg03268.html And there were my comments to the replacement text too: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch/current/msg03475.html -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
