Re: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 01 November 2011 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E756E1F0C59 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, 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 yi1bpTOXeUjo for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE0771F0C3F for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyg24 with SMTP id 24so6716017eyg.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=+Xb+ACNjSSOKQyXyFmavUyb/N3V6184kVxmQ/+jVFoY=; b=N/FoCZVJVFnQNKO7tLE5KOjHYhXlyTgwYOjOBLGqRydRHa/i4+Wn3FV1ThZGWVAEJN P/1SRnGR5+Hcfx+3puBwD7gKHM1YkaKpejWZbRiTvugBt70xAE59Xqb2OMvCcNk8C3P0 mwALTKLRCGhMR1yftuJXfscf93kUnF+Lbi9PI=
Received: by 10.213.35.70 with SMTP id o6mr1199321ebd.102.1320154202513; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-27-53.ripemtg.ripe.net (dhcp-27-53.ripemtg.ripe.net. [193.0.27.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d6sm31810920eec.10.2011.11.01.06.29.59 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1320004272.3313.118.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:29:47 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <40378106-C231-4FE2-8CC3-5798F5A96841@gmail.com>
References: <1320004272.3313.118.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:30:06 -0000

Carlos,

Thanks for the review. See some responses inline.

On Oct 30, 2011, at 9:51 PM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I've read draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00 and I have some
> comments:
> 
> - I think the document is OK in general.
> - The normative text of Section 3 needs to be revised. For example,
> there are lots of normative words in lowercase.

Ok.

> - Can a PBU carry more than one ANI option? It is not clearly mentioned,
> though Figure 1 may indicate it is possible (as there is both BSSID and
> Geo-Loc shown as part of the identification of the access network.

There can be one ANI option.. as you can access only one operator network at once.

The option structure is still in flux so it is likely to change a bit in the future. For example there might be cases where multiple network identifiers are useful (e.g. SSID accompanied with geo-location etc).

> - Figure 3 is not referred in the document.
> - I think there should be text dealing with the case in which an LMA not
> supporting/understanding the ANI option receives a PBU carrying one.

Ok. You mean a simple capability confirmation like echoing the ANI option back in the PBA? Or something else?

> - It seems that included Nw-ID types are 802.11 related. Is there no
> other case (e.g., 3GPP related) worth including?

This is the initial set. If you have additional Nw-IDs to propose with a good use case, go ahead :)

> - Does the ANI option introduce privacy issues? In case an attacker was
> able to overhear PBUs, it could be able to know where a particular MN is
> geographically located. Not sure this is a realistic concern in a real
> deployment, but authors might want to mention that IPsec encryption
> could be used to mitigate this problem.

I think we do not need to go beyond existing RFC5213 security.. Even MN-ID option introduces a privacy issue more or less.

- Jouni



> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Carlos
> 
> -- 
> Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano  http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/
> GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext