From cabo@tzi.org Thu Mar 7 12:08:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5410C21F8CDB; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:08:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J1SDaov9Av3i; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:08:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F4B21F8C20; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:08:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r27K89og025537; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:08:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p548929A6.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.41.166]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4672C366F; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:08:09 +0100 (CET) From: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:08:06 +0100 To: "lwip@ietf.org" , "core@ietf.org WG" , roll WG , "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Message-Id: <3CD61744-1CC9-45F4-A004-80B83E6C2BA4@tzi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Subject: [6lowpan] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF86 X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 20:08:32 -0000 As you can see, I'm terribly late in preparing for IETF86. Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda. All times are EDT = (UTC-0400). Very comfortable this time for Europeans. (This time, there are even more slot overlaps for me than I'm already = used to.) Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten MONDAY, March 11, 2013 0900-1130 Morning Session I Caribbean 1 APP appsawg Applications Area Working Group WG - = Combined with APPAREA Caribbean 5 TSV rmcat RTP Media Congestion Avoidance = Techniques WG 1300-1530 Afternoon Session I Caribbean 4 APP json Javascript Object Notation BOF Caribbean 6 OPS eman Energy Management WG Caribbean 3 OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG 1540-1710 Afternoon Session II Boca 2 SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG Caribbean 5 TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG TUESDAY, March 12, 2013 0900-1020 Morning Session I Caribbean 2 RTG *** roll Routing Over Low power and Lossy = networks WG 1030-1130 Morning Session II Caribbean 4 INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG Caribbean 2 RTG *** roll Routing Over Low power and Lossy = networks WG 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Caribbean 2 APP *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG 1700-1830 Afternoon Session III Caribbean 2 SEC httpauth Hypertext Transmission Protocol = Authentication WG WEDNESDAY, March 13, 2013 0900-1130 Morning Session I Caribbean 1 SEC jose Javascript Object Signing and Encryption = WG Caribbean 3 TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Caribbean 5 APP *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG 1510-1710 Afternoon Session II Caribbean 5 OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG THURSDAY, March 14, 2013 0900-1130 Morning Session I Caribbean 3 INT homenet Home Networking WG Caribbean 1 INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Caribbean 4 RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting 1510-1710 Afternoon Session II Caribbean 4 SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting 1730-1830 Afternoon Session III Boca 1 SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG Caribbean 2 TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG FRIDAY, March 15, 2013 0900-1100 Morning Session I Caribbean 5 APP httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis WG 1120-1220 Afternoon Session I Caribbean 4 INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Boca 2 SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG 1230-1330 Afternoon Session II Caribbean 4 INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Boca 2 SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG From cabo@tzi.org Sat Mar 9 10:16:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE05321F86DD; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:16:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E19cRHFg0C2K; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:16:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C083D21F86D9; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:16:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r29IGp9b021967; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:16:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (zoo.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.218.16]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AFAE3E2B; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:16:48 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD1D1733EA@cph-ex1> Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:16:44 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4B28B2A3-2AAE-4226-A442-6892FA2D9C5F@tzi.org> References: <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD1D1733EA@cph-ex1> To: Anders Brandt X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" Subject: [6lowpan] draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz as a new 6man WG document X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:16:54 -0000 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? Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Wed Mar 13 06:47:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32C321F8CA6 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:47:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.173 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 34+46VImPgKR for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0468221F84CA for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A226B20BF4; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:47:02 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kPw8WqychPAu; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:47:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED8220BF1; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:47:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id F413B24EBB31; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:47:14 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:47:14 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: 6lowpan@ietf.org Message-ID: <20130313134714.GA73480@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: 6lowpan@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [6lowpan] 6lowpan mib implementation X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:47:09 -0000 Hi, we have implemented http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-6lowpan-mib-03 on Contiki and we have put an AVR Raven online so you can throw packets at it. For the details how to talk to this device see this page: http://cnds.eecs.jacobs-university.de/the-6lowpan-mib-testbed/ We believe it would be very useful to agree on the counters defined in the MIB module (even if you prefer to ship data using a different protocol). The key is finding agreement on the counters needed and how they interact. This is best summarized by this piece of ASCII art (copied from the above I-D): IPv6 layer ^ v InDelivers -+- -+- OutRequests | | InDiscards <--+ | | | InCompOKs .-->| |-->. OutCompReqds InCompFails <--| | | +--> OutCompFails InCompReqds `<--+ +<--' OutCompOKs | | | +-->. OutFragReqds InReasmOKs .-->| | +--> OutFragFails InReasmFails <--| | | -+- OutFragOKs InReasmReqds `<--+ +<--' OutFragCreates | | | | InMeshDelivers |<--. | InMeshForwds | |-->. | InMeshReceives +-->' | | | +--> | OutMeshHopLimitExceeds | +--> | OutMeshNoRoutes | | | | | .<--+ OutMeshRequests | `-->| | OutMeshForwds | `-->| OutMeshTransmits | | InHdrErrors <--+ +--> OutDiscards | | InReceives -+- -+- OutTransmits ^ v interface layer Feedback is most welcome. (If the demo fails, please send us private emails and we will take a look at things.) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From ietf@rozanak.com Wed Mar 13 12:57:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D1621F8D43 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y3WJ701UoLYV for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD8C21F87D0 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kopoli (dhcp-51ef.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.81.239]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0ML6Fd-1UG8ue0sLJ-000AYm; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:57:14 -0400 From: "Hosnieh Rafiee" To: <6lowpan@ietf.org> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:57:09 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01ce2024$f3e25150$dba6f3f0$@rozanak.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac4gIyVdu8BCjaLUQyGiS1/YDAeKPw== Content-Language: en-us X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:L7/0PZJ4RimrM5EUgVbBlwceoL6Y/sbYgkJzXhtU3s2 IYAWFJ0akAOakVfj35sZAW46HaW5DPOQ7TTi8EviUj+B8sTnsS tUhU97Pu7z1KX+L+xLl0DT0Qr3Txl7yxlpSpJBspC4sbgSzJP9 I94+M3YN+BBovYvXbktuTLebjJrXMBqjOuhaSB8qaSBVFH/tzM w9axpEyCX7Fj6eGUz3zawTXjv4N0rC6Fs8UdOxsUtaGEMgEWDl /w8PXtRAdVQwJIUm99Dt14ce8NMroWvE8nQ4PbdDW0HOEzsYl7 u7mD9J6yn1D3vqDcah/Wsoafh4bYX5zDYGGboVgsc1t/Zc5iUV wrEV5uPXr9K1n5kBQ5UQ= Subject: [6lowpan] ND security- Simple secure address scheme (SSAS) X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:57:16 -0000 Hello, I have written a draft RFC which proposes a simpler and more cost effective method for providing security for ND than does the use of CGA. If you are interested in learning more about this proposal and you are at the IETF meeting, then send me a message so that we can get together on either Thursday or Friday to discuss the details. I will actually be available on both Thursday and Friday, so I can give a presentation on either both days if there is a conflict in times for some of those interested. If you have any questions feel free to send them along. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ssas Thanks, Hosnieh From zach@sensinode.com Fri Mar 15 09:26:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75BD21F86C2; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:26:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lDuydm786EMX; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auth-smtp.nebula.fi (auth-smtp.nebula.fi [217.30.180.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F99E21F86BA; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-1722.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-1722.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.23.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth-smtp.nebula.fi (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r2FGQeTL026543 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:26:43 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Zach Shelby In-Reply-To: <4B28B2A3-2AAE-4226-A442-6892FA2D9C5F@tzi.org> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:26:40 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5F9DBB25-27AD-448C-88EA-EC65D0EEC540@sensinode.com> References: <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD1D1733EA@cph-ex1> <4B28B2A3-2AAE-4226-A442-6892FA2D9C5F@tzi.org> To: Carsten Bormann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [6lowpan] draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz as a new 6man WG document X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:26:50 -0000 I have also reviewed this draft, and am definitely supportive of it = moving forward as a WG document. I agree with Carsten's comments, = especially with regard to 6LoWPAN-ND. I understand that an update is = already in progress to address those comments. In addition, I found Figure 4 in Section 5.3 to be confusing at first. = It should be clarified that this is a G.9959 link-layer address.=20 Since this is a less widely known link-layer, a couple examples would = not hurt as to the structure of the MAC framing with the address mapping = defined in Section 5.3 for both unicast and multicast addresses. Regards, Zach On Mar 9, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > 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: >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > More on the editorial level: >=20 > I'm not happy with the "mission-critical" wording, and also not with > the SHOULD. How about: >=20 > 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. >=20 > What does "mapped into restricted space" mean? >=20 > Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan --=20 Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. http://www.sensinode.com @SensinodeIoT Mobile: +358 40 7796297 Twitter: @zach_shelby LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby 6LoWPAN Book: http://6lowpan.net From cabo@tzi.org Fri Mar 15 09:32:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C181D21F8746; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:32:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.116 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i+d9qcU+3h57; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8B821F870F; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:32:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2FGWngX011559; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:32:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from dhcp-9032.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-9032.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.8.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D350E3CC5; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:32:48 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <5F9DBB25-27AD-448C-88EA-EC65D0EEC540@sensinode.com> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:32:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4D46E2C3-745A-4588-832E-6FF71A63EC3B@tzi.org> References: <03F31C213F2C6941BFDDBB4336E9E6CD1D1733EA@cph-ex1> <4B28B2A3-2AAE-4226-A442-6892FA2D9C5F@tzi.org> <5F9DBB25-27AD-448C-88EA-EC65D0EEC540@sensinode.com> To: Zach Shelby X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [6lowpan] draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz as a new 6man WG document X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:32:54 -0000 On Mar 15, 2013, at 12:26, Zach Shelby wrote: > In addition, I found Figure 4 in Section 5.3 to be confusing at first. = It should be clarified that this is a G.9959 link-layer address.=20 Actually, we had an off-line discussion that including the HomeID here = would be akin to including the PAN-ID in Figure 7 of RFC 4944. We = didn't do that at the time, and we didn't find a good reason to do that = now. So what should remain is the 8-bit NodeID. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From zach@sensinode.com Wed Mar 27 23:52:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 678A121F8C74 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:52:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5V98fkB+1BtG for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auth-smtp.nebula.fi (auth-smtp.nebula.fi [217.30.180.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F99621F8C35 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (178-55-1-200.bb.dnainternet.fi [178.55.1.