Subject: [6lo] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-16: (with DISCUSS)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:32:38 -0800

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-16: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 11.  Can assumptions of the about the security properties of the links
be clarified.

This specification applies to LLNs and a backbone in which the
   individual links are protected against rogue access, e.g., by
   authenticating a node that attaches to the network and encrypting at
   the MAC layer the transmissions that may be overheard.  In
   particular, the LLN MAC is required to provide secure unicast to/from
   the Backbone Router and secure Broadcast from the Backbone Router in
   a way that prevents tampering with or replaying the RA messages.

-- what are the specific assumptions about the protections that will be on the
link.  Is the list of properties in the “e.g.” the full list?

-- As the second sentence references the only the LLN MAC, using Figure 1 and 2
as a reference (realizing they are non-normative), what’s expected properties
of the links between the router-and-6BBR or IPv6 node-and-6BBR (i.e., the links
connecting to the “backbone side”)?