Re: [HOKEY] WGLC on draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Zorn" <[e-mail]>
To: "Qin Wu" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Zhen Cao" <[e-mail]>om>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] WGLC on draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design


> On 9/2/2011 8:59 AM, Qin Wu wrote:
> 
>>> On 8/10/2011 10:38 AM, Zhen Cao wrote:
>>>> I have read the latest (draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design) version of this
>>>> draft and think it is ready for publication. However I have some
>>>> additional comments to this draft below:
>>>> Section 1, It said
>>>> "
>>>> whereas in AAK the client interacts with the AAA to discover and
>>>> connect to CAPs.
>>>> "
>>>> [Z]: How to understand "discover"? It seems for AAK, there are
>>>> potentially two possible cases.
>>>> case 1: the client has already discovered a list of CAPs and negotiate
>>>> with the AAA to choose one appropriate CAP from the CAPs list.
>>>> case 2: the client only knows a layer-2 identifier as index and then
>>>> the client use index to lookup appropirate CAP by interacting with the
>>>> AAA. which case is correct?
>> 
>> [Qin]: My understanding is ,in AAK, SAP is capable of discovering CAPs 
>> and is not necessary to rely on client based CAP discovery.
> 
> Actually, I think that CAP discovery is completely out of the scope of
> hokey; what might be in scope would be the nature of the data that is
> obtained as a result of discovery (name, address, etc.) but that may not
> belong in this document.

[Qin]:Yes, as decribed in RFC5836, CAP discovery is defined as a separate protocol from authentication protocol.
IEEE 802.21 can be candidate protocol to do CAP discovery. Also there are some other ways. So I agree
CAP discovery should be left beyond scope of HOkey. 
As for data obtained from discovery, Do you think NAS-Identifier used for carrying CAP identity is irrelevant?