Re: [6tisch] Rekeying for minimal-security (was: Updates to minimal-security-06)

Mališa Vučinić writes: > I also worked out a new key signaling mechanism using a "key usage" parameter, > where a single uint value from the registry specifies the IEEE 802.15.4 > security level to be used and the appropriate frame types the key can be used > with. The mechanism is flexible in

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Hello Michael: Regards, Pascal > Le 15 mai 2018 à 21:07, Michael Richardson a écrit : > > > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >pt> ·We should not say the following: > >txt> When the JRC is not co-located with the 6LBR, then the

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: pt> ·We should not say the following: txt> When the JRC is not co-located with the 6LBR, then the code point txt> provides a clear indication to the 6LBR that this is join response txt> traffic. pt> This seems to

Re: [6tisch] Rekeying for minimal-security (was: Updates to minimal-security-06)

Mališa Vučinić wrote: >> (I can write text next week on this) >> > Yes, this is all fine with me. If you could provide a PR on the latest > minimal-security-06 branch, that would be great! I will work on that on Wednesday, when I've 8hr on a train.

Re: [6tisch] On minimal-security

Thanks for this review, Pascal. I went quickly through your comments and I should be able to fix all of this for -06. My goal is to have -06 ready for WGLC. On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:00 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < pthub...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hello Mališa > > > > As you are getting ready to

Re: [6tisch] Rekeying for minimal-security (was: Updates to minimal-security-06)

Michael, See inline. Mališa On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 8:05 PM Michael Richardson wrote: > > I see that you have an IANA registry for the Join Request and Join Response > key values. These tables need to have names and the IANA instruction needs > to ask them to create

[6tisch] On minimal-security

Hello Mališa As you are getting ready to publish a next rev, please find simple comments on 05 that you may want to act upon in 06. ·As mentioned earlier in the draft, the most probable collocation for the JRC would be the 6LBR, and probably not a JP deep in the network. Why did you