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth-smtp.nebula.fi (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r2S6qSTC011676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:52:30 +0200 From: Zach Shelby Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2A0A9C14-2FC2-48B3-8DC4-9904C46E87D9@sensinode.com> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:52:29 +0200 To: "6lowpan@ietf.org WG" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Subject: [6lowpan] 6LoWPAN Plugtest at IETF Berlin July 27-28th X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:52:34 -0000 ETSI, the IPSO Alliance and IPv6 Forum have now announced the first = 6LoWPAN Plugtest to be held this summer in conjunction with the IETF in = Berlin on July 27th and 28th. This Plugtest continues the successful = series of open industry Internet of Things Plugtests, previously two = CoAP Plugtests have been held. http://www.etsi.org/news-events/events/663-2013-6lowpan-plugtest We encourage anyone involved with 6LoWPAN stacks, or using 6LoWPAN in = products, to participate in this event. The event is free, and = completely open to both industry and academia, there is no requirement = to be an IPSO or ETSI member. Please pass the word around! The event focuses on testing of 6LoWPAN Header Compression (RFC6282) and = 6LoWPAN Neighbour Discovery (RFC6775) in a Host - Border Router = configuration. The IPSO Alliance is specifying 802.15.4-2006 and = 802.15.4g 868MHz interop configurations for the event. Other PHY/MAC = combinations (e.g. PLC, Z-Wave, BT-LE, DECT ULP etc.) can also be tested = by bringing the needed adaptation equipment. Zach --=20 Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. http://www.sensinode.com @SensinodeIoT Mobile: +358 40 7796297 Twitter: @zach_shelby LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby 6LoWPAN Book: http://6lowpan.net From soohongp@gmail.com Thu Mar 28 00:16:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8856E21F8FF8 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:16:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0GdaqGu94AJ6 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-f43.google.com (mail-qe0-f43.google.com [209.85.128.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B58A21F8D92 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 1so5032744qee.16 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:16:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xbklYnbj8gRMhKh4rh2f7Sa2sD8ZjApXQLs5Ffcm1+8=; b=dmxcQpBCSUzEbPmldhX1QV+zD51awvEeoGr2ChAC6mJgSbt2Jj7RJxEiSRJoxPke20 h5b4ye67PCUppXso2JgXuWW/7V1KLYLpCaSqf9a23u69SlUYETu4tSBU1/v1o9pBXRf3 VABTbS7S4Kw6VOSO0kDYSklR25IVlhA9XzFSiyxyK584vnEaXfmOhCsMWfdlu7Cxc1nl YRlVk/KaKxUCVW3ab2zI1r9XSB7e/s9ywyQH0WvavUGriP1PL+kyfaUcX0SzH9nyIeXr muuhQ5pz46Wl7O816PMR4fm1T6LBRyu8l3PVNNaBf+hAuFiHAIR7VYL79mtSPEQqTu1N vCww== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.4.129 with SMTP id k1mr18644652qek.18.1364455016815; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.94.139 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:16:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2A0A9C14-2FC2-48B3-8DC4-9904C46E87D9@sensinode.com> References: <2A0A9C14-2FC2-48B3-8DC4-9904C46E87D9@sensinode.com> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:16:56 +0900 Message-ID: From: Daniel Park To: Zach Shelby Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb0453696fc8704d8f6f0e5 Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org WG" <6lowpan@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] 6LoWPAN Plugtest at IETF Berlin July 27-28th X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:16:58 -0000 --047d7bb0453696fc8704d8f6f0e5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Folks, I am curious if 6lowpan works are related to *fosstrack* which is a open source RFID platform. Any activities on the open source 6lowpan platform ? Thanks in advance, Daniel. -- Soohong Daniel Park, Ph.D. Samsung Electronics, SW R&D Center On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Zach Shelby wrote: > ETSI, the IPSO Alliance and IPv6 Forum have now announced the first > 6LoWPAN Plugtest to be held this summer in conjunction with the IETF in > Berlin on July 27th and 28th. This Plugtest continues the successful series > of open industry Internet of Things Plugtests, previously two CoAP > Plugtests have been held. > > http://www.etsi.org/news-events/events/663-2013-6lowpan-plugtest > > We encourage anyone involved with 6LoWPAN stacks, or using 6LoWPAN in > products, to participate in this event. The event is free, and completely > open to both industry and academia, there is no requirement to be an IPSO > or ETSI member. Please pass the word around! > > The event focuses on testing of 6LoWPAN Header Compression (RFC6282) and > 6LoWPAN Neighbour Discovery (RFC6775) in a Host - Border Router > configuration. The IPSO Alliance is specifying 802.15.4-2006 and 802.15.4g > 868MHz interop configurations for the event. Other PHY/MAC combinations > (e.g. PLC, Z-Wave, BT-LE, DECT ULP etc.) can also be tested by bringing the > needed adaptation equipment. > > Zach > > -- > Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. > http://www.sensinode.com @SensinodeIoT > Mobile: +358 40 7796297 > Twitter: @zach_shelby > LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby > 6LoWPAN Book: http://6lowpan.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > --047d7bb0453696fc8704d8f6f0e5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Folks,
=A0
I am curious if 6lowpan works are related to *fosstrack* which is a op= en source RFID platform.
Any activities on the open source 6lowpan platform ?
=A0
Thanks in advance, Daniel.
=A0
=A0
--
Soohong Daniel Park, Ph.D.
Samsung Electronics, SW R&D C= enter



On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Zach Shelby <= zach@sensinode.com> wrote:
ETSI, the IPSO Alliance and IPv6 Foru= m have now announced the first 6LoWPAN Plugtest to be held this summer in c= onjunction with the IETF in Berlin on July 27th and 28th. This Plugtest con= tinues the successful series of open industry Internet of Things Plugtests,= previously two CoAP Plugtests have been held.

http://www.etsi.org/news-events/events/663-2013-6lo= wpan-plugtest

We encourage anyone involved with 6LoWPAN stacks, = or using 6LoWPAN in products, to participate in this event. The event is fr= ee, and completely open to both industry and academia, there is no requirem= ent to be an IPSO or ETSI member. Please pass the word around!

The event focuses on testing of 6LoWPAN Header Compression (RFC6282) an= d 6LoWPAN Neighbour Discovery (RFC6775) in a Host - Border Router configura= tion. The IPSO Alliance is specifying 802.15.4-2006 and 802.15.4g 868MHz in= terop configurations for the event. Other PHY/MAC combinations (e.g. PLC, Z= -Wave, BT-LE, DECT ULP etc.) can also be tested by bringing the needed adap= tation equipment.

Zach

--
Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
http://www.sensinode.com = @SensinodeIoT
Mobile: +358 40 7796297
Twitter: @zach_shelby
LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby
6LoW= PAN Book: http://6lowpan.= net




_______________________________________________
6lowpan = mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan




--047d7bb0453696fc8704d8f6f0e5-- From sensys@cfpmail.info Thu Mar 28 11:39:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403C021F8EC6 for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:39:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cvURFJn1Ixtb for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f176.google.com (mail-ve0-f176.google.com [209.85.128.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB34D21F8689 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ox1so3865684veb.35 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:39:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=1cGxO+NOdSqN2mVI/6ycen3750miX2etmvUG1y7hMfc=; b=ZxY1JK218NzsAeIX/zsT46ZhyMC2N4MN4KKkyp7/EeEFKZG/Qf9fOSpdsDOogguzL+ kSTs26gKRxmNvtkp1OiLiulivq+dPHuPg3m9DAhslUUtH22Xh5QAl8IQcPO6FYIz/H8E tEgid/7lJGyJEVJ5oXzPPG5ujT7i0Uq5ur4IXyt9/p1CSs46X8RFCd3uGA5N/KJ7tyPJ BqI5ROBv0A+vrmnerdK9MlOxawVLUtpRQOanILlIjbB8GddS2i14l9XDBEYOB3A7myyF csIzov9rzJaJVtswvgPEZCACnnBcKi13kotxv/9l6eC+WZxMlTc8m4SejeAAq/xZsvNy J+AA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.71.235 with SMTP id y11mr23450649vdu.43.1364495986949; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.160.104 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [71.195.166.116] Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:39:46 -0700 Message-ID: From: "SenSys'13 Publicity" To: 6lowpan@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm9/hB0eoRMS5qoQkGlJO6pBa10hw3LlCEctHxt2gvFHW74ztGonuHjT3FNvaopwlfXl561 Subject: [6lowpan] CFP: SenSys 2013 -- The 11th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:39:49 -0000 [Apologies in advance for any cross-postings] Dear colleagues. There are only 2 DAYS! remaining for abstract registration. ***************************************************************************= ************************ Call For Papers SenSys 2013---The 11th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems November 11-15, 2013 Rome, Italy ***************************************************************************= ************************* Sensing systems are changing the way computers interact with the physical world -- and are driving a host of new issues in computer system design, implementation, and performance. SenSys 2013 is the premier venue to discuss system issues raised by emerging trends in sensing systems =96 broadly defined to include mobile sensing, body sensing, Kinect, camera networks, RFID, and many others. We solicit technical papers describing original ideas, ground breaking results and/or quantified system experiences involving sensor systems. The conference values papers that take a broad systems perspective rather than a narrow focus on individual components. Of particular interest are technical contributions that enable new and compelling sensing applications. