|
List Info
Thread: Issue 401: More NITs
|
|
| Issue 401: More NITs |
  United States |
2007-03-20 00:21:57 |
Issue 401: More NITs
Submitter name: Bernard Aboba
Submitter email address: mailto:aboba [at] internaut.com
Date first submitted: March 20, 2007
Reference:
Document: NETSEL-06
Comment type: E
Priority: S
Section: Various
Rationale/Explanation of issue:
Abstract & Section 1
When multiple access network are available, users may
have difficulty
[BA] s/access network/access networks/
Section 1
and divided into subproblems, and some potential solution
constraints
[BA] s/subproblems, and some potential/subproblems. Some
solution/
Section 1.1
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT",
"REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
[BA] Since this document is informational and does not use
normative
language, you can delete the above paragraph.
Decorated NAI
A NAI specifying a source route. See RFC4282
[RFC4282] Section
s/RFC4282/RFC 4282/
Selection occurs prior to network access
authentication.
[BA] s/Selection/selection/
The selection of the realm (and corresponding NAI)
used to access
the network.
[BA] Please add "A realm can be reachable from more
than one access network
type
and selection of a realm may not enable network
capabilities."
Bearer Selection
For some access technologies (e.g. UMTS), there can
be a
possibility for delivery of a service (e.g. voice) by
using either
a circuit switched or a packet switched bearer. The
Bearer
[BA] s/The Bearer/Bearer/
selection refers to selecting one of the bearer types
for service
delivery. The decision can be based on support of the
bearer type
by the device and the network as well as user
subscription and
operator preferences.
[BA] Meta-question: this term doesn't appear to be
referenced anywhere.
Should it be?
Within the context of network selection and discovery the
term
'network' is sometimes used interchangeably with the term
'realm'.
It should be noted that a realm can be reachable from
more than one
access network types and selection of a realm may not
imply certain
network capabilities.
[BA] Suggest deleting this paragraph, since this draft no
longer uses the
terms interchangeably, and the last sentence has been moved
into a
terminology definition.
Section 2
the situation wh ere mechanisms more advanced than
destination-
[BA] s/wh ere/where/
services are reachable through the access network and
type of
charging policy.
[BA] s/and type of/and the/
Alternatively, the problem can be divided to the
discovery, decision,
[BA] "to the" -> "into"
discovery (which mediating networks are
available?), decision (choose the "best" one),
and selection (client
tells the network which mediating network it has decided
to choose)
components.
[BA] Rewrite to:
"discovery (which mediating networks are available),
decision (choosing
the "best" one), and selection (selecting which
mediating network to use)
components."
Section 2.1
2.1. Discovery of the Point of Attachment to the Network
[BA] Rewrite to "Discovery of Points of
Attachment"
Traditionally, discovery of points of attachment has been
handled by
link layer or out-of-band mechanisms. For example, the
IEEE 802.11
specification [IEEE.802.11-2003] provides support for
both passive
(Beacon) and active (Probe Request/Response) discovery
mechanisms;
[Fixingapsel] studied the effectiveness of these
mechanisms. The GSM
specifications also provide for discovery of points of
attachment, as
does the CARD [RFC4066] protocol developed by the IETF
SEAMOBY WG.
[BA] Since capabilities were included in the definition of
discovery of
points of attachment you need to mention that aspect.
Please add:
" Along with discovery of points of attachment,
capabilities of access
networks are also typically discovered. These may
include:
o Access network name (e.g. IEEE 802.11 SSID)
o Lower layer security mechanisms (e.g. IEEE 802.11 WEP
vs. WPA2)
o Quality of Service capabilities (e.g. IEEE 802.11e
support)
"
with a particular POP. The RFC supports dial-in and X.25
access, but
[BA] s/The RFC/The XML DTD/
may not have the same set of services available.
[BA] change to "may not receive the same set of
authorizations from
the home AAA server and therefore may not have the same set
of
services available."
Section 2.2
Typically, the user will choose an identity and
corresponding
credential set based on the network chooses to connect
to, perhaps
[BA] s/network chooses/network it chooses/
authentication utilizing a set realms, selection of an
access network
[BA] s/a set realms/a set of realms/
Of course, it may not be possible to determine the
available access
networks prior to authentication. For example, in
802.11, not all
SSIDs are broadcast, so that the station may need to
probe to locate
a "hidden" SSID. Also, within IKEv2 [RFC4306],
the responder
identity (typically the security gateway) is provided as
a part of
the IKEv2 exchange.
