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

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Sun, 30 October 2011 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 8B67921F8B0C for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 QaaR-YCrauwe for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC8C21F8AE9 for <netext@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (82.158.121.177.dyn.user.ono.com [82.158.121.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9F39C4E50 for <netext@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:51:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1320004272.3313.118.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: netext@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:51:12 +0100
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-DJRthNOeN4oZxNiFLdoo"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-2
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18482.000
Subject: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
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: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:51:20 -0000

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

Thanks,

Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano  http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67