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: * Experience with real-world applications * Innovative sensing applications (e.g., mobile healthcare, transportation, buildings) * New models of sensor usage (e.g., mobile sensing, body sensing, RFIDs, ro= bots) * Sensor data quality, integrity, and trustworthiness * Challenges for =93Big Sensor Data=94 * Sensor data storage, retrieval, processing and management * Data reduction, inference, and signal processing * Fault-tolerance and reliability * Provable correctness and performance guarantees * Support for integrated sensing, actuation and control * Wireless communication systems and protocols * Energy management and energy harvesting * Resource management and OS support * Programming paradigms for sensing systems * Security and privacy in sensor networks * Time and location estimation and management Detailed submission instructions can be found at http://sensys.acm.org/2013/submissions/ Key Dates These are hard deadlines: No extensions will be granted. * Paper Registration: March 30, 2013, 11:59 pm EST. * Paper Submission Deadline: April 6, 2013, 11:59 pm EST. * Notification of Paper Acceptance: July 15, 2013. General Chair Chiara Petrioli (University of Rome 'La Sapienza') Program Chairs Landon Cox (Duke University) Kamin Whitehouse (University of Virginia) Poster Chair Chenyang Lu (Washington University in St. Louis) Luca Mottola (Politecnico di Milano and Swedish Institute of Computer Scien= ce) Demo Chairs Emiliano Miliuzzo (AT&T Labs) Amy Murphy (FBK) Local Arrangements Chairs Francesca Cuomo, Gaia Maselli, Andrea Vitaletti (University of Rome 'La Sapienza') Finance Chair Rasit Eskicioglu (University of Manitoba) Publicity Chairs Stefano Basagni (Northeastern University) Alberto Cerpa (University of California, Merced) Salil Kanhere (University of New South Wales) Mike Chieh-Jan Liang (Microsoft Research Asia) Publicaton Chair Wendi Heizelman (University of Rochester) Workshop Chairs Luca Benini (ETHZ & University of Bologna) Deepak Ganesan (UMASS Amherst) Industrial Liaison Chairs Jie Liu (Microsoft Research) Adam Wolisz (Technische Universitat Berlin) N2Women Chair Niki Trigoni (University of Oxford) Doctoral Colloquium Chair Cecilia Mascolo (University of Cambridge) Student Travel Award Chair Pedro Marron (University of Duisburg-Essen) Radu Stoleru (Texas A&M University) Web Site Chair David Boyle (Imperial College London) Technical Program Committee Yuvraj Agarwal (University of California, San Diego) Jan Beutel (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich) Geoffrey Challen (University at Buffalo) Tanzeem Choudhary (Cornell University) David Chu (Microsoft Research, Redmond) Deborah Estrin (Cornell Tech) Wen Hu (CSIRO, Australia) Fred Jiang (Intel Labs, China) Nic Lane (Microsoft Research, Asia) Jie Liu (Microsoft Research, Redmond) Pedro Jose Marron (University of Duisburg Essen) Cecilia Mascolo (University of Cambridge) Luca Mottola (Politecnico di Milano and Swedish Institute of Computer Scien= ce) Lama Nachman (Intel Labs) Gian Pietro Picco (University of Trento) Raj Rajkumar (Carnegie Mellon University) Anthony Rowe (Carnegie Mellon University) Romit Roy Choudhury (Duke University) Silvia Santini (Technische Universitat Darmstadt) Mahadev Satyanarayanan (Carnegie Mellon University) Thomas Schmid (University of Utah) Junehwa Song (Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) Niki Trigoni (University of Oxford) Lin Zhong (Rice University) From cabo@tzi.org Fri Mar 29 06:22:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9825721F9403; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:22:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.156 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FNa9NZvslK2G; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E9721F9401; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:22:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2TDM6lV003394; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:22:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p5489300F.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.48.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BDE136A2; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:22:06 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <26808a929674c2b96850f40a9d7cd686@xs4all.nl> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:22:04 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> <87AC724B-DC1F-41C2-9F1F-4357FA7B45A3@tzi.org> <31218.1345834358@sandelman.ca> <94E510D0-CFD3-45D5-BB4B-081A27D6AA4E@tzi.org> <26808a929674c2b96850f40a9d7cd686@xs4all.nl> To: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: roll@ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org List" , "core \(core@ietf.org\)" Subject: [6lowpan] GHC now crunches DTLS (Re: [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc) X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:22:16 -0000 On Aug 25, 2012, at 13:41, peter van der Stok = wrote: > GHC applied to DTLS encrypted messages is interesting indeed. It may = represent an important number of messages to transmit. > I would concentrate on