Subject: [6tisch] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: (with DISCUSS)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:32:18 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: 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-6tisch-minimal-security/

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

I have some issues with the references here, which should be resolvable simply
by making some normative.

RFC 8505 provides terminology as well as neighbor discovery (in Sections 4.2
and 6), so it seems to me that it should be a normative reference.

As draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture is used for both necessary terminology and
concepts, I can’t see how it isn’t normative.  I did find that I had to check
it during my review.

In Section 5:
   In an operational 6TiSCH network, all frames MUST use link-layer
   frame security [RFC8180].

This would seem to be a MUST referring to 8180, making that a normative
reference as well.  But possibly this might not really be a MUST imposed here,
and is instead citing a requirement from elsewhere.  In that case, I would
simply remove the word “MUST”, so it is stating a fact, rather than a new
requirement.  You might similarly consider the subsequent sentence.  In any
case, I do wonder whether  7554 and 8180 should be normative.