[BA] This paragraph does not support the first sentence
since "hidden" SSIDs
need to be determined prior to authentication, and before
IKEv2 can be
initiated,
the VPN server needs to be located. Recommend rewriting
to:
"In some cases it may not be possible to determine the
available access
networks prior to authentication. For example, [IEEE
802.1X-2004]
does not support network discovery on IEEE 802 wired
networks, so
that the peer cannot determine which access network it has
connected
to prior to the initiation of the EAP exchange."
Section 2.3
most roaming implementations are relatively simple,
relying on static
[BA] s/static/a static/
realm routing table which determine the next based on the
NAI realm
[BA] s/next/next hop/
included within the User-Name attribute. Within RADIUS,
the IP
[BA] s/within the User-Name attribute/in the User-Name
attribute within
the Access-Request/
service discovery including support for DNS as well as
service
[BA] s/discovery/discovery,/
Section 2.3.1
an Internet host to determine whether it an reach a
destination on
[BA] s/an reach/can reach/
Section 2.3.2
originating a given proxy).
[BA] s/originating a given proxy/originating at a given
proxy/
NAI with a realm of"a.example.com". However,
the only way to obtain
[BA] s/of"a/of "a/
realm routing table is small and entries are static,
Where the list
[BA] s/Where/where/
to this problem was readily available, then it could be
applied to
[BA] s/was/were/
Section 2.4
o Access network identifier (e.g. IEEE 802.11 SSID)
o Roaming relationships between the access network
provider and
other network providers and associated costs
o Authentication mechanisms
o Quality of Service capability
o Cost
o Service parameters, such as the existence of
middleboxes
[BA] several of these items are not "characteristics...
beyond those of
individual points of attachment". For example, the
access network
identifier, access network QoS are often learned from the
advertisements
of the points of attachment. Suggest rewriting to:
" o Roaming relationships between the access network
provider and
other network providers and associated costs
o EAP Authentication mechanisms
o Provisioned Quality of Service
o Cost
o Service parameters, such as the existence of
middleboxes"
and moving the other ones to the points of attachment
section (previously
suggested)
Network discovery focuses on the discovery of the
services offered by
[BA] s/on the/on/
Section 3
evaluating solutions for problem of network selection and
discovery:
[BA] s/for problem/to the problem/
Section 3.3
Mechanisms that require depend on multicast frames need
to be
[BA] s/require//
Section 4
the document become much harder to solve, in an
automated way,
[BA] s/solve,/solve/
interoperable solutions may be deployed, resulting in
fragmentation.
[BA] s/,resulting in fragmentation// (this doesn't seem to
add much
additional clarity)
o New link layer designs should include the efficient
distribution
of network and realm information as a design
requirement.
[BA] s/include the efficient/include efficient/
complete solution requiring support for extensions.
[BA] s/support for extensions/link layer extensions/
o Work is underway in IEEE 802.1, IEEE 802.21 and the
IEEE 802.11u
[BA] s/and the/and/
Solution to this problem would appear to require
coordination
[BA] s/Solution/A solution/
In addition, the ability of EAP to
carry Quality of Service information
[I-D.groeting-eap-netselection-results] appears
limited. As a
result, we believe that use of EAP as described in
[RFC4284] is
not a sound long-term approach for solution of the
realm discovery
problem for mobile users where the information is
needed for
handoff purposes.
[BA] Suggest rewriting to:
"In addition, the extension of the realm advertisement
mechanism
defined in [RFC4284] to handle advertisement of realm
capability information
(such as
QoS provisioning) is not recommended due to semantic and
packet
size limitations [I-D.groeting-eap-netselection-results].
As a result,
we believe that extending the mechanism described in
[RFC4284] for
discovery of realm capabilities is inappropriate."
Section 5
5. IANA Considerations
This document does not define any new name spaces to be
managed by
IANA. This document does not either reserve any new
numbers or names
under any existing name space managed by IANA.
[BA] Change to "This document has no actions for
IANA."
Section 6
New EAP methods
are doing it [I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap]
[I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2], however, and there is even an
attempt to
[BA] In fact, channel bindings are not supported in these
methods, though
they
could be. Suggest changing to:
"EAP methods such as PEAP
[I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap] and EAP-IKEv2
[I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2] may make this possible, however.
