Subject: [6tisch] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 03:04:38 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: No Objection

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-6tisch-minimal-security/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read. I
have a couple of comments and nits. Feel free to ignore all of them.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 1 --
Please add reference to IEEE Std 802.15.4 at first mention.

-- Section 1 --
It is unclear in this section whether the PSK is per pledge (then hitting a
scalability issue) or shared by all pledge (then having huge security risk).
Section 3 is clearer on this but the reader would benefit by knowing this in
section 1.

-- Section 2 --
Please consider not using "secret key" and "symmetric key" interchangeably. Esp
as "secret key" is often used in the context of asymmetric key.

-- Section 3 --
Unsure whether the text about provisionning "Physically, ..." brings anything
useful.

-- Section 3 --
Please add references to DHCPv6, GRASP, mDNS.

-- Section 4.2 --
It is unclear whether duplicate address detection should be done.

== NITS ==

-- Section 4 --
Please expand L2 at first mention.

-- Section 6.1.2 --
I am not a native English speaker but I wonder whether the word 'convergecast'
is well-known.