Re: [lp-wan] overview issue#2: AAA server term...

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 18/05/17 18:02, Dan García Carrillo wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I agree that the solution presented in
> draft-garcia-radext-radius-lorawan is specific to LoRaWAN. Not
> applicable to other radio technologies (i.e. Sigfox as mentioned).
> 
> Although, the idea of having AAA and its advanced characteristics
> (e.g., Identity federation) is the general idea that can be
> extrapolated to LPWAN (That was also the idea behind the draft)
> 

Well, in terms of RFC2904 (not that that should be considered that
authoratitive), the thing about which we're talking is just called
the "service equipment."

And that's about right, a LoRaWAN NS/JS is not (architecturally) a
AAA server in my mind, a AAA server is a more generic entity that
is not specific to the radio technology in use.

In saying that it's also true that the LoRaWAN NS/JS interaction is
very similar to one part of what we do with RADIUS/Diameter, so the
ideas in draft-garcia-radext-radius-lorawan are not crazy at all.

> I understand, at the end, that is the goal. Using AAA or LBES from
> what I understand is only nomenclature. 

Yep. This isn't a hill on which anyone ought want to die:-)

> Am I wright, or are there
> other reasons? If RADIUS or Diameter are not suitable for the task
> would be an interesting discussion, as well as analyzing the possible
> gap in case there are reasons to change the name, or the concept,
> beyond nomenclature.

IMO Diameter or RADIUS are fine protocols one might well use talk
to a AAA server from an "LBES" (or whatever we end up calling it).

Cheers,
S.

> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thank you. Best Regards, Dan.
> 
> 
>> El 18 may 2017, a las 18:01, Juan Carlos Zuniga
>> <[e-mail]> escribió:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I tend to agree with Stephen in that assuming a RADIUS or Diameter
>> server is not generic enough. Even though a solution like the one
>> proposed in draft-garcia-radext-radius-lorawan might be suitable
>> for certain technologies like LoRaWAN, there are other protocols
>> like Sigfox which don’t have a joining procedure or an
>> authentication message exchange (i.e. every message is individually
>> authenticated). Therefore, Stephen’s proposal to use LBES instead
>> of AAA sounds like a good generic solution.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Juan Carlos
>> 
>> 
>> From: lp-wan [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Arun 
>> Sent: May 18, 2017 11:24 AM To: [e-mail] Subject: Re:
>> [lp-wan] overview issue#2: AAA server term...
>> 
>> Hi Stephen, There is a draft, draft-garcia-radext-radius-lorawan,
>> that explains the use of AAA server in lpwa technologies like lora.
>>  The idea is to use standardized solutions like AAA for
>> authenticating end devices in such technologies. IMHO, AAA term in
>> a way is good to push for the use of standard entities in the
>> architecture.
>> 
>> regards, Arun
>> 
>> On 18/05/2017 09:41, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> 
>> Hiya,
>> 
>> (Crap: I mucked up the subject line by also calling this "issue#1" 
>> when I first sent this, maybe that's why nobody responded - so 
>> trying now with a correct subject line and with a suggested 
>> resolution in case nobody else cares... :-)
>> 
>> In [1] we define the term "AAA server." I don't think that's a
>> good term to use, as it may be read to assume that we'll end up
>> with a RADIUS or Diameter based solution and a typical AAA server
>> like that is just not the same as a LoRaWAN NS/JS. (There might be
>> a RADIUS or Diameter server behind such a beast, but it's not the
>> same thing.) I think (less sure though) that the "AAA server" is
>> also not so good for the other technologies too.
>> 
>> What'd the WG like to do here?
>> 
>> If nobody answers, in the next revision I'll use the term "LPWAN 
>> back-end server" ("LBES") instead of "AAA server." That's also not 
>> great but at least doesn't have the potential to create new
>> confusion.
>> 
>> Cheers, S.
>> 
>> [1]
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-02#section-3
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-02#section-3>
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ lp-wan mailing
>> list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ lp-wan mailing
>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ lp-wan mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
>