There is even
an attempt to"
considered as a command or a hint. For instance, the
selection that the user provided may be ignored if it
relates to AAA
routing and the access network can route the AAA traffic
to the
correct home network using other means in any case.
[BA] I'd suggest that we be more specific here. Suggest
changing to:
"considered a mandate or a hint. For example, realm
hints may be ignored
by an EAP peer if they are incompatible with the security
policy
corresponding to a selected access network."
8.1. Normative References
[BA] All references should be informative.
8.2
Resource Management", IEEE IEEE 802.11k,
D4.1, July 2006.
[BA] This should be "IEEE 802.11k, D7.0, January
2007."
"IEEE IEEE" is used in multiple citations.
Suggest:
s/IEEE IEEE/IEEE/
Author's addresses
Email: aboba internaut.com
s/aboba internaut.com/bernarda microsoft.com/
____________________________________________________________
_____
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please
visit:
http:/
/lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
Arhives: http://lists.
frascone.com/pipermail/eap
|
|
| Re: Issue 401: More NITs |

|
2007-03-20 12:35:31 |
Hi Bernard,
Regarding your Meta -question on Bearer Selection, I agree
it was an
oversight that it was not specifically mentioned in the
access network
capabilities. I propose to add an extra bullet to your
proposed for that
section and thus change it from
"Along with discovery of points of attachment,
capabilities of access
networks are also typically discovered. These may
include:
o Access network name (e.g. IEEE 802.11 SSID)
o Lower layer security mechanisms (e.g. IEEE 802.11 WEP
vs. WPA2)
o Quality of Service capabilities (e.g. IEEE 802.11e
support)"
to the following text
"Along with discovery of points of attachment,
capabilities of access
networks are also typically discovered. These may
include:
o Access network name (e.g. IEEE 802.11 SSID)
o Lower layer security mechanisms (e.g. IEEE 802.11 WEP
vs. WPA2)
o Quality of Service capabilities (e.g. IEEE 802.11e
support)
o Bearer capabilities (e.g. circuit switched, packet
switched or
both)"
The remaining changes and editorial corrections are OK with
me (thanks
for providing the cleanup of text in several places).
BR,
Farooq Bari
farooq.bari att.com
+1 425 580 5526
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:22 PM
> To: eap frascone.com
> Subject: [eap] Issue 401: More NITs
>
> Issue 401: More NITs
> Submitter name: Bernard Aboba
> Submitter email address: mailto:aboba [at]
internaut.com
> Date first submitted: March 20, 2007
> Reference:
> Document: NETSEL-06
> Comment type: E
> Priority: S
> Section: Various
> Rationale/Explanation of issue:
>
> Abstract & Section 1
>
> When multiple access network are available, users
may have
difficulty
> [BA] s/access network/access networks/
>
> Section 1
>
> and divided into subproblems, and some potential
solution
constraints
> [BA] s/subproblems, and some potential/subproblems.
Some solution/
>
> Section 1.1
>
> 1.1. Terminology
>
> The key words "MUST", "MUST
NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT",
> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in
> this
> document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
>
> [BA] Since this document is informational and does not
use normative
> language, you can delete the above paragraph.
>
> Decorated NAI
>
> A NAI specifying a source route. See RFC4282
[RFC4282] Section
> s/RFC4282/RFC 4282/
>
> Selection occurs prior to network access
authentication.
> [BA] s/Selection/selection/
>
> The selection of the realm (and corresponding
NAI) used to
access
> the network.
> [BA] Please add "A realm can be reachable from
more than one access
network
> type
> and selection of a realm may not enable network
capabilities."
>
> Bearer Selection
>
> For some access technologies (e.g. UMTS), there
can be a
> possibility for delivery of a service (e.g.
voice) by using
either
> a circuit switched or a packet switched bearer.
The Bearer
> [BA] s/The Bearer/Bearer/
> selection refers to selecting one of the bearer
types for
service
> delivery. The decision can be based on support
of the bearer
type
> by the device and the network as well as user
subscription and
> operator preferences.
>
> [BA] Meta-question: this term doesn't appear to be
referenced
anywhere.
> Should it be?
>
> Within the context of network selection and
discovery the term
> 'network' is sometimes used interchangeably with the
term 'realm'.
> It should be noted that a realm can be reachable
from more than one
> access network types and selection of a realm may
not imply certain
> network capabilities.
>
> [BA] Suggest deleting this paragraph, since this draft
no longer uses
the
> terms interchangeably, and the last sentence has been
moved into a
> terminology definition.
