Re: [paws] New draft for PAWS protocol
Cuiyang <cuiyang@huawei.com> Wed, 24 October 2012 03:33 UTC
Return-Path: <cuiyang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269E811E8115 for <paws@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sx27+uUFuxeq for <paws@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA5C11E80D3 for <paws@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ALZ89250; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:33:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:32:54 +0100
Received: from SZXEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.32) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:33:02 +0100
Received: from SZXEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.236]) by szxeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:32:59 +0800
From: Cuiyang <cuiyang@huawei.com>
To: "Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com" <Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com>, "vchen@google.com" <vchen@google.com>, "paws@ietf.org" <paws@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: New draft for PAWS protocol
Thread-Index: AQHNod9L4ggZtTERm0OKj9fadgGKBpeojpnQgB72+MCAAE26MA==
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:32:58 +0000
Message-ID: <8CC0CB0BCAE52F46882E17828A9AE2163687172C@SZXEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <CABEV9RNtx3PfeKM6qMdZ54mr2u9KE5q7yZPZvWu6EdgxxQ6kMg@mail.gmail.com> <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E4760204EA8A@008-AM1MPN1-006.mgdnok.nokia.com> <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E4760206EB3B@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E4760206EB3B@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.48.135]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8CC0CB0BCAE52F46882E17828A9AE2163687172CSZXEML508MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [paws] New draft for PAWS protocol
X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" <paws.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/paws>, <mailto:paws-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/paws>
List-Post: <mailto:paws@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:paws-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws>, <mailto:paws-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:33:10 -0000
Hi, Gabor and Vincent, Basically, the merged draft is Okay for me. By now, one thing worth pointing out is that the master device authentication, which has been mentioned in draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts, as a “MUST”. ---quote-- - Sec 6.1 P.4: The protocol MUST provide the ability for the database to authenticate the master device. O.8: The database MUST respond to an available channel list request from an authenticated and authorized device - Sec 8 (security considerations) Threat 1: User modifies a device to masquerade as another valid certified device Threat 5: Unauthorized use of channels by an uncertified device ---quote-- But in the merged draft Sec 10.4, it is said that “Consequently, client authentication is not required for the PAWS protocol.” I would like to suggest that we clarify this contradiction, such as, remove the underlying sentence; otherwise people may wonder whether we need a “MUST” capability for a “not required” feature. Alternatively, we could change the “MUST” to “MAY” in the rqmts WG document. BTW, the two concerns for client auth in Sec 10.4, - Authorization - Credential leakage have been taken care of in the draft draft-wu-paws-secutity-01. Regards, Yang ================== Yang Cui, Ph.D. Huawei Technologies cuiyang@huawei.com 发件人: paws-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:paws-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com 发送时间: 2012年10月24日 5:28 收件人: vchen@google.com; paws@ietf.org 主题: Re: [paws] New draft for PAWS protocol There has been no response whatsoever to this mail. I am not sure what that means; is everyone ok with the draft Vince submitted, or did the wg loose interest?? I will anyway intend to ask for adoption of it as a wg document in the upcoming F2F. Therefore, if you have any issues with the draft, please send those to the list prior to the F2F meeting. - Gabor From: paws-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:paws-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:36 PM To: vchen@google.com; paws@ietf.org Subject: Re: [paws] New draft for PAWS protocol Ok, thanks Vince. As a next step, I’d like to ask the WG to review it and send to the list any major problem identified with the text in this draft. Then, I’d like to ask the WG to adopt it as a wg document. - Gabor From: ext Vincent Chen [mailto:vchen@google.com]<mailto:[mailto:vchen@google.com]> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:21 PM To: paws@ietf.org<mailto:paws@ietf.org> Cc: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Subject: New draft for PAWS protocol Hi All, We have submitted a draft for the PAWS protocol specification that represents a merge of the non-controversial portions of the two documents presented at the Vancouver F2F. You can find it at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00 Summary of changes: - Be more explicit about required vs optional vs "depends on regulatory domain" - Describe the "Data Models" in a more hierarchical fashion and making it more clear where extension points are located to address regulatory differences - General replacement of "channel" with "frequency" or "spectrum", when appropriate. This version does not include message encoding or specific error codes. -- -vince Vincent Chen Google, Inc.
- [paws] New draft for PAWS protocol Vincent Chen
- Re: [paws] New draft for PAWS protocol Gabor.Bajko
- Re: [paws] New draft for PAWS protocol Gabor.Bajko
- Re: [paws] New draft for PAWS protocol Cuiyang
- Re: [paws] New draft for PAWS protocol Gabor.Bajko