Applicability Statement: The Use of the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Protocol Suite in Home Automation and Building Control
draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
I like this document a lot; thanks for the work on it.
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
The draft looks good, thank you for your work on it. I see privacy isn't mentioned, but think that's okay as I can't think of a scenario where privacy isn't covered by the security already provided (through confidentiality protections) since the scope is within a network - home or office. I'm just mentioning this here in case someone else does think of a scenario that may be necessary to note in the draft. The SecDir review had some requests for clarification in the text. In my read, I understood what was intended, but in seeing her questions, I think it would be good to consider rewording the text she points out so it is clear to all readers. This is non-blocking and just something to consider as I understood the intent of the current text, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved :-) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05589.html
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for the discussion about security. I didn't check if the comments below were handled in -12, happy to chat about that if you want. First two comments are about text that's new in -11: - 4.1.8: "MUST be present" is ambiguous - do you mean it must be used? I think you do. - 4.1.8: "MUST be distributed or established in a secure fashion" isn't really a protocol requirement. Do you really just mean "see 4.1.8.1" ? OLD COMMENTS FOR -10 below, I didn't check if you'd made any related changes. - I don't get how there's an IPR disclosure for this, but whatever. - The non-security parts of this were quite a good read. - 4.1.8: 1st sentence makes no sense. It says RPL does X or not-X in order to Y. There is no choice but for RPL to do X or not-X. - 4.1.8 seems to me to imply that link layer security is always needed since there can always be some node that will send an unsecured RPL messsage. If you agree, then I think that should be made more clear. If you disagree, I'd like to understand how. - 4.1.8, I am surprised not to see a recommendation that separate group keys SHOULD be used for different applications in the same bulding network. But that may be too fine grained a recommendation for this document perhaps. - 5.1.2.1, I think it'd be clearer to say Imin should be between 10 and 50 ms. The "10 - 50 ms" notation can be confusing. (Same elsewhere.) - section 7, 3rd para, "can rely on" is sales language, please strike that or s/rely on/depend upon/ - section 7, 3rd para, last sentence: this is sales language and should be deleted. Or perhaps s/is/SHOULD be/ would turn it back into a piece of specification language. - 7.1 - this is odd text to see in a proposed standard, but I think it's accurately describing the level of interop to expect in RPL security, so is probably the right thing to say. I'd argue that it'd be even better to bluntly admit/say that there is currently no interoperable automated key management for RPL. (Same for 7.3) Or, and better, to fix that lack. (See my discuss point.) - 7.2, 1st sentence: this is meaningless as I read it - what are you trying to say? - 7.2, when a node is stolen, the chances are that any keys contained in the node are at significant risk of being leaked. - 7.3, I do not believe that [I-D.keoh-dice-multicast-security] is necessarily going to proceed via the DICE WG. Depending on it would be fairly high-risk in any case. - 7.4, last sentence: more sales talk - 7.5, what is this specifying? I don't get it. Does 7416 set out what to implement to get interop? (I didn't think so, but nor does this seem to.)
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Yes) No Record