Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 18 September 2017 21:24 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31FCB132D89; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W_ZleA5b4ex5; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E97691321DE; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id o143so1268115ywd.12; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UDZJ/bIx3iC36DCfxI0OJedzv1QvLOkvbVBk3sQs2qg=; b=oY4F/qAyt39KVvA2pg8jrTFw97rExh4jiZhB+CKyiiVWQZiUxB+EGG9rVQH1fkNLBd 7JhW30XaN1fUmCqkWiEnyPe/7qn5TCM3B28jBlhhwBotDEgP9i5QLgsFnfKzP65I5MTd flIITQOoubm14SnShNfSHd/n02H7761QYA41V2Lkx5jw/pcOuzib+glPwARmoyL4flHA CchSXCka4EWiRMXUaopC8iRqzafX8mp2fL5aPhViUSFor/ldUwKCg5XFRYlnrOYGEMNK Q0B9DLdfoeZAxzNmCEcHTJbB5G9ovkOVJ0ZhvmaYilrz8VSazcl0ns6m3laLFImVlZ7X 7ypg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UDZJ/bIx3iC36DCfxI0OJedzv1QvLOkvbVBk3sQs2qg=; b=dn7691bK1VAVo5xl20G3HIILZo6fKBOryKmFwpvNtgTI3+p8QjWfeTr9PTBX1wFyP6 bj8NaFJXYyd313wsEoai5J7FZsb6vPo8Cn1Mdxp3zmae4YahvRzjkwTanmY3kFUjxorU 2QhlMq9rD9JgOgAjG+c6giLpXyFCPIjPElMuJZiEjumbY0QmGwdQ4/h2KB5wMsoTEBRj k6AL01bsL1z/Mq2PLO82WOsnPLSrADWPxnpI1brg6HPK3MF+TsDobdaCD1DWkPomu6Es WFTkomPt4HUMaZOSqIi8nBMZqxbosSQ/8ryZiPXXPYrGSQ2PqpwADa4rd0el2OGXhqe9 nKDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhExqzSCfHp4x6S6XK7ytui3ctcBHlCwxkKBCV6OopQI5P0M1+O WAdPpKw8H3tj76iij1ub0o1rHjakNJb1EV8IGM4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb591lv5pDLMUo1beiubDzmzCOsfbuY8BjUieJtp0L/WQq7+YveB+8J2joR2xBi24//5X/6kudPbu5Rn/hno08E=
X-Received: by 10.129.123.194 with SMTP id w185mr29990611ywc.333.1505769840688; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.2.15 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FC59749@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
References: <CAKKJt-dnnYxO0C9ahXURu8aDjpRP=vtKn8z2JsiRm+YP+mLrVw@mail.gmail.com> <b0d50d3b2488488b8ef4f621a776eed5@XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FC59749@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:24:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fLm0kT6LR7fqX4RvyOBeU6NsXqJOKzih=6Y76fqvhdDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
Cc: "Tim Szigeti (szigeti)" <szigeti@cisco.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1149390477c26305597d5c68"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/bTeadgHoY5gNcLzxcIpEMQe-a3E>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 21:24:06 -0000
Dear All, On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote: > The text that Spencer quoted brings up something else ... I'd suggest some > editorial rephrasing of at least the words "SHOULD be considered" in: > > Suffice it to say that > the security of the devices and networks implementing QoS, including > QoS mapping between wired and wireless networks, SHOULD be > considered in actual deployments. > > before someone on the IESG notes the relevance of Section 2 of RFC 6919 > to that text: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919#section-2 > and notices the publication date of RFC 6919 :-) :-). > > Thanks, --David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Szigeti (szigeti) [mailto:szigeti@cisco.com] > > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 8:56 PM > > To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>; Black, > David > > <david.black@emc.com> > > Cc: Black, David <david.black@emc.com>; tsvwg@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-tsvwg- > > ieee-802-11@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07 > > > > Hi Spencer, > > > > Thank you very much for giving this document a thorough read. We really > > appreciate your feedback and suggestions, all of which have been > > implemented in the latest version (v08) just posted. > I'm good to go with v08, but please let me know if anything will change in response to David's previous e-mail in this thread, so we don't start Last Call with comments that should be addressed. Thanks, Spencer > > > Cheers, > > > > -tim > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:56 PM > > > To: David Black > > > Cc: David L. Black; tsvwg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11@ > ietf.org > > > Subject: AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07 > > > > > > This was a very dense read, and I found only a few things to ask > about, and > > > half of those are nits. > > > > > > Nice work. > > > > > > Please take a look at my evaluation comments, and let me know how you'd > > > like to proceed. > > > > > > Thanks, as always. > > > > > > Spencer > > > > > > Nit, but it's in the Abstract ... > > > > > > This document specifies a set Differentiated > > > Services Code Point (DSCP) to IEEE 802.11 User Priority (UP) > mappings > > > > > > should this be "... set of Differentiated Services Code Point ..."