Here's my review of draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz-00. This is a worthy addition to the collection of IP-over foo documents, and I think it properly positions itself in the 6lowpan family of IP-over-constrained-node-network specifications. With one exception:
I'm not sure how this document positions itself with respect to ND. It says it tries to parallel RFC 4944. 4944 has been updated by RFC 6775. Is this document thus also referencing 6775? There is also an obscure reference to a section of 4861. Is the intention maybe that 4861 be used unchanged? If yes, how does this mesh with section 3.2? My other technical problem is with section 3.4. I don't think an IP-over-foo document is the right place to change the IP service model. Besides, this kind of indication may be available about the first-hop link, but what about mid-path? On the socket interface, it is hard to do a MUST here if you then don't say how it should look like. More on the editorial level: I'm not happy with the "mission-critical" wording, and also not with the SHOULD. How about: The network key is intended to address security requiments in the home at the normal security requirements level. For applications with high or very high requirements on confidentiality and/or integrity, such as door locks and meters, additional application layer security measures for end-to-end authentication and encryption will need to be applied. The availability of the network relies on the security properties of the network key in any case. What does "mapped into restricted space" mean? Grüße, Carsten -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
