[tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 13 September 2017 02:56 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 680DF1333E0; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 PX84_kVf5Xbe; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com (mail-yw0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (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 F27F913292F; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id s62so32213564ywg.0; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lr5xgTBJJsFu87e4pUSPX3f2vccMYM+lrJ2dUlVVEjw=; b=Ahwu7tZIEdIlvtXZj2MrVnbXlqqOiTZiNRcWv67SolK3zLPiaZF7j3jaVX8hyXhT/v z5ihN/42BZZADf9b/NIra+7+AXFAbDbLobt4LHpgJpYzp7RBRmv+YWxUXINjiMva5KOx qmFXaxX0AMeQU+W8i9yjTXkq1NevCK8UenYhg6ytNgceT2myf5o0T7pywt8F2aB7m1KW iob0qD3VQkxHNrlWV1GAa1TKVgmES4rWk6AVp9wCLUv9SoDyzd/d63oiC1S9Jq0ueEzV aV6KEmUH+4fnPWB8ymHC4wOqHQZS09Sm1w4Y6dl3qkB+Hs5/RURSCQrNpcpttPw9dLO8 OXww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lr5xgTBJJsFu87e4pUSPX3f2vccMYM+lrJ2dUlVVEjw=; b=B8hcL8eq/jnXiFsvpUuhyzxBPth+TVYS9zi19DruGTL38rbPVDA1rZM1u+CZof8uh+ SWarwNNEFvJaDeq+B0+JX6y0HPbLSrJjd7vQI13lcOui50WEQuiVqrDz8Tgp6VuZZmkh kAQxA46175W4WmEOKHzeD8bPz5o6cjS85/OcxBKx7QqSdWDSqNKueXLFVvH+Q6e65Nbp gNwfbYLHAY6+ubeRHCCwVOA8SQPC9ZvLa5xKOsEOupdwtCR4CrM7Td71fwpaXOVM2N/Q caAFqq8SzU8NyRzeFlsdw+gawL2VOhR/IqsRmzfHFfXObFgHmuTwJqYlDDct5w6cHhg4 rVcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjIj+i0MnrCF+562lga1HqPvFHLRfYQAkvwL63bcNYsLYgyzCAB o0aF+mYhkrwozQ/f8mPpio3kFpkSaxlHtcvj3ahoMQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDgHpui7dsu7dbbIm3tQSxNXLGMe+K3Ka6soNKHWIh9XocbmDdeDWd81LB2KR1eaKtjLkOyOsPOlqSgmi7Dvp0=
X-Received: by 10.37.216.14 with SMTP id p14mr11838989ybg.75.1505271359865; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.2.15 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 21:55:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dnnYxO0C9ahXURu8aDjpRP=vtKn8z2JsiRm+YP+mLrVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114fd3b2b207930559094c71"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/wbppm9o5wziR05vEN1kA6MeyfFo>
Subject: [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: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 02:56:03 -0000
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