Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07

"Tim Szigeti (szigeti)" <szigeti@cisco.com> Sat, 16 September 2017 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <szigeti@cisco.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 324251323B4; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 ddtkouCUuHGX; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 072C3126B71; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5736; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505523373; x=1506732973; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=iCuAsBdpO0fsVRKAKGe39IQJ7oNkrkSqUXn916TxIv0=; b=BIZoMsSgYVxhB0xt/g5qy4okEflYILo/muFD6OBmEwXDn3N08J7WsE3l AEb2xk9XdO2jJJEMkVeIKs9oyBz1qMeZ4TvdPyXSK+HmIdC8YAF17smNG IKt4512/IR3Qq8H2+ApQnk/ARUWuJSeIF39ooO9X0XXOvJ2ifby4YnK5O g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CbAADRdbxZ/4ENJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1pkbicHg26KII90gXSIO41sghIKI4UZAhqEEj8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQEBAiMEDUUMBAIBCBEEAQEDAiMDAgICHxEUAQgIAgQBDQUIihMDFRCrT4FtOoc4DYNqAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBDoIZBIICgzODKIJYhTOCYAWgSTwCj1yEboIchWqDfoZ9jFqILQIRGQGBOAEfOIENdxVJhxx2AQGIBIEPAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,399,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="296009682"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Sep 2017 00:56:11 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (xch-rcd-008.cisco.com [173.37.102.18]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8G0uBJi011154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 16 Sep 2017 00:56:11 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-010.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 19:56:11 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-010.cisco.com ([173.37.102.20]) by XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com ([173.37.102.20]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 19:56:11 -0500
From: "Tim Szigeti (szigeti)" <szigeti@cisco.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, David Black <david.black@dell.com>
CC: "David L. Black" <david.black@emc.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07
Thread-Index: AQHTLDvXI3dHIpVmrkWr5z05jMdi7aK2tLCA
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 00:56:10 +0000
Message-ID: <b0d50d3b2488488b8ef4f621a776eed5@XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com>
References: <CAKKJt-dnnYxO0C9ahXURu8aDjpRP=vtKn8z2JsiRm+YP+mLrVw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-dnnYxO0C9ahXURu8aDjpRP=vtKn8z2JsiRm+YP+mLrVw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.132.12.130]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/nAdjhGB0-VpFRueTspkAczRbX84>
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: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 00:56:15 -0000

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.

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.