>
> Section 2
>
> the situation wh ere mechanisms more advanced
than destination-
> [BA] s/wh ere/where/
>
> services are reachable through the access
network and type of
> charging policy.
> [BA] s/and type of/and the/
>
> Alternatively, the problem can be divided to the
discovery,
decision,
> [BA] "to the" -> "into"
>
> discovery (which mediating networks are
> available?), decision (choose the "best"
one), and selection
(client
> tells the network which mediating network it has
decided to choose)
> components.
>
> [BA] Rewrite to:
>
> "discovery (which mediating networks are
available), decision
(choosing
> the "best" one), and selection (selecting
which mediating network to
use)
> components."
>
> Section 2.1
>
> 2.1. Discovery of the Point of Attachment to the
Network
>
> [BA] Rewrite to "Discovery of Points of
Attachment"
>
> Traditionally, discovery of points of attachment has
been handled
by
> link layer or out-of-band mechanisms. For example,
the IEEE 802.11
> specification [IEEE.802.11-2003] provides support
for both passive
> (Beacon) and active (Probe Request/Response)
discovery mechanisms;
> [Fixingapsel] studied the effectiveness of these
mechanisms. The
GSM
> specifications also provide for discovery of points
of attachment,
as
> does the CARD [RFC4066] protocol developed by the
IETF SEAMOBY WG.
>
> [BA] Since capabilities were included in the definition
of discovery
of
> points of attachment you need to mention that aspect.
Please add:
>
> " Along with discovery of points of attachment,
capabilities of
access
> networks are also typically discovered. These may
include:
>
> o Access network name (e.g. IEEE 802.11 SSID)
>
> o Lower layer security mechanisms (e.g. IEEE 802.11
WEP vs. WPA2)
>
> o Quality of Service capabilities (e.g. IEEE
802.11e support)
> "
>
> with a particular POP. The RFC supports dial-in and
X.25 access,
but
> [BA] s/The RFC/The XML DTD/
>
> may not have the same set of services available.
>
> [BA] change to "may not receive the same set of
authorizations from
> the home AAA server and therefore may not have the same
set of
> services available."
>
> Section 2.2
>
> Typically, the user will choose an identity and
corresponding
> credential set based on the network chooses to
connect to, perhaps
> [BA] s/network chooses/network it chooses/
>
> authentication utilizing a set realms, selection of
an access
network
> [BA] s/a set realms/a set of realms/
>
> Of course, it may not be possible to determine the
available access
> networks prior to authentication. For example, in
802.11, not all
> SSIDs are broadcast, so that the station may need to
probe to
locate
> a "hidden" SSID. Also, within IKEv2
[RFC4306], the responder
> identity (typically the security gateway) is
provided as a part of
> the IKEv2 exchange.
>
> [BA] This paragraph does not support the first sentence
since "hidden"
SSIDs
> need to be determined prior to authentication, and
before IKEv2 can be
> initiated,
> the VPN server needs to be located. Recommend
rewriting to:
>
> "In some cases it may not be possible to determine
the available
access
> networks prior to authentication. For example, [IEEE
802.1X-2004]
> does not support network discovery on IEEE 802 wired
networks, so
> that the peer cannot determine which access network it
has connected
> to prior to the initiation of the EAP exchange."
>
> Section 2.3
>
> most roaming implementations are relatively simple,
relying on
static
> [BA] s/static/a static/
> realm routing table which determine the next based
on the NAI realm
> [BA] s/next/next hop/
> included within the User-Name attribute. Within
RADIUS, the IP
> [BA] s/within the User-Name attribute/in the
User-Name attribute
within
> the Access-Request/
>
> service discovery including support for DNS as well
as service
> [BA] s/discovery/discovery,/
>
> Section 2.3.1
>
> an Internet host to determine whether it an reach a
destination on
> [BA] s/an reach/can reach/
>
> Section 2.3.2
>
> originating a given proxy).
> [BA] s/originating a given proxy/originating at a given
proxy/
>
> NAI with a realm of"a.example.com".
