Excellent points that will make the PAR stronger.
Many on this list have been through the IEEE 802 project process,
but for those that may not have it might help to explain the purpose
of the PAR, which is to ask IEEE-SA to authorize a new project, in
this case a recommended practice. The scope clause defines the
direction of the project and can be thought of as the 'normative'
part of the PAR. The other clauses provide the New Standards
committee (NesCom) background, and not in any way limitations.
I see positive potential for the project. As Robert points out there
are many security methods applied over and with 802.15 standards and
for some (like me) it can be a mystifying topic. I am looking to
TG9 to help.
As currently drafted the scope is not limited to the particular
protocols mentioned as examples. The 802.15 operating procedures
allow a very open process and input is welcome from all that choose
to participate. If/when it is approved the first steps will be to
define, within the scope of the project, what specific protocols are
relevant to the RP. I commend Bob for reaching out at this early
stage to solicit input on the project, and encourage continued
participation. The experience of those that have used 802.15.4 and
other standards in the 802.15 family will be of great value.
So as a potential user of the RP (who isn't qualified to contribute
much beyond desire ;-), thanks all for the help on the PAR and I
look forward to continued contributions!
-B
Bob,
I have to say I object to the following statement in the PAR:
"Lack of key management support in IEEE Std 802.15.4 and
IEEE Std 802.15.7 results in weak keys which is a common
avenue for attacking the security system."
"results in weak keys" implies this is always the case,
which is simply not true. This should be rephrased as "may
result in weak keys". Users of 802.15.4 such as ZigBee have
put in place a KMP which does not result in weak keys,
And I agree with Alper - if you are mentioning IETF and
802.1X, you really have to mention PANA as it is entirely
relevant.
Robert
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:46 PM,
Robert Moskowitz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 11/14/2011 03:17 PM, Alper Yegin
wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> This PAR document still does not refer to
IETF's PANA (IETF
RFC that
> is already adopted by the Zigbee IP spec.) I'm
hoping the PAR
changes
> you are referring are already addressing that.
Please let us
know.
It was a procedural question as to what is 'wanted'
here. Strictly IEEE standards or broader
interpretation? The 802EC clearified that a broader
inclusion was desired so words have been added to point
out that Zibgee IP has addressed this within their upper
layer. A 'literal' interpretation was that 802.1X does
not work over 802.15.4 or 15.7 so there was no
comparable standard.
Also 802.1 pointed out the need to include the potential
need of an Registry Authority (6.1b) and that too was
added. The final posted PAR will reflect these two
changes.
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
--
Robert Cragie
Gridmerge Ltd.
89 Greenfield Crescent,
Wakefield, WF4 4WA, UK
+44 1924 910888
+1 415 513 0064
http://www.gridmerge.com
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
|
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