? > > > > > > I'm looking at this text, > > > > > > There is also a recommendation from the Global System for Mobile > > > Communications Association (GSMA), specifically their Mapping > Quality > > > of Service (QoS) Procedures of Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and WLAN > > > [RFC7561] specification. This GSMA specification was developed > > > without reference to existing IETF specifications for various > > > services, referenced in Section 1.1. > > > > > > and I'm not quite sure how an IETF-stream Informational RFC produced by > > a > > > working group becomes "a recommendation from GSMA" and "a GSMA > > > specification". I recognize the names of the RFC 7561 authors, and I > see the > > > connection, but I would have thought that the reference would have been > > to > > > something more obviously tied to GSMA. Is there any reference that > could > > > be cited, to help people who didn't sit two desks away from one of the > > > authors see the connection? > > > > > > In this text, > > > > > > This document assumes and RECOMMENDS that all wireless access points > > > (as the bridges between wired-and-wireless networks) support the > > > ability to: > > > > > > is "bridges" the right word here? I would read that as saying that > wireless > > > access points are a layer two-layer two bridge. If you have readers > who are > > > familiar with IEEE 802.1 bridging, they may be more confused than I > was. > > > > > > A nit - "unusued" -> "unused" > > > > > > I really appreciate the inclusion of Section 6, as an overview of IEEE > 802.11 > > > QoS. I'd suggest that this not be titled as "Appendix" - which > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc7322.txt.pdf doesn't think > is part > > of > > > an RFC body, so at a minimum they would move it behind the security > > > considerations, but I'd be OK if you left it as a normal Section in > the body. > > > Alternatively, if you're happier with this material as an Appendix, > it's > > probably > > > better to slide it to the back material. > > > > > > A nit - "oftheir" -> "of their" > > > > > > I'm looking at the last paragraph of the Security Considerations, and > I'm > > > thinking that > > > > > > Finally, it should be noted that the recommendations put forward in > > > this document are not intended to address all attack vectors > > > leveraging QoS marking abuse. Mechanisms that may further help > > > mitigate security risks include strong device- and/or user- > > > authentication, access-control, rate limiting, control-plane > > > policing, encryption and other techniques; however, the > > > implementation recommendations for such mechanisms are beyond the > > > scope of this document to address in detail. Suffice it to say that > > > the security of the devices and networks implementing QoS, including > > > QoS mapping between wired and wireless networks, SHOULD be > > > considered > > > in actual deployments. > > > > > > is missing the (perhaps obvious) point that the mechanisms you list > under > > > "further help" aren't specific to wireless networks, but should be > > considered > > > for any network that implements QoS. That might be covered in the last > > > sentence, but that's not what I'm getting out of the last sentence. >
- [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsv… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf… Fred Baker
- Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf… Tim Szigeti (szigeti)
- Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf… Tim Szigeti (szigeti)
- Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf… Black, David