However, the only way to
obtain
> [BA] s/of"a/of "a/
>
> realm routing table is small and entries are static,
Where the list
> [BA] s/Where/where/
>
> to this problem was readily available, then it could
be applied to
> [BA] s/was/were/
>
> Section 2.4
>
> o Access network identifier (e.g. IEEE 802.11
SSID)
>
> o Roaming relationships between the access network
provider and
> other network providers and associated costs
>
> o Authentication mechanisms
>
> o Quality of Service capability
>
> o Cost
>
> o Service parameters, such as the existence of
middleboxes
>
> [BA] several of these items are not
"characteristics... beyond those
of
> individual points of attachment". For example,
the access network
> identifier, access network QoS are often learned from
the
advertisements
> of the points of attachment. Suggest rewriting to:
>
> " o Roaming relationships between the access
network provider and
> other network providers and associated costs
>
> o EAP Authentication mechanisms
>
> o Provisioned Quality of Service
>
> o Cost
>
> o Service parameters, such as the existence of
middleboxes"
>
> and moving the other ones to the points of attachment
section
(previously
> suggested)
>
> Network discovery focuses on the discovery of the
services offered
by
> [BA] s/on the/on/
>
> Section 3
>
> evaluating solutions for problem of network
selection and
discovery:
> [BA] s/for problem/to the problem/
>
> Section 3.3
>
> Mechanisms that require depend on multicast frames
need to be
> [BA] s/require//
>
> Section 4
>
> the document become much harder to solve, in an
automated way,
> [BA] s/solve,/solve/
>
> interoperable solutions may be deployed,
resulting in
> fragmentation.
>
> [BA] s/,resulting in fragmentation// (this doesn't seem
to add much
> additional clarity)
>
> o New link layer designs should include the
efficient distribution
> of network and realm information as a design
requirement.
> [BA] s/include the efficient/include efficient/
>
> complete solution requiring support for
extensions.
> [BA] s/support for extensions/link layer extensions/
>
> o Work is underway in IEEE 802.1, IEEE 802.21 and
the IEEE 802.11u
> [BA] s/and the/and/
>
> Solution to this problem would appear to require
coordination
> [BA] s/Solution/A solution/
>
> In addition, the ability of EAP to
> carry Quality of Service information
> [I-D.groeting-eap-netselection-results] appears
limited. As a
> result, we believe that use of EAP as described
in [RFC4284] is
> not a sound long-term approach for solution of
the realm
discovery
> problem for mobile users where the information is
needed for
> handoff purposes.
>
> [BA] Suggest rewriting to:
>
> "In addition, the extension of the realm
advertisement mechanism
> defined in [RFC4284] to handle advertisement of realm
capability
information
> (such as
> QoS provisioning) is not recommended due to semantic
and packet
> size limitations
[I-D.groeting-eap-netselection-results]. As a
result,
> we believe that extending the mechanism described in
[RFC4284] for
> discovery of realm capabilities is
inappropriate."
>
> Section 5
>
> 5. IANA Considerations
>
> This document does not define any new name spaces to
be managed by
> IANA. This document does not either reserve any new
numbers or
names
> under any existing name space managed by IANA.
>
> [BA] Change to "This document has no actions for
IANA."
>
> Section 6
>
> New EAP methods
> are doing it [I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap]
> [I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2], however, and there is
even an attempt
to
>
> [BA] In fact, channel bindings are not supported in
these methods,
though
> they
> could be. Suggest changing to:
>
> "EAP methods such as PEAP
[I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap] and
EAP-IKEv2
> [I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2] may make this possible,
however. There is
even
> an attempt to"
>
> considered as a command or a hint. For instance,
the
> selection that the user provided may be ignored if
it relates to
AAA
> routing and the access network can route the AAA
traffic to the
> correct home network using other means in any case.
>
> [BA] I'd suggest that we be more specific here.
Suggest changing to:
>
> "considered a mandate or a hint. For example,
realm hints may be
ignored
> by an EAP peer if they are incompatible with the
security policy
> corresponding to a selected access network."
>
> 8.1. Normative References
>
> [BA] All references should be informative.
>
> 8.2
>
> Resource Management", IEEE IEEE
802.11k, D4.1, July
2006.
>
> [BA] This should be "IEEE 802.11k, D7.0, January
2007."
>
> "IEEE IEEE" is used in multiple citations.
Suggest:
>
> s/IEEE IEEE/IEEE/
>
> Author's addresses
>
> Email: aboba internaut.com
>
> s/aboba internaut.com/bernarda microsoft.com/
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
_____
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options,
please visit:
> http:/
/lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
>
> Arhives: http://lists.
frascone.com/pipermail/eap
____________________________________________________________
_____
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please
visit:
http:/
/lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
Arhives: http://lists.
frascone.com/pipermail/eap
|
|
[1-2]
|
|