RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support

All,
On this topic, I believe we must have a mandatory to implement mechanism
specified for standards track publication.  We can leave the use at
"RECOMMENDED" or "SHOULD", but, we need a "MUST" on what the LMA and MAG
need to implement.  

I had run this by the security directorate at the Chicago meeting and my
understanding is that as long as we have "MUST implement IPsec" and
"SHOULD use IPsec", it would be fine.  

In other words, the SHOULD vs. MUST that we want to place on using IPsec
can be discussed, but, the "MUST" on implementation is non-negotiable.  

This is inline with my understanding on what we need to state for a
complete specification.  Given that channel security of signaling
messages is mandatory, unless we have at least one common denominator
that the MAG and LMA implementors will implement, we cannot ensure
interoperability.  If they support multiple common mechanisms and chose
to use something other than IPsec, that's fine - hence, the "SHOULD" on
usage. 

Hope that helps. 

Thanks,
Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sri Gundavelli [mailto:sgundave@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:10 AM
> To: 'Julien Laganier'; netlmm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support
> 
> Hi Julien,
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: julien laganier [mailto:julien.laganier@gmail.com] On 
> Behalf Of 
> > Julien Laganier
> > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:29 AM
> > To: netlmm@ietf.org
> > Cc: Sri Gundavelli; 'Alper Yegin'
> > Subject: Re: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support
> > 
> > Hi Sri,
> > 
> > On Thursday 06 September 2007, Sri Gundavelli wrote:
> > > I'm confused, should the draft say
> > >
> > > "Both LMA and MAG MUST implement IPsec" and "all the signaling 
> > > messages SHOULD be protected using IPSec".
> > >
> > > Will this ok, when reviewed by the security folks ?
> > >
> > > or mandate IPsec for this specification and let other draft relax 
> > > this in the presence of an alternative approach ?
> > >
> > > Please comment.
> > 
> > Somehow, "MUST implement" and "SHOULD use" together seems a bit 
> > tautologic.
> > 
> > To me "SHOULD use" is sufficient since it covers both of the two 
> > possibles cases:
> > 
> > - deployment follows the SHOULD recommendation, it uses IPsec to 
> > protect PMIPv6, in which case it supports it, since it's 
> using it :), 
> > or
> > 
> > - deployment ignores the SHOULD recommendation, does not 
> uses IPSec, 
> > in which case it is useless to implement it since it's not used...
> > 
> > I'd prefer having "MUST protect integrity of signalling 
> messages, and 
> > SHOULD use IPsec ESP to protect integrity of those messages".
> > We might
> > also add "MAY use IPsec AH".
> > 
> 
> 
> I agree. I'm not against allowing other approaches. I'm only 
> concerned, if we can leave the draft saying, "MUST protect 
> integrity of signalling messages", with out specifying IPsec 
> or some other approach. If that will pass the security 
> review. We may have to state that IPsec MUST be used or some 
> other approach, say Auth-Option MUST be used. Not sure, if we 
> can leave this blank.
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmm@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> 

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm