Clone wiki

meetings / 150114_webex_security

Minutes Webex 14 January 2015, 6TiSCH Security Task Force

11am-12pm EST

  • note taker: Rene Struik
  • slides discussed (and referenced in minutes): no slides this time


  1. Michael Richardson
  2. Malisa Vucinic
  3. Mike Seewald
  4. Thomas Watteyne
  5. Rene Struik


The suggested agenda was approved.


  • administrativia {agenda bashing/minutes}
  • (brief update) feedback on posted security draft
  • input 6tisch security to the 6tisch architecture draft
  • AOB


The minutes of the previous 6TiSCH security conference calls will be first item of agenda for approval at the next 6tTiSCH security conference call. {Please review.}

Feedback on posted security considerations draft (draft-struik-6tisch-security-architectural-considerations-01)

  • RS mentioned that he posted (on Fri January 9, 2015) a write-up on security considerations for 6tisch that provides lots of footnotes on behavior and security and implementation considerations re MAC, networking, and join protocol behavior. He also posted a slightly updated version (#01) that includes a high-level overview of the join protocol, including phases (authentication, authorization, configuration), device roles, and diagrams. He suggested that the draft tried to take into account technical discussions on 6TiSCH security calls since early December 2014, as well as offline feedback on pre-draft versions from several participants. While he acknowledged the draft still had some rough edges that needed polishing, he would welcome feedback from the group that would help in making the draft better. Kris Pister already kindly provided some preliminary feedback on the 6TiSCH mailing list, but more feedback would be much appreciated.
  • TW volunteered to provide feedback to the list.

Input 6tisch security to the architecture draft (draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-04)

  • TW mentioned that there were currently three text proposals that could be used for inclusion with the architecture draft:
  • MV suggested that the verbiage of the three text proposals differed in level of detail provided, which made it hard to compare. RS suggested that at the previous 6TiSCH security conference call (Tue January 5, 2015), everyone agreed that "the the level of detail would reflect consensus as reached to-date, so as to remove roadblocks by end of week" and that snippets that do (as yet) not carry this consensus would, therefore, have to be trimmed out. MR suggested that some of the language in section 1.3.1 of draft-struik-6tisch-security-considerations-01 was too high level and "does not align with what we were told". RS reminded the group that he simply provided text suitable for inclusion with the architecture draft that was known to reflect consensus to-date. Moreover, he suggested that the architecture draft does not have to carry all detailed information, if only because lots of work is still required to iron this out.
  • MR suggested that he would like to see inclusion of, e.g., details re trust relationships, certificate detail, and scalability properties. RS suggested that those could indeed be considered, but since some aspects hereof are still highly controversial at this time, this should be left out for now.
  • TW summarized some areas of consensus, including (a) identifying three device roles in the join process (joining node, join assistant, "JCE"); (b) aiming at minimization of long-haul communications between join assistant and JCE (ideally, only comprising one communication flow to and from the JCE, as, e.g., w/HART does).
  • MR suggested that it would be useful to add some verbiage re privacy aspects of addressing (e.g., that joined nodes would use short addresses). He further suggested that it would be useful to cross-reference some actual protocols that could be considered. As to the latter, RS suggested that it would certainly be possible to add some verbiage along the lines "the join protocol would consider authenticated key agreement protocols, such as, e.g., DTLS, and certificate schemes, such as, e.g., X509", etc., if referring to these acronyms would make people happy.
  • TW asked whether RS could review the three text proposals currently on the table and suggest a way forward that takes into account consensus and what was discussed during the call. RS agreed to take this on as homework assignment, with target to report back on this to the group by the end of Monday next week (January 19, 2015).


RS mentioned that there is no conference call schedule for next calls yet, but he would poll people re time preferences.