getting the GHC on DTLS results known and then = start pushing ghc draft. It took a while, but is now done: GHC-06 is ready for consumption. Htmlized: =20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-06 Diff: =20 http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-06 It turns out my gut feeling about how to design this was just about = right, so with all the research done, the only technical change from the = previous version is the addition of a 16-byte static dictionary. This = should result in about a 3-line change in an implementation (and 16 = bytes of increased temporary buffer size). The specification no longer = fits on a single page because that includes a note about the reserved = code points. I also have removed the speculative parts of GHC-05 -- there was little = interest in the added complexity. There is a little bit of innovative = formatting because I'm using XML2RFCv2 now; there should be fixes for = this soon. The examples have been expanded to show the compression of DTLS = handshake and application data messages; if you subtract the actual = payload (cleartext and authenticator), the total DTLS overhead is around = 8 bytes for application data (so, including the = TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 authenticator, a DTLS message is 16 bytes = longer than an uncompressed NoSec one). The examples section also shows = the very slight overall improvement to the compression (including a = regression, where the example ND advertisement now needs a byte more). I'm pretty sure now that we have reached the point of diminishing = returns. If we still had an active WG, I'd go for WG adoption and a WGLC soon. We'll see how to handle this in the shutdown phase of the 6lowpan WG. In the meantime, please do send in your comments (preferably to the = 6LoWPAN list). I'm CCing 6man because part of the proposal is a new ND (ICMPv6) option = for node capability indication. Specific comments on that probably best go to the 6man mailing list. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From cabo@tzi.org Fri Mar 29 14:25:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B254521E8089; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:25:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.164 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.164 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3tE71V32Jifc; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17B021E8091; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:25:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2TLP8Mg018341; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:25:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p5489300F.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.48.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B18FF371E; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:25:07 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <1364591463.93179.YahooMailNeo@web142505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:25:06 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9E50F482-9281-4787-A825-AAFF639E513B@tzi.org> References: <18113.1339529290@marajade.sandelman.ca> <87AC724B-DC1F-41C2-9F1F-4357FA7B45A3@tzi.org> <31218.1345834358@sandelman.ca> <94E510D0-CFD3-45D5-BB4B-081A27D6AA4E@tzi.org> <26808a929674c2b96850f40a9d7cd686@xs4all.nl> <1364591463.93179.YahooMailNeo@web142505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> To: Mark Smith X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: "roll@ietf.org" , "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org List" , "core \(core@ietf.org\)" Subject: Re: [6lowpan] GHC now crunches DTLS (Re: [Roll] draft-bormann-ghc) X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:25:15 -0000 On Mar 29, 2013, at 22:11, Mark Smith wrote: > RFC5175, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option" EFO was inspiration for 6CIO, but is different from 6CIO in that it is = about flags promulgated by a router (and therefore can only be used in = an RA). 6CIO is about the capabilities of the node sending that option. That's why they are not the same thing. 6CIO is indeed meant to be general enough to carry other node = capabilities that are relevant to a node-node situation. ROHC-over-802 = could have used it. That's why I'm proposing creating an IANA registry. = to make the other 47 bits available for other uses. I'm completely neutral to whether GHC's compression scheme and 6CIO = should be done in a combined draft or separate drafts. In the latter = case, stealing more text from 5175 is an obvious thing to do. Is there anything that could/should be generalized about 6CIO? (Without making it more complex, please.) Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten