Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #144 (applicability-home-building): Missing discussion of link encryption and group keys

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 03:13:31 -0000

#144: Missing discussion of link encryption and group keys

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Catherine Meadows comment - 04/22/2014

 "My comment had been that a comparison of link and group key encryption
 was needed.  It looks like
 what you have instead is a summary of the recommended practice for
 wireless/mesh networks, which is to
 use link encryption in which all links are encrypted with the same key,
 which is also used for authentication,
 so that unauthorized nodes can’t join the network, with reference to the
 appropriate RFC’s.  That is fine.

 I had another comment about the danger of having critical components (e.g.
 burglar alarms) sharing keys with non-critical and
 easily misplaced components (such as remotes).  But that is really
 irrelevant to whether you are using link encryption or group keys.  It
 would be better in such a situation to have the two components on separate
 networks.  This is now touched upon in the Deployment Scenario
 Section (last paragraph before 2.1), so I don’t see any reason to bring it
 up here.  However, you might want to mention in the last paragraph
 before 2.1 that having non-critical functions such as gaming on a separate
 network from the control is also a good idea from the point of view
 of security and reliability of the control network.

 Nits:

 Section 6.1

 Wireless networks are typically secured at the link-layer to prevent
    unauthorized parties to access

 should be

 Wireless networks are typically secured at the link-layer in order to
 prevent
    unauthorized parties from accessing"

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-
  [email-masked]      |  applicability-home-
     Type:  defect                   |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  major                    |      Status:  new
Component:  applicability-home-      |   Milestone:
  building                           |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  Security Review          |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/144#comment:2>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:55:28 -0000

Robert Cragie comment - date: 04/23/2014

 <RCC>

 I agree and would propose the following change to the last two paragraphs
 of section 2 (note a couple of grammar/typo changes too):

 "In building control, the infrastructure of the building management
 network can be shared with the security/access, the IP telephony, and the
 fire/alarm networks.  This approach has a positive impact on the operation
 and cost of the network; however, care should be taken to ensure that the
 availability of the building management network does not become
 compromised beyond the ability for critical functions to perform
 adequately.

 In homes, the network for audio/video streaming and gaming has different
 requirements, where the most important one is the high need in bandwidth
 for entertainment not needed for control.  It is expected that the
 entertainment network in the home will mostly be separate from the control
 network, which also lessens the impact on availability of the control
 network."

 </RCC>

 “Nits: ….Section 6.1 “

 <RCC>Agreed</RCC>

 Catherine Meadows comment  - 04/24/2014

 <CM> I am fine with all of Robert’s comments.</CM>

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/144#comment:3>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:18:16 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 Robert's text inserted in version 3

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-
  [email-masked]      |  applicability-home-
     Type:  defect                   |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  major                    |      Status:  closed
Component:  applicability-home-      |   Milestone:
  building                           |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:  Security Review          |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/144#